Jump to content

Talk:FC Barcelona 6–1 Paris Saint-Germain F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 15 March 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved by consensus. Andrewa (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


FC Barcelona 6–1 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. → La Remontada – This match is overwhelmingly called La Remontada in the media, sources, etc. Under WP:COMMONNAME this should be moved to that title. I think this football match is an extraordinary exception to the standard naming we usually use. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 15:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Dispute over including unrelated matches

[edit]

Crowsus is insisting on including two matches in a section called "Subsequent meetings and similar outcomes". Personally, I think that entire section is WP:UNDUE trivia, but okay, if there's a reliable source about the two teams meeting again that mentions this 2017 match, I can see sort of see it. But, the other matches that Crowsus is listing aren't related to this one at all. It's two matches in which Barcelona played someone else and lost, unlike this one, where they won. Most importantly, there are no reliable sources that link those matches with this one. The best Crowsus could find was a list of "Tottenham & Liverpool: Greatest Champions League comebacks of all time" in which 10 different matches are listed, and this 6-1 result is one of them, and is not tied to any of the others except by being present in the same article. By Crowsus' logic, we could just indiscriminately put all 10 of those matches in this section. Of course, I would not do that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What utter garbage. Nobody said anything about all of those 10. I have included matches from the two seasons after the Remontada, in the same competition, which involved one of the two teams in question, and which also happened to involve a significant comeback in the outcome, which is the whole reason for the Remontada match being notable. I don't really see how anyone would fail to appreciate the connection with those 17/18 and 18/19 matches and need dots joined, but since you insisted, I included a source (from the BBC, not a reliable source now?) which explicity connects them all and therefore negates any suggestion of synth / OR in these obviously similar events. It isn't even the 'best I could find', it's one I obtained with no effort at all, directly linked from the match report on Liverpool v Barcelona. There will be many others, in fact here's two reports about Roma mentioning PSG as a comparison, another list, this time from UEFA, mentioning all those matches (it's from this year but is still a short list because such outcomes remain uncommon), one from BBC Spain, another Spanish one and a nice retrospective on 'the' Remontada which mentions - in passing, near the bottom, as it was here - the very same Roma, Liverpool and Man Utd matches. Nevertheless, that one source already added is sufficient for verification in my opinion and as per the guidelines of this site, you may disagree, but then we are in a conflict dispute and wider opinion should be sought, which I have suggested you do and provided a link for a suitable forum, but instead you've come here which is unlikely to get the same response level due to the traffic levels, I could be wrong. I am not here to blindly add and retain random things but instead improve the relevant, sourced content for the readers - you had an issue with what was there so I also added better sources for those matches themselves (and apologised for not spotting that someone had added a pointless box score link as a source) and reduced the phrasing. It's also strange that you seem to be fixated on removing the Barcelona matches but seem to have no problem with the mention of PSG v Man U even though it's identical circumstances, suggesting either you're not actually reading the section fully, or there's some other club-based agenda or something in keeping some bits and deleting others. So, reverted back again. Crowsus (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't really see how anyone would fail to appreciate the connection" isn't the bar we use here, it should be explicitly linked per WP:V. Both appearing in a motley list of interesting champions league matches doesn't explicity link these cases, and it does seem like undue trivia to include them.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Amakuru (talk). Fred Zepelin (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are UEFA and the BBC a motley list? Crowsus (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again, the PSG v Man U result was left in but the 2 Barcelona result were removed, where is the logic there? That needs to be explained. It is absolutely not undue weight to mention these outcomes, in passing, with sources. Crowsus (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And since the bar is WP:V, it's clear I have met that with the list link. Do you want me to add all the others above? Crowsus (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the sources are motley, I'm saying the lists are. They aren't specifically related to this game, just general lists and it's WP:SYNTH to talk as if there's some special relevance here when in reality those are just other interesting games that were listed in connection to Tottenham and Liverpool staging comebacks in the champions league. Also, why have you reverted yet again instead of continuing the discussion here? I have had to leave you a warning on your talk page, because that is not acceptable. Please self-revert and we can continue the discussion here.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Amakuru here. I'm reverting Crowsus' latest edit-warring edit because it's apparent he's not going to self-revert. Any more reverts from Crowsus before this talk page discussion is resolved will result in a report of edit warring to admins (I'll file it). He's been warned, and has repeatedly used edit summaries like "per talk" even though no one agrees with his position but himself. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To address the two additional sources that Crowsus added: one of them, once again, does not mention this 6-1 2017 match. The other, again, is an indiscriminate list of "Greatest Champions League comebacks". This time it's a list of 18 matches. It does seem that this has become a WP:DROPTHESTICK issue. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's, um, an interesting analysis. An alternative version would be:
Source 1: includes the phrase "Alluding to the historic "remontada" of last season, when Barca came back from a 4-0 first-leg defeat to Paris Saint-Germain to win the tie 6-5 on aggregate, the French daily dubbed Tuesday's result in the Italian capital a "Romantada"" [also the title of the article].
Source 2: from ~400 knockout ties in the competition, 18 fit the criteria. The article goes into greater detail on only 5 of these, indicating they feel they are the most noteworthy:
  • Barcelona beat PSG, 2017
  • Roma beat Barcelona, 2018
  • Liverpool beat Barcelona, 2019
  • [Deportivo beat Milan, 2004]
  • Man United beat PSG, 2019
You may have noticed the first article is the subject of this article. I have placed Deportivo v Milan in brackets indicating it is to be ignored, lest it be incorrectly assumed that I intend to add it in. For the other 3 matches, you may notice a close grouping of years as well as the same teams involved more than once, which I have marked in bold in case it should escape your attention. In the 30 years of Champions League competition, UEFA considers this extremely small list to be the most worthy of reminding their website readers on the subject of comebacks. It would seem logical therefore, that the Wikipedia article on PSG v Barcelona may contain ONE SENTENCE about two of the other five on the list, which occurred in the next two seasons and involved many of the same players, for the information of their readers. But no! Alas, not so. Mere trivia, undue, irrelevant, damn what a pity. And yet! The sentence on PSG v Man U is allowed to remain. How could this be? Surely it must be that all three of these matches are mentioned, or none. Could it possibly be that the editor who opposes the retention of the information has failed to properly scrutinise both the section of the article with which they have such grave concern, and the sources (provided on their request) which undermine their position, because in fact nothing will change their opinion and instead they are occupying their time with making spurious / carelessly inaccurate observations on the validity of the sources and threatening the other editor with administrator intervention for daring to oppose them? I agree the stick should be dropped, but by you. Crowsus (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas you Crowsus have appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner and you're going to keep reinserting the disputed material despite the fact that it's off-topic and nobody else supports it. Of course you've been threatened with administrator intervention because you're WP:edit warring like there's no tomorrow. Just cut it out and try acting collaboratively.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FC_Barcelona_6–1_Paris_Saint-Germain_F.C.&oldid=1220608837"