Talk:Peñarol

Peñarol was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 28, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
June 29, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 28, 2010, September 28, 2013, September 28, 2015, and September 28, 2017.

Current status: Delisted good article

Uruguay High‑importance

	Uruguay portal This article is part of WikiProject Uruguay, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to sport in Uruguay. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.UruguayWikipedia:WikiProject UruguayTemplate:WikiProject UruguayUruguay
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 19 August 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Untitled section

Hi, folks. Seems you'll want to re-check your links here. Just'd clicked on Ernesto Vidal and was redirected to "Super 8" video format (?). I've made a stub article there, but I don't know much about soccer history. Incidentally, friend of mine asks, if there actually are any digitised fotos of reasonable quality (face area at least like 60x60 pixels and not smudged) of several (famous?) Uruguayan players on Internet. He'd searched for them extensively, and then I'd helped him, too, but acceptable quality Domingo Tejera, Juan P. Anselmo and Juan Carlos Gonzalez are absent from the net? The best I could find were microscopic undistinguishable "blobs"... ---Yury Tarasievich 11:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that any images you find and want to upload/use in Wikipedia have to comply with the Wikipedia:Image use policy.Bruno18 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely. It wasn't even for WP, that I wanted those images -- but for my friend's soccer history archive. And for me, it became a matter of principle to find them. :) Ha, just found fairly decent J.C.Gonzalez on zonacharrua.com. Rest remain unobtainable... Cheers! ---Yury Tarasievich 14:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Players

There are waaay too many players on the list (easily more than a 100) so it should be shortened. Bruno18 00:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Feitiço (Luís Matoso) who played with Leonidas?

He is one of the best scorers of all history in the Paulista Championship for Santos. He played too for Uruguaian Squad.Leodevezas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Conmebol rankings?

No Santos, no Estudiantes? Uh? elpincha 08:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what? This rank for each states - Boca is the best in Argentina, Sao Paolo - in Brasil and Penarol - in Uruguay and in all South America.--Oleg Abarnikov (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CA Penarol.png

Image:CA Penarol.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edición

Edito la página en busca de que sea lo más neutral posible (la encuentro bastante sesgada) y me catalogan como acto de vandalismo??? Está mal acaso incluir las dos posibles fechas de fundación del club??? La verdad ya no entiendo nada... --Aguss Robles (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aguss, baby steps. Let us resolve the issue in the spanish version of the article first. Cheers.

Aguss, de a poco. Primero resolvamos el tema en la versión en español. Saludos.—Nuno93 (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New article version

I'm working on improving this article by taking the spanish version, which is featured on spanish wikipedia, and translating it. If there are no objections I will change the article to this new version, taking into account that the current one even has a reference template. I have not finished yet though, but it can be seen in User:Nuno93/C.A. Peñarol.—Nuno93 (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 02 August 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.A. Peñarol → Peñarol – I don't see the abbreviation C.A. necessary to disambiguate Peñarol. They are globally known as Peñarol being five-time Copa Libertadores champion and three-time Intercontinental Cup (football) champion. They are among the most recognized clubs of Uruguay. In addition, Boca Juniors went through a similar discussion and the result was move. MicroX (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Strong support per WP:UCN. Red Slash 02:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - makes sense, I rarely see them referred to as 'CA Penarol' and the Boca Junior consensus/precedent is there. Giant Snowman 10:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. MicroX (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would just like to add that this move is based on WP:COMMONNAME. --MicroX (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Manufacturers and sponsors

IMO, this section violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. I'll remove it unless someone comes up with a compelling reason why it should stay; this article is very long as it is. All the best, Miniapolis 16:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article also has many red links. Although I've left them, in accordance with the guideline, I think the red links with little or no chance of ever being bluelinked (especially in the player lists) should be removed. All the best, Miniapolis 20:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]