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
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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catalonia and Catalonia-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.CataloniaWikipedia:WikiProject CataloniaTemplate:WikiProject CataloniaCatalonia articles
Name in Catalan, why should we hide it to a second level?[edit]
Hi, I recovered here my previous edition from February 20 to set the language denomination of "El Clàssic" in Catalan at the same level of importance to the one in Spanish. The edition was undid by @Snowflake91 with no reasoning. It is the vernacular name in Catalan, which is the official language of FC Barcelona and an official language in Catalonia (where those games are also played and broadcasted), and sourced enough in the media and the bibliography. I cannot see any other reason than diglossia (thinking that one of both languages is not revelevant enough as Spanish) to hide it to a second level. Which shouldn't be the case at all on Wikipedia, but still too common here in enwiki regarding exclusion and minorisation of local toponymia, biographies and events. That's why I raise the topic here, aiming for more opinions and language equality (i.e. reality) in the definitions. Xavier Dengra (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nothing was wrong with the previous version, it is clearly explained in the first sentence that its called "El Clàssic" in Catalan, you don't need to put this in bold because only the article title should be in bold as the common name in English-speaking world, same as in infobox, El Clàssic is never a common name and no one calls it like that outside of Catalonia. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are already committing the mistake to minorize and disrespect the language again with your last comment: "is never a common name and no one calls it like that outside of Catalonia". Firstly, Catalan is not only spoken in Catalonia. If Wikipedia does not show both autochthonous names with the same importance, of course people from the outside will never know nor use it. Not only you removed the bold, but also did it from the infobox and placed it back inside a parenthesis and in italics (totally as a secondary position). Xavier Dengra (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with "minorizing the languages", but just some basic common naming rules on English language Wikipedia, where we use the name that is predominantly used in English-speaking reliable sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I kindly ask you to refrain undoing my edition while were are here discussing and until there is further consensus. It was my edit that I brought here to the discuss while your first deletion of my addition did not include any summary. Besides, my change clearly follows Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Article title terms: "This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections", as "El Clàssic" redirects to the main article since 12 years ago. Xavier Dengra (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check "Pages that link to "El clàssic"" and you would see that there are exactly zero articles that redirects from this page, so its irrelevant if someone randomly redirected El clàssic to El Clásico for apparently no reason. Also if you check the Catalonia article, is there a bolding of "Catalunya"? NO, because thats exactly how it should be, only the common English adaptation should be bolded, while all other languages and adaptations should be in parentheses. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I don't have a clear view on how the first sentence should be, but your last argument is not complete valid, as Catalonia is an English word, but El Clásico is not. A better analogy would be Camino de Santiago, where the Spanish name is in italics, and the English translation is bold, after some other language variants. Bolding twice is not a problem, as stated in MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Theklan (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All WP:OR and WP:SYNTH should be removed, there are no sources for a total number of friendly matches without collecting, obtaining and counting these matches all by yourself from several different sources. There was actually already a discussion above from 2022, when someone said that exhibition matches should not be counted in statistics, and now I fully agree with them, I thought that the content is sourced but it was apparently not. List of El Clasico matches is not a "source" of any kind, the friendly matches were composed by users over time (someone added new matches from 100 years ago as recently as two months ago), so how do we know this is complete and that the users didn't miss some games, or included some matches that weren't first team matches etc.? Again, this is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
Did I mention that you actually removed two of my reliable sources which confirmed what was mentioned in the article, and then instead reinstated unsourced content obtained with WP:OR and you simply reinstated "citation needed" tag, is this a joke? Provide a source that there has been a total of 295 El Clasico matches or the content will get removed again. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with Snowflake91 that friendly matches should not be counted together with official matches, since there is no federation, national or international, that witnesses those matches. However, I would ask that the list of friendlies on the "List of El Clásico matches" page not be deleted. I was the one who added seven more friendly matches, just over a month ago. Seven matches dated between 1911 and 1957. A journalist and historian of Spanish football (Alberto Cosín) helped me for this. I put sources of those matches, and I can add more. Also from the rest of the matches that were already on the list. I am in a position to ensure that they are all there. 41 are, so far, the friendly matches played between Real Madrid and Barcelona. With a quote. The 1902 match, which is listed as official in the article, is not official. It should appear on the friendly or "unofficial" list for a total of 42.
This list of friendly matches in the article "List of El Clásico matches" is complete, and is a source of valuable information. Another thing is that you have to equate them with the officials to make a total count. I don't think so. Here I agree with Snowflake91. Pinopuente (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. See the definition of El Clássico in the top: El Clásico is the name given to any football match between rival clubs FC Barcelona and Real Madrid.
..So exhibition matches may be appear.
2. I added 2 reliable sources of El Clássico exhibition matches. The Mundo Deportivo source details every match and the totals. The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the friendly matches can obviously stay at "List of El Clasico matches" article, but should be removed from this article. And I also agree that the 1902 match is not official and should also be removed, virtually all sources have 253 official matches as of April 2023, not 254. Regarding friendly matches, its funny that The Penfield Homunculus now added a source from Mundo Deportivo which clearly says that there have been only 32 friendly matches (with 18 wins for Barca, 4 for Real and 10 draws), and now wants to use this as a source to "support" a claim about 41 friendly matches played, while in reality the reference is not supporting ANYTHING that is mentinoed in the lead section. So either change the lead and mention that there have been only 32 friendlies as stated in Mundo Deportivo, or remove everything as you cannot cite a source that says "pears", and then you say "apples" in the article instead, totally contradictory. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. The article of Mundo Deportivo is a reliable source and is updated as of July 2017 (date published).
2. The other El Clássico matches contested from 2017 to now are perfectly sourced.
3. Yes, the exhibition El Clássico matches are perfectly sourced.
Don't make things up please, yeah the article is from July 2017, so the two matches played in 2017 and 2022 are missing from their stats as they have been played after the article was published, yeah fine, but that would be a total 34 matches then - where is the source for 41 matches played, 23 wins for Barca, 12 draws and 6 for Real ? Your source doesn't support the text stated in the article. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is natural that there is incomplete or unconsolidated data about those friendly matches that were played more than sixty years ago, so it is not necessary to find a source confirming the number of matches in total. Just enough to prove the source of each game separately. As for the 1902 match that was played on May 13, 1902 in the Copa de la Coronación, it is an official tournament recognized by the Spanish Football Federation, and therefore it is an official match, not a friendly one. --Mishary94 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It is natural that there is incomplete or unconsolidated data about those friendly matches that were played more than sixty years ago, so it is not necessary to find a source confirming the number of matches in total." – umm, yes it is? This is the whole point how Wikipedia works, if the source doesn't exist then don't publish anything, but you cannot make things up all by yourself by combinating data from mutliple sources and reports to reach the desired information. Because thats the whole problem and the point of WP:OR, there is no guarantee that your own research would be correct, there may be more matches that you haven't added to the article. And is there a source about Coronacion Copa being recognised by the Spanish FA now? Because in the article, below the all-time stats table, it literally says "Although not recognized by the current Royal Spanish Football Federation as an official match, ...". Snowflake91 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Official source of El Clássico exhibition matches played as of 28 June 2017 (Publisher: FC Barcelona): [1]The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each reliable source specifies completely different figures. Well, I have the opinion that the only way to source this is to do it individually match by match. We cannot exclude friendly matches from this page as it is clearly specified that El Clássico is the name given to any football match between Madrid and Barcelona. Not only the officials. The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "The Penfield Homunculus", we have to do it manually, as long as there is no source specifying the total number of matches. As for the match that was played in 1902, the Spanish Federation does not recognize it as a tournament for the Copa de la Rey, but recognizes it as a separate official tournament and therefore it is considered the first official match played between the two teams and all sources confirm this. --Mishary94 (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you cannot do it manually as this is EXACTLY what WP:OR is – if the sources are saying 33, 32 and 37, then you CANNOT include 41 by doing the research by yourself, so either include one of those numbers or delete it. For the millionth time, check what WP:SYNTH and WP:OR even is, because you still apparently don't understand some basic fundamentals about verifying the content on Wikipedia, and that you cannot include your own researched data which you obtained by manually collecting and counting things. The Penfield Homunculus basically confirmed that there is no source which would support your claim for 41 games and that the sources are inconsistent between several different numbers, so this is the best possible argument to delete the questionable data, and NOT to keep it. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is is not correct, Mishary94. Spanish Federation does not recognize it as a separate official tournament. Source? Pinopuente (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See here and here. Real Madrid's official website admits that the first official match played in El Clasico was in 1902, although it is not part of the Copa de la Rey tournament, as it states that the first match in the Copa del La Rey was in 1916. -- Mishary94 (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs like this have zero credibility and cannot be used as a source, while the Real website doesn't say anything about the tournament being officially recognized by the Spanish Fedeartion, it just says "Although both teams squared off in the 1902 Copa de la Coronación, the predecessor to the Spanish Cup". Snowflake91 (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the source in which the Spanish federation "recognizes it as a separate official tournament"? And also, you say: "The official Real Madrid website admits that the first official match played in El Clásico was in 1902". Official? Where is the word "official" in that source? I have better things to do than argue with people who manipulate things, for whatever reason, Mishary. I leave the conversation. Do what you want. Pinopuente (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See here from the Marca newspaper, which is one of the most reliable sources in Spain, expressly states that the Copa de la Coronación tournament has been recognized, and that with an official match between the two teams that took place on May 13, 1902, it is better to do the things you like as long as you have no arguments in the debate. -- Mishary94 (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
El torneo acabó siendo reconocido como el primer campeonato nacional del nuevo 'sport'. Por lo tanto, cuando al día siguiente, sobre el césped del Hipódromo de Madrid, se enfrentaron el citado Madrid Foot-ball Club y el Foot-ball Club Barcelona en una de las semifinales, el 1-3 para los segundos con que acabó el partido fue el primer marcador oficial entre los dos clubes que con el tiempo dominarían el fútbol español.En aquel tiempo, empero, su preponderancia no era total.
Marca says that, translate it, if that doesn't convince you that's really going to be a big problem. -- Mishary94 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
«La RFEF ya había manifestado que no la reconocía y por tanto no la incluía en el palmarés del torneo».
"El Concurso Madrid, por lo tanto, fue un torneo amistoso. Juan Padrós lo organizó en un tiempo record y gracias a ello pudo decir: si se ha podido organizar este concurso, entonces, con un año de por medio, sí se puede organizar el Campeonato de España".
CIHEFE is "Centro de Investigaciones de Historia y Estadística del Fútbol Español". 213.177.193.22 (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The RFEF had already stated that it did not recognize it and therefore it did not appear in the tournament's record."
"The Madrid Contest, therefore, was a friendly tournament. Juan Padrós organized it in record time and thanks to this he was able to say: if it has been possible to organize this contest, then, with a year in between, it can be organized the Spanish Championship".
CIHEFE is the "Research Center for the History and Statistics of Spanish Football". 213.177.193.22 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I say that the official Real Madrid website says that it is an official match, and the most famous newspaper in Spain and the most credible one also says that it is a recognized tournament and it is the first official match in El Clasico, then you puts a site that I do not know who is behind it and tells me that it is interested in statistics and says that it is not recognized. Are you serious? --Mishary94 (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, this source explicitly says that the tournament played in 1902 is not part of the Copa de Lari, but it is not asserted that it is not recognized by the Spanish Federation. --Mishary94 (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion: The list of sourced El clássico exhibition matches cannot be consider as an original reserch or a collecting. It should be considered as a list of well-acredited/sourced sporting events. I repeat, El Clássico is the name given to any football match between FCB-RM. NOT ONLY THE OFFICIALS! The friendly matches are part of the history of El Clássico and most have transcended at international level. We look for a way to accommodate them but not eliminate them. they are valuable data. A question: The list of films that a film director has made ordered by year in chronological order is also considered as a original research or collecting? No sure… The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are saying 32, 33, 37 matches as you can see from the links above, and then if you manually search for more games from old newspapers and stuff to make it up to 41 games, then yeah this is exactly what original research is. Per WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source", and this is exactly what you are doing. You need a single source that says "there have been 41 friendly el clasico matches so far", and not "32 games", "33 games", "37 games", and then some manually searched games to make it 41. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, you can quote multiple sources which give different answers and list them explaining the discrepancy. It is not Synth, nor OR, to state "There have been between 32 and 41 Clasico matches outside official competition [note] Source A says 32, Source B says 33" etc. If a source has been found by an editor that states a match took place, as long as that evidence is provided it should be included in the list, the editor would not be reaching an independent conclusion but performing basic arithmetic. With the 1902 match, it would be best to put it in the 'non-official' list since the status is disputed, but it should be mentioned that some sources, including Real Madrid, consider it official. Crowsus (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Real Madrid does not consider that match as official. In the source that has been cited here, he considers it as the first game between Real Madrid and Barcelona, obviously. But not "official". Pinopuente (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, the Real Madrid website states that the match is official and that there were seven friendly matches between 1902 and 1916 (which, by the way, coincides with your addition of some friendly matches in this period in the article “List of El Clasico matches”) --13:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Mishary94 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Although both teams squared off in the 1902 Copa de la Coronación, the predecessor to the Spanish Cup, the competition's first-ever Clásico took place in the semis of the 1915/16 edition"
This is not an acknowledgment of the officiality of the 1902 match. Nor is it the opposite. It is a quote from the match of 1902. Nothing more. Pinopuente (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The RFEF had already stated that it did not recognize it and therefore it did not appear in the tournament's record."
"The Madrid Contest, therefore, was a friendly tournament. Juan Padrós organized it in record time and thanks to this he was able to say: if it has been possible to organize this contest, then, with a year in between, it can be organized the Spanish Championship".
https://www.cihefe.es/cuadernosdefutbol/2009/11/la-copa-de-1902/
CIHEFE is the "Research Center for the History and Statistics of Spanish Football". Pinopuente (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first citation is at the beginning of the article and the second citation is at the end of the article. Pinopuente (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect The RFEF did not state that it is unofficial, the tournament is official according to the following sources:
Source #1: from the Marca newspaper, which is one of the most reliable sources in Spain, expressly states that the Copa de la Coronación tournament has been recognized, and that with an official match between the two teams that took place on May 13, 1902: (El torneo acabó siendo reconocido como el primer campeonato nacional del nuevo 'sport'. Por lo tanto, cuando al día siguiente, sobre el césped del Hipódromo de Madrid, se enfrentaron el citado Madrid Foot-ball Club y el Foot-ball Club Barcelona en una de las semifinales, el 1-3 para los segundos con que acabó el partido fue el primer marcador oficial entre los dos clubes que con el tiempo dominarían el fútbol español.En aquel tiempo, empero, su preponderancia no era total.)
Source #2: from the official Real Madrid website, The official website talks about the official matches that took place in the Copa del Rey tournament. You can see that the official website admits that the first meeting took place in 1902, but it does not recognize that it is within the Copa del Rey tournament: (Although both teams squared off in the 1902 Copa de la Coronación, the predecessor to the Spanish Cup, the competition's first-ever Clásico took place in the semis of the 1915/16 edition, with the madridistas advancing to the final. Since then, a further 33 meetings have taken place, seven of which were finals (Real Madrid prevailed on four occasions and Barcelona on three). Of the ties between the rivals, each club has won six.)
Source #3: from the official RFEF website, The Spanish Federation recognizes the achievement of the Basque club Bizcaya (who won the Copa de la Coronación in the final) by saying: "Today, both the Museum of the Spanish National Team and the Athletic Club Museum keep a trophy to which we owe the birth of the Copa del Rey as we know it today.", Then the REFF goes on to say: "The Bilbao club had the honor of also winning the first edition in April 1903, although that is another story..", This is an explicit statement that the federation recognizes the Coronation Cup title, but it does not recognize that it is part of the Copa del Rey championship, rather it is a separate championship from it.
"The board of directors of the Royal Spanish Football Federation, meeting this Saturday in Malaga [...] has approved, at the request of President Luis Rubiales, the official recognition of the President of the Republic Cup-Free Spain Cup competition and has awarded the Levante Football Club the distinction of champion of the year 1937 [...] In the same way, the board has also recognized the official status of the Concurso España competition and has awarded the Real Club Deportivo de la Coruña the title of champion of the year of 1912."
This is a true official recognition. Look for something similar in the case of the 1902 competition. It does not exist. Athletic Bilbao, heir to Club Vizcaya, winner of that competition, has been looking for recognition like this for many years. But he has not succeeded. Maybe in the future they will. Until then, it will remain an unofficial tournament. Pinopuente (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello, I would like to change the part about the number of consecutives matches without losing in the league. On the scoreboard, we can see that Barcelona has 7 consecutive matches without losing, including 5 wins, between 2008 and 2011. In fact, they do have 7 consecutive matches without losing, but they have won 6 out of their 7 games. That is why i would like to edit the socreboard because the information on it is fake. Thank you for reading my message. RC4 Dlox (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Statistics Section holds value for Total Meetings Official and Most Wins Official the no. Don't add up if either the No. Is wrong or Barcelona has won more official matches which is 152 wins 116.74.136.116 (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly, charity or exhibition matches should not be taken into account[edit]
Almost virtually the entire sports press, regardless of the country, only takes official matches into account. Even if you look at the Spanish Wikipedia and Wikipedias of other languages you see that they only use the official matches.
By concept, a The Clásico match is always a competitive match. Charity, friendly or exhibition matches are never taken into account, It is not even a cultural thing in Spain to take these into account as Clásicos, nor even for culés (Barça fans) Illolenia (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but certain users still want to add unsourced WP:OR list of friendly matches to the article (see a few sections above), even though no source ever would confirm that there were "297 El Clasicos" as of 13 Janury 2024, its all based on manually searching for friendly matches and counting stuff. Everything related to friendly exhibition matches should be erased from this article, from infobox, lead section and also statistical tables. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no harm if we list friendly matches. Since it is the biggest competitive match in clubs football history, why not put friendly matches in a separate section from official matches? As long as friendly matches are reliably sourced, they should be put in place. Many people wonder how many friendly matches Real Madrid and Barcelona played, and it is a natural question. But I support removing the friendly matches in the main template and in the introduction to the article, as you did in your edit, and I am against removing them completely, especially in the matches table and the El Clásico matches list article. --Mishary94 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no photo at the top of the templte? In articles about other rivalries, there is a photo at the top of the template, an example in this article.212.164.39.89 (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an image you would suggest putting in the main template? --Mishary94 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see -- [5] -- I think there are some good photos there. -- 212.164.39.89 (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer this photo Barcelona and Real Madrid playing in the 2011 Supercopa de Espana --- 212.164.39.89 (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a more institutional image. For example, the captains when they are about to start a match. Illolenia (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, I think this is the best image. Both of them are fighting equally for the ball. It's beautiful and neutral.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)