Talk:CR Flamengo

Help to improve articles related to Brazil in Simple English Wikipedia. If you are not fluent in English, that is the right place.

---

Hi. Well, this had been done once, I undid it and no one complained at the time. Now, a few months pasted, it was re-done again. So, to avoid this back and forth every now and then, I feel we should get consensus for this: it's about the positioning of the infobox. I understand that, for most football clubs' articles, the box is placed at the top of the article. That's not bad per se, and I don't know the specifics of every article. However, for this article, I maintain that the best place for it would be the "Trivia" section. A couple of reasons: 1)Layout: the inforbox is a perfect fit in the Trivia section, being completely contained there. I believe that this gives the article a better appearance; 2)Pertinency: the data contained in the box is completely pertinent to the Trivia section (although some would also be pertinent to the newly created performance timeline for the National Championship section), so it seems (to me) fitting that the box would be placed there. It is not necessarily the best choice to do something in an article simply because it was done that way in other similar articles. They aren't identical, the developing of the theme may vary, the general layout or even the sheer amount of information may be different. Sometimes, adaptation is required for a better presentation. Opinions? Regards, Redux 19:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As one more time the infobox was moved to the top, I counted how many times this happened, and the result is that it occurred at least 4 times, by 4 different people: Ed gs2 (see [1] on 14:00, June 6, 2005), Dr31 (see [2] on 12:57, July 20, 2005), an IP user (see [3] on 09:26, August 17, 2005) and Abu Badali (see [4] on 15:31, August 22, 2005).

I also support moving it to the top, so, it seems that there are 5 people supporting moving the infobox to the top (me, Ed gs2, Dr31, 200.201.187.237, and Abu Badali) and one people are against (Redux).

So, I think that we should keep the infobox on the top, as this will prevent reverts ad aeternum.

Carioca 21:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

All the moves were carried out for no reason other than that similar infoboxes were at the top on articles on other Brazilian football clubs. See my comment above for reasons why that doesn't seem to be sufficient reason for keeping it that way. I also find it remarkable that I started a discussion to get consensus on the topic and waited almost a month for a reply that never came — during which time the infobox remained at the top, btw. Given the complete lack of interest from, really, anyone, I moved the infobox back to its previous location. Of the four moves you counted, two were made to revert this last repositioning of mine, without a word either here or in the edit summary (considering that "moving the infobox up" really says nothing, except to state the obvious). That's not how things are supposed to work on the encyclopedia people. Quite sincerally, I waited more than it would be reasonable for any argumentation in opposition of my reasoning, but no one seemed to care until I went ahead and repositioned the box again. Perhaps I should also call attention to WP:NOT, especifically the part Wikipedia is not a democracy... it works by consensus. I was the only one who made any effort to achieve that; other than that, you have two people who moved the box in order to make it look like Fluminense, Botafogo and others, and two other people who simply reverted my edit after the month-long period with no valid reasoning, which would be required since I had started a discussion on the topic that went completely ignored. Sorry, but it would seem that policy is with me on this one. Regards, Redux 04:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry for moving the Infobox without consulting the Talk Page. Mea Culpa. As you said, I just wanted the article to be similar to that of others Futeball Clubs.

But, since (now I know that) we're having a disscussion here, I will state my opinion: Even after reading you arguments, I still believe that Infoboxes belong to the top of the articles. Argument n. 1 (The Perfect Fit argument) is to much of personal taste. And, even if I agreed with your taste, we have to consider that it's weak in the sence that as the article grows, and changes, this perfect fit thing may cease. And if we are to agree with Argument n. 2 (The pertinent to Trivia argument), I wonder why this would not be true for all other futball clubs articles. What's so special about Flamengo in this matter? Regards, --Abu Badali 16:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the discussion. Well, as for "the perfect fit", it's not so much an opinion as it is a fact: after all, it is a perfect fit in the sense that it is completely contained in the section (whereas at the top – and this is my opinion – it seems to disturb the layout of the first part of the article, as it spreads over multiple sections). You are right that it is theoretically possible that the article could change and the "perfect fit" could cease to exist. But considering the article's history, that is not too probable. I was actually (if memory serves me) the last one to add significant amounts of content to the article. After that, people have only added loose sentences, clarifications, players' and coaches' names to the lists, etc. — and the infobox itself, but that was done as a standard thing for all the articles on football clubs.
About the second argument, it's not that Flamengo itself is special in any way, it's just, as I said in my original post, that articles about similar topics (in this case, football clubs from Brazil) can be developed differently. A number of factors can weigh in this, such as the level of commitment of the contributors who may add more information, in more detail. The articles are not standardized, and they are not structured in the same way. So, what I meant was that for the way the Flamengo article is structured and developed (which is not the same as those of Fluminense, Botafogo, etc.), the infobox in the Trivia section seems to work best for the reasons I stated. Regards, Redux 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

One good reason to keep the infobox on the top is that in this position it gives some basic info about the club, useful to the reader who do not have enough time to read the entire article. Also, in my opinion, it looks weird see the infobox in a position different from the top of the article (especially because Flamengo seems to be the only football club in Wikipedia whose infobox was moved to other position). The football infobox (as well as other similar infoboxes, like the taxobox, the comics hero infobox, the country infobox and the president infobox) seems to be designed to be placed on the top. The suggested football manual of style of Wikiproject Wikifootball also places the infobox on the top of the article. About the perfect fit argument, the fact that the infobox is completely contained in the trivia section doesn't seem to be a reason strong enough to justify moving it to there. About the pertinent argument, I really do not think that is a good idea to place the infobox there, because there is no need to have the same basic information duplicated in the same place (the trivia info and the infobox gave some info about the club's stadium and nickname). It is better, because of this reason, to place the infobox on the top, and let the trivia section stay where it currently are. Regards, Carioca 22:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Fine. We can keep it there then. It still doesn't look like the best option to me, and I'm always reticent about standardization, but it's not a big deal anyways. Regards, Redux 01:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Supporters

I think it would be of worthy to point out that Flamengo has the largest number of supporters in all of Brazil, being the fifth ranked in Sao Paulo (a rival soccer city), and with the exception of perhaps some Chinese team, the largest in the world. LtDoc 04:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC) ),

This is a good idea, but I doubt that Flamengo is the football team with most supporters in the world. The only info I found about Flamengo's supporters size in Brazil can be found in this link and in this other link. Regards, Carioca 22:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Campeonato Brasileiro Série A article

A group of paulistas mocked Flamengo is this article, saying only 4 times champion. Please joint forces against this ridiculous POV is widely recognized Flamengo is 5x brazilian champion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.79.24.219 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

The official champion of 1987 for CBF (and FIFA) is Sport Club do Recife. I guess that Wikipedia must have the official information. Of course it's important to show that Flamengo claims this title, but, unless it is recognized by CBF, it's better to show Sport as the champion of that year. (150.164.85.254 (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Flamengo rowing shield.gif

Image:Flamengo rowing shield.gif 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 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flamengo Flag.gif

Image:Flamengo Flag.gif 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 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1987 National Title

Hi there,

There's been some dispute between the formatting of National titles of Flamengo in this article. As supporters know, 1987 national title has caused a lot of controversy here in Brazil. Despite ALL this controversy, what I'd like to point is that the title should NOT be listed in the list of national titles. It's been argued that the title is listed with a footnote, but, in my opinion, this might prompt one to think that Flamengo actually (de jure) holds the title, which is NOT true. So, in my opinion, the title should be removed from the list, and the reference to the footnote should be kept. (Dpmelo 05:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

The matter is addressed within the article in a footnote. Any other doubts I suggest you talk with admin Redux. Regards —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 21:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dpmelo, I do understand what you are saying, but what needs to be taken into account is that, when it comes to Brazilian football unbelievable things do happen. As a result of an unresolved standstill, 1987 ended up with two champions, in two parallel competitions. That the CBF did not had its hand on one of them, and ended up awarding the berths in the 1988 Copa Libertadores to the winners of the tournament it had organized does not mean that the competition organized by the Club of the 13 was extra-official and does not count. Remember: FIFA was pressuring CBF to find a solution, and the CBF proposed a final "showdown" between the 4 teams (first 2 in each tournament), which is hardly what would be expected if one of the competitions was not to be taken into account. The solution found by CBF was cooked up only when all attempts to resolve the situation failed, and FIFA was on its heels for a solution. It was a half-baked solution to an impasse that was allowed to take place when it shouldn't have.
Here is an analogy: in 2000, the CBF was forced to decline from organizing the National Championship. The Club of the 13 then took over and created the "João Avelange Cup". The difference is that there wasn't a parallel competition organized by the CBF. But still, there seems to be no arguing that Vasco da Gama's title should not count: for all purposes, that club is the national champion of 2000. That in 1987 there were 2 national champions may be pathetic, but nonetheless it is what happened. So the title is included and there is an extensive footnote explaining the situation.
Wikipedia is not supposed to decide which side should prevail in a 20-year-old controversy that is still under some kind of debate. We need to make the proper acknowledgement in both this article and the one about Sport Club, as well as any specific article about the 1987 national championship(s). But in effect, if we were to say anything like "this title doesn't count" in an open controversy in which both sides claim the title and are both recognized on some level, we'd be violating the NPOV. I hope this helps. Redux 14:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Redux, thanks for your explanation. However, I'd like to reinforce my position, based on the fact that, as an encyclopedia, we should prevent, among other things, Ambiguity. If you take a look at Flamengo article, it currently lists it as 1987 champion. On the other hand, if you look at Sport Recife, it states Sport as 1987 champion. If you go to Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, it lists Sport as well. What I wish to convince you is that we should take into account the final decision of Brazilian Justice, as you can find in "http://cruzeiro.org/blog/?p=956", accessed in June, 26. Don't you think that we have an ambiguity here, and that we should take care of it to avoid wrong assumptions by Wikipedia readers? Kind regards. (Dpmelo 16:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Hi. The answer is really twofold: One, you are right about ambiguity. We must absolutely make sure that all articles mentioning the 1987 result convey the same message. It doesn't help Wikipedia that we are as clear as possible in one article and then have one or two other articles state that either Flamengo or Sport is the "undisputed champion" or the like. I had mentioned that in my previous post.
Now, the second part, as to how we should standardize this. First, it is important to note that decisions from legal courts are not necessarily supported by FIFA. Going back to my example: the reason why the CBF would not organize the 2000 National Championship was because Gama FC had obtained a judicial injunction forcing the CBF to include it in the 2000 championship, because it claimed that its relegation the year before was not valid. The Brazilian courts agreed, FIFA didn't. As a result FIFA threatened the CBF that, if Gama was included as a result of a extra-sporting courts decision, the CBF would suffer dire consequences, including the exclusion of the Brazilian national team from the 2002 World Cup. That is why the Club of the 13 had to take over, since the CBF could not afford to disobey the Brazilian Court, and it could not go up against FIFA. Naturally, this situation involving these two clubs is very unlikely to cause FIFA to threat with excluding Brazil from the 2010 World Cup, but the principle is the same: the judicial decision would cause certain records and/or publications in Brazil to print "Sport" there, but in terms of the illusive "world of football", an ultimate decision would have to come from FIFA, not a civil court. An example on a similar situation: at the end of the 2005 national championship, Corinthians FC became champion, but there was a highly controversial result in Internacional FC's last game, which could have made that club champion. That was in early December. In late December, or maybe early January 2006, an Internacional supporter filed suit in a Rio Grande do Sul federal court asking that the Court forced the CBF to rectify the result of Internacional's last game and either award it the title or at least have it shared with Corinthians (I think). Immediately, FIFA informed that if the CBF was forced by a Civil Court to change the outcome (which it could have been, since the Court has jurisdiction over any entity on Brazilian soil), FIFA would exclude Internacional from all official competitions as of 2006, starting with the 2006 Copa Libertadores (which Internacional eventually won). As a result, the club's Board had to plead with the fan directly to drop the lawsuit immediately, since it would ultimately hurt the club more than it would help; and it was done: FIFA has a zero-tolerance about resorting to civil courts to force changes in outcomes or a recognition of any given claim. It exists exactly so that clubs and/or people who would favor a club, will not seek civil courts as a means to have any kind of understanding about a football result prevail.
That notwithstanding, the existence of a court-ordered decision could, and perhaps should be included in our explanation of the incident, which must be homogeneous across all articles referring to the situation.
About the article on the results of the National Championship: how exactly it would show there would depend on the source used: if we are mirroring an official board, such as one that may be found online on the CBF website, then it would read "Sport", with a note explaining the situation and citing Flamengo; if, however, the board was compiled by users from multiple sources (including offline sources, such as magazines and almanacs), then the correct approach would be to have "Flamengo/Sport" (or "Sport/Flamengo", whichever) with the note expanding on why there are two names in the 1987 slot.
But it is absolutely necessary to remove any ambiguity and retain a NPOV and realistic approach on the subject. We might consider coordinating the homogenization of the articles in a common place, a single thread somewhere to decide how exactly this would be done. Redux 21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Superleague Formula templates

I've started a discussion about the use of the Superleague Formula templates on football club articles at Template talk:Superleague Formula following some discussion at Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. Since this article features the template, your views would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)