Talk:Uruguayan Primera División

Fair use rationale for Image:Uruguay football association.svg

Image:Uruguay football association.svg 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 (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Peñarol = CURCC?

Peñarol is not the same that CURCC, they are differents. If you want to say they are the same just find out a reference and cite it. --Vought.bolso (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• You lie! Penarol IS CURCC, CURCC IS Penarol!--UruguayRus (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• The only controvercions are about titles in FUF and 1926 championships. Stop doing those stupid Nacional's history. Go to the official AUF site and look Penarol's profile - CURCC and Penarol is the same club according AUF!--UruguayRus (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• The reference cited from fifa.com stating that Peñarol is the same as CURCC is on a section ("que se oiga tu voz"/"lets hear your voice") which does not reflect fifa's opinion as stated towards the bottom of the page : "*Nota: la sección 'Que se oiga tu voz' está destinada a originar debates entre los usuarios de FIFA.com, y de ninguna manera expresa la voz oficial de FIFA o FIFA.com" (Note: the section "lets hear your voice" is aimed to starting debated between FIFA.com users and in no way expresses the official voice of FIFA or FIFA.com). This source was cited by some Peñarol fan simply trying to accumulate more titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallghing (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:La Liga which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 13:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Primera División of Spain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 18:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Relegation Mechanism is not explained ... Infobox update needed.

• Okay I have a number of issues with the football league wikipedia formats and this will serve as a starting place.

• The Relegation mechanism of this league is NOT explained

• The starting and ending dates need to be part of the league infobox ...

Say that Peñarol is the most successful club in Uruguay with 48 titles is a controversial information in Uruguay

Say that Peñarol is the most successful club in Uruguay with 48 titles is a controversial information in Uruguay, and for that reason is not included, for example, in the Spanish Wikipedia page (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Uruguay). In these cases, seeking to preserve the neutrality of the page, the right thing is to review its implementation in the talk page. I'm surprised the user or users added data that have not proposed before, knowing that it is a very controversial topic the amount of uruguayan championships of Peñarol. --186.49.35.125 (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that spanish wikipedia doesn't mention it is not a valid argument. Also, an edition doesn't always have to go through discussion. If it is known that there is another editor who doesn't agree then discussing the subject is the next step, instead of persisting with the edit. But if there is no objection to an edition, there's no reason to take it to discussion.

FIFA.com continuously mentions Peñarol as 48 times champion [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. I don't see any valid reason not to mention it in this article. It wouldn't be neutral if it weren't included.Nuno93 (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that there is no problem or controversy in putting that Peñarol is the most successful club in Uruguay with 48 Uruguayan Championships because there is a link to FIFA to that, how do you explain that there is a link from the same site that says Uruguayan Nacional is the decano? ([6]). In my opinion is clear that this is a controversial topic. --186.49.44.144 (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? FIFA.com also refers to Peñarol as "decano" [7]. In this particular case there's a contradiction and thus it is not a reliable source in this matter. On the other hand, there's no such problem with Peñarol's 48 titles. FIFA.com is still a reliable source. If the official website of the football ruling organization considers it OK to say that Peñarol is 48 times champion, not once, but many times (and therefore it is evidently not a possible mistake, which is the case of that article you mention), there is no reason whatsoever so as not to include that same information here.—Nuno93 (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's please be coherent. If we agree that the opening section states that the Uruguayan Primera División is "organized by the Uruguayan Football Association", that "^ In 1926, the Uruguayan championship was played under a Consejo Provisorio (Provisory Council), as the official and dissident Uruguayan Football Associations were reunited. AUF doesn't recognise that championship as official', that on 1924 the Champion was Nacional, that according to the list, 1929's championship was Peñarol's (together with C.U.R.C.C.) ninth championship, just adding the team's 38 professional championships we arrive at 47. Not 48 or 49. Besides, in the list at the bottom of the page it states quite clearly that it includes: "the count of official AUF Primera División titles won by club." Ergo, since the FUF championships occured outside the AUF, and the 1926 championship is not regarded by the Association as a Uruguayan championship, it would be internally contradictory to count those two championships in Peñarol's count, and the one extra championship for Wanderers for the first FUF championship. It would be best -regardless of how tiresome reading it each time may become after a few times- to repeat after each list that Peñarol counts two championships not recognised by AUF, and that it is because of this that the club says it has 49 championships and not 47 as it would result of just looking up the list "Champions by season". K. Kimur (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, lets change the text. It is clearly wrong. Nowadays the Uruguayan Championship is organized by AUF. It wasn't that way in 1923 and 1924. Back then there were two uruguayan championships one by AUF and one by FUF, and in 1926 the Uruguayan Championship was organized by the Consejo Provisorio.

Meanwhile, don't force your edition. If theres a disagreement, it should be discussed before.—Nuno93 (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Sir, but in 1923 and 1924 the Uruguayan Championship took place organised by the Uruguayan Football Association as it had happened since the beginning of the League (in its various denominations). That some teams had been expelled and decided to found a parallel Federation has no effect whatsoever on the fact that the AUF was and still is the only official organisation that rules football in Uruguay.

Ergo, to add the 1923 and 24 FUF championships to Wanderers and Peñarol would mean that if tomorrow Villa Española, or, say Huracán Buceo, or any other club that doesn't belong to current professional football decide to create a parallel, and some day after they re-enter the AUF, any title that occurs inside that hypothetical league would be added to those clubs involved.

That, to me, is not only wrong empirically, but more importantly, it is intelectually dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimur (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? Because you say so? FIFA does not agree with you. It does not matter if it was organized by AUF or FUF, it was a Uruguayan Championship. It was played in Uruguay with Uruguayan teams, organized by a Uruguayan entity, was it not?

If Villa Española and Huracán Buceo organize their own league and it was shown that it is significant enough to be considered in this article then it should. By significant enough I mean, for example, being part of a reunification not long after its creation.—Nuno93 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

FIFA may not agree with me but certainly AUF does not agree with you either. That is why I suggest that this point be correspondingly mentioned whenever the discrepancy may arise.

I will quote you a few times so that you and whoever else reads this understand my point:

You say "It does not matter if it was organized by AUF or FUF", while in the article it states very clearly "^ a b Does not include organized tournaments from FUF nor the Consejo Provisorio tournament", "^ In 1926, the Uruguayan championship was played under a Consejo Provisorio (Provisory Council), as the official and dissident Uruguayan Football Associations were reunited. AUF doesn't recognise that championship as official", and most importantly "Total Primera División titles by club[edit]

Below is the count of official AUF Primera División titles won by club.

Team Nº of titles

Peñarol 49"

If find it intelectually insulting that you do not agree to make clear this issues, by just forcing your view. This is not a matter of interpretation as the deanship may be, this is a matter of unchanging numbers.

If it didn't matter what entity organised a championship, then why do the 1926 and the FUF championships deserve a note? Why don't they just appear in the bare body of the section? Simply because they were an exception to what is being told, they do not belong IN the body of the section, they were not part of the Uruguayan Primera División ruled by its first and only ruling entity, the AUF. Otherwise, next to the year 1924 we would read 'Champion Nacional (11)/Peñarol(8)' with no more information, since no more information would be needed.

You say "[i]t was played in Uruguay with Uruguayan teams, organized by a Uruguayan entity, was it not?" and so were and so are many other tournaments in the history of uruguayan football, and they do not count as Uruguayan Championships, at least not officially recognised.

And finally you say "[i]f Villa Española and Huracán Buceo organize their own league and it was shown that it is significant enough to be considered in this article then it should", which does nothing but show that you either have not read carefully what I have written before, or that you do not really care about giving information in a proper way. I will quote myself to make this clearer:

"It would be best -regardless of how tiresome reading it each time may become after a few times- to repeat after each list that Peñarol counts two championships not recognised by AUF, and that it is because of this that the club says it has 49 championships and not 47 as it would result of just looking up the list 'Champions by season'."

I do not object to real factual information being given, even if it results in a boring reading. If more lists need to be added, so be it, but let us not allow this article to be internally contradictory.

Kimur (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

They deserve a note because the article must remain neutral and Nacional fans' position on the matter should be mentioned.

You mention AUF's opinion, but you never show it. You don't give any references. What is official? Official to whom? To AUF? To FUF? To Conmebol? To FIFA? in order to avoid future mistakes in your side, remember that its in discussion wether they are or not Uruguayan Championships, not wether they are official to AUF or not. By those standards then teh 1923 and 1924 championships won by Nacional shouldn't be counted because FUF does not consider them official. Official is a relative term. Uruguayan Championship isn't.

If there were other championships played in Uruguay with Uruguayan teams with a Uruguayan organization, and were relevant enough then they should we included.

Let us not make the article contradictory, but let us not make the article wrong either. We should change the text, not the numbers.

I'm leaving the version before your edit until there is a consesus, don't force your point of view.—Nuno93 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, it is intelectually dishonest to only undo any changes and not adding any of the information that you SAY you agree should be included. Even though I could choose to believe that certain information is irrelevant, I have chosen the long way and added that information. You just seem to wipe out anything you do not agree with. Explain to me how was any of the information I had added wrong or contradictory with any other part of the article, for I have already shown you many a few places were your intended version of it was.

The opinion of AUF is very and unmistakeably clear whenever you look at the trophies themselves and you see the Championship count, whenever you READ an official news bulletin, just as the very last one:

"Montevideo, 3 de junio de 2012

LIGA PROFESIONAL DE 1ª DIVISION MESA EJECUTIVA 109° CAMPEONATO URUGUAYO 2012 – 2013 “Señor CARLOS MARESCA”"

(http://www.auf.org.uy/Portal/FileViewer.ashx?id=2657&download=yes)

Provided that you do not intend in some mathematical revolution as well, you will agree that if you add all the OFFICIAL championships up to date, never will that sum exceed 109 champions. If you CONTINUE to add those two championships for C.A.Peñarol, and the extra one for Atlético Wanderers, that sum will rise to 112. And yet you continue to argue as if it made no difference, or even worse, that the advantage should be on your side, when it is perfectly clear that Peñarol and its predecessor won 47 Uruguayan Championships as far as the official entity is concerned.

And yet you dare patronise the rest of this page's readers with "let us not make the article contradictory" when you return to a version which included flagrant insults to a non-contradiction plea such as saying Peñarol won 49 championships according to A.U.F.? Again, I feel rather insulted by that.

Do consider that I have tried to include as much information as I have understood that the acknowledgement of this controversy deserved, even though I could have just changed the few numbers that I personally do not agree with. And the do consider that it is none other but you who is forcing an evidently contradictory version, adding no explanatory information whatsoever, and acting as if with the knowledge of the site's protocol you could just overrun the rest of it's users and readers.

Kimur (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No information should be added until there is an agreement. Not from my side and neither from yours. 47 as the number of titles is wrong, should be 49, just as it was before your edit.

As I said before, "official" is a relative term. Penarol won 47 Uruguayan Championships from AUF, and 2 from other organizations.Nuno93 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

While I do not agree with the procedure you intend to take. I've changed the article. At this moment it is not contradictory.

Peñarol has won 49 Uruguayan Championships. 47 of those are official to AUF. But, like I said before, official is a relative term. They are official to FIFA, for instance, like I showed before. All of Uruguayan Championships that AUF considers official are Uruguayan Championships, but not all Uruguayan Championships are official to AUF. It is not a If and only if.

A text could be added to the article, if you want. But the numbers shouldn't be changed, as they are correct at this moment.—Nuno93 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have left a message on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Titodutta about this issue.

I agree with your adding of separate lists for F.U.F. and C.P. tournaments. However, I do not find totally honest that you continue to add the F.U.F. championships in Peñarol's and Wanderers' total count. The page is about the official Uruguayan Primera División, dissident entities should be noted, explained, whatever serves the best understanding of the facts, but not mixed up with things that they were not.

I do not agree with cutting the C.U.R.C.C./Peñarol when visualizing final numbers. Be it 47 or 49, since in the very first list we include "C.U.R.C.C. (1)" etc., the totals should include that name too.

Kimur (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, official to whom? The article is about the Uruguayan Championship, which wasn't always organized by AUF.—Nuno93 (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Official to the Uruguayan Football Association, the only entity that rules football in that country, the first entity to have done so, the only one to remain after the Schism, the one from which the clubs that founded the parallel league came from and returned to after 1925. The article is about Uruguayan Primera División, the OFFICIAL FIRST DIVISION LEAGUE and not about any other thing, it is NOT about dissident league's championships, it is NOT about other official tournaments organised by A.U.F. or any other entity. The F.U.F. championships were not Uruguayan Primera División, the Uruguayan Cup was not in game there, and the C.P. was not a Primera División Championship as are not all the other tournaments with which A.U.F. has part in organising. The fact that it is consensual that those other tournaments (F.U.F. and C.P.) should be mentioned is only a recognition of their historical relevance, not of their belonging to a category to which they do not belong.

Furthermore, it AGAIN seems rather dishonest from whoever edited the latest version of this article that no clarification whatsoever is made about what the F.U.F. and C.P. were. Both lists appear in the article as if they were perfectly natural, as if they required no explanation.

Since you made no comment on my last paragraph concerning the continuity between C.U.R.C.C. and C.A. Peñarol I assume you agree with me that it should be made visible each time it is involved in a sentence and/or list.

K Kimur (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

AUF wasn't the only entity in 1923, and wasn't the only one that organized a Uruguayan Championship. The fact that it persists nowadays and FUF doesn't isn't by any means a reason not to include FUF tournaments. Not to mention the fact that both associations were reunited with the Consejo Provisorio. AUF's Uruguayan Cup was not in game on FUF's tournament, but it was in game FUF's Uruguayan Cup. There's no reason not to include the tournaments in one same table, when even FIFA recognizes the titles as Uruguayan Championships.

There should be some text explaining the situation. I wasn't done editing when I recieved the edit warring message and I then decided not to edit anymore, you can check that on my talk page history and this article's.

Both about AUF, FUF, and CP tournaments, and Peñarol's name change, I reckon tables should be left as they are now, but text should be added explaining the situation. That is, that FUF was a federation created by dissident AUF clubs and that the Consejo Provisorio was a tournament of reunification, and that Peñarol's name change wasn't such according to Nacional fans.—Nuno93 (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That there existed two National and internally official entities does not mean that for historical purposes both of them must be taken into the same kind of consideration. The example of two or more random clubs or NTs creating a parallel League or World Cup or whatever, should be enough to show that it is absurd to say that A.U.F. and F.U.F. championships must be taken as if they stood in the same status. They most certainly must not.

The fact that Uruguayan NT took the A.U.F.'s side for the 1924 Summer Olympics shows that they were not in equality even then, that there was not a situation of "there are two Leagues, both of them are basically the same"; that DID NOT happen, not for Uruguay, and not for the rest of the world. Otherwise, after 1925 we would not have had a reunion of teams under the name "A.U.F." or "F.U.F." but under a third neutral name. Since this did not happen, it is evident that the one taken into consideration as the serious league, the one that deserved the recognition of being THE country's league, the one that should have the right to count its Championship as the National Championship, and not the one organised by the dissident league, that was the A.U.F.

As you have been told repeatedly both here and in other talk pages, the information FIFA gives in its web page comes directly from the very institutions involved, it is as partial and contains as many mistakes as if we were to take data from any partidary web page.

Since you did not seem to be happy enough with my intended paragraphs concerning both F.U.F. and C.P. -which I understand, since I found it difficult to insert in the already existing sections- I leave it to you to come to a better solution, which reading your last comment I am sure will be alright. About the Peñarol/CURCC duality, I hope you have the honesty to make it clear whenever it corresponds.

Finally, about having the three non-A.U.F. Uruguayan Championships included in a single figure with the official 109 Uruguayan AUF Championships, I do not believe that we can arrive at a consensual solution. As an older user you probably would know if at these stages a third neutral opinion is best or if there are any previous steps to be taken.

K. Kimur (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not just the fact that two national entities coexisted, it is the fact that both of them were taken into account in the reunification of the Uruguayan Championship in 1926. That shows equality, or at the least the importance of the FUF entity, not to mention the fact that CP's tournament was carried on with AUF tournaments the following year. AUF's, FUF's and CP's tournaments were Uruguayan Championship, you have no right on giving more importance to one or other, thats not neutral. I don't know if they were as tough, as good, etc, I know they were all Uruguayan Championships. All of them organized a Uruguayan Championship and the table is about Uruguayan Championships. Thus, the table should include them.

You are making a lot of assumptions, that goes against Wikipedia:No original research.

I don't know where FIFA gets its information, neither do you, you are assuming. But, even if FIFA got its information from clubs, they decide what to publish and are responsible for the information that appears on their website.

I'll post a paragraph about Peñarol's name change tomorrow here, if you agree with it we can put it in the article. I don't have much experience on english wiki. Give me a day to check it out.—Nuno93 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering recent changes in the article, I thought the sooner the paragraph was added the better [8]. If you don't agree with it, you are welcome to take it out and bring it to discussion.—Nuno93 (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Your starting point is wrong. You say "both [national entities] were taken into account in the reunification", which is simply not true. The only extant entity after this 'reunification' was A.U.F., there was no unification between A.U.F. and F.U.F. but rather a dissolution of F.U.F. and a political intent to give those clubs that had played under the dissident entity the possibility to come back to the Official one. It was not the ENTITY F.U.F. which was taken into account in 1925-26.

You keep talking about the Uruguayan Championship of 1926 when nothing ever had that name. The C.P. tournament was an official one but had not the value or the name of a Uruguayan Championship. Arguing that it should be counted with the Uruguayan Primera División Championships is as absurd as if I started adding all the other official or non-official tournaments ever played in Uruguay and say "this was played in Uruguay, by uruguayan teams, officially or not, ergo they were Uruguayan Championships".

The only assumption I am making about F.I.F.A. is that its website exhibits an allarming absence of reliability, showing no interest on checking information, etc. As an example I already showed you how the very name of C.U.R.C.C. is given wrongly (in http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=1882532/index.html , "Central UruguayAN [etc.]" instead of "Central Uruguay [etc.]"). In that very page you can see another flagrant mistake: "Professional era: 49 Uruguayan professional championships". Or, just to look at Nacional's article (http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=1882531/index.html), you can find errors like "a merger between Uruguay ATLETICA Club" instead of "Athletic", "Nacional won three league titles from 1902 to 1904" (when there is no 1904 champion), in the list of "Legendary players" appears "Hugo León" instead of "DE León". You may find many mistakes in any particular article you choose (for example: http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/stadiums/stadium=34866/index.html : "Uruguayan captain Jose Nazassi" instead of Nasazzi, or http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/rivalries/newsid=1060808/index.html : "Nacional bravely hung on that day for the draw with only eight men" instead of "NINE men", referring later to Gerardo Pelusso as Peñarol's coach). What I am showing you is that F.I.F.A.'s website is only as reliable as a partidary website, or even less, therefore I would suggest that its been taken as a source should be regarded very carefully, and whatever information be drawn from it be confirmed with more sources.

Saying that AUF, Conmebol and FIFA recognize Peñarol as being the same as CURCC with only a name change, is as irrelevant -in relation with those source's reliability- as saying that a fan page says so.

Saying that it is "Nacional fans" who argue that CURCC and Peñarol are two different entities is dishonest. The 'Informe del Decanato' was supported by the whole institution and what is argued there continues to be supported by the institution to this day. That sentece should be changed.

Both in the Amateur and Total titles by club rises again the problem of putting together things that do not belong together. "Montevideo Wanderers" did not win four titles, it won only three. It was a subsidiary reserve team that won the first FUF championship. Montevideo Wanderers participated also in the AUF tournament, so it would make no sense to state that a team that ended elsewhere in a year's championship is that year's champion. Peñarol can not have won a champioship belonging to the same category where a number exists that represents another team's championship. If Nacional has 44 titles, Peñarol/CURCC can not have 49, and Wanderers can not have 4.

K.

Kimur (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Call it however you wanna call it. The fact remains that both tournaments were joined in one with the Consejo Provisorio in 1926. It is by no means absurd, its only logical that the league tournament played in 1926 be considered a Uruguayan Championship. Don't take my word for it, take FIFA's.

I dunno what a typo in CURCC's name and a misplaced number (check that under the "profesionall titles" heading only professional titles are shown) have to do with anything. Clearly FIFA takes the 1924 and 1926 tournaments as Uruguayan Championships. Don't get this wrong and I do apologise if you do, but I find your attempt to discredit a FIFA source because they translated a word they shouldn't have or because they wrote wrong some surnames, ridiculous. The FIFA source is still strong and very much reliable.

How is the opinion of the currently ruling organization of Uruguay not important? Same goes to Conmebol and FIFA? Their opinion is what matters the most. Information in AUF's official website, Conmebol's official website and FIFA's official website is as reliable as it can get.

That other Wanderers team was still managed by Wanderers. It makes perfect sense when you take into account that there were two different Uruguayan Championships. Still, text could be added to mention Wanderers' situation.

I agree though, that it should be "Nacional" and not "Nacional fans".—Nuno93 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football seems pretty active. I think we could ask there for opinions and eventually vote. Nonetheless, I think we should agree on the text before we move on to that talk page. That way it is only left to decide wether to put 47 instead of 49 in Peñarol and 3 instead of 4 in Wanderers. Would make things easier. What is more, I reckon we should agree on two texts, one with your position and another one with mine. That way we make sure we don't make another endless discussion there and we keep our new comments in this talk page. What do you think?—Nuno93 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the most acceptable solution at this point of the 'talk'.

Kimur (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

So do you in fact reckon that we should agree both on a text for the article and a text for the wikiproject?—Nuno93 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I reckon that if we go for a third opinion or set of opinions outside this space, bringing two texts there that contain the two proposed versions would probably help to the clarity of whatever comments are made in that Talk-page. Whether the opinions that come from there say that it will be best to use one of the proposed versions, or that it will be best to take one as a basis and add changes there, both possibilities are fine by me. I am not sure if that answers your question.

K. Kimur (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Updating and corrections

In the section Professional Era there are a couple of mistakes. First there is a type-o in "Progresso" for "Progreso".

Then there is an outdated fact: "The most success club is Peñarol with 37 titles", that should read 38 (as in the list).

Finally, I think there is a factual mistake here: "It took 54 seasons before a club besides Peñarol or Nacional won a title, when Defensor won their first title 1976." Unless I misunderstood the idea of the sentence, it focuses on the period of time between championships won by teams other than Nacional or Peñarol, and that is 45 and not 54 (1976 [Defensor] - 1931 [Montevideo Wanderers] = 45).

Kimur (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have just corrected both the 'Progresso' type-o and the 37 vs. 38 professional issue. Since I am not completely sure about what is the intention in the third issue I left it untouched until someone else confirms that it is a mistake. Kimur (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles about Uruguayan Primera Division

Why the articles corresponding to the Uruguayan championships from 2007 added "season" in the name? The idea is that all add "season" at the end or not? --Laln93 (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/League_season

"If there are two separate championships played over the course of one season (for example, in many Latin American countries with their Apertura/Clausura system) OR the season is decided by a knock-out tournament after the conclusion of the regular season (e.g. Major League Soccer, Australian A-League), the word "season" should be attached to the title."

Before reading the WP I had assumed that the change from "XXX Uruguayan Primera División" to "XXX U.P.D. season" referred to the adjustement to the European calendar (i.e.: with a single tournament being played over two different years), but it seems like all championships from 1994 on (since the Apertura and Clausura format was implemented) should be re-named (except for -at least- the 2005 Championship). Even those championships which included final rounds (i.e.: 1971) might have to be re-named.

Kimur (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Page title in two languages

I find it odd to call this page "Uruguayan Primera División". It sounds as if that is the actual name of the league. Why not stick to one language? Either "Primera División de Uruguay" (as used in the Spanish WP) or "Uruguayan First Division" or even the name currently redirecting to this page, "Primera División Uruguaya". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

See Primera división and also check Talk:La Liga for the last page move discussion. Several other Latin America leagues are named like this one. --Carioca (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carioca. Thanks for your help. The discussion you kindly pointed me to is about La Liga, and for what it is worth here right now, it is of no consequence anywhere as "The result of the move request was no consensus". It does however mention an earlier discussion that would be helpful to find, which says that "as per a discussion and consensus at WikiProject Football, the format "demonym Primera División" has been chosen as the best naming format for all Primera Divisións" ( October 2009). The embedded link points to the main page of WikiProject Football, not to the discussion itself. Searching the archives, there are 38 mentions of "primera división", (32 if you type with the accent on the 'o'), but no mention of that term in 2009 or earlier, as one would expect from the claim above made in 2009. In the discussion there is also a very valid statement that says that "We do not invent English usage, especially when the result is a little-used Spanish-English hybrid. This is a fundamental tenet of WP:NAME resulting from WP:V.". I agree with that, it is the point I am making. I am contacting user Digirami, to see if he can point us to the right archive where the discussion would be. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Finding the right discussion is going to be tough. There have been several that have essentially lead us to the naming of this and similar articles. The first revolved around consistency. For a while, all the Primera Divisions following one of two naming formats (using Uruguay as an example): Primera Division de Uruguay or Primera Division Uruguaya. The one Primera Division that did not follow that format was La Liga. I believe we settled on the former, with La Liga staying as is. After a while, it became quite apparently that the settled naming format was not the common name in English usage (keyword there). While all the leagues are referred to in their native Spanish (simply Primera Division), the adjective used to the differentiate between would naturally be in English; the demonym. Referring to these leagues as First Division should not be considered since it is not used. Neither should the official names since they are in not common usage and vary in complexity from league to league. The current format is a compromise and is the best compromise. There is precedent, albeit few since primary official languages are pretty much exclusive to their countries and the names of the leagues are unique, especially in Europe. The one notable precedent is Austrian Football Bundesliga. I'll get around to finding the relevant discussions soon. Digirami (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Digirami. I guess a lot of work has already gone into this, but nonetheless would still like to pose the question: would it not work calling them all "Primera División" with the country name in brackets, as is the came with cities and town with the same name? So we would have Primera División (Uruguay), Primera División (El Salvador), Primera División (Bolivia), Primera División (Chile), etc. Does that not look like a workable solution? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the fact that these links that I thought I was making up turned out blue (and are now redirects) tells me that the idea is not new. So there must have been a reason why it was not used, I guess. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Name = Uruguayan Primera División is a mic if English and Spanish and is uncorrect

Uruguayan is the person's affiliation/nationality; Uruguay is for the nation. Co "Uruguayan Primera División" is incorrect id the original Spanish is "Uruguay Primera División".Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ondino Vieira 1967.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)