Talk:Big Three (Portugal)

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 Mayu 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

Portugal Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Football Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Graph

I would please ask for a better description on the graph XX axis. Can it be related to years? Theups 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the graph to this page because it makes no sense without captions to the axes. It also seems to be out of date, but it's hard to tell. Please can someone supply captions and then return the graph to the article. Thanks. Ericoides 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Portuguese championships by club

about Belenenses

I think it is fair to remember that Belenenses since 1930 until the 1960s, more or less, was considered a "big" portuguese football club. It is easily proven. --Eagle Fly Free SLB 18:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[1] and [2] have been deemed unfit by one user, what do others think? Personally I think they're fine - professional rather than personal blogs, well written, well researched. Giant Snowman 02:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is by "Joao", of whose identity or credentials we have no clue, on a site with no apparent editorial policy. This is by "a follower of the Premier League and La Liga" (ie, a random fan), hosted on a site that is "an open platform for anybody with an opinion or an interest in writing" - again, no editorial policy. Neither of these links pass the strict scrutiny imposed by WP:USERG. Nor, for that matter, does the FourFourTwo one, as explained here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more sources - yes, still from blogs, but blogs written by professional journalists on website of highly reputable sites (Wall Street Journal/ESPN etc.) so hopefully they're more appropriate. I'm unsure about the Portuguese language source I've added - it looks fine to me, but as shown here I've been wrong in the past re:RS - so if somebody with more knowledge could judge, that'd be grand. Giant Snowman 17:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Big Fourth"

@NAIDEPIKIW NONA: Stop adding WP:POV and WP:RECENTISM to the article. No one cares about the alleged "big fourth". No one can't even tell who's the second biggest and who's the third biggest, let alone the fourth or fifth. SLBedit (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and opinion articles aren't reliable sources. SLBedit (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NAIDEPIKIW NONA: You need to talk. You have already been warned about this on your personal talk page. The information that you are trying to add is not neutral and the sources are not reliable. Be reasonable because if you continue this disruption without proper engagement with other users, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. I know that SLBedit is not the friendliest of users (sorry my friend). However, he is right on this one.

Belenenses and Boavista were champions, that's why they are mentioned. Braga is a great club, no doubt. But following your logic, I can argue that: Vitória SC, Vitória de Setúbal or Académica were also contenders to be considered the "fourth big club" in particular moments of Portuguese football history (not neutral). If you don't agree, explain your view if you are considering to add your text again. Blahhh23 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And more recently União de Leiria claimed the very same spot in Portuguese football. I think that the information on a supposed fourth biggest club would fit better in the article about Portuguese football. Pushing POV into to this article isn't right. SLBedit (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a nice solution. To find a way of implementing this information on the Football in Portugal article. Blahhh23 (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]