Jump to content

Talk:S.L. Benfica/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Great coaches of SLB

Strangely, some of the most successfull and famous SLB coaches were missing:

  1. Cosme Damião - 8 championships
  2. Janos Biri - 3 championships, 3 cups
  3. Otto Glória - 4 championships + 5 cups
  4. Lajos Czeizler - Only two titles with SLB, but an industry all time great
  5. Jimmy Hagan - 3+1 in four years
  6. Tomislav Ivic - 0 titles, but an industry all time great

Oalexander-En 16:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

The club has two nicknames: one complimentary, one not. They're both explained in the article — why should one be omitted from the infobox? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There has been vandalism in this page. Please take care.

I would suggest putting this page under a semi-protection policy because the one who vandalized this page isn't a registered member. --Thorius Maximus 18:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Diabos Vermelhos is only the name of one of the groups of supporters and not a nickname of Benfica team itself

SL Benfica redirect

SL Benfica is a disambig between this article and SL Benfica (basketball). Shouldn't it redirect here (as by far the most common use) and a link to a disambiguation page, such as SL Benfica (disambigation) added to the top of this page? -- Chuq 01:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Feherinc.jpg

Image:Feherinc.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 07:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Detailed history statistics

Does anyone know a site with the detailed statistics of Benfica history. Something like this? [1]

I have no problem doing the hard work. Ordep 03:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Important or famous players in Benfica's history

There are some players in this list, that are neither important or famous at least for Benfica. Some of them only played 20 or so matches in only one season. Ordep 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And i found somewhat strange a column for the 1990´s and only a column for the 1900-50 period. I think it should be divided into decades (1900-2007). --Eagle Fly Free SLB 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I based that in some other site clubs i saw, and even with only one column from 1900 to 1950 there isn't any player.
If you know players from that era, please add them. Ordep 21:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Greatest ever team

Never saw this before... Tahar, Nuno Gomes ??? I seriously doubt it. --Eagle Fly Free SLB 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is unsourced. It needs sourcing about supposed "voting by supporters" and certainly the wording of "best ever" does not follow WP:NPOV Alexf(t/c) 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Who did the field positions ??? Rogério (is "Pipi" not "Pipis" and this is a nickname, not his name on the field), played in the left-side, Nené is placed as winger (only in the beginning of his career in the club he was on that position), Aldair in the midfield , Veloso as a central defender (or is it a libero ?! , he only played as a central defender a few times), H. Coelho on the right side... this is completely wrong... --Eagle Fly Free SLB 00:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I vote for deleting the section. It seems like not NPOV anyway. -- Alexf(t/c) 00:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Me too. --Eagle Fly Free SLB 01:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Current Squad

Freddy Adu has not finalized his contract negotiations and therefore should not be included as an acquisition, let alone a member of the 2007 squad. While I am aware that he is to fly to Lisbon in order to make his final decision, there is no credible source stating that such a decision has been made yet. Remove him, please.

Done. SHould be inserted as a new player when/if he signs and there is confirmation from reliable sources. -- Alexf(t/c) 11:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rodrigo has NOT been confirmed as a Benfica player yet and the Ramires to Chelsea FC tranfer has not either. These are only newspaper speculations. NOTHING has been confirmed by the teams involved nor in the CMVM. PLEASE refrain from posting rumors and unofficial news, as fact.

Atenção:

Rui Nereu já não é jogador do Benfica. http://futebolar.portugalmail.pt/artigo/20070605/academica-rui-nereu-assina-por-tres-anos

Por Vsnunes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsnunes (talk • contribs) 18:56, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

E o Jorge Ribeiro ainda não foi confirmado. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippo Montefiore (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

S.C. Benfica Rabo de Peixe

What ?? --Eagle Fly Free SLB 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Gilles removed

Gilles was removed because Fernando Santos, last manager, had decided to loan him to Estrela da Amadora F.C. Gilles was integrated to squad yesterday because António Camacho, the new manager, decided to give him a chance to show his value, and to fill the space left by Manuel Fernandes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aritajustino (talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Deleting sports

Benfica as no relevance in rugby ?? lol, the oldest portuguese club, winner of an important international trophy... Skating ? no important ? Benfica was national champion almost 40 years in a row... swimming ?? omg... --Eagle Fly Free SLB 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's morelike.., does rughy have importance for benfica? But i must say i have few knowledge of these sports in Benfica. So if i'm wrong please do correct me. But it should have some real information not like some sports that were there. Like gymnastic had only this info, "Benfica has a gymnastics department". This is no useful information. Ordep 02:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The article should have every active sports department of Benfica. It doesn't matters if the section is a stub or not. If, in your opinion, you think it is a stub, you must add more content to the section, but it would be more accurate to leave it in the article than delete the information. Miguelzinho 11:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion there are some departments that don't have great importance in the club's history. I don't think we should put every active department, just because it's active. For what i have seen in other club's sites, they don't account for every department.
In another point, in my opinion the biggest gap of this article is the club's history (http://www.slbenfica.pt/Clube/Historia/Fundacao/fundacao.asp). Other, Telma Monteiro was hired 1 month ago, and already is a Notable Figure of Benfica? Not! Only recent i have read this, Wikipedia:Recentism. Ordep 12:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

does rugby have importance for benfica? - yes, it does, Benfica made a sport agreement with Almada for the developing of Rugby. Otherwise, Benfica has a Rugby department for 80 years... the problem is not Benfica's rugby section, but the potential of the national Rugby (so far away of the national team achievements). Surely it´s not Benfica's fault, although i can say i would prefer to see Rugby in the Stadium :) But it should have some real information - well, all the information is necessary, i don't understand why is not important to write down all Benfica's sport departments active nowadays (hence the eclecticism of the club). About Telma Monteiro: listen, Telma Monteiro just won the most important medal of Portuguese judo. It´s like Benfica hire some athlete and he or she won a gold medal at Olympic Games, one month later... in my humble opinion, that achievement makes of him or her a notable athlete of Benfica. Everything above was written by Eagle Fly Free SLB user, unfortunately i don´t have my Wikipedia password on this computer (this is not my own pc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.63.94.237 (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So, who's going to add all that active sports departments? Miguelzinho 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
long-term historical perspective - don´t worry about this (Recentism), i have a good idea of Benfica's History. I agree that the History´ section it´s weak, because it is only written from the football perspective. About the active sports departments, i can add them, slowly ;) Do you think it´s interesting to write a small football section in the sports section, then creating another article with the squad ? because, in my opinion, although the football it´s "the most important" sport of the club, Benfica article should have a general view, avoiding any particular item (stadium section with main article link, History section with main article link, every sports section with main links, etc...). What do you think about this ?? --Eagle Fly Free SLB 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a difficult decision. Football is by far the most popular sport in the club and most people would search this article in order to read about the men's football team. But I agree that Sport Lisboa e Benfica - Futebol S.A.D. is the proper place to have the encyclopedic article of Benfica's football. Miguelzinho 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

List of notable football players of Benfica's history

How many seasons or games should a player have played for Benfica, to deserve being on the list? There are too many players in recent years who have done nothing for the club. There can and will be some exceptions, but now there is just too much. Ordep 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right. There are too many players in the list, some of them would be better suited for a list of Benfica's failed players. Miguelzinho 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. Maybe there should be two different pages: one for the "notable players" other for the "former players" (those who played for Benfica, but can´t be considered "notable"). --Eagle Fly Free SLB 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I still wonder if it would be more simple to build a list of "legends" on the Benfica's football article and move the "former players" to the Category "Benfica football players". Miguelzinho 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

About the Portuguese Cup

I already state my opinion on the Cup of Portugal' discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cup_of_Portugal). Benfica didn´t won 27 Portuguese Cups, but 24 Portuguese Cups and 3 National Championships. Yes, they were both knock-out competitions. But they were also different competitions, with different rules. So, i think this should be changed. --Eagle Fly Free SLB 14:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated History

I do not endorse many things written in the History section:

By now, football was clearly the club's most important sport (1940's) - Football was always the most important sport in the club, since the very beginning. That is why in 1908 the club maintained the Sport Lisboa's foundation date.

The Latin Cup was then seen as one of Europe's most prestigious European Cups in a time when UEFA had yet to launch its unified European Cups. - The Latin Cup was the most prestigious european cup, in the beginning of the 1950's. In the past, the Mitropa Cup was the most important, but like the second world war destroyed so much, the Mitropa Cup lost his power after the war. UEFA did not exist when the Latin Cup was created ! UEFA was founded in 15 June 1954, and by the time, six latin cup editions already had been played.

Portuguese cup was not held in 1950 due to the Latin Cup being organised in Portugal. - Not only about this: The Latin Cup was held after the end of the 1949\50 championship. The portuguese cup not being held this season was mostly an excuse to FPF's decision to play the games of the world cup qualifying (1950) with better preparation. There were also other problems as well: You can read this clearly here: [2] --Eagle Fly Free SLB (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Paintball

I'm a complete newbie to wikipedia, but I thought I should point out that SLB has recently aquired[3] a tournament paintball team playing in the SPL division of the millenium series[4]. I can't find much information about it and google refuses to translate the SLB website to english, so some help would be appreciated. I expect it will take some time and some backing before the team can advance to the professional division, but every sport SLB are involved in should be mentioned somewhere on the wiki.

Vijilnz (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

"Benfica was once the most successful club in Portugal with a total of 31 Portuguese Liga, 27 Portuguese Cup, 4 SuperCup Cândido de Oliveira, 2 UEFA Champions League and 1 Latin Cup, but in the last decades its performance has been shadowed by those of F.C. Porto and Sporting Club de Portugal."

Overshadowed by F.C.Porto yes, absolutelly. But by Sporting C.P? Who wrote this absurd? Also: it still is the most sucessfull club in portugal, if the measure is total award count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.85.124 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Squad Changes

Someone please put back the 2008/2009 Squad changes for Benfica please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.105.10 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Bias

Could this be any more biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.5.250 (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly... 89.180.180.12 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable former players

Well, after an attempt to change some of the names within the section "Notable former players", which has been cancelled, I decided to write this comment.

It's interesting to see that players like: Jean-Jacques Eydelie Abdelkrim El Hadrioui Ricardo Rojas Basarab Panduru Serhiy Kandaurov Emílio Peixe Jorge Cadete José Tavares Hans-Jörg Butt Francisco Fonseca Andrei Karyaka Ivan Dudic Anders Andersson Freddy Adu Carlos Bossio Are part of of our notable formaer players, while players like: Minervino Pietra Stromberg Elzo Kulkov Ze Gato Neno Carlos Alhinho Argel (others) Are not part of our notable former players. It's hard to understand the criteria behind the line up? Did someone made a poll asking the pets and the girlfriend which player should be chosen? How can a player like Rojas be casted as a notable former player??? ridiculous... what has he accomplished in our club? Jean Jacques Eyedelie? who was he? Was he famous because he bribed players from the other team while in france? It's the only possible reason, it can't be null results obtained having the glorious red shirt on. Fonseca? Someone must be ludacris here. He played for half a season and went away, scored one or two goals in the championship.... who was he? Butt? Has he played any game in the championship?

I would strongly consider a good revision on these names. I'm truly sorry but I believe we should not add names for the sake of adding names.... I believe we should not insult the memory of our club by mixing players like eusebio, sheu han, Regerio Pipi, Mario Coluna, or even recent names like Simao, Poborsky, Jonas Thern, with some of the players listed above. Some sense should prevail when choosing notable players, and the person writing this article should be aware of them. I refuse to say what the person that cancelled my update should do. I'll try to go along with the moral standards that should be in place in wikipedia.

One other thing... Pablo Aimar and Oscar Cardozo are identified as Notable former players.... Former is the key word here.... Have they left the club? With no disregard for the players, when they leave the club (nobody will play forever), if they had the right attitude in and out the pitch, they may be considered as great and notable former players, but they surely are not that yet.

Final thing, the links in the section should be revised as some dead links are just wrongly typed or mis directed. The person maintaining this page should have some love for the club itself and maintain a quality page. For many individuals throughout the world this is/will be the first contact with the club. Try to bear that in mind.

Thanks for reading the comment and please appologize my bad mood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose.pedro.vaz (talk • contribs) 16:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Surely that whole section of notable people should go? It makes the article so long as to be absurd. By all means there could be a separate article with them (and all the debate that goes with it about who should or should not be there), but not in the main article. --Bcnviajero (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Without a third-party source identifying who are Benfica's 'notable' players this is original research and not permitted on Wikipedia. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The image File:UEFA cup logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Better english and a more encyclopedic view on the club

This article needs a less bias evaluation of what SL Benfica is. Remember this is not a vanity show, this is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. It's very confusing ATM and lacks sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.95.153.233 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jorge Jesus Era (Irrelevant Information)

There seems to be a lot of text written about an era of the club encompassing only 2 or 3 months since Jorge Jesus is in the club. The official matches and season hasn't even started and theres already a chapter with 10+ lines about a "new era"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Symbolicpt (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Away "colours"

It just the home shirt and socks with the actual away shorts. Should be classed as a home change rather than an away kit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VEO15 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Current Squad

On what sources do you claim that César Peixoto is playing as a left defender instead of Fábio Coentrão? Benfica does not seem to have a defined XI for the season - there is a lot of squad rotation going on there. http://www.lpfp.pt/liga_sagres/pages/jogo.aspx?epoca=20092010&jornada=7&jogo=5746 - Fábio Coentrão started in this match. --TheBestPilarYouWillEverSee (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Rodrigo has NOT been confirmed as a Benfica player yet and the Ramires to Chelsea FC tranfer has not either. These are only newspaper speculations. NOTHING has been confirmed by the teams involved nor in the CMVM. PLEASE refrain from posting rumors and unofficial news, as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.105.215 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Summer transfers

Why can we not have a section below the current squad of summer transfers? It was there, then was removed. I attempted to place it back but then it was removed again. This format is very common on football team pages across wikipedia. The information is relevant and interesting to have on the team page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.109.233 (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and not a news service, WP:NOT#NEWS, adding seasonal transfers holds no historical significance, however you can create a account and create either a 2002–03 Chelsea F.C. season or a List of German football transfers summer 2009 article. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 12:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Javier Balboa

Javier Balboa´s number is unknown, although he is returning to Benfica for the next season

http://www.arisfc.gr/index.cfm?pid=2&view=detail&id=1316

http://www.planetbenfica.co.uk/page.php?100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.249.121 (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why the likes of Planet Benfica (slbenfica.co.uk) was removed from the links section, it's probably the best and only source you will find on Benfica in English, because the official site has zero. (EDIT: Not as of mid February, but still broken English and little content.)

Maybe worth putting others like slbenfica.pl and slbenfica.ru in it as well, albeit none are official, these sites are updated regularly in their respective languages, with planet benfica probably being the best non-portuguese one out there with daily news and a whole community of supporters in English.

EDIT: If more appropriate the other ones can go to their respective language pages about Benfica as external links, but the English one should definitely be on this English Benfica page, it's more than relevant.

Let me know your thoughts, otherwise I will add it myself.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.238.35 (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Merging "Rebuilding Years" with "Jorge Jesus Era"

I don't think a league win and a a league cup are such a big performance leap do create a new section in the history. Benfica is still "rebuilding" and only time will tell if there is actually a new era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symbolicpt (talk • contribs) 12:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, whoever decided to do this was someone so happy to see their club win after a long serious of disappointments and cheating that he/she though it should be rubbed on Wikipedia's virtual face. I find it sad that Portuguese morons come here and spread their sad misery belief in a club that has factually and statistically been shown as the most corrupt, previliged and ignorant-to-fan-ratio club in all of the Portuguese history if not of the whole World. I would like to lock this article and have only foreign editors edit this page as well as other portuguese club pages. It is a shame that Benfica fans come here with little knowledge of english, much like myself, and insert pages of false facts. Moreover this is the only club that has "historical results" (note that statistically there are more negative historical results and positive and, so, we can see that this too was a way to repress anger towards the smallness of the club). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.74.116 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

C´mon, guys, this is stupid, Jorge Jesus has won a title in his first year, the League Cup twice and reached the semis of the Europa League — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.91.130.106 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Honours

Under the "Honours" section, it says that the club won the league title 32 times, last time being in 2010-11. Shouldn't that be 2009-10? I didn't want to change the article without being sure.TonyStarks (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Latin Cup

It is not a friendly competition, it was organized by the Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian federations. Therefore it is an official competition, although not an UEFA one.79.224.57.63 (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As has been observed, those were lies. 2.82.66.117 (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It was organized by four federations, therefore it is an official competition. It is a historical fact. It doesn't help to say "it's a lie", just because you don't like the club. It is proven, there are documents that show it was organized by all of the above mentioned federations and it is listed as such. cf Latin Cup 79.224.52.224 (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do Honors section have friendlies tournaments?

I think Friendlies tournaments should be deleted from Honors section. No major clubs has them besides they're official competition's, and also, they're in the main article present at beginning of the section. Anyone agree's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threeohsix (talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah... I guess. Or just create a page for it and then remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.10.3 (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What about "Campeonato de Lisboa", "Taça de Honra" and "Taça Ribeiro dos Reis"? Should they be removed altough they are not friendly competitions?

After removal the pictures need to be reorganized/resized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.10.3 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Only the friendlies tournaments should be removed. Need more feedback about this.--Threeohsix (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the Friendly Competitions are a sign of prestige and also display information about pre-seasons and the relationship with other clubs/people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In what way? Benfica it's to big to need friendlies to have prestige.--Threeohsix (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the friendly competitions and resized some pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk • contribs) 22:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of coaches

I think Camacho and Jesus pics should be removed. Benfica had greater coaches (=more titles) and they don't deserve a picture? That's why I only added important pictures to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk • contribs) 23:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree that only really important events/people should have a picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk • contribs) 23:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I added them because the article is really poor on photos. I expect you to add other pictures of former coaches and added them to the article. --Threeohsix (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine how it is now. I would add a photo of Trapattoni (to The rebuilding years) and Jesus (to Jorge Jesus Era to the Present) but it would be unfair to other important people that were part of the club, including players, presidents, managers, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup and European Super Cup/Uefa Super Cup

Do the Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup and European Super Cup/Uefa Super Cup count as European finals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.162.126 (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't. 85.242.17.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Then why is the Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira regarded as a final when it is also disputed in one game? I went to UEFA's site and they refer to the UEFA Super Cup as a final... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.78.240 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

This user 85.242.17.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – keeps reverting my edits. I believe the work I've done on this page has improved it. I've made sections less cluttered and easier to read using the pages of other big clubs as templates. He has accused me of vandalism and I only have this account so I can vandalise the page, which isn't the case. I support Benfica so why would I do this? Unlike him I'm a registered user. The way I see it he is the one performing vandalism. If you compare our edits you can see that mine are improvements and not vandalism, which isn't his case. Please, can someone block him? Andrewm19912 (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's simply not true. You are the one vandalizing the page by reverting all the edits made by other users and that's being going for a long time. I have contributed enough to this article and I have followed your edits and it's clear that you are lying. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk)
Exactly, BenficaNNossaPaixao. I'm not the one you're talking about, Andrewm19912, but you are a liar. You're the one vandalizing the page. You reverted everyone's edits when what they wrote was correct (they even made a reference proving that they were right) and you replaced it with wrong information. Improved? By deleting content and writing wrong information? Which isn't the case? LOL It's because you're stupid. It is yours which are vandalism and all but yours which are improvements. Can someone block you? They're not registered unlike you but what about it? Does that make your edits better than theirs? You only have that account? And what about it?
You cannot remove information like "European finals campaigns" and other useful information by force. You cannot add information that is not relevant to the article by force. You cannot do anything by force on Wikipedia that's why there are rules; that's why this discussion page exists. How can users respect your "work" if you don't respect theirs? 81.193.43.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I think further changes need to be discussed here, the history section of the page looks like a warzone. Some changes are good, others not. We need to reach a consensus before changing something. I believe everyone here is well intentioned and actually is a benfica fan, so please discuss. I have had my clashes in here, but I learn it's better to talk directly to the other user, instead of starting a revert war.--Threeohsix (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Honestly I think some people pretend to be fans of Benfica but they are here just to ruin the page. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk)

Wrong link addressed to Portuguese Wikipedia article

Hello all. I present a problem with the language link for Portuguese article, which I've tried to correct but without success. When we select "Português" in the left language slider, we jump to http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Equipamentos_do_Sport_Lisboa_e_Benfica, but the correct one should be http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_Lisboa_e_Benfica. In the language "Edit links" table it's all correct. Note: as far as I can tell this only happens when we try to jump to the Portuguese article coming from the English one. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.91.3.242 (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are right. I don't know how to fix it but the workaround is to disable the link to http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Equipamentos_do_Sport_Lisboa_e_Benfica BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

History section

The history section is far too big. A new article is needed to further describe the history, so can the history section in the main arcticle be cut down to half. The lead is also too cluttered, most of it, would be better in "records" article. And no, i am not doing it.--Threeohsix (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Fixed4u (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, nothing would be deleted, just moved from one place to another. Its commom practise in other big clubs.--Threeohsix (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Except those "big clubs" have a big History of CLUB article. Fixed4u (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Latin Cup

Latin Cup isn't recognized by UEFA but it's part of Benfica history. Two IP addresses have been trying to remove that information. 85.246.179.195 (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed because it isn't recognized by UEFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.77.31 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

4 consecutive Portuguese Cups

Benfica won 4 consecutive editions of Portuguese Cup (1948-49, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53) even though "the 1949-50 edition of the Portuguese Cup was not held due to the Latin Cup being held in the Estádio Nacional". SLBedit (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you saying this? Who said it didn't win 4 consecutive Portuguese Cups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.77.31 (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
85.247.71.127 (probably you) edited with the following message "You're a vandal. Benfica never won 4 consecutive Portuguese Cups, but 3, so it's who is wrong." SLBedit (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably me? That's why I'm complaining about it! LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.81.67 (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Error

It's written the same thing twice: "(...) (the only Portuguese club to have played three European Cup finals, moreover consecutively, and with the most finals played)" and "(...) Benfica has reached 10 European finals, which ranks seventh all-time among UEFA clubs and is also a Portuguese record". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.4.164 (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You're messing things. One things is being the club with the most European Cup finals played and other is being the club with the most UEFA finals played, in which are counted all the competitions organised by it and not only the European Cup finals.

Vandalism

Why did you remove the parts which said that winning 4 consecutive Portuguese Cups is a record, winning 4 consecutives Portuguese League Cups is a record, not conceding any goal in the Portuguese League Cup is a record, having become european champions consecutively is a record and having played 2 consecutive Intercontinental Cups is a record if they are all correct? Also, the Intercontinental Cup wasn't a worldwide competition, but a intercontinental one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.4.164 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No idea. You're correct. Benfica is also the only portuguese clube to have reached the UEFA Youth Leage final.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.77.31 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(I have a feeling that I'm talking to the same person with different IPs)

That doesn't make any sense because that guy corrected me in the other topic.

Because it's implied. "a record of 33 Primeira Liga titles, a record of 25 Taça de Portugal (and 4 consecutively)"

Ok, didn't see it.

"having become european champions consecutively" equals to "a Portuguese feat", it's inedit, a record, a feat.

Ok.

"The 2013–14 season was one of the best in the club's history as Benfica won its 33rd champion title, its fifth Taça da Liga, without conceding a single goal (record)."

Didn't see it again.

"having played 2 consecutive Intercontinental Cups" Benfica won 2 European Cups consecutively = 2 consecutive Intercontinental Cups.

Ok, but it should be written that Benfica was the only Portuguese club to play in a Intercontinental Cup because FC Porto played in two Toyota Cups, which, like its name suggests, were organized by Toyota and not UEFA or FIFA (the Intercontinental Cups were organized by UEFA and CONMEBOL) and therefore shouldn't be recognized by UEFA or FIFA like the Latin Cup, Iberian Cup, Mitropa Cup, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, the first edition of the European Cup Winners' Cup, etc.

"the Intercontinental Cup wasn't a worldwide competition" Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, Manchester United count it as a worldwide trophy. It makes sense because it's disputed between teams from different continents.

And? They're wrong. It makes sense? A "competition" disputed by only two continental champions is a world competition? LOL Even FIFA said it wasn't a club world cup, unlike the FIFA Club World Cup.

"Benfica is also the only portuguese clube to have reached the UEFA Youth Leage final" S.L. Benfica Juniors.

That doesn't appear in this page. I think that's what he meant. Nevertheless, that isn't said there.

Try to keep the article simple. SLBedit (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You're the one who's not keeping it simple.


It should be also written that Benfica is the only Portuguese club to have won 2 consecutive Championships of Portugal, the only one to have played in three consecutive UEFA finals and it's the best ranked Portuguese club in UEFA rankings. Also, Benfica is the only Portuguese club to have won the Supercup or International competitions and the League Cup and you didn't say that so I think it's better to say that Benfica is the only Portuguese club to have won the Primeira Liga and the League Cup in the same season, twice. By the way, Benfica is the club with the most UEFA Europa League games played.

Records and statistics

In the records and statistics section I think it would be relevant to say that the 18-0 aggregate against Stade Dudelange is still the largest difference in an aggregate score in UEFA European Cup/Champions League. 213.41.145.180 (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. SLBedit (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Latin Cup and Iberian Cup relevance

Although, the Latin Cup was not a UEFA competition (as it is also prior to UEFA itself), I don't understand why it is not referred in the club's honours, as it was a relevant competion at the time, and of course official as it was organised by 4 FIFA national federations. The same applies to Iberian Cup. It is irrelevant if UEFA doesn't recognise it as official, which is obvious as it was not organised by UEFA. It is a major honour and it is official for 2 national federations, as the national cups and supercups are official to its national federation.

For instance, at the AC Sparta Prague page it's given the due relevance to Mitropa Cup, another important competition before UEFA competitions. At the PFC Lokomotiv Sofia it is given relevance to Balkans Cup (a competition with much less relevance than Latin Cup even to organising countries) and European Railways Cup (an exclusive competition). UEFA doesn't recognise as well the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, even consider it a rival competition for European Cup on its earlier editions, nonetheless it is considered at FC Barcelona honours. Other examples: Commonwealth of Independent States Cup for FC Spartak Moscow; Coupe des Nations for Újpest FC; Baltic League for FK Ventspils; Setanta Sports Cup for Linfield F.C.; and Atlantic Cup (Europe) for B36 Tórshavn - I've selected these but I could have selected any other winners. These competitions are also not official to UEFA, but are also organised by national federations. What does make them more relevant than Latin Cup or even Iberian Cup?

I don't understand the hate for Latin Cup, it is more important than most of the competitions I referred before but somehow the others are considered major honours and Latin Cup isn't. 213.41.145.180 (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It's just because UEFA doesn't recognize Latin Cup as an official trophy. I agree that other trophies you mentioned aren't more important than Latin Cup or even Iberian Cup. FC Barcelona article about the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup: "Considered a major title by FIFA (see FIFA.com F.C. Barcelona's profile at http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=44217/) but generally not an official title, as the competition was not organised by UEFA". SLBedit (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
But UEFA doesn't recognise either the other tournaments I talked about. Answer me this: does UEFA recognise Campeonato de Portugal as an official competition? The correct answer is: no! Because it is not a UEFA competition, nonetheless it is official. FIFA was also represented at the meetings which preceded the organisation of the Latin Cup. I can't find the relevance of UEFA concerning this issue. No one says it is a UEFA competition. 213.41.145.180 (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Campeonato de Portugal is not listed at http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50147/profile/index.html. Atlético de Madrid lists the Iberian Cup, FC Barcelona and Stade de Reims mention the Latin Cup. Athletic Bilbao lists the Latin Cup in International competitions. SLBedit (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't find it as well as other domestic competitions. I think it only talks about the international trophies. It doesn't even mention that Benfica won the League Cup and the Supercup this year so does that mean that they're not official either? The UEFA site should be the most credible source but it is a joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.81.67 (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
So, why is Campeonato de Portugal and the other international competitions referred in major honours and the Latin Cup, who is also official, not?
At these links they talk about the first edition and the federation representatives of Spain, Italy and France:

http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1949/06/25/pagina-2/1346093/pdf.html http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1949/06/25/pagina-2/1346093/pdf.html

Here the confirmation it was organised by the federations and meetings were made for its definition:

http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1948/12/30/pagina-1/664564/pdf.html

Here the confirmation that it was Jules Rimet, FIFA president, who presided the Latin Cup Comitee - it is a title in first page, you don't need to know spanish to understand it:

http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1949/01/01/pagina-1/664572/pdf.html 213.41.145.180 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added information about the Iberian Cup. SLBedit (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

UEFA doesn't care about the Latin Cup. S.L. Benfica#Footnotes SLBedit (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I find that footnote completely irrelevant. It was not a UEFA competition, it doesn't have to be considered official to UEFA. Will you also add that Portuguese League is not official to RFEF? 213.41.145.180 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The footnote explains why the Latin Cup is listed there because I am sure someone will try to remove it in the near future once the article changes to non-protected. SLBedit (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

UEFA and FIFA suck! They count the Toyota Cup and the first edition of the European Cup Winners' Cup when they weren't organized by them (the requisite to be considered a official title) and they don't count the Latin Cup, the Mitropa Cup, the Iberian Cup, the Inter-Cities Faris Cup, etc., which weren't also organized by them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.81.67 (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

FIFA considers Latin Cup an official competition. [5] SLBedit (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted "Economy" section

While it may be "important information" it should be properly sourced using reliable sources (which is not the case, it uses a broken .pdf link) and it shouldn't be original research (which is the case, the only source added is an opinion blog). SLBedit (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Error

How can Benfica have 33 championship titles instead of 30 if it won 3 experimental editions (in the 1935-36, 1936-37 and 1937-38 seasons)? The experimental editions shouldn't count! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.84.149 (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No original research. SLBedit (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You don't have arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.3.27 (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Benfica has won 33 Primeira Liga. It is a fact supported by LPFP and UEFA:
Finally you say something that has to do with the subject. That doesn't make any sense since they were experimental editions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.3.27 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Wikipedia only provides official information, everything else is original research. SLBedit (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Rodrigo

Rodrigo already signed a contract with Valencia, as it is said here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Moreno_Machado#Valencia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.0.186 (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course he signed a contract, he needs it to play for Valencia. He's registered in Spanish league as a loan from Benfica. SLBedit (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Then why did he say that he was already a Valencia player, i.e., that he wasn't loaned by Benfica anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.0.186 (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Arouca has never been relegated

Arouca has never been relegated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.1.124 (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That's correct but not notable. Arouca is not part of the Big Three clubs and has only played one full season in Primeira Liga. SLBedit (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Then you have to say that the Big Three clubs are the only ones to have partipated in every season of the Primeira Liga instead of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.1.124 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
No. What's notable is that the club has never been relegated despite having participated in every edition of Primeira Liga. "Benfica is one of the Big Three (...) who have never been relegated from the Portuguese league since its establishment in 1933." The participation in every season is implied with "since its establishment in 1933" (should be 1934). SLBedit (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, you're right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.88.88 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:S.L._Benfica/Archive_1&oldid=1137167934"