Talk:Copa del Rey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Spanish football task force.
WikiProject Spain (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

1902 Cup[edit]

Club Vizcaya is an early incarnation of Athletic Bilbao and their win in 1902 should really be listed and linked with that club and included in their record Djln --Djln 00:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • 1902 Cup won by Vizcaya not Athletic, check official statistics: Athletic 23 Cups not 24

Liga de Fútbol Professional (LFP), click athletic image (second top left) and check "palmarés"  :

More links:


  • You are quoting incorrect sources. Read Athletic Bilbao website history section and you will see that Club Vicaya was made up of two clubs that merged and became Athletic Bilbao. It is part of same club. I see by your user page that I am not the only one pissed off with your attitude and edits. If you carry on I will have to start an award for Most Persistant Vandal. Do mind if I name it after you. Djln--Djln 23:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Incorrect sources? Official statistics !!! It can be happening ... Im talking to a wall.
    • How are the above official? You have obviously not checked the actual website of the club involved. None of these sites say that Club Vizcaya is a seperate club. It is very simple Club Vizcaya became Athletic Bilbao. Please refrain from abuse.

Athletic Trophy List Djln--Djln 14:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Athletic has 23 Cups, they DID NOT win 1902 Cup, I'm talking about official statistics, Athletic web is changing history just like this wiki article, but Im not sure you can understand because you are very very short. Stupid man. I'm gonna change it as soos as I can, make you a favour, investigate about it in neutral sources. 83.1992.2006
    • Several clubs including FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and RCD Espanyol have won the Copa del Rey with different names. All trophies won under their various names are included in one list. So why should Athletic record be different ? Read up on their history and you will see they are same club. PS Can u stop personal attacks ? They are uncalled for. Djln --Djln 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

PS, This source shows 1902 Cup is in Athletic museum. If they did not win it, why do they have it in their museum ?[1]

    • Official sources are not necessary accurate or unbiased and should not be treated as gospel. For example these official sources do not recognise the Copa de Espana Libre of 1937. Although this tournament had only four entrants, this was more then several of the earlier competitions. I am not disputing that Club Vizcaya won the Copa in 1902. However Athletic have 1902 Copa in their museum and include it in their trophy list because this team was a formative team of the modern Athletic. Below is a timeline which hopefully will help explain my reasoning. It is very clear:
      • Ear1y 1890s Bilbao FC formed by British workers.
      • 1898 Basque students returning from UK form Athletic Club.
      • 1902 Above two teams enter combined team known as Club Vizcaya in Copa del Rey.
      • 1903 These two teams merge and form Athletic Club Bilbao.
      • 1907 Club vizcaya plays Cup Final against real madrid :) Is it possible? U must be wrong -- 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In 1902 Athletic Club and Bilbao Football Club clubs formed a combined team, known as Club Vizcaya , and entered the first Copa del Rey. This would lead to the eventual merger of the two clubs as Athletic Club de Bilbao in 1903. In the 1907 Copa del Rey, the Club Vizcaya name was revived and Athletic Club de Bilbao and Union Vizcaino entered another combined team. This is clearly noted in the Athletic Bilbao article and at in the Rsssf archives [2]. It is you that needs to check your sources. Djln--Djln 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromise on 1902 Cup[edit]

I have added this section below in the spirit of compromise. I hope this can resolve issue.

  • The number of trophies Athletic Bilbao have been credited with is disputed. The 1902 competition was won by Club Vizcaya, a team made up of players from Athletic Club and Bilbao FC. In 1903 these two clubs merged as Athletic Club Bilbao. The 1902 cup is on display in the Athletic museum [3] and the club includes it in its own honours list.[4]. However some sources do not include this as an Athletic win. Djln--Djln 23:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have tried to be accomadating by including your view. However Club Vizcaya is not a seperate club from Athletic. If you think different can please explain who you think they are? I have come to the conclusion that you must be a small minded Barca fan desperately trying to hang onto the Copa record. However based on your logic Barca should not be credited with the trophies they won as CF Barcelona, Real Madrid should not be credited with trophies won as Madrid FC/Madrid CF and Real Sociedad should lose one also. Djln--Djln 20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If Club Vizcaya is a team made up of players from Athletic Club and Bilbao FC and in 1903 these two clubs merged as Athletic Club Bilbao... HOW IS POSSIBLE THAT CLUB VIZCAYA PLAYED THE 1907 CUP FINAL AGAINST Real Madrid ?????? Check your sources. -- 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


I am not disputing that Club Vizcaya won the Copa in 1902. However this team is part of Athletic Bilbao history. Club Vizcaya is not a separate club from Athletic, but is part of the clubs history. Several clubs including FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and RCD Espanyol and Real Union have won the Copa del Rey under different names. All trophies won under their various names are included in one list. So why should the Athletic record be different ?

Below is a timeline which explains the early history of Athletic.

  • Early 1890s: Bilbao FC formed by British workers.
  • 1898: Basque students returning from UK form Athletic Club.
  • 1902: Above two teams enter combined team known as Club Vizcaya in Copa del Rey.
  • 1903: These two teams merge and form Athletic Club Bilbao
  • 1907: The Club Vizcaya name is revived as Athletic Club de Bilbao and Union Vizcaino entered another combined team in the Copa del Rey.

The 1902 Copa is included in Athletic’s own honours list [5] and the trophy is in their museum [6]. The eleven Club Vizcaya players who played in the final - L. Arana, E Careaga, P. Larranga, L. Silva, A. Arana, Goiri, Cazeaux, Astorquia, W. Dyer, R. Silva, W. Evans - are all included in an archive of former Athletic players [7]. Djln--Djln 14:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

LFP (La Liga) and RFEF (Spanish Federation) official statistics don't include the 1902 Cup as an Athletic win. Spanish media, the same. Just check the links above. NO DISCUSSION ABOUT IT IS POSSIBLE. The footnote is enough to explain your point of view. I'm gonna apply for arbitration if you persist ... Ciao. --BarcelonaMarc 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • None of your official links declare that Club Vizcaya is a completely separate club from Athletic Bilbao. I know Club Vizcaya won the cup but it should be included in Athletic record in the same way that the Club Cilista and Real Sociedad records are merged. Apply for arbitration if you want. I am confident that any arbitration will prove me correct. Djln --Djln 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Is not a question of name changing. Club Vizcaya and Athletic IS NOT THE SAME CLUB. Why do u think LFP, RFEF and the Spanish media don't include 1902 Cup as an Athletic win? I am confident that any arbitration will prove me correct too, cause I'm with the official history and you don't. Sorry, I win.--BarcelonaMarc 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • BarcelonaMarc is not acting objectively or can he be considered as an independent in this issue. On his own user page he describes himself as an FC Barcelona fan. If the 1902 Copa is credited to Athletic then it would mean that Athletic and FC Barcelona share the amount of Copa wins. I believe that BarcelonaMarc must begrudge sharing and that is why he continues to revert edits. Djln--Djln 12:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ha ha ha, you are pathetic. ATHLETIC DID NOT WIN 1902 CUP, NO MORE LIES IN WIKIPEDIA.--BarcelonaMarc 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1902 Copa del Rey[edit]

Arbitration has been requested at on this page. Djln--Djln 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by BarcelonaMarc[edit]

LFP (La Liga) and RFEF (Spanish Football Federation) official statistics don't include the 1902 Cup as an Athletic win. So do the Spanish media (links demonstrating it in Talk:Copa del Rey). LFP and RFEF are the governing bodies of football in Spain, so wikipedia, if it is a serious thing, must reflect the current official satistics. We can argue if Athletic and Club Vizcaya is the same football club or not, but we can't discuss that LFP and RFEF don't include the 1902 Cup as an Athletic win cause it is a fact.

In addition to this, Djln's point of view is already reflected in both Copa del Rey and Athletic Club articles.

If you wish to contribute to above debate further I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football Djln--Djln 13:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1995 Cup Final[edit]

Having just read my Football's Strangest Matches book,it states the 1995 Cup Final was played for 79 mins and then abandoned, with the remaining 11 minutes played later that weekend. There seems to be no reference to it here-is it correct and if so do we have any more info?

Lemon martini 16:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CopaDelRey.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 05:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

1902 cup again[edit]

I wonder why everytime Barça is in trouble this comes out again. Forget RFEF, just COUNT the real number of cups the club owns. 24,period. (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Please, stop the vandalism. In every page that list the trophy winners Bilbao has 23 cups: RFEF, Liga, Spanish Wikipedia. I don't see Arsenal as a runner up of UEFA for London XI. Remember that the propose of this page is to be plural, it's wikipedia, not Daibidpedia. Period. Wikizin (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, when you start some discussion in talk page it's supposed to add some information about the article and your tesis, not for absurd hypothesis. Wikizin (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC

First, refrain from personal attacks, second, I didn't start this section of the talk page, third, we are not discussing hypothesis, it is a FACT that in Athletic's museum you can SEE 24 cups, one next to another. So Athletic owns the 24 cups, regardless of 'official' statistics. And most important... in any case it would be "Deibidpedia" and as I said there is no need for personal attacks, I will have to report this, you can read above that it is not just ME the one who is defending my position.David (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The hypothesis is that Barça thing, and I don't see any personal attack, I'm not calling you stupid, stupid is "everytime Barça is in trouble this comes out again". Obviously it's not just YOU the one who is defending that position, it's Bilbao position, but this is a global encyclopedia, and the OFFICIAL winners trophy list that they have 23 cups. No discussion possible about that. Your personal point of view is clearly reflected in the note, which its marked in Bilbao wins by and asterisk. Seriously, what more do you want? Wikizin (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Then "Daibidpedia" is no personal attack... ok, funny that you think only calling someone "stupid" is a personal attack.David (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, maybe its for misspelling the nickname. I asume that you have made a personal attack to all Barça fans too. Wikizin (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protected[edit]

I've semi protected this page for a while to prevent the on-going edit war over the 1902 trophy. As far as I'm concerned, the number in the table is adequately caveated with the footnote. But please, conduct your discussions here on the talk page and not by continual edit warring on the page itself. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It's seems that we will have to ask for an arbitration. Wikizin (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Fine! ... again. David (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I love bureaucracy. Maybe we can begin with a third opinion, better from outside the Bilbao area :D Wikizin2 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Good for you that you love it. The third opinion... you have it RIGHT ABOVE HERE; IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THIS SECTION. No hay más ciego que el que no quiere ver. David (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Which one? Djn or BarcelonaMarc? It seems difficult, but i will try to reason with you. I truly believe that showing the REAL number of cups recognized to each team its the best option. Take away all your love for your team, but in every page its displayed 23 cups!! the official and unofficial statements, EVERYWHERE, so why it has to be wrong in the English (in other languages is correct) wikipedia? I mean, its true that all opinions must be reflected in this page, but yours its marked by the asterisk in the number of cups, but the number must be correct!! The global must prevail to the individual, your opinion, the Bilbao opinion, can't prevail to the opinion of all statements and the rest of the teams. Do you understand it? Tell me so. Saludos Wikizin (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
            • May be you just don't understand English properly... LA PRIMERA OPINION EN ESTA SECCION!!! the first opinion in this very section Semi protected said that the number 24 with asterisk was OK, as it has been for many months.David (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've requested mediation on this. Please direct your attention to the link at the top of this talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have accepted the case as a Mediator. Please see my comments at the MEDCAB page. The listed parties should indicate here that they are happy a) for this to be mediated and b) for me to be the mediator. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


OK. I need to be sure that I understand the nature of the dispute, so I can help sort it out. I'm going to start listing here some points over the next few days. I'd like all parties to either say they're happy with what I wrote, or disagree. Please do not argue with one another - just with me. If you're really unhappy with something written by someone other than me, please drop me an email. It's important at this stage we avoid arguing and just try to get things straight. Hope that's OK. Watch this space. --Dweller (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Scope of dispute[edit]

  1. This article includes statistics about the number of times clubs have won the Copa del Rey.
  2. The dispute revolves around whether the 1902 victory can be claimed by Athletic Bilbao.
  3. The significance of 2 is amplified because depending on whether or not it counts, Bilbao are or are not joint leaders with Barcelona, in terms of cup wins.

Please could each party sign this section to say that they agree this is a complete and accurate (if simple) version of the dispute.

If I have made an error, or missed something out, please disagree and I will come to your talk page to discuss. Please do not argue or discuss here at this stage. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm going to unlock the article from protection. Everyone seems to be happy with mediation, which is great, so I assume everyone agrees not to make any edits that refer even in the slightest to issues involved in the dispute. IP edits on the dispute will be treated as vandalism. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of the dispute[edit]

It is my assessment that this dispute should be fairly easy to address: it seems to me it's about partial presenting of facts, either way. I don't think this is anyone's fault and I think we can work together to reach a resolution that will leave the article much improved.

The problem seems to hinge on the fact that the dispute is not properly explained in the article.

The first step to addressing this is to create some new subsections in the article, which I've done.

The new Copa del Rey#Controversies section should include a short paragraph on the contentious 1902 competition. I'd like the parties to help work on it here, not in article space. It should be properly referenced, so it is of the highest possible standard. I've proposed some copy below for us to work on together. Please stay cool when you read it! --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new paragraph[edit]

The 1902 competition was won by Club Vizcaya, a team made up of players from Athletic Club and Bilbao FC. In 1903, these two clubs merged as Athletic Club Bilbao, the modern Athletic Bilbao.[citation needed] As a result, the tally of Copa wins by Athletic Bilbao is disputed.[citation needed] The 1902 cup is on display in the Athletic museum, [1] and the club includes the victory in its honours list.[2]. However LFP and RFEF official statistics do not include this as an Athletic win.[citation needed]

Please don't edit this text, as it will confuse people. Quote below wording you'd like to amend, why, and how (if possible). Please stay in your own subsection. If you disagree with another party's comment or suggestion, please post to my talk page. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dweller's area[edit]

Initial issues I'm aware of:

  1. Each of those claims needs to be cited.
  2. I've not yet verified that the sources do prove what they're supposed to be proving :-)
  3. Was "Athletic Club" a team from Bilbao?

Let's work this into a good paragraph and then insert it. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikizin's area[edit]

Hello everyone!

First of all, congratulations Dweller for your effort in the dispute, maybe more than the parts involved :-)

Second, official statistics of the LFP:

And more:

I must begin with my position:

I think that the official number of cups of Bilbao is pretty clear. LFP and the FEF recognized 23, and in any unofficial page says the same (rarely except the English wikipedia until I changed it).

Wikipedia is nowadays a guide to a lot of people, so it can't contain wrong information. I agree with the position that it have to cover all the opinions, all the parts have to be represented, i mean, for me it's fine that a paragraph or a note explains the disputed and the Bilbao position against the rest of the teams and the Spanish federation, but the records table must be in keeping with official stats.

- A paragraph (I think that the one you have propose is pretty cool) or a note explaining that Bilbao claims to have one more cup, and it isn't recognized: Yes.
- Display a wrong records table: No.

Maybe everybody will agree and there is no dispute :-)

Have a nice weekend. --Wikizin (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's just concentrate on this one stage at a time. First, we'll tackle the history of that particular competition. We'll deal with the chart when this bit's agreed by all. --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it was only an introduction, because i supposed (and now confirmed) that the other part would explain his position in his first participation too. Something i would like to add is that i don't know why the other part is so interested in proclaim that i'm a Barça fan. Well, the only thing that is true is that he is obviously from Bilbao and sympathizes with Athletic, but i have no problem with that, and will no use against him. I'm not going to wonder what would happen if Bilbao had won 2008 cup, or any title in the last 20 years, we are talking about official stats that are wrong.
Then, the records table should display facts, yeah. But there are two POV, yours (and Bilbao) and official (the federation that organizes the competition and the rest of the team). Which one must we take? Nothing against you and your team, but i think that its clear. --Wikizin (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see Wikizin continues to make this a personal issue. First first and first, as I said previously but you don't seem to understand, it is not just ME against the world. This is a VERY old issue, please read the whole talk page. Another user (Djln) has answered. Do you want to hear? or will you continue to personalize? Yes, I'm from Bilbao, and Athletic's point of view represents a million people, not just me. RFEF statistics are oficial and unfair and unreal.David (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
And here it comes again. Welcome to my area. The first comment that seems to make this a personal issue was from you, and it was repeated again in this section dispute: 'I wonder which is the motivation for the Barcelona supporters', 'I wonder why everytime Barça is in trouble it comes again', or 'Como dais el coñazo cuando el Barça no tira' -something offensive that i prefer not to translate to the moderator-, and other brilliant sentences. I only support one team in football, and it's not Barça, it's only that i want the article display the official and correct records table, it's so difficult to understand?
The official RFEF stats are what they are, sorry if you don't like them. This isnt about you against the world, or you against me, its about two POV, the official and the Bilbao's one. I'm not doing this a personal issue, but PLEASE don't do the same with me. --Wikizin (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Deibid's area[edit]

The history is very clear and is explained clearly in the foot note that has existed for a year or more. Athletic does not claim anything, they have the cup displayed in their museum, because it belongs to them. Other thing are "oficial" statistic from oficial Spanish institutions. What should the table display? the facts. Not the oficial "facts" that are POV, but the real facts. But... anyway, I don't like football, only history. I wonder which is the motivation for the Barcelona supporters. David (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Djln's area[edit]

  • I hope people don’t mind me contributing to this debate. I am responsible for the majority of the text in this article and also for the foot note explaining the dispute. When I first researched this article it was clear to me that there is a very strong case for the 1902 Copa being listed as an Athletic win. Nothing since has changed my opinion. I would also like to emphasis that I am not an Athletic fan. If anything I have a preference for Barca. That said, I think the following questions need to be addressed.
    • Why is the 1902 Copa in the Athletic museum if they or one of their predecessor clubs did not win it ? Why do Athletic include it in their honours list ?
    • Why are other clubs, such as Real Sociedad and Real Union, credited with wins by predecessor clubs while Athletic are not ?
    • Should we really place our faith in records from RFEF when they recently changed their mind about the 1937 Copa.
    • If Barca had won the 2008 Copa for example, making it their 25th win, would this edit war have started up again ?
    • Are other editors aware that Barca also claim trophies they won as a part of a combined team ? Early Inter-Cities Fairs Cup wins credited to FC Barcelona should actually be credited to the Catalonia Football Federation who organised and selected the teams. Djln --Djln (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man's area[edit]

Mediation continued[edit]

I'm going to have to assume that everyone is content with the proposed new paragraph. I'll add it to the article tomorrow. We'll then look at the next step. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. Well that's done (someone should replace the {{cn}} with a proper citation, btw). Now, we need to address the Statistics section. I'll open a discussion next week about how we might do that. It'll probably appear on Tuesday. Please continue to watch this space. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Great job Dweller, thank you for your efforts.David (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Statistics section[edit]

Now that we have introduced a paragraph that explains the controversy in detail, we should be able to find some wording that suits everyone to explain that the club with most wins is either one thing or another.

I suggest that the key to this is to refer to the controversy paragraph, without explaining the problem all over again. Being neutral here would mean Wikipedia not vouching an opinion either way on which is correct or official or anything like that. We state the facts and no more than that.

I'm going to draft some proposed wording, below. Please refrain from commenting until you've seen it. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Current version:

FC Barcelona have won the Copa 24 times and Athletic Bilbao 23. Throughout the history of the competition there have been 12 actual trophies. Of these, four have been awarded permanently to FC Barcelona, three to Athletic Bilbao and one to Real Madrid, all for winning the competition three times in a row and/or on five separate occasions. Club Vizcaya were awarded the first trophy as inaugural winners, Sevilla FC were awarded the Trofeo del Generalísimo in 1939 and Atlético Madrid, winners the previous year, were awarded the 11th trophy following the death of Franco.

Proposed wording[edit]

Because of the dispute regarding the 1902 competition (see above), the statistics regarding the leading winners are also disputed. FC Barcelona have won the Copa 24 times; Athletic Bilbao are joint-leaders with 24 titles, or just behind with 23 titles, depending on the source.

Throughout the history of the competition there have been 12 actual trophies. Trophies have been permanently awarded to clubs for winning the competition three times in a row and/or on five separate occasions. Thus, four trophies have been permanently awarded to FC Barcelona, three to Athletic Bilbao and one to Real Madrid.

Club Vizcaya kept the first trophy as inaugural winners, Sevilla FC were awarded the Trofeo del Generalísimo in 1939 and Atlético Madrid, winners the previous year, were awarded the 11th trophy following the death of Franco. The remaining trophy is the one in current usage.

Comments sections[edit]

Please indicate here issues you have with the proposed rewording. Please remain civil and calm. Be sure to explain each point in detail. It may help for clarity if you open each comment with a relevant quote from the proposed text. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support: I think it is a great explanation, and quite neutral as it must be.David (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm ok too. Wikizin (Wikizin) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll add that today. Watch below for the next steps. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Now for the chart[edit]

OK. I think we're getting there. As far as I can tell, there's just the chart of numbers of wins left to address.

Once again, Wikipedia should not be seen to be deciding on the rights or wrongs of the argument. We can't appear to endorse the figure 23 or 24. Nor can we ignore the claim.

I suggest on Bilbao's line we ascribe "23/24" wins to them, asterisked as currently, with a note that (once again) directs the reader to the Controversy section. In the list of wins, we ascribe 1902, again asterisked. Once again, please do comment below. --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments sections[edit]

Please indicate here issues you have with the proposal. Please remain civil and calm. Be sure to explain each point in detail. --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Support : Good enough for me, I have no problem with that. Very Salomonic ;-) .David (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment : Sorry, but i don't agree, cause it would be confusing and erroneus as i have said in previous discussions. For me the best option, if puting the simple '23' its not possible, is like it appears right now, 23 with an asterisk showing the note with the information of Bilbao claiming to have one more. Another question of that proposal would be if in Vizcaya line it will show 1/0 :D. Greets. Wikizin (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I saw it comming, yes I'm sorry too, I would have bet it would come to this.David (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything's fine. I'd request everyone hangs fire while I discuss this with Wikizin on his talk page. --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment : Everything's ok, no problem. I have made another (but similar) proposal in my talk page. By the way, it would be interesting to suggest the other part that this resolution would have to be applied to the Bilbao's page too, where -oh, surprise- only a 24 appears :D Wikizin (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that everyone is content with the following option:

23 (24*)

For the text referred to by the asterisk, I propose:

*See Controversies section

I hope that's agreeable. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Support : Very agreeable indeed, thank you! David (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll do that. --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


With all parties now happy, my job's done. Thank you for your co-operation! --Dweller (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening para[edit]

Opening para needs to be sorted out as it has become very cluttered, especially regarding the amount of former names. Could we create a table listing past and present names and the years the names were used and an explanation for each name. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Away goals?[edit]

Are away goals used in this competition? -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarity to English cup competitions[edit]

Article currently states: "It is somewhat similar to the English Premier League's Carling Cup; teams from upper and lower divisions will get to play against each other but the number of clubs allowed to participate is restricted."

The problem with this is that the number of teams in every national cup competition, including the FA Cup, is restricted and the Copa Del Rey doesn't differ in this aspect. It is also the sole and primary domestic cup competition for Spanish top level clubs, unlike the English league cup which is very much a secondary cup competition. If no one objects I'll change this to FA Cup. Valenciano (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

King John Charles I's Cup?[edit]

First of all, I would like to apologize if this topic has been brought up. Secondly, and most importantly, I dont know much about Spanish history so I'd like to apologize ahead in case I offend anybody for what I am about to say. The intro explains where the name Copa del Rey come from. It translates the name "Copa de Su Majestad El Rey Don Juan Carlos I" into "His Majesty King John Charles I's Cup." I appreciate the Spanish to English translation because I do not understand Spanish. But why does it translate the King's name (Juan Carlos)? I understand that Juan Carlos is the Spanish variant of the name John Charles. But I am under the impression that proper nouns are supposed to be kept the same. Why do need to translate his name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsonlam1 (talkcontribs) 01:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, unlike Spanish, English usually doesn't translate the names of Kings (Popes would be the only names to be translated) so I'll change that. Valenciano (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"English usually doesn't translate the names of Kings"? So that's why the three Prussian Kings and German Emperors are named William I, German Emperor, Frederick III, German Emperor and Wilhelm II, German Emperor on English Wikipedia? -- Matthead  Discuß   09:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
"Usually doesn't" means there are exceptions. You've just highlighted three. Valenciano (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^