Jump to content

Talk:S.L. Benfica/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

biggest sports club in the world

Bayern München has become the biggest sports club in the world with 251,315 members as it was announced today at 19:57

http://www.focus.de/sport/fussball/bundesliga1/fc-bayern-hauptversammlung-im-live-ticker-erste-versammlung-ohne-uli-hoeness_id_4309531.html#aktualisieren

--Ich901 (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah right, Bayern Munich president says something and suddenly it's an indisputable fact. SLBedit (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
http://www.record.xl.pt/Futebol/Nacional/1a_liga/Benfica/interior.aspx?content_id=915314 "The president of Bayern Munich, Karl Hopfner, has doubts about the number of Benfica paying members, the club [Benfica] that the magazine "The Weekly", of FIFA, confirmed in February as the world leader."
http://www.record.xl.pt/Futebol/Internacional/alemanha/interior.aspx?content_id=917326 "the bavarians assure to have now 251,315 paying members, more 16 thousand than the record that still belongs to Benfica because the new number lacks confirmation by UEFA." SLBedit (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It's unofficial until UEFA says so. SLBedit (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

here is another source:

http://www.welt.de/sport/fussball/bundesliga/fc-bayern-muenchen/article134834862/Der-FC-Bayern-ist-der-groesste-Verein-der-Welt.html

--Ich901 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not so fast. That's what the German club and German websites say. Few days ago president of Bayern Munich was questioning the number of Benfica members just because the club is from a small country like Portugal. SLBedit (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't twist the facts, he didn't say anything about Portugals size. I read the interview he gave. He only said that he was not sure whether Benfica includes fanclub members or not.
http://www.welt.de/sport/fussball/bundesliga/fc-bayern-muenchen/article134371605/Herr-Watzke-hat-doch-mit-dem-Streit-angefangen.html
President (quote): Das Problem bei der Beantwortung dieser Frage ist die klare Darstellung der Mitgliederzahlen. Es gibt unterschiedliche Meinungen darüber, ob bei Benfica die Mitglieder von Fanklubs dazugezählt werden oder nicht. Vielleicht können wir hier bis zur Mitgliederversammlung am 28. November Aufklärung herbeiführen.
translation: The problem with answering this question is a the clear representation of the membership numbers. There are different opinions about whether the members of the fan clubs from Benfica are included or not. Maybe we can bring enlightenment about this at the General Assembly on 28 of November.
Welt.de and Focus.de are two of the biggest online news services in Germany and can be regarded as reliable sources. The language of the source is no problem according to Wikipedia's rules. --Ich901 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
They don't even know how many members Benfica currently has, so how can they say Bayern Munich has more? Where is the comparison? Where is the official and neutral source? If Benfica president would say "we have 300,000 members" and the Portuguese media repeated it that wouldn't make it a fact, and that's what happening in German media. SLBedit (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know in which time of the year Benfica announces its current member number. The only thing I know is that you have claimed that the Bayern president was questioning Benficas member number because of Portugals size, which is a lie. And I also know that Benfica fans constantly spam Bayerns Facebook page and make offensive postings, because apparently someone has stung them with lies. I am pretty sure there will be more international sources claiming that Bayern is now the biggest sports club tomorrow. Bayern's latest member number is higher than Benfica's latest member number. --Ich901 (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Calm down and stop insulting Benfica fans. Facebook has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a social network nor a forum. "International sources" won't make it a fact unless there is a unbiased comparison between the current number of members from both clubs. SLBedit (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It's already happening. The international media is spreading Bayern Munich propaganda. SLBedit (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Spanish source claiming the same member number: http://www.eluniverso.com/deportes/2014/11/28/nota/4280686/bayern-munich-facturo-658-millones-dolares-temporada-2013-2014
English source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2853592/Bayern-Munich-post-record-turnover-breaking-500m-barrier-time.html --Ich901 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
And? SLBedit (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.welt.de/sport/fussball/bundesliga/fc-bayern-muenchen/article134834862/Der-FC-Bayern-ist-der-groesste-Verein-der-Welt.html

clearly states: "Zudem haben die Bayern innerhalb der vergangenen zwölf Monate ihre Mitgliederzahl deutlich gesteigert, von 233.427 auf 251.315. Die zuletzt veröffentlichten Statistiken als Maßstab genommen hat der Double-Gewinner damit den bislang mitgliederstärksten Klub Benfica Lissabon aus Portugal überholt und darf sich größter Verein der Welt nennen."

translation: "In addition, the Bavarians have increased their membership significantly in the past twelve months, from 233,427 to 251,315 . The most recently published statistics taken as a measure, the double winners have overtaken the thus far largest club by membership Benfica Lisbon from Portugal and can name themselves the largest club in the world."

It is clearly stated that Bayern is bigger than Benfica according the latest statistics. Welt.de is widely regarded as a reliable source. It is one of the biggest news services and news papers in Germany. It is used everywhere in Wikipedia as a source and I repeat there are no restrictions on the language used in the sources, it is irrelevant.

You can't expect Benfica and Bayern announcing their membership numbers on the exact same day. The article from Welt.de speaks of the "latest statistics" which is all you can call for. Ich901 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty arrogant. SLBedit (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please elaborate why this is arrogant and please elaborate where I "called you names". I have provided a source that can be regarded as reliable according to Wikipedia standards that clearly states that Bayern has more members than Benfica taking the latest statistics as a measure. Ich901 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
"It is clearly stated that Bayern is bigger than Benfica according the latest statistics", that's arrogant specially when it's unconfirmed numbers. According to the latest comparison in February, Benfica is bigger than Bayern Munich. You called me a liar because I had a different interpretation. The "latest statistics" don't provide the current number of Benfica members. SLBedit (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
What you wrote about the Bayern president was not a "different interpretation". You simply accused him of something he never said and that is clearly a lie. That has absolutely nothing to do with misinterpretation. You can't doubt the article without proving it wrong. They clearly said latest statistics. What you do is: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research --Ich901 (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What you are doing is propaganda and not using reliable sources. Bayern Munich is the only one saying they are the biggest without even knowing the total of Benfica members. SLBedit (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I can provide even more sources stating that Bayern has overtaken Benfica.
Spanish: http://futbol.as.com/futbol/2014/11/28/internacional/1417202963_498772.html
Portuguese: http://www.record.xl.pt/Futebol/Internacional/alemanha/interior.aspx?content_id=917326
Portuguese: http://www.maisfutebol.iol.pt/polemica-bayern-munique-benfica-numero-de-socios-bayern-numero-de-socios-do-benfica-liga-internacional-alemanha/5478d5e20cf25d9ff90a76d1.html --Ich901 (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
You clearly can't read Portuguese and Spanish languages. Portuguese and Spanish "sources" just copied what Bayern said. International sources won't make it a fact unless there is a unbiased comparison between the current number of members from both clubs. You can keep spamming irrelevant links. SLBedit (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The only way to solve this is to wait for Benfica's response. SLBedit (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Stop deleting my posts. This is forbidden. You lied about what the Bayern president said. No need to wait for Benfica. I have provided reliable sources. You can't doubt them. This is forbidden according to Wikipedia's rules, see original research. --Ich901 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Stop lying. I didn't delete any of your posts, I reverted an edit and reverted it back (it was mistake). No, you don't have a reliable source. Yes, I can doubt of anything Bayern Munich president says. I'm not doing original research. I am looking for unbiased sources. Until Benfica or a neutral organization confirms the numbers, the current information shouldn't be changed. SLBedit (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do you say that UEFA has to approve? UEFA is just a European organisation and is not the only party entitled to decide which is the biggest club worldwide. I have provided the single statement (see link) the president of Bayern has given in an interview about Benfica's number. He didn't say anything about Portugal. He wasn't even directly questioning the number of Benfica members. He said that there are different opinions on this, but not that he believes that Benfica is making up their number. Everything that Portuguese media has made up after that is simply wrong. What was the result? Benfica started a campaign in German language and claimed that they are the biggest club in the world. And they didn't know the current Bayern member number at that time. But what they created were hateful comments by their fans. And there wasn't even one single comment from Bayern fans on Benfica's page, because they didn't even notice Benfica being upset. --Ich901 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Benfica used the official numbers at the time, what resulted from that is irrelevant to Wikipedia. SLBedit (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Allright. So we have to wait until Benfica's response. But until then, I think that the only thing that is correct is two write that Benfica was biggest club at a certain time (or during a certain period), since we do not know if they are the biggest club at the moment (as you said it SLBendit). By the way, this is official statistics from Bayern Munich: http://www.fcbayern.de/media/native/presse-free/Mitglieder_Fanclubs_KidsClub_13-14.pdf EriFr (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
My username is SLBedit. We don't know which club has the highest membership so I have changed the article to reflect the current situation. SLBedit (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I conclude with this: I don't care if Benfica or Bayern have more members. I care about facts. Bayern claims to have X members and arrogantly say they are the biggest, when they don't even know how many members Benfica has. SLBedit (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"second-biggest club in the world, after Bayern Munich" means the club is third and not second. SLBedit (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015

"With 235,000 members (as of February 2014), Benfica is the second-biggest club in the world, after Bayern Munich.[7][8][9]"(out of date and error information) Benfica is the biggest club in the world 81.84.201.44 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Orduin Discuss 19:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ribeiro dos Reis Cup

You didn't mention the Ribeiro dos Reis Cup which were also organized by the Portuguese Football Federation. Benfica won them 3 times and therefore it is the most successful portuguese club in terms of total titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.82.32 (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't count as a major title. SLBedit (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar and Style

The club is best known for its professional football team which plays in the Primeira Liga, the top tier of the Portuguese football league system, where they are back-to-back champions.

replace with: The club is best known for its professional football team which plays in the Primeira Liga, the top tier of the Portuguese football league system, where they currently are back-to-back champions.

Founded in 1904 as Sport Lisboa by a group of people led by Cosme Damião, Benfica is one of the Big Three clubs in Portugal (Os Três Grandes), along with its long-standing rivals Sporting CP and FC Porto, which have never been relegated from the Portuguese league since its establishment in 1934.

replace with: Founded in 1904 as Sport Lisboa by a group of people led by Cosme Damião, Benfica is one of the Big Three clubs in Portugal (Os Três Grandes), along with its long-standing rivals Sporting CP and FC Porto. All three clubs have never been relegated from the Portuguese football league since its establishment in 1934. (Otherwise it sounds like only Sporting and Porto have not been relegated) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikepost (talk • contribs) 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't use "currently" per WP:RELTIME. About relegation it's probably the best option. SLBedit (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Section titles

@Donaldo1997, Threeohsix, and The Replicator: Should we rename or merge some sections? "Jesus years (2009–2015)" to "Jesus years and after (2009–present) ? "Crisis and Jesus years (1994–2015)" and leave "2015–present"? Or leave titles as they are now? Any suggestions? SLBedit (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I would rename "Recent history-", but otherwise it's fine. --Threeohsix (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
What about the current title? "Jesus years (six) and after" SLBedit (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
"Recent history/years" is relative. SLBedit (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The only doubt would be "2015-" or "Recent history-". The recent history is to be developed over time, maybe it becames "Vitória years(2015-), let's wait to things to occur. Now it looks small, because it's just a few days after Jesus left.--Threeohsix (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
A new section for only one sentence is overkill. SLBedit (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Threeohsix: It was changed to "Recent years". I also removed both the sentence and reference related to Jesus departure. SLBedit (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Introduction length

The introduction is too long and with too many statistics. It will look much better if it's simpler. I suggest transferring the following section to another area such as team statistics: "In 2014, they achieved an unprecedented treble of Primeira Liga, Taça de Portugal, and Taça da Liga.[12][13] They also won the Supertaça, becoming the only club to have won all four domestic titles in a year.[14][15] It is also the only club to have won the Primeira Liga and Taça da Liga, moreover, three times. Benfica became the first team in Portuguese league history to complete two 30-game seasons without defeat, namely the 1972–73 and 1977–78 seasons. In the former, they achieved the largest difference of points ever between champions and runners-up (18 points) in a two-points-per-win system.[16] Benfica also holds the European record for the most consecutive wins in domestic league (29), between 1971–72 and 1972–73,[17] as well the record for the longest unbeaten run in Portuguese league (56), between 1976–77 and 1978–79.[18][19]" . Let me know what you think Archimedes1973 (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's there because it's important, it's what distinguishes Benfica from other Portuguese clubs. SLBedit (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion just makes the introduction too boring. It's interesting but not really that important for intro. What distinguishes Benfica from other Portuguese clubs in the number of Primeira Liga champion titles, that's what really matters...the more info the article has, less people will read it and they will miss the key points...Archimedes1973 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You are saying that other domestic competitions don't matter. That is an opinion indeed. SLBedit (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Archimedes1973: Is it okay now? SLBedit (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks Great.Archimedes1973 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Runner-up honours

Do you think runner-up honours in European competitions should be removed from the honours section? SLBedit (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015

Victor Andrade is part of the first team. 2.80.118.103 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2015

Bilal Ould-Chikh's number is 8. B1904 (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Edgars2007: Source. B1904 (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Members

There are some problems to point out; "They also participate in the general assemblies (if they are shareholders)", shareholders and members are two different things, shareholders hold stock of the SAD and have a different general assembly, and have almost no power in direction the club (which owns the SAD) has (members do). The reference for "it became the first club in the world to use eletronic voting" it's a self-published source, which is not ideal, because they lack neutrality and mostly likely fact checking.

The sentence "By April 2015, Benfica was the biggest club in the world in membership terms, with 270,000 members", is sourced by the "Movimento por Um Futebol Melhor" and it's from 2014, not from April 2015. Such bold claims, should mention its original source in the text, like "in accordance to Movimento por Um Futebol Melhor", so that people know who said that and judged their notability. Benfica has recently published a prospect informing they had 246.101 by 31 March 2015, that's consistent with the drop of 100k in the renumbering.--Threeohsix (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. SLBedit (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2015

Add Renato Sanches to the squad. 85.240.131.118 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JQTriple7 talk 06:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@JQTriple7: The reliable source (#164) supports the change. 85.240.147.137 (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done SLBedit (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Players on loan

What about moving the players on loan listed in Benfica B to this article? After all, Benfica B is the club's reserve team, it does not loan players (the club does). SLBedit (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Because there are dozens of reserve teams and many have loans players listed, this propose should be discussed at WT:WPF to have a community consensus. Personally, I don't object showing here the ridiculous amount of loaned players the club has. However, i'm certain this will inevitably bring the idea that every player signed or loaned belongs in the first-team season article, which I disagree, because it is deceptive to the unfamiliar reader; many signings and loans are "projects" that only ever reach the first-team in the best case scenario. This is something all clubs do.--Threeohsix (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The first-team squad is one thing, players on loan is another. Don't worry about season article(s) because the "projects" can be removed. Right now, this article shows Luís Felipe, Steven Vitória and Yannick Djaló as being part of the first-team, which was true, but there isn't other place to put them. SLBedit (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think any shift is necessary. If the players were part of the B team before they went on loan, they should be listed on the B team page. If they become part of the first team after they return, by all means move them to the first-team squad list then, but not before. – PeeJay 19:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
That's the confusion I want to avoid. For example, Sidnei, Rui Fonte and César last played for the B team, but they had already played for the first-team. I don't think we should list them as B players. Other players such as Candeias and Diego Lopes have never played for the club, and should be listed in the main article. Finally there is players such as Raphael Guzzo who have only played for the B team. SLBedit (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Threeohsix: So where do we list Pelé? SLBedit (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we move Jorge Rojas to the B team? Moved. SLBedit (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Pele is first team, Rojas is B team. Common sense should apply, if the signed players are 23 or 24, it is unlikely that we'll ever play for the B-team. If a player has played for the first-team than it makes sense to be here.--Threeohsix (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Sidnei shouldn't be listed here because he last played for the B team. SLBedit (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Merge Discussion

I propose that Mística and O Benfica be merged into S.L. Benfica#Media. I think that the content in the both articles can easily be explained in the club main page, without need for unnecessary forks, especially when they have so little content (avg 66 words) and no attempt at expanding them have been made. Additionally, both subjects probably don't meet WP:NMEDIA, especially the lack of significant reliable secondary sources. Threeohsix (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@GenQuest: Content that will be lost: information in {{Infobox newspaper}} and {{Infobox magazine}}, including the covers. SLBedit (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the proposal met opposition, more opinions are needed. I have actually asked BDD for a opinion about this matter before. The unreferenced content in the infoboxes (keeping the covers is possible) is worthless if the articles don't follow notability guidelines (there's also a problem with verifiability in both). Just to add to my proposal, the space devoted to both articles in the club main page is just: "Moreover, the club publishes the weekly newspaper O Benfica and the quarterly magazine Mística". If you expand with a little more information, you'll pretty much duplicate all of the content.--Threeohsix (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Threeohsix: Is it time to remove the merge template? SLBedit (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless you agree with the merger, it is not. Since I think you're reason to retain the article doesn't hold any merit, comments from other users is needed. That's why is listed at WP:PAM.--Threeohsix (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think both meet Wikipedia:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals. At least O Benfica does (2). SLBedit (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That is a guideline, first comes the WP:GNG for all articles at WP, wwhich states "A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources". Where are the significant in-depth coverage from secondary sources? For that and for its really poor content, it could be easily absorbed here, as I my proposal explains.--Threeohsix (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what qualifies as significant, but the Diário de Notícias source is reliable and secondary. SLBedit (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It is reliable and it is not enough to establish significant in-depth coverage. It's trivial passage 11 years ago about the increased sales. If that counted, so SLB fans reference from SOL newspapers would established notability and two admins thought it didn't. Not gonna comment your embarrassing attempt of connect comments of the newspaper director to the article itself. Guess the google search did find much did it...--Threeohsix (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I simply added a reference (then replaced it) about a living person. Don't embarrass yourself. SLBedit (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
A reference that serves nothing other than "prove" that José Nuno Martins was the director in 2014. I think that your opposition is just because of the pictures that you uploaded and don't want deleted. As I said in 28 December, that pictures can be merged here too if that is the "content that will be lost". All the text in the infoboxes, can easily be written here in prose without much trouble. It's up to you.--Threeohsix (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
He still is the director, unless you find another source. The covers are not the reason. If the articles are not notable enough, then someone else should merge them with this article. It's not up to me or you to decide. SLBedit (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
How is Hala Madrid notable if it only provides primary sources? (unlike Mística) SLBedit (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"All the text in the infoboxes, can easily be written here in prose without much trouble" I can't insert ISBNs ISSNs in prose. SLBedit (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I've see that you copied all referenced content into this article, so this discussion lost its objective, it's basically merged... What I meant by all the infobox content be turned into prose is useful information like foundation, type, probably editor. Things like is ISSN, who is the printing company, language, where is based, etc is just trivial information that adds no real information to the reader. Do you really think the ISSN is relevant to a passing reader? I understand that you tried in good faith improve both articles by expanding the infoboxes, but the fact is that it didn't change its problems. There isn't verifiable sources to improve it. It should have never been created in the first place. I myself I've created articles that now I wouldn't do because they are simply not expandable due to the lack of coverage. Example, Pavilhão da Luz Nº 2, many sports like athletics, canoeing, table tennis, billiards. So I focus in what I can improve, now I'm at season articles, before I did list of players, European football, build the table in managers and in presidents, before that I developed futsal, volleyball and handball articles. It's not how many benfica-related articles there is here, its how good they are. Dozens of stubs shows interest, but also show lack of effort and commitment to push them to a better quality. Hope you understand my motives and don't think I'm in a personal vendetta because I' don't like O Benfica and Mistica.--Threeohsix (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent seasons

@JP26235 and Besteirense: please don't add the current season before the League Cup final ends. SLBedit (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017

BrunoES (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK Discuss 12:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2017

160.176.98.47 (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Transfers

Please take of Mitroglou and add Gabriel Barbosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by RafaFCB17 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? Mitroglou was removed, Gabriel Barbosa was added. Both transfers are official. SLBedit (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Finances

The finances section is in need of a better phrasing. It used to have a infobox with financial information but it was removed as it wasn't being updated. SLBedit (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Reformatting the history section

(continuation from my talk page discussion with another Benfica page contributor) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Purij#Changes_in_S.L._Benfica

Benfica had domestic dominance all through the 50s and 60s, but in terms of Europe, they only won in 61 & 62 and reached (though losing) the finals in 63 & 64 which I wouldn't call dominance, just relative success.

Maybe create a new section called 'Decline', 'Decline & club issues, 'Decline & board issues','Decline & financial troubles' or something along those lines, which is better than saying 'crisis', which is a bit extreme. Could included from During the 1970s, Benfica faded.... to and decided to build the new Estádio da Luz, which would eventually cost €162 million, €25 million more....

After that could be another section called 'Luís Filipe Vieira era' with two sub-sections, one for Jorge Jesus and another for Rui Vitória

What does everyone think? Purij (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Benfica didn't dominate the 50s, despite the six Portuguese Cups won. Benfica dominated the 60s and 70s, as a result of having a team that were back-to-back European champions. The sections you renamed were called "European Champions and league supremacy (1950–70)" and "League dominance and European Cup finals (1970–94)", respectively, they didn't say Benfica dominated European football. Domestically, the 80s were dominated by Benfica and Porto, then, in the 90s, Benfica decline/crisis happened. Vieira is the president of Benfica since 2003, but he's not Benfica; same for recent Benfica coaches (even Cosme Damião, Eusébio and other notable figures don't have their names in sections). Creating a section ("Vieira") with sub-sections for two coaches would be ridiculous. SLBedit (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I already had discussed the "Luís Filipe Vieira era" with another user. I think it should be: "League dominance, European Cup finals, and decline (1970–94)", followed by "Crisis and financial struggles (1994–2003) and then the "Luís Filipe Vieira era" would be divided in two subsections "Rebuilding years (2003–2013)" and "Return to domestic dominance (2013–present)". Why mentioning Vieira? Because he's the president with more days in charge of the club, and contributed directly for the new Estádio da Luz, the Benfica TV channel, and several trophies won in many sports, among other things. By the way, I think it's ridiculous to have 4 paragraphs to describe 20 years (1950–70), another 3 for 24 years (1970–94) and 4 paragraphs to tell what happened in 8 years (2009–present). Much of the information about this last period should be condensed or relocated to several season article. Besteirense (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Where is that discussion? Benfica is still struggling with its finances and is still rebuilding, meaning that "rebuilding years" aren't quite over. Calling a four-year dominance "domestic dominance" is WP:RECENTISM and a bit POVish, although sources support it. Condensing text without losing meaning is hard, but possible, sure. "2009–present" should definetely be condensed. SLBedit (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I feel like there is. True, though it's reducing, and their isn't any sort of detail of recent financial struggle, just a vague 3/4 line regarding the 80s in the 'Crisis and return to domestic success (1994–2009)' section, should have more recent information like Benfica having the highest European debt or its debt level in the 90s and early 00s, could even extend the 80s mention on the first line aswell. "Rebuilding years" is very vague, where do you draw the line? Top Portuguese clubs are now all in debt to various extents and have all become selling clubs, no really rebuilding just a change in how it does business, its really in a constant state of selling and rebuilding. True, a four-year dominance is a bit POVish and borderline WP:RECENTISM, calling it 'Return to European finals and national dominance' is good, though later one if no extra section is made and Benfica don't get to a European final, they maybe remove that part from the title. Purij (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a section dedicated to the finances of Benfica. If you're mentioning UEFA's report from January 2017, then Manchester United has the highest "net debt", while Benfica is second on the list. Rebuilding years started in 2003 indeed but it's an ongoing thing if you consider Benfica's Futebol Campus expansion. The stadium, training center, etc. were already built. SLBedit (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
2nd is still noteworthy IMO, good points, Veira era is pretty much the rebuilding years and he did continue to work on improving facilities even after 2003, though focus on youth is when Jorge Jesus left. Fair to call it rebuilding years, though line should be drawn at some point. Purij (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The "domestic dominance" from 2013 to the present I stole it from Paris Saint-Germain's article. About the "Rebuilding years", that was the name of the last section in 2012. The names could be changed, but I think 1994–2003 (Financial crisis/instability and lack of trophies), 2003–2013 (something about resurrection and slow recovery) and 2013–present (Recent years) is a better division than the currently one. About the president's' name being on the title, there are several other examples, like Barcelona's with Núñez and Laporta or Atlético Madrid's with Jesús Gil. Besteirense (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Good ideas Besteirense, agree that your breakdown very works well IMO, maybe do "Financial issues, instability and lack of trophies (1994–2003)", "Luís Filipe Vieira era (2003–present)" which could have 2 subsections, one could be "Stabilisation years, enter Jesus" which could cover 2003-2012 (include half of JJ's time at Benfica), then after that could be "Recent years" covering the last half (last 3 years) of JJ's time at Benfica which where his most successful, along with RV's time. What you think? Purij (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I think mentioning Jorge Jesus is unnecessary. The first subsection of "Luís Filipe Vieira era" could be "Stabilisation years and strengthening of Benfica's brand", where the text should mention the first match of Estádio da Luz, the construction and opening of Futebol Campus, the launch of Benfica TV, maybe that Guinness World Records issue in 2006, among other things. Besteirense (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It's so noteworthy that Manchester United article doesn't have it there, and I already added information about Benfica's debt to finances section. "Focus on youth" is subjective. "Financial issues, instability and lack of trophies (1994–2003)" is too long, just like "League dominance, European Cup finals, and decline (1970–94)" is. "Financial issues and trophies drought (1994–2003)" or just "drought" (with "drought" referring to league titles and lack of trophies – only one, the 1995–16 Portuguese Cup). Purij, why do you keep changing the name of current sections when we are still discussing them? The current division of text can be improved, but at least it's consistent. One way to condense text is to remove information on the doubles (league and cup) and match/game results. Purij, "match" is also British English. SLBedit (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
"Stabilisation years and strengthening of Benfica's brand" is POV. Information on the first match is within Estádio da Luz article. Futebol Campus is already mentioned in training ground. Benfica TV is in media section. Guinness World Record is already in support section. SLBedit (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Why individualize 14 years of club history? Benfica existed before Vieira. Vieira didn't win trophies alone. I'm not saying that I'm against using "Luís Filipe Vieira era". SLBedit (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is writing that Vieira is bigger than Benfica; no employee ever was/will be. He's simply the constant in that time period. If you want to maintain the current year sections, it's obvious that Vieira's name wouldn't fit in there. By the way, his contribution could easily overcome 14 years (his mandate is expected to end in 2020) and there's no problem whatsoever in editing the tittles as the years go by. Anyway, another option is to have "Recent years (2003/4–present), without any subdivision or mention to Vieira. Again, I just think that a division in the year 2009 has any kind of special significance. Besteirense (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
You want to make a division in year 2009, is that it? SLBedit (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I just think that a division in the year 2009 (1994–2009 and 2009–present) has not any kind of special significance. Now that's correct. It made a bit sense when Jorge Jesus was around but not anymore. Besteirense (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay. What do you think of removing match results unless they are really notable? SLBedit (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
So, to you, should the last section start in 1994 or 2003? SLBedit (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
1994–2003 with one paragraph (the first that's already there with minor changes). Then, 2003–present would be the last section (Recent Years) and should have 3/4 paragraphs max. About notable matches, perhaps the first international confrontation between two Portuguese teams (against Sp. Braga in 2011) and the two Liga Europa finals. The ones who translate themselves into titles wins can be omitted ("Benfica won x Primeira Liga, y Taça de Portugal", doesn't matter against whom). I don't know, maybe mentioning the "tetra match" because it was the first time, or the final against Rio Ave in 2013–14 in which Benfica conquered the Triplete. Besteirense (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
How many subsections will "History" have? SLBedit (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the best idea would be to crate an article about the "History of S.L. Benfica", like the one I brought here earlier about PSG. There would be no need to delete the information in that page, since that would be the purpose of it. Maybe, extend the other sections a bit. In this main page, maybe a two section text, the first about the 20th century and the second, a very short one, about the 21st. Besteirense (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay but before the creation of that page, this is the best I could think of: "Inception and first national titles (1904–50)" (46 years = 3 paragraphs) - "International success, league supremacy, decline (1950–94)" (44 years = 4 paragraphs) (or "fading" instead of "decline") - "Crisis and return to domestic success (1994–) (23 years = 7 paragraphs) or "Financial crisis/Board issues/Drought and return to domestic success" Too much paragraphs. What do you think? SLBedit (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've edited it so you can see my changes. The problem with the section "League drought and return to domestic success (1994–)" is that it is basically a summary of all seasons since 2003–04, with a paragraph for each season. It contains too much information. SLBedit (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't like the "League drought" part. Benfica had 8 years in a row without any titles, it wasn't just a Primeira Liga drought. Also, from the 2005 Supertaça until the 2008–09 Taça da Liga Benfica did not win any trophies either. Maybe "Downfall and revival" or something like that. Besteirense (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I changed it to just "drought". "Crisis", "downfall", "revival" and even "decline" are strong words. SLBedit (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Financial trouble dating back to the 1980s, when Benfica completed its stadium's third tier,[28][29] and large investments on players started to deteriorate the club's finances.[30][31] The rampant spending and a questionable signing policy (over 100 players during Manuel Damásio's presidency),[32] which allowed for squads composed of over 30 players, further aggravated the problem", the underlined part contains original research, these claims are are basically an interpretation of what the sources actually provide. SLBedit (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Besteirense: What do you think of these section titles: Inception and first titles (1904–50); Golden years and fading (1950–94) (or golden age); Drought and return to success (1994–)? This would decrease the table of contents size (TOC) box. SLBedit (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The last one could be "Mixed fortunes" to be even shorter. By the way, you should edit the "Benfiquistas usually celebrate the team's conquests at the Marquis of Pombal Square in Lisbon" phrase to start with "Some". The supporters who attend that celebration are a minority, when you consider the 14 million number that the club "sells". Also, I don't think that a capital letter to address them is needed. Besteirense (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't like "mixed fortunes" because it isn't clear what it means. Sol source doesn't say "some". The text should read "Marquis of Pombal Square is the epicentre of Benfica's league title celebrations", information that the source lacks. The word "benfiquista" is both a noun and an adjective. Maybe what's wrong is the use of italics. SLBedit (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Then, maybe a new source is needed to sustain that idea. I know benfiquista can assume the two forms. But supporters is also a noun and doesn't need capital letter. Besteirense (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
That's the problem but it might exist. Supporters is a common noun, no need for capital letter. I'm going to change it to benfiquistas because it's not a proper noun. But what about Águias and Encarnados, are they proper or common nouns? SLBedit (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
When they're used to refer the club, they should be with capital letter. Like Glorioso. Besteirense (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, Benfica isn't referred to by its nicknames. SLBedit (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Besteirense: Is it better now? SLBedit (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I would move the "BenficaCampeão2009-10.jpg" to the Support section (replacing the picture that's already there) and bring back the "Football titles in Museu Cosme Damião.JPG" you erased to the History section. What's the point in having two pictures depicting some fans celebrating two league titles? One is enough. Besteirense (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, because after the text condensation there wasn't enough space for the three pictures. Secondly, because those league titles were milestones, while the League and League Cup double was not so special (it had already been achieved by Benfica three times) and it's already outdated (four now). Thirdly, I like those pictures. "BenficaCampeão2009-10.jpg" could be placed below "AdeptosBenfica.jpg". SLBedit (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't criticizing the removal of one picture; I just thought you left the two pictures who are very similar. Every title is a milestone: the 2009–10 was the 32nd league title and the 2015 double was the third. Where's the difference? The article has two pictures of two teams, two pictures related to Eusébio (three if we include team picture where he appears), one of the current manager and one of the current president, one of Estádio da Luz, two of trophies won and three of supporters. The proportion doesn't seem correct to me. But that's just my opinion. Besteirense (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The difference is that the 2014–15 title didn't end a drought, although it meant back-to-back titles. I would add more pictures (for instance, one of Cosme Damião), not remove, if they didn't get piled up, affecting the layout. SLBedit (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
But is that difference sufficient to consider the 2009–10 a milestone and not the other? I would prefer a picture of the eagle (maybe during it's flight) instead of the one with Eusébio in the history section and, instead of two pictures depicting supporters, one of them could be with the team that actually won a trophy (like this one)Besteirense (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
2009–10 title ended a five-year wait. The trophy of the Tetra or the double at the musem would be the ideal photo. An eagle flying on the stadium isn't more notable than Eusébio. Not every picture can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and then used on Wikipedia, they must have a proper Creative Commons license. SLBedit (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
And the double ended a 21-year wait for a back-to-back league title. Like I wrote, every title is a milestone. The eagle, as a symbol, is more representative of Benfica than Eusébio; it appeared on the first crest in 1904. Besteirense (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Winning two back-to-back titles isn't a goal, it's the consequence of having the goal to win every year. You were talking about Águia Vitória, not the symbol. Do you have something against Eusébio? SLBedit (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
No league title is more important than the other. The 2009–10 Primeira Liga has the same importance as the 2014–15's, just like the 2016–17 title isn't more (or less) important than the 2013–14 just because it was the first tetra. The Águia Vitória is the mascot, the living representation of the symbol. I don't have many things against Eusébio, I just don't like the obvious undeserved prominence he has/had from Benfica (often forgetting other important players, like Mário Coluna who did not have his name replacing the players' in the shirt back in 2014), from the press and from the country (Avenida Eusébio da Silva Ferreira is a ridiculous insult to General Norton de Matos). Besteirense (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
That's your opinion, which doesn't have encyclopedic value. Countless sources prove that Eusébio is Benfica's most notable figure. SLBedit (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Unlike some, I can make my own opinions. About the rest, that was not the point of this conversation, since I didn't refute that statement. Besteirense (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I know what you implied with "unlike some". You should be more respectful. SLBedit (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't be arrogant. If I wanted to direct my comment to you, I would have written it that way. Settle down, there's no need to be always fussing about trivial matters. Besteirense (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
So why did you write "unlike some"? By writing it, you implied that you are better than someone else. Don't be arrogant. SLBedit (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
There's that arrogance I was pointing out. By criticizing someone, that doesn't mean I think I'm better than him/her. For instance, ff I criticize Rui Vitórias' choices, that doesn't mean I think I'm a better manager. The fact that you think you know what I meant better than me is laughable. A little humility would do you some good, since it's not the first time you misinterpreted me. Besteirense (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
You should express yourself better and use a better tone. SLBedit (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Besteirense: Are you for or against the usage of the serial comma? SLBedit (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm for, depending on the situation. Besteirense (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

B team players

@UncleTupelo1: It's needless to add B team players to the first team. Júlio César is no longer a Benfica player. Please use common sense and consensus. SLBedit (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Fair enough on César, obviously. Mirroring the club's first team squad page doesn't seem like common sense? https://www.slbenfica.pt/futebol/sl-benfica. It's literally the club listing who they consider their first team players. That should be reflected in their article. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You are right, but it's also common sense to check if the players have actually played for the main team. It's not Wikipedia's fault that Benfica's official website is providing incorrect information. I think this is a case of WP:IAR. SLBedit (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
They can still be in the squad, but not play. It's a big team! From the 1st game of the season, should be only list the players announced on the team sheet and just keep adding players as they appear on the team sheet for future games? I think if the club consider Willcock, etc, as first team squad members, they should be listed as such. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Campeonato de Portugal (Honours section)

I don't know if this discussion already took place on the talk page but I would like to understand why the Campeonato de Portugal is mixed with the Taça de Portugal achievements.

I know that it is the precursor of the current format of the Cup, but all of the sources indicate that it is a distinct competition and I point out this fact because the FPF and the Benfica official websites (as well as other sources) all make that exact separation. Even in other Benfica Wikipedia pages/different languages have their information about the subject as being detached from one and the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahhh23 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Ask Besteirense (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, Besteirense (talk · contribs) why? ahah— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahhh23 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
You have a point. The official source distinguishes one trophy from another. SLBedit (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Associate numbers in Management

I have removed the associate numbers from Management section because it's not important information to the reader and can be considered WP:FANCRUFT, although they are shown between parentheses in the source. SLBedit (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2019

change the Head Coach from Rui Vitória to Bruno Lage 5x50 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done SLBedit (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Short description

@Jozamba: Benfica is a sports club, yes, but it is best known for its (association) football team. SLBedit (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2020

|- class="vcard agent" | style="text-align: center" | — | style="text-align: center" | FW | style="padding-right:15px;" | Brazil BRA | style="padding-right:15px;" | Everton

189.216.107.84 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to know how when I edited Jan Vertonghen's page putting him in S.L. Benfica because he signed today, you give me thanks for the change and when I returned THEY DELETED IT!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.104.148 (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:S.L._Benfica/Archive_2&oldid=1142321944"