This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The discussion at WikiProject Football has reached a consensus - biggest wins/defeats are determined merely by the goal difference. Since the goal difference for Uruguay 1920 and Germany 2014 are exactly the same, both should be listed. Thanks to all contributions to this debate. Redverton (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok, since the page is having abit of an edit-war right now, let's try and settle this. Their biggest defeat before this was a 6-0 loss to Uruguay in 1920. Now, it's 7-1 here in 2014. The goal difference is exactly the same, so which gets put down as the worst defeat? Or both? Redverton (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Since goals scored is an important stat in the world cup I'd rate 7-1 a bigger loss than 6-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nappateemu (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
A defeat by a 7-1 margin certainly is a higher defeat than one by a 6-0 margin, and this is the way it is handled on all other national team Wiki pages. Keeping the 6-0 in the list would be extremely inconsistent not only with the practice of sorting and classifying defeats/wins on Wikipedia in general, but with this very Wiki page as well: Because if you list the 10-1 victory of Brazil against Bolivia from 10 April 1949 as Brazil's biggest win, you would also have to list Brazil's 9-0 victory against Colombia from 24 March 1957 in the same category. And if we started doing this for every single national team page on Wikipedia, it would turn into an absolute mess. CONCLUSION: Uruguay's 6-0 ought to be removed, with Germany's 7-1 being retained as the higher result. Wackelkopp (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Your claim that Wikipedia differentiates between results of the same margin is observably false. On the contrary, it appears the standard is to include all results of the same margin. For example, the team pages of Mozambique, Ivory Coast, Turkmenistan, Cameroon, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iran, Czech Republic, and Belgium all include results with different scorelines but equal margins in either the biggest win or biggest defeat section. You are correct in that it would be inconsistent to include both the 6-0 and 7-1 losses, but not both the 10-1 and 9-0 wins. To be consistent with the rest of the team pages, all four results should be mentioned. Gazzawhite (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the only previous discussion I can find regarding this. There the consensus is to keep all results of the same margin. Gazzawhite (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
This is definitely NOT the standard, and some of these other team pages you listed are somewhat obscure - and, interestingly -and contrary to your statement- neither of these eight pages had a discussion on the talk page about this topic, so I really don't know why you come up with an assumption such as the one that there was 'a consensus to keep all results of the same margin'. There simply is no such consensus. And as a counterexample: The national team page of Argentina does not contain the 5-0 defeat at the hands of Uruguay on 16 December 1959, although it has the same goal margin. The page of the Netherlands national team contains a 12-2 defeat by the hands of an England Amateur national team in 1907, that of the Belgium national team contains a 11-2 defeat by the hands of the very same team; both matches are not even considered official international matches by the FIFA and should therefore have no place in the list - and although this is a completely different point, it just shows how incredibly inconsistent Wikipedia seems to be when it comes to these matches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wackelkopp (talk • contribs) 03:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've made a new topic on the Project Football page to discuss this. Hopefully we can get some sort of consensus over there.Gazzawhite (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Would be nice to have this topic discussed properly in order to finally get to a real consensus on how to handle this in articles of national teams in general. Wackelkopp (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
it's 'canarinha' not 'canarinho' 'El scratch' mat be used by some Latin American commentators, but is certainly *not* used by Brazilians, because it's not portuguese. Brazilians use the word 'escrete' (form the English word 'scratch') but in Portuguese it's 'o escrete' (meaning 'the national team') and not 'el escrete'.
I'll be happy to contribute more corrections... :-)
Most successful national team in the world? Clarify.
Quote: "Its achievements have led CONMEBOL to consider it as The most glorious and successful of all national teams from South America and the World." Is this quote referring to all national soccer/football teams in the world or all national teams in the world. If it's the former then the article would be improved by specifying this. If it's the latter then that is unlikely as the All Blacks would surpass Brazil in this respect. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Another improvement would be referring to "football" as either association football (clumsy), or soccer (simpler). For most English speakers (outside the UK) football doesn't necessary mean soccer. Football is an umbrella term which can refer to a number of different sports. This is probably not such a major issue as people reading the article are almost certainly going to be aware that the sport being discussed is association football, but the resistance of some to use the unequivocal name soccer, despite this being the most commonly used English-language term for this sport creates these issues. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
CONMEBOL is a football association, so they are referring to this sport, most likely they do not care about the All Blacks or other sports. Regarding the name of the sport, most of the world call it football, just a few countries call it soccer, and even in those countries several people adopt the name football instead of soccer. --Carioca (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is quite large at 140kB. Wiki size guidelines say that articles over 60kB should probably be divided. I plan to create a History of the Brazil national football team article, and will move some of the historical material from this article over to that page. I wanted to give folks some warning before they see large chunks of this article disappear. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)