Talk:Intercontinental Cup records and statistics

Football List‑class Low‑importance

	Association football portal 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shouldn't we merge the Intercontinental Cup & the CWC?

It provides the same function (decides the best team team in the world). The only difference is that FIFA took it over and added the other confederations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSonicx1986 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BOCA JUNIORS or CORINTHIANS in 2000??

good cuestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.24.19 (talk)

Both, Boca won the Intercontinental Cup, Corinthians won the Club World Cup. Later CWC's replaced IC's altogether, but that was the one year when both were played. The table should be clearer about which is which, though. --Gabbec 12:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, the table is incomplete right now, since it is displaying only the IC's result in 2000, leaving the CWC out altogether. Particularly bad, since the article's title explicitly states that it is a combined statistic. I'll include the result, format can always be reviewed if needed. Redux (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two results should be switched round. Boca won theirs in December, nearly a year after Corinthians that January. So in chronological order, it should read Man United, Corinthians, Boca Jrs, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.115.84 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Club logos removal

Someone is removing all the soccer club logos from each championship page. The person who is doing this claims that "Fair Use" is not for ilustrating. I totally disagree with him beacuse the reason why people put images and logos and everything on a encyclopedia is to ilustrate and make the information clear. Another point is that if the image is already hosted in wikipedia and used on the soccer clubs pages, why can't we use it also on the competitions page like this? The one who removes the logos is cleary misinterpretating the "Fair Use" rules. What do you people think about this subject?

This the copyright message for club logos. Ilustrations are ok by the rules below:

This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright. The use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as non-free use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos.

Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor vice versa. Fair use

To the uploader:

Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples.
This tag is only for use on images of logos.
Template:Non-free use rationale logo may be helpful for stating the rationale.
Please do not use this template to tag non-free icons of computer software. Such items should be tagged with {{Non-free computer icon}} template.
Regarding uses other than in the original article: Check the non-free use criteria and do not assume that existing rationales can be simply copied and pasted, as they may not necessarily apply.

To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

--Mrzero 21:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. You can see logos on all pages about soccer championships. And the rules are pretty clear about this issue.FTota 13:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All see WP:FUC. Use on the original page is fine, use as decoration, or in templates is not. ed g2s • talk 15:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

Does anyone oppose moving this to Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup statistics, considering the tournament has been renamed? --Gabbec 17:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Actually it's the right thing to do. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done ;) —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corinthians Title 2000 should be removed imho, FIFA will remove it because it's just ridiculous ad confused.

No. FIFA won't "remove" it, anon. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the 2000 title of Corinthias is ridiculous!!!! Romeve it!193.43.176.101 (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was official FIFA tournament and just stop spamming here!--Oleg Abarnikov (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree in combining both articles (same tournament, different name). I will start doing so in a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSonicx1986 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New move

Now that 1951 Copa Rio is regognized as a World Club Championship and some of its statistics are being added in here, shouldn't we move article's name again? Maybe "World Club Championships statistics" os something like that? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see why a change would be needed. According to this document, the Copa Rio is recognized as the first official "Club World Cup", which still fits one of the two denominations given in the article's current name. I would like to see an official FIFA press release making this clear, though, since I haven't seen anything about this on their website. --Gabbec 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested split

I suggest that this article be split into two new articles entitled Intercontinental Cup statistics and FIFA Club World Cup statistics. My reasoning for this is that the Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup are two separate and distinct competitions. While both competitions determine the de facto world champions for that year, the Club World Cup was designed as a replacement for the Intercontinental Cup, not as its successor. In fact, in the 1999–2000 season, both competitions were run. Finally, even FIFA does not recognise the Intercontinental Cup as the predecessor to the Club World Cup, as proven by their list of previous editions of the Club World Cup (here), which only includes the 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007 editions of the competition. – Pee Jay 12:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of this article is to show combined statistics for both the de facto highest-level club championships. The split statistics are already in the individual tournament articles. MTC (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the two competitions are completely separate. Their statistics should not be merged, as that implies that the two competitions are contiguous. – Pee Jay 17:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He wants it split because England is nowhere near the top of the list. Besides, the whole point to this is to show statistics as one (Both are essentially the same tournament)

By continent

Why do the media (GMX and Kicker) stress the claim that, by Manchester winning 2008, Europe equalized 23:23? --Rheinländer (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]