Talk:FC Barcelona/Archive 1

``

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

First comment

Aren't the Barcelona Dragons of the NFL Europe affiliated with FC Barcelona?

GABaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.229.31.42 (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2005 (UTC)

Home kit

The shorts of the home kit for 2005/2006 are red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.71.55 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Archibald

What number did Steve Archibald wear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.50.187 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Zico?

Saw that the Current Era section has been edited with the comments of Zico, no source has been given and i question the relevance of the information. It does not seem to be anything of historical importance. 82.112.136.14 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I notice there has been a number of cases of vandalism recently, both here and at the Real Madrid article. This is very childish and disrespectful to both clubs, their fans and the contributers to the articles. Those idiots responsible need to grow up. Is there any way these wasters can be blocked ? Thanks to everybody who has helped repair and/or improve both articles. --Djln 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Joan Gamper/Cules

• There is a seperate article on Joan Gamper
• The origin of cules is already mentioned earlier in article by the picture in The Gamper Years. No need to mention it twice. Djln

Recent Edits

Article should be based on fact and not speculation e.g future players and future sponsership deals. Edits should be added in context and not just dropped in anywhere e.g team rankings.Djln

Reference Cules

The section on cules is just repeating information that has been included earlier in the article. It does'nt need to be shown again. Whoever keeps putting it back can't have read the article properly. Djln--Djln 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who is putting the "cules" back all the time but I can see that not everything in the "cules" is said earlier in the article --> Far from being offensive... and the number of supporters clubs is not included earlier.

I've added the extra bits as above suggested. Hopefully this will resolve the issue.Djln --Djln 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like this new edit. Well done. 62.57.6.193 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

FC

FC means Futbol Club? So, it should be about Football club, not about polideportivo!

194.237.142.13 11:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the football club, but it has to be acknowledged that the club has a number of other sports teams, all of which use the FC in their name. The better known teams have seperate articles and are only mentioned in passing here.

Recent Events

I have reverted the name of the final section to Recent Events. I think its to early to designate this era a more permanent name. I have also removed some POV and OTT comments. Djln--Djln 18:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have had to revert edits once again refernce above. The other version is too long, poorly written and contains information that will quickly become dated Djln--Djln 23:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Rivalry

Why is section on Rivallry With Real Madrid been removed. This covers an important era in clubs history. If you disagree with parts, re-edit, leave opinion on discussion page, do'nt just vandalise. I've edited the list of managers to include just the most successful/famous/ones with wikipedia articles. I think this preferable to missing out an important piece of there history. Several of these managers were listed two or three times. Surely once is enough. Djln--Djln 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

War of Flags

What is this? A battle for the bigger autonomic flag?. I found the Basque one in the article of Racing de Santander and now this autenthic party of colours; I guest this situation began due to the use of the Catalonian flag. I think we must make a decision, or all player are represented by their national and regional flag, or only by national or only by regional.

• 
• 
• 

I think this is not reasonable, at least in not Spanish version, due to the ignorance in relation to spanish regional flags, I would choose to use national flags, and regional only in the article of players and Spanish article.

(Please, if somebody answer me, avoid talking about the national feelings, and other political themes; I just keep the current organization of the Spanish state. And don´t lucubrate about me coz I´m the first one who love his autonomic flag, but in this context it has nosense)

While we make a decision at least I´m going to establish the same size for all flags.

--Uhanu 03:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think national flags are reasonable to include, but then regional flags and the use of European Union flag has gone a bit OTT/ excessive. The main problem I find with flags is they are often wrong. It has been suggested at Talk: Athletic Bilbao that its players should have flag since the club only uses Basque players. But it was after the introduction of this flag that I first noticed other regional flags been used, most notably the Catalan flag. Djln --Djln 22:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should agree on one system on all Wikipedia atricles about football clubs and keep it. I think best solution is to put first flag of player's national team (if he played for one) and somehow special put that notice. After that we can add other flags (regional, EU and other nationalities if he is member of one of them) Jakiša Tomić 00:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also to be considered to use the catalan sentence in More than a club (més que un club) instead of the Spanish one (más que un club). Catalan is the day to day language of FC Barcelona.

--

There is another issue here - why do the following persons in this same article have flags that do not correspond to their state of origin (the UK)?:

Former managers Jack Greenwell, Vic Buckingham, Terry Venables and Bobby Robson, and former players Mark Hughes, Steve Archibald and Gary Lineker.

What is the criterion? If it is the state, then their names should bear the Union Jack. If it corresponds to their leagues, what to do with Mark Hughes and Gary Lineker? Besides, what common flag should England and Wales have? They play in the same league, don’t they? If the criterion is ‘national’ teams, then the players who have played for the Catalan, Basque, etc. sides should have their corresponding flags.

This is obviously politically tinged (not tainted), but then what isn't? The obvious reply to my point on this issue is that the Catalan, Basque, etc. teams are 'regional' and not 'national'. This is another political point of view. Most people, particularly Barça fans and club members, as well as the players themselves, will likely say that the Catalan team is 'national', not 'regional’, and these are after all the parties most concerned.

Besides, if the Catalan, Basque, etc. flags are shown, the resulting article will thus supply the Wikipedia user with a better view of the reality of FC Barcelona, which is the whole point of this article, isn’t it?

YuriBCN 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

history of the club

I really think that we should make a little history of the club, within it page and in seperate page a long and comprehensive one. Barcelona is big club - one of G14, not to mention - and deserve more than this measle history. Elan Morin Tedronai 01:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So is Bourrusia Dortmond 193.108.134.38 06:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We should have a seperate page on the history of Barcelona as well as Borrussia Dortmand. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Barca

May I suggest an explanation for what Barca means? Also the spelling of Barca is inconsistent in the article, is it Barca or Barça? 71.193.193.166 04:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Barça is just the short form for Barcelona. In catalan, the "c" can sound as "s" and must be written as C when its followed by e or i, and as a Ç when its followed by a, o or u.

Jog

Lineup

Perhaps we should move away from the picture of the starting lineup from the 2004 season and move to a more flexible solution (I've used the starting lineup from the CL final), feel free to tweak this, since I'm not really sure what the exact positions of the players are. It's pretty simple really, the x values refer to the width of the pitch, the y values the length. jaco♫plane 20:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Valdés
# 1

Márquez
# 4

Puyol
# 5

Gio
# 12

Oleguer
# 23

Edmílson
# 15

van Bommel
# 17

Deco
# 20

Giuly
# 8

Eto'o
# 9

Ronaldinho
# 10

or smaller

Valdés

Márquez

Puyol

Gio

Oleguer

Edmílson

van Bommel

Deco

Giuly

Eto'o

Ronaldinho

add shorts

Pls Add these File:Kit shorts Barcelona.png Shorts to the home kit. Spurs229 11:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) NO NEED. Becasue the shorts colour is going to change for next season. Back to blue.

Reference History

I think their is plenty of club history in this article as it is. It is comparable in length to the history section of the FC Barcelona official website and covers all the main events in the clubs history. Describing the history section here as measely is a bit inconsiderate to say the least. It is a vast improvement on what was here before I started contributing.

The problem with these History of... pages is that their length becomes excessive and the articles just repeat sections of the main article. Some fans find it difficult to remain objective and fill the articles with trivia and facts only of interest to the hardcore fans of the club. As a result these articles are poor in standard and become almost unreadable for non-fans. I have already started an FC Barcelona in Europe and this article has room for more history. There is also a Category:FC Barcelona which has links to other articles and further history can be added here where necessary e.g. Camp Nou. Djln--Djln 21:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Joan Gamper Trophy/Presidents/Article size

I have removed the Joan Gamper Trophy from list of major trophies. This competition can not be regarded as a major trophy, it is just a pre-season tournement. Also reduced the size of the presidents list. I think it is excessive to include every single president. Wikipedia has recommendations about article size and this article is bordering on exceeding that length. I have transferred some info to other articles e.g. Camp Nou, FC Barcelona B etc. Contributers should check if their input would be better placed in other articles e.g. FC Barcelona in Europe or articles about individual players or managers. Djln --Djln 20:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

About Inter-Cities fairs Cup and UEFA Cup

UEFA CUP was founded on April 18, 1955 as the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, and was renamed the UEFA Cup in 1971. So is the same competition and in major trophies we have to write Inter-Cities fairs Cup / UEFA Cup because we talk about the competition not only the trophies won by Barça.

The same happens with the European Cup / UEFA Champions League competition.

Recent edits

• FC Barcelona never won UEFA Cup. They have only won the Fairs Cup. It is not relevant that the trophy changed name afterwards. The clubs own website only referrs to the Fairs Cup. The club has won both the old European Cup and the newer Champions League that is why they are both included.
• There are seperate articles on the hymn, Cant del Barça and FC Barcelona in Europe. More detailed info on these topics should be added there and not here. These articles and others, such as Winterthur FCB and FC Barcelona B, where started to keep article length down. This article is bordering on exceeding Wikipedias recommended article size. Perhaps a new article could be started about the Supporters of FC Barcelona to include more detailed.
• Djln --Djln 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

These comments

• Barcelona won the UEFA CUP when it was called Inter-cities fairs cup. Click on Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and read, please. IS THE F***** SAME COMPETITION.

These above comments are well out of order. I think you need to read up on Wikipedia etiqutte as clearly you have problems understanding how it works. The club never won the UEFA Cup by that name. Fairs Cup is linked to UEFA Cup and that is good enough. You need to read club website and check. I am fed up repeating the same info, about article size, but read that as well. You also need to sign on to Wikipedia and not just leave annnymous and abusive messages. Djln --Djln 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Size

When contributers are editing this page, more attention should be paid to Category:FC Barcelona and other articles located there. This article has reached the recommended Wikipedia article size and I am starting to get fed up repeating that here. I have started numerous other articles in order to help keep the main FC Barcelona the correct length. However some recent contributers seem to be ignoring this and constantly keep adding info here that is already included elsewhere.Djln--Djln 00:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

UEFA Cup

While it is recognised that the UEFA Cup is a continuation of the Fairs Cup, there is a case to argue that they are separate competitions and there has been calls for separate articles in Wikipedia. When the competition changed name a new trophy was introduce, the one-club one-city rule was eventually abandoned and a new organisation took over the administration of competition.Djln --Djln 00:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I would like to make a request for some sort of mediation at the FC Barcelona article. I have looked for a template to intiate a discussion but could not find one suitable. The issue is basicly about article size. In order to keep the article within Wikipedia guidelines on length, several other articles have been created and are linked together in Category:FC Barcelona. However an anonymous editor has ignored my suggestions to add contributions to other articles rather then the main article. He has persistently overloaded the page with info that is included in other articles and refuses to engage in any debate or log-in. --Djln 23:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

F.C. Barcelona

Wouldn't it be more correct to move this to F.C. Barcelona? Other clubs seem to have the ".", for example, Arsenal F.C.

Personally I think FC Barcelona looks better and is more in line with the club website version. Just because other clubs use the above it does not mean every club should. One personas idea of correct ,is another persons eyesore. Djln --Djln 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

fair enough Yonatanh 01:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Topics for debate

Over the past six months or so I have regularly edited the FC Barcelona article. While I look forward to reading good edits, it is very frustrating to come back and find the page radically altered for the worse without any discussion. It is also annoying when contributors refuse to enter into discussion and just delete edits without assessing their merits. I think the following issues need to be clarified.

• FC Barcelona is a sports club, not just a football club, and in the opening paragraph all sports should be treated equally. To have in the first line best known as football club does not seem right.
• The club is only really regarded as an institution in modern Catalonia and this status does not stretch as far as Valencia.
• FC Barcelona has never won the UEFA Cup and reference to this competition should not be included in the major trophies section. They have however won the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup on three occasions.
• There are separate articles about the Supporters of FC Barcelona and FC Barcelona in Europe and these can be expanded. Excessive info/stats about these subjects does not need to be here as they only make the page exceed article size.
• As far as I am aware the club fields a team in the Copa Catalunya
• Is it really necessary to list website links to every fansite in the world ? I think these are better placed at Supporters of FC Barcelona. Djln --Djln 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know all that much about the history of barcelona but I'm sure this sentence should be changed: "the team won another national double in 1959 and a La Liga/Fairs Cup double in 1958. double in 1960."

Other than the fact that there's the messed up ending, it's also not in chronological order which I think it should be. Yonatanh 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"However the decade also saw the emergence of Josep Fuste and Carles Rexach from their cantera and the club winning the Copa del Generalisimo in 1963 and the Fairs Cup in 1958. in 1966. In 1968 the club restored some pride by beating Real Madrid 1-0 in the Copa del Generalisimo final at the Bernabéu."

needs to be fixed as well, I just don't have the knowledge to do so. Yonatanh 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the above sentences. Well spotted. These are results of the constant and careless re-editing of the page that has taken place recently. Djln --Djln 21:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Another statement which is a bit ambiguous, "In May 2006 the number of club members (socis in catalan language) surpassed 140,000 making the club third worldwide only to Manchester United and Benfica." third what? third most supported club in the world? If so, it's really not such a great statistic as in England for example there's a different system. Yonatanh 15:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree this section should be removed, but somebody constantly keeps reinserting it. I'm not sure it is possible to accurately measure how many supporters actually support any particular club, so statements like this should go. Djln --Djln 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

New signings and departures should only be included in squad changes section. Djln --Djln 20:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the list of staff is excessive and needed to reduced and or got rid of. The most important staff i.e Rijkaard and Laporta are already mentioned elsewhere in article. What does anybody else thing. Djln --Djln 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that the unidentified individual who keeps making the same changes reads this, please note: 1. Your paragraph about socis is of minimal interest and relevance and is also repetitive of other sections. 2. The UEFA/Fairs Cup debate is covered above. 3. For no other competitions have the scores in the final or the other finalists been listed. Why do you want to do so for the European Cup/Champions League? 4. You additional external links are excessive, and the article is already too long (see comments from other contributors above). ----bcnviajero 17:21, 23 June 2006

Kit Colour

Over the past few days I have been having some problems with an unregistered user about the colour of Barcelona's kit [1] Now I know their is a problem with my version of the kit in the Internet Explorer browser about the transparency of the kit, which at first I did not notice because I primarily use Mozilla Firefox, but my compromise of using the default _bluehalf.png and using the same colour on the rest of the kit wasn't good enough for this unregistered user even though on the real kit the lue colour is uniformed but this user believes the colour to be a darker shade of blue. I agree the colour should be a darker shade of blue but with the .png not being changeable (well at least I don't know how to preserve the transparency) I cannot do it so I use that shade of blue for the rest of the kit and it was not acceptable. Could I have other peoples opinions on this to resolve the problem please. Here is my kit (in Firefox) and his kit (in Internet Explorer) [2] and a picture of the real thing [3] --shanda 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that yours was closer to the real thing, lets keep yours. Abreuzinho 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the unregistered user you referr to has been a menace to this article over the last month. Djln--Djln 00:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought their away kit was bright green, like in the 2004-2005 picture? can we not reproduce that colour? Cheers, Dubbya9 18:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean the luminous yellow one. That is now the third kit, with a new orange one being the second.

--Bcnviajero 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All

It was myself who requested that the FC Barcelona article, be protected against the edits of an unregistered user. However I notice that the unregistered user version is the one that has been left. This version goes over the recommended article size and contains inaccuracies. At least two other editers are in dispute with this unregistered user. If you check the history of this article you will find that I have been a major contributer to this article as well as other articles on Spanish football. PS I thought protection enabled registered users to edit ! Djln --Djln 21:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Guys What About these for the 07-08 season? http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/5337/awayvw7.jpg And http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/847/homeft3.jpg

the Laporta years

I think the current events section should be changed to the Laporta years where there should be a mention that the laporta years are currently ongoing. Yonatanh 12:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So...? Also, that user who poses as an IP is really annoying and needs to quit it. If not, something needs to be done. Yonatanh 02:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That user is a real pain who is consistently messing up other people's work with edits that are irrelevant, incorrect, or repetitive. I also agree about changing from Recent Events to The Laporta years, or The Laporta Era, as he has been there long enough for them not simply to be "Recent events". Bcnviajero 16:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also in favour of a Laporta Years section. I also agree about the anonymous user and in have past have sort protection for this page. Can I cite your names when asking for protection status again ?. Djln --Djln 00:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. This seems to be a person (possibly a child?) who just wants to cause inconvenience, as each time someone adds something about which there is consensus that it should not be there for some reason, he/she adds it to the list of edits that they constantly put back. As such, the list is getting longer. --Bcnviajero 09:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you already requested protection status yet ?. I think we have a strong case. I think at least three people have expressed concerns about these edits. Djln --Djln 21:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well we got semi-protection, but it went after less than a day and this anonymous user is back again. --Bcnviajero 11:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for banning 83.1992.2006

I would like to request that 83.1992.2006 be banned from editing the FC Barcelona article and that the article be given extra protection against him. He has behaved like a vandal, continuously adding incorrect and inaccurate info to the article. His edits fail to recognise the following facts.

• FC Barcelona has never won the UEFA Cup and reference to this competition should not be included in the major trophies section. They have however won the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, a precursor competition, on three occasions.
• There are separate articles about the Supporters of FC Barcelona and FC Barcelona in Europe and these can be expanded. Excessive info/stats and external links about these subjects does not need to be here as they only make the page exceed article size.
• The following statement cannot be substantiated. "In May 2006 the number of club members (socis in catalan language) surpassed 140,000 making the club third worldwide only to Manchester United and Benfica." I'm not sure it is possible to accurately measure how many supporters actually support any particular club, so statements like this should go.

While inserting these edits over and over again, 83.1992.2006 shows no regard for other edits from genuine editors. Edits have to be reinserted constantly or they become lost. Despite several requests from myself and other editors, he refuses to discuss anything on Talk: FC Barcelona and he also uses a misleading User ID. At least two other editors, Yonatanh and Bcnviajero have expressed concern about his edits. Djln--Djln 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please See: Wikipedia:Assume good faith - To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Please assume good faith--I.1 00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My edits are spotless

1. Dream team nickname is used often to refer fcb in several media.

2. Why Laporta era and no Rijkaard era o Ronaldinho era? Now is recent events, the future will decide whose era it is.

3. Because champions league is the most important of competitions so far.

4. For UEFA statistics UEFA Cup and Fairs Cup is the same competition.

5. Third in number of club members.

6. Trivia section is not mine.

7. The photo is OK.

8. People use the links often and so do I, specially Sport and Mundo Deportivo links

83.1992.2006

• Congrats on finding this page. Its about time. With the greatest respect, your edits are far from spotless and your general behaviour has been childish to say the least. Dream Team nickname only referrs to the FCB team during the 1990s. I have never seen it used to referr to any FCB team before or since. I also have reservations about the Laporta Years but I think Recent Events should be confined to the most recent season. Laporta has been president since 2003! Unless anyone can think of better title, I think this should stay. The FCB website does not claim the club won the UEFA Cup. To include this is just inaccurate and misleading. Manchester United do not have members, so where are you getting these figures from? Maybe there is room to include, the two links you referr to above. However the others are OTT and have been included at Supporters of FC Barcelona anyway. Djln--Djln 17:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. "Dream Team" is not a general nickname for FC Barcelona. It was the nickname given to one particular generation in the early 1990s.

2. We have wide agreement on the talk page that the recent years should be called The Laporta Years, as this is consistent with the rest of the article.

3. For no other competitions are the oponents in the final or the scores listed. Why do you insist on putting them for the European Cup?

4. The UEFA/Fairs Cup debate has been well-covered on the talk page. If you have something to add please do so there.

5. Your "Fans & Socis" section adds nothing that is not already there, aother than some highly dubious claims about 140,000 members making FC Barcelona the "third after Manchester United and Benfica". Third in terms of what? Other clubs do not have a membership structure in the same way, so the statement is meaningless.

6. Your "Trivia" section is of no relevance.

7. The photo of the celebration in Paris adds nothing original or of interest.

8. Your links are mostly foreign language. This page is the English page.

However, the more general point is...why will you not engage in debate on the talk page, rather than simply undoing the work of all other editors? --Bcnviajero 15:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Dream team nickname is used often to refer fcb in several media.

2. Why Laporta era and no Rijkaard era o Ronaldinho era? Now is recent events, the future will decide whose era it is.

3. Because champions league is the most important of competitions so far.

4. For UEFA statistics UEFA Cup and Fairs Cup is the same competition.

5. Third in number of club members.

6. Trivia section is not mine.

7. The photo is OK.

8. People use the links often and so do I, specially Sport and Mundo Deportivo links

OK, thank you (and I mean that sincerely) for entering into debate. Hopefully we can do so on the FC Barcelona talk page at some point.

1. No, it is not a generic nickname for the Club like blaugrana or culé. Therefore it does not belong there. Maybe in the Cruyff section, but not there. Shall we agree to put a mention of Dream team in the Cruyff section instead?

2. A fair question. Laporta years because it was he who hired the others, like with Nuñez. I agree that the first version of Laporta Era was wrong, but Laporta years seems right... I know we have Cruyff years but I think we all agree that that is a different case? If you think it should be Rijkaard or someone else please make a case on the talk page.

3. True, but surely it would be better to have a link to the relevant match page than list the results? if I put those links in can we see how that looks?

4. There is a debate on the UEFA Cup/Fairs Cup issue on the talk page. Could you add to that debate there? It can certainly be seen both ways, but the consensus among editors up to now has been the opposite....

5. As I am sure you are aware, other clubs do not have members in the same way (Man United being owned by the Glazer family for example). Therefore, it does not seem to be of any relevance. Also, the reference to the number of socis simply duplicates what is said near the beginning.

6. OK, can we agree to take that out, then?

7. The photo of the team on the bus, celebrating, seems relevant, as it shows how the Club celebrates. However, the one of the pitch tells us nothing unique or interesting about FCB. Do you see what I mean?

8. But foreign links are not for there, and there another link to go to those links...there is no need to have them all on this page. However, I do think there could be a compromise by having just the Sport and El Mundo Deportivo ones, as I agree that they are well known sources.

I really think we can reach an agreement on this by talking it through....the Wikipedia way...

--Bcnviajero 16:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Drean Team is still used to refer to fcb

2. Why laporta years? We dont know yet, the future will decide whose years it is. Could it be Ronaldinho or Rijkaard years too.

3. Champions league is so important than deserve an additional info.

4. For UEFA statistics IS THE SAME COMPETITION.

5. Fans & socis section has relevant information.

6. Already out.

7 Put a better photo or leave it.

8. I dont see the problem with links, links are not a part of the article

OK, I do think we are getting somewhere!

But...

1. I completely disagree. Barça, Blaugrana, and Culé are nicknames throughout the Club's history. Dream team refers to Cruff's time as manager AND it is already mentioned there.

2. Because he is currently the President, and he has been there for three years now. It seems reasonable to call them Laporta years. That is not to say good or bad, just that he is in charge.

3. I am not completely convinced by your argument, but OK, I have left it like that this time. Let's see what others say?

4. Likewise, I am not completely convinced, but in the spirit of compromise OK, I have left it as it is, let's see what other editors think.

5. It does not! This one I really feel strongly about, as do other editors. It says nothing useful that is not elsewhere in the article.

6. OK

7. The photo is simply not needed. The one on the bus tells us something, the one on the pitch doesn't. It just takes space and makes it less clear.

8. Because they take space and make it less clear. I have left the Sport and EMD....

Don't you agree this is better now that we are having a conversation?

--Bcnviajero 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

- Dream team refears to first 90s Barça, but nowadays some media still uses to refer to fcb not only in football section, in handball too.

-Ok , Laporta years.

-Fans & Socis section is short and give a lot of information:

1) In Spain, about 20% of the population are said to be Barça sympathisers 2) large support abroad 3) Updated number of club members (first appeared in this section, someone wrote it at the beggining of the article then) 4) Third only to Man U and Benfica

- Maybe we need a BETTER PHOTO, meanwhile we should leave it

Hi,

On Dream team, that does not make it important or widespeard enough to be compared to Barça, Blaugrana, or Culé, does it? It is mentioned in the Cruyff as manager section, and that seems the perfect place for it. Maybe we could add a short phrase there to say something like "...and the term is occasionally still heard today, for example in reference to the handball team"

On the 20%. "said to be..." is one of those phrases that we try to avoid in Wikipedia, as anything could be "said to be" by someone. The large support abroad, true, but it does not need its own section, I will look for somewhere it can have some words... The number of club members, as yuo say it is now at the beginning, which seems thet right place for it. On the Man U and benfica, as I mentioned, other clubs to not have members (or socis/owners) in the same way, so the statement does not seem to mean anything. Do you have a reference for the statement? Therefore, this section does not seem to be necessary.

I do not agree on the photo. If it tells us nothing, we should not just leave it there anyway...

Am glad we are having this conversation, though. Thanks.

--Bcnviajero 17:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The 20% thing is an statistic, polls about it have been done several times in Spain.

Dream team is just one of Barça nicknames, still used I insist. Not the main nickname, but one fo them. Whats the problem with it? U dont like it?

Hi,

If the 20% is a statistic, great, but you must have a reference. Otherwise anyone can just put any figure they like. Can you quote an article or a study, with a link? Do you accept the other points, like trying to compare the membership with teams like Man U? And the other points I made?

I don't agree that it is a key nickname now, symbolic of FCB throughout the years like Blaugrana, Barça, or Culé, even if it is occasionally mentioned these days. It definitely should be mentioned, and it is, in the Cruyff section. It should not be there as a fundamental nickname.

--Bcnviajero 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Polls about it have been done several times in Spain, the last one I remember maked for Telefonica, is a realible info. There are almost 9 million of Barça sympathizers in Spain, thats 20% of population.

For the consensuss thing I agree with the Man u and Benfica thing, but if u go to benfica article or Bayern Munchen's u can find a similar information.

But that is exactly the point... "I remember a poll, it said 20%" is not good enough! If you can find a reference, great. I have not reviewed those articles but can do so if you like.

--Bcnviajero 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Concessions

I have done some concessions in fans & socis, "laporta years", links ...

Dream team nick (still used), fans & socis new version, additional info in 1992 and 2006 champions league finals, fairs cup/uefa cup thing and new links INALIENABLE.

Thanks, good night and good luck all.

It is good to see that a debate has started. Congrats to those taking part. I have already outlined my views several times on this page. Here is what I think might be fair compromise.

• Only the FCB team of the 1990s was referred to by nickname "Dream Team". This is already acknowledged in "The Cruyff Years". If it is still used in reference to the handball team, then it should be cited in the more relevant article, FC Barcelona-Cifec.
• Bcnviajero makes very good defence of "The Laporta Years". Laporta appointed/hired the others named.
• I would be willing to compromise and include Champions League dates but the reference to UEFA Cup has to go. The club itself makes no claim to having won this trophy and only referrs to the Fairs Cup [4]. The 1971/72 season saw the competition taken over by UEFA and relaunched, with a new trophy, as the UEFA Cup. By replacing the trophy, renaming the competition and revising the entry regulations, UEFA effectively ended the Fairs Cup.
• The section on fans/socios is very POV. It contains info that cannot be backed up or accurately measured. I included the number of fans in the intro but this was the only part of this section was worth including. Plus the Supporters of FC Barcelona is better place for this.
• I have no strong opinion either way about the picture.
• The links ARE a part of the article and take up valuable space that could be better used. Three links is about right. Plus links to foreign fansites have been included on Supporters of FC Barcelona anyway.
• In addition, Cruyff is the most common spelling used of this name. Can we keep this spelling please. Djln--Djln 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

- This article is about the club and not only the football team, dream team is a nickname still used to refer FCB.

-Fans & socis contains relevant information

- 6 links only, leave them

-For UEFA official statistics FAIRS CUP AND UEFA CUP ARE THE SAME COMPETITION; see UEFA Cup records and statistics

• Handball section has own article at FC Barcelona-Cifec, so Dream Team nickname has to go there.
• Fans & socis just repeats info already included in intro. Many clubs have international fan base. This info is not relevant.
• These links can stay. This is down to a reasonable amount.
• Club never won UEFA Cup. I've linked 4 sources that prove this.

[5]. [6] [7]. [8]. You have cited inaccurate info, surprise surprise. Djln--Djln 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

-Again: this article is about the club and not only the football team, dream team is a nickname still used to refer FCB.

-Fans & socis contains relevant information.

- Fairs cup and UEFA cup is the same competition with different names, so both names must be included in trophies section. Just like European Cup/UEFA Champions league competition. I think it's easy to understand, Djln.

13:59, 16 July 2006 83.1992.2006

Football head speaks

• Dream Team refers to the Cruyff team - it is not a generic nickname for Barcelona FC.
• Barcelona have never won the UEFA cup, Likewise, Birmingham City have never reached a UEFA cup final. The tournement was an intercities cup where Barcelona competed against teams called "Birmingham" (not Birmingham city) and "London" gaining automatic inclusion.
• I see no issue with the Fans & socis section. Keep it.--Footballhead 18:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To 83.1992.2006

• How much evidence do you need to see that the two competitions are not the same ? Different name, different trophy, different organiser, and above is another editer who agrees. Have you actually read the links, I provided. Fans & socis section just repeats info already included earlier in intro and adds nothing two article. I am starting to think that 1992 is your year of birth. However perhaps comparing your behaviour to a fourteen year old is unfair to the average fourteen year old. Djln--Djln 22:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

-Fans & socis contains relevant information: 20% of spanish people supports Barça, number of "peñas", etc...

- Fairs cup and UEFA cup is the same competition with different names, so both names must be included in trophies section. Just like European Cup/UEFA Champions league competition.Thats why for UEFA statistics Barça has 3 UEFA Cups - Ok, Dream team nickname out, last concession

You still have not cited your sources that show 20% of Spanish people support club. The number of "peñas" could also be included in intro if you want. I will not concede about UEFA Cup issue. You are wrong on this and there is considerable evidence and support to back my case. See Footballhead above and Talk: Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. I also intially believed the same as you, but after checking the facts I found different. Djln--Djln 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we are heading towards agreement and maybe then we can all go and spend our time on something useful rather than reverts... I also agree that I can accept putting the additional information on the Champions League wins. Not sure it is consistent, but for an easy life... Likewise, the links that are left are relevant and mostly in English. I took out one of them, as it was simply a ticket-touting operation. Glad we have agreement on the Dream Team issue.

The UEFA Cup situation is clearly explained by Djln and Footballhead. I have no strong feelings on it, but it does seem to be clear that it is different.

The fans and socis section is for me the main issue remaining. The name "culés" is mentioned in the box, the 20% statement has no evidence at all to back it up, the number of socis is mentioned at the beginning, and in any case this kind of information should be in Supporters of FC Barcelona. I do agree with Djln that if it is important to you to mention the number of penyes this could be done at the beginning. This should then cover all your concerns with regards to this paragraph.

But...almost there...

--Bcnviajero 10:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On a seperate point, Djln I like your edit to the CF Barcelona section. However, I think that the imposition of Franco supporters as presidents is highly relevant to that period, as it had a considerable impact on the Club.

What do you think?

--Bcnviajero 11:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I already mentioned this in Rivalry with Real Madrid section. Can you identify which presidents were specifically Franco appointees besides from Pineyro. While others may have been Franco supporters I am not sure if they actually imposed on club. I think arguement that the club were disadvantaged during this era is a bit over played. During the 1940s and 1950s the club was probably Spains most successful and Real Madrid won very little during the first two decades of Franco rule.Djln --Djln 23:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that all the presidents during the dictatorship were associates and placemen of Franco. However, I do not currently have a reference for this, so am happy to leave it out for now.

--Bcnviajero 12:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing that some were Francoists, but apart from the one already mentioned example, I cannot find any hard evidence that they were actually appointed by Franco. This seems to area of Barca history which has been ignored by historians and it needs more study. --Djln --Djln 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, I will look into it, and until then will leave it out (you see how that works, 83.1992.2006?)

--Bcnviajero 10:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fairs cup solution

My solution:

• Inter-Cities Fairs Cup (predecessor of UEFA Cup): 3
  • 1958, 1960, 1966

Im sure you like this "final solution".

-About fans & socis, if some information mentioned here is at the beginning of the article is becasue someone took them from Fans & Socis and put it there. 20% information is reliable. Im gonna keep this section unless its info be included in intro.

- Socis elect the president, not directors neither staff. That's presidents work.

83.1992.2006

OK, personally I am fine with saying "predecessor" as you have written. Anyone else got an opinion, though?

I have put the relevant information from the "fans and socis" in the introduction so, as you state, the paragraph is not necessary. The only part which is not now there is the 20% because there is no evidence provided. If you can find a link to this, then let's have a conversation about if that is useful and where it can go. Until then, it should not be there.

You are right on the election. I will make the change.

Assuming others are OK with the "predecessor" bit and you agree on the 20% (which is really non-negotiable in the absence of evidence), I think we have a consensus. Everyone OK?

--Bcnviajero 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

- About 20%: There is evidence, polls about it has been made in Spain several times. I will try to find some evidence in the net.

- Is important to say that Barça has large support abroad, specially in South america and Mexico, in Holland and Morocco.

83.1992.2006

OK, if you find something please bring it here for discussion and we can all talk about where it could usefully go. Until then it cannot be in the article.

I think by saying that there are 1782 penyes worldwide in the introduction it shows the worldwide nature of the support. I personally do not see a need to specify those particular countries. Why not Japan? China? Sweden?

So, can we agree to leave it as it is? You can see that all the other information from your paragraph has been included, and in important places.

To everyone else, I do think the UEFA Cup solution is OK. While the competitions are definitely different, the Fairs Cup is clearly the predecessor, and was replaced by the UEFA Cup. Open to other thoughts, of course, though.

--Bcnviajero 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

-Because in South America, Mexico, Holland and Morocco Barça has a real support, you can see it with the considerable number of "socis" and "penyes" from this countries. That dont happens with sweden or china. May be in Japan.

- 20 % thing is true and It will be in the article becasue is an important data. I have read it several times in spanish media, and I will prove it.

83.1992.2006

The 20% thing may well be true. No-one here has said it is not. We have simply said that any statements like that must be backed-up with references.

Yes, those countries have considerable support. So do many many others. In your paragraph you even keep including the 144,000 and 1782 figures, which you know are in the introduction. Why repeat that?

So, to summarise:

- The 20% you will look for some evidence. If you find it we will discuss it here in the talk page and MAY agree that there is place for it. We will collectively agree what that place is, should we agree that it should be in there.

- The support is worldwide. There is no need to have a seperate section simply to list four countries/regions. The fact that there are 1782 penyes worldwide shows the information.

- The 144,000 and 1782 figures are in the introduction.

Therefore, the paragraph IS NOT NEEDED. It just leaves the 20% issue. Find some evidence and then let's talk about it. Until then, do us all a favour and just leave it alone. We have all spent far too much time on this. I really must get a life.

--Bcnviajero 16:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

- Im wasting too much time here too, I will keep Fans & Socis section cause has relevant information and if some information mentioned here is at the beginning of the article is becasue you took them from Fans & Socis and put it there. 83.1992.2006

Aaargh! That does not make sense. We took it out to put it in a more suitable place. So why leave it in the original place as well and duplicate it??? There is no point having information in two places.

And you have not yet provided evidence for the 20%. So I am deleting the paragraph. We are all almost in complete agreement now. Please do not keep doing this, because I will have to request that you be blocked if you continue to go against the group, and that would be a real shame given how far we have come.

--Bcnviajero 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am sorry to be a pain but the "predecessor" bit is just a nonsense. The article is not about the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup or the UEFA Cup. There are seperate articles about these competitions. We do not need to go into excessive detail and explanations here. Several competions have "predecessors". For example the Copa Latino is regarded as a "predecessor" of the European Cup. Should we add to that as well? The opening para bit regarding the fans looks better now but I have shortened it a little. I think more detail, should added to Supporters of FC Barcelona and not here. I believe there is no need for Fans & Socis section now. All the reputable parts have included in the intro, with the POV bits removed. 83.1992.2006, cannot you not see that is a compliment that your edits have included in opening para rather then halfway down page. Does it really matter who put them there. Djln--Djln 21:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

- Arsenal's article use the "predecessor of Uefa Cup" formula too. And here there is consensus about it. It stays.

- "In Spain, about 20% of the population are said to be Barça sympathisers." This is an important data, so must be in the article, if fans and socis section goes out, it must be in the intro.

- Is Copa Latina or Latin Cup, not Copa Latino.

83.1992.2006

Leeds United make no mention of this predessor shit. 20% remains unproven. Cite an article that proves it, as you been asked to do before. Don't started getting petty bout spelling. It just proves the point that u are an arsehole as I've long suspected. Djln--Djln 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

- Predecessor not predessor, did u know this word before? I think you are some kind of iliterate. It stays anyway.

- 20% will be proved as soon as I get a link demonstrating it. I read it in papers, just looking in the net.

- Good for leeds united, this is FC Barcelona.

Thanks

83.1992.2006

• So if this is Barca, why are you following Arsenal as an example. Once again your argument makes no sense. And who are to call anybody illiterate. It is Leeds United. You should ask your school teacher to cover capital letters when you are next in school. I have written hundreds of articles on Wikipedia. From what I can see, all you have done is vandalise other peoples work Djln--Djln 23:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, it seems like the UEFA/Fairs solution is not generally acceptable. Maybe I just got worn down and wanted to go and do something more useful...

There is still no evidence for the 20% claim. It may well be true, indeed it seems plausible to me. But without evidence it cannot be there. It is not reasonable to say "it stays" without evidence, this is a resource for everybody.

To 83.1992.2006, tio, ja hem posat coses teves, per intentar tranquilitzar-te. L'article ara está bé. Sis plau, deixa'l com está, i tots ferem altres coses. No es pot dir "it stays" quant tothom pensa diferent. OK?

--Bcnviajero 12:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

- *Inter-Cities Fairs Cup (predecessor of UEFA Cup): 3 : It should be acceptable for everybody, Im gonna keep it for the rest of the times. An additional information is given about this competition, I can`t see the problem here. Well just one problem, Djln stupidity.

- I accept to leave out 20% data until I get some prove.

- Bcnviajero my catalan isn`t good enough to keep a conversation in this language, Im still learning spanish.

Thanks

83.1992.2006

Final thoughts from bcnviajero on this lengthy, acrimonious and astonishingly tedious debate

I just guessed you would be Catalan given the vehemence of your interventions and your English style.

On the UEFA Cup issue, I have no real opinion, or for that matter energy left with which to debate it, so I will leave it to others to take whatever action they deem appropriate on this point.

For future reference, 83.1992.2006, your manner of dealing with this has been very negative, hostile and damaging, and not at all in the spirit of Wikipedia. You have made progress, in that you have learnt to use the talk page, to log in, and to make concessions, but in no way could your style be described as collaborative. Please do keep this in mind should you decide to edit other pages.

--Bcnviajero 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

83.1992.2006, As of now I will no longer engage with you in any further debate. It is clear that you do have the integrity to admit that you are wrong. However I will continued to monitor your below standard edits and remove them. You have made no positive contribution to this page or any other page what so ever. You are a waste of time and space. Djln

to Djln,

My contributions in FCB article are notable: kit, updated number of socis and penyes, additional info in Major trophies section, Sport and Mundo Deportivo links, former players, current squad, correcting your "Barça is a polideportivo" intro and your wrong use of peña/peñas/penya/penyes terms,...

On the contrary, your only contribution is to be some kind of dog warden or brainless security guard. You are a real waste ot time.

Im gonna keep my "predecessor" edit for the rest of the times.

Thanks

83.1992.2006

Who do you think wrote the bulk of this article and dozens of others on former players, presidents and other articles relating to the club. Not you. Wow, you added a few links and made a few spelling corrections. How would this article have survived without you ! I would not have to act as a security guard if you did not persistantly vandalise article with inaccurate info. Djln --Djln 18:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You are the only persistent vandal right now, your stupidity have no limits. You should be banned.

83.1992.2006

First Paragraph

I agree that first paragraph was way way too long, but I think it's to short now. I think we should add just a little bit more info. Regards Abreuzinho 12:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your comment. I haven't taken any information out, it is all still there. I just put an Overview heading above the, well, overview. This, for me, makes it much clearer, and also puts the Contents box at the top for easy navigation.

Anyone else?

--Bcnviajero 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the overview heading and I don`t think makes it clearer, look at the other football teams articles in wikipedia, none of them have an "overview" heading.

If you want to take some info out from the intro, you should start with these paragraphs:

" There are three other professional sports teams, for basketball (Winterthur FCB), handball (FC Barcelona-Cifec) and roller hockey. These teams are subsidised by the football section and wear the same colours. In the past the club also featured an American football team, the now-defunct FC Barcelona Dragons.

The club also includes number of prominent amateur sports teams that compete at futsal, rugby union, women's basketball, women's football and wheelchair basketball. These include FCB Rugby, UB-Barça, FC Barcelona-Institut Guttman. Other amateur teams represent the club at ice hockey, athletics, baseball, cycling, field hockey, figure skating, and volleyball. "

83.1992.2006

• Earlier you argued that Barca is not just a football club. Now you are suggesting that all reference to other sports be removed. I think you change your POV with the wind. Djln--Djln 23:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Typical line-up

There are currently constant edits of the representation of what was the most typical line-up during 2005-6, and which some are now changing to be their best guess of the typical line-up for 2006-7. These edits are pure speculation, and are leading to constant revisions by other editors who have a different prediction about the future. It should stay as it is until the typical line-up for the new season becomes clear.

--Bcnviajero 19:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Was this the "typical" lineup? Sure, you grabbed the players with the most appearances at each position. But how often did that lineup start and play together? And did these players actually spend the most minutes on the field? Giuly and Larsson switched around a lot. Iniesta played a ton during the second half of the season. The only thing certain about your lineup is that they started the Champions League Final. The article now reflects that. If you have sources showing that your lineup did in fact spend more time on the field than any other, please show us. Otherwise, it makes just as much sense to post speculation.

--Anonymous 10:11, 26 July 2006

Hi there. Thanks for the comments. Just to clarify, I did not create that line-up. I just reverted to it to remove the endless and ever-changing speculation. The lineup was getting edited every few minutes because various people had pet theories, none of which were based on fact.

That said, although that line-up was not my work, it does seem to be a fair representation of "most typical". If there is evidence to suggest it is not the most accurate, by all means let's change it. In any case, I certainly don't agree that it makes just as much sense as endless edits based on speculation.

--Bcnviajero 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Marquez on DR? Unbelievable. The defense line will probably be (from left to right): Gio, Puyol, Marquez, Zambrotta or Zambrotta, Puyol, Marquez, Thuram. If Thuram will play DC, then Marquez will play DMC, not DR.--193.77.102.224 15:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I really think the line-up graphic should be removed. Barça has no 'typical' lineup as the squad is under constant rotation. Even if there was one, I don't think it would belong here since lineups still change game-to-game. Even worse is if the graphic is supposed to represent the 'strongest' lineup, a totally subjective thing. Very few other football team articles have something like this, and I see no reason to keep it here.

-QFlyer 12:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've been looking at this page and I'm extremely surprised at the level of vandalism, I think this page really needs some sort of protection that doesn't allow some one without an acount to edit. Just my opinion, though. Concerned user, Abreuzinho 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to back up the above view and support a request for protection on FC Barcelona. As well as vandalism some of these edits are very poor. These anonymous contributers also have little or no respect for article size and they become aggressive and abusive when their edits are questioned Djln--Djln 22:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I´ll agree to that. The current squad section is continually trashed - full of speculation. I think the saviola remark should stay, as this has been confirmed and veryfied, but the rest is just rumour. Henry? Ok, its quite likely, but c´mon . . .

External links

I was under the impression that the stance on external links within Wikipedia was to avoid sites that are not in the English language and to definetley avoid FANSITES as they tend to have a very strong bias. External links on this page do not seem to fit within these boundaries. Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.223.15.59 (talk • contribs) .

• This external links section has been the subject of much debate. In the past it featured much more links. A consensus was reached to keep the ones contained here. I disagree about only using English language links or non-fansite links, especially when the subject of the article is not based in an English speaking country. This would mean that the only link would be Barcas own site. Besides at least two of these links are respected Spanish/Catalan media outlets. Djln --Djln 11:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Spanish only language websites are surely perfect examples of Commercial wesites with extensive advertising throughout. Publicidad is the most common word on the front pages! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.223.15.45 (talk • contribs) .

• Sport and Mundo Deportivo websites are well informed sources about Barça's current affairs, best sources I think.

83.1992.2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.54.52.159 (talk • contribs) .

84.223.15.59, you are correct, under Wikipedia's external links guidelines, English language sites are definitely preferred. The guidelines specifically state: "English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language." With regard to fansites, the guidelines state "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included." Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone has vandalised this area - Head Coach Template:Country data FUCK Frank Rijkaard. I can't seem to correct it, perhaps the expletive could be deleted?

Major trophies

Supersheriff, The major trophies section version that you favour is excessive and too detailed. Even the clubs own trophy section on their own website does not go into this much detail. In addition there is an FC Barcelona in Europe article where much of this info is already contained. This article is open for expansion. The FC Barcelona article is already lengthy and needs to be kept in perspective. Djln --Djln 20:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Trophies section is perfect now, stop vandalism.83.1992.2006 , 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly second Djln's opinion. It is not perfect, this info belongs in the FC Barcelona in Europe article. But I'm not going to revert on this any more, Whoever it is controlling all those IP socks should stop revert warring and discuss on the talk page. I was going to protect the page but I decided that since I'm involved in the content dispute it's not such a good idea. Another admin might want to protect the article though, since we're getting nowhere with this stupid war. I should point out that Djln is the principle author on this article and has brought it to the excellent state it is in at the moment, and while WP:OWN definitely applies, I think in this case we should devert to his judgement, especially since others in the revert war seem to be unwilling to even discuss on the talk page to find consensus. jaco♫plane 16:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't argue nothing against major trophie section, is spotless and the information given is true. Actually is the best trophie section I ever seen in wikipedia. 83.1992.2006 , 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Felicitaciones / Congratulations

Because my poor english Im gonna speak in spanish:

Este artículo del Barça está genial, el mejor que he visto de un club de fútbol y el mejor del Barça con diferencia mejor incluso y más ordenado que el artículo en español. Por cierto veo hay una "edit wars" entorno a la sección de Trofeos a mi me gusta tal y como está con el resultado y los equipos contra los que se jugó la Final.

• These anonymous vandals have also began to distort info at the Copa del Rey and Athletic Bilbao sites. Can somebody put a stop to this. Djln --Djln 23:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Lo siento, para no estamos de acuerdo contigo. Hay tanta información que no se puede ver nada. Y además la sección es de trofeos...no de finales perdidos etc. Hay otros articulos para informacion así (como FC Barcelona in Europe). Sé que tu, como nosotros, solo quieres mejorar el articulo. Pero por favor, piensalo un momento, y miralo. Ya esta protegido, y como esta queda clarisimo. Moltes gracies. --Bcnviajero 17:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

Please replace the gif version of Barca's logo with Image:FC Barcelona logo.svg. Thanks in advance ! pl:user:odder a.k.a. 83.27.129.224 16:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Is it possible that protection status can be amended on this page to allow editors with a proven record to edit. For example the 2006 Supercopa de España needs to be added. I would nominate Bcnviajero, Jacoplane, Raymond Cruise, Abreuzinho, Andromeda and Sam Korn and myself in this category. There are probably others I have missed. I do not want to discourage User:83.1992.2006, Supersheriff and anonymous editors from getting involved, but I think editors need to prove themselves by actually writing a few articles. Djln--Djln 12:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We could also add the recent defeat in the European Super Cup against Sevilla FC 0-3 and a reference to how despite being favorites, the Catalan club was trailed by the Andalusians.

Ban 83.1992.2006

This is why I think User:83.1992.2006 should be banned. After I requested him to stop abuse, this was his response. Below is an extract from his own talk page;

• Please can you refrain from adding offensive insults to your edits. I work with adults who have learning disabilties and find your comments very offensive. If you cannot have a debate without being abusive then I will have to report you to the Wikipedia authorities and request that you are banned. Djln --Djln 23:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Working or being part of them?

What kind of lowlife are you to post a comment like that? Have you no shame? --Bcnviajero 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark Van Bommel

Could someone remove him from the squad section? He has already signed with Bayern Munchen.

Formation

This should be removed. Unsourced and unencyclopedic. Formations aren't a fixed thing so it isn't fact and with it being an encyclopedia, all none factual things either don't belong or need a reference. SenorKristobbal 22:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Spanish Supercup won by Barça

Could someone add this trophy to major trophies section?

Added. -QFlyer 14:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Transfers

Could someone remove the list of recent transfers, as Wikipedia is not a news service. None of the other teams in La Liga have a "Squad Changes" section anymore. Maurimarzal 16:11, 9 September 2006 (GMT)

Intro

Does anyone else find that the opening paragraph is extremly long. Should it not be reduced to just have the basics? Let me know what you think and how it can be solved. Thanks --AJSDA115 19:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Liga rules on non europeans

There was mad crazy RV war over this:

_{- Liga rules only allow three non-European Union nationals on the pitch at anytime; Those with European ancestry can claim a passport from the nation their immediate ancestors came from. If a player does not have European ancestry he can claim a Spanish passport by playing in Spain for 3 years.}

- - * Lionel Messi - * Javier Saviola - * Juliano Belletti - * Deco - * Edmilson - * Thiago Motta - * Ronaldinho - * Sylvinho - * Samuel Eto'o - * Rafael Marquez - * Ludovic Giuly - * Lilian Thuram - * Eiður Guðjohnsen - * Gianluca Zambrotta - * Gio van Bronckhorst

Can anyone tell me why it can't be re-instated, when other liga clubs mention the rules and players not allowed to participate???? Mike33 04:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a notable issue, because it has prevented Rijkaard from fielding Giovanni dos Santos and other non-EU nationals. I think the list should be reinstated. ugen64 01:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a simple section stating the players who currently fall under the 3-player rule would be interesting, informative, and notable. Some teams pages have both flags next to the players, which is unnecessary clutter, but a brief section underneath the current players should suffice. Captkrob 17:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

FC or F.C.

Is there any policy about using or not using dots? Everton 12:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Commercial sponsorship

"Barça have to date refused to allow commercial sponsorship logos on their football shirts". It´s wrong. What is the Nike Swoosh?

And the Kappa simbol around the Cruyff years?

Eh?!

"Barça have to date refused to allow commercial sponsorship logos on their football shirts. However, since 2005 they have worn the TV3 logo of Televisió de Catalunya on the left arm."

Creo que se debe clarificarlo....

Selected former players?

Why is ivan de la pena in the Selected former players section? its true that he played for barcelona, but he is not very much known and does not deserve to be there along with the legends like johan cruijjf!

Ronaldo currently plays for Barca's rival Real Madrid. Ronaldinho (full name: Ronaldo de Assis Moreira) plays for Barca. Captkrob 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ivan De La Pena is a great player, trained by Cruijff himself!! If you don't see De La Pena's skills, you should have your eyes checked

Motín de Hesperia (Hesperia Mutiny)

Can anybody write more about this? Bardhylius 18:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

11 players

In the article it says that Gamper originally recruited 11 players, then there is a list, but only 10 names are listed. Anyone know the missing link?--Ioshus^(talk) 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Is Gamper himself not the eleventh player. Djln--Djln 01:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Captain Tsubasa, Barça hero in Japan

May be we could create a trivia section for this kind of information. Captain Tsubasa anime has been broadcast in half planet AND HE PLAYED FOR BARÇA !!! See http://www.fcbarcelona.com/eng/noticias/noticias/n05052409.shtml --BarcelonaMarc 22:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation of "Barça"?

Since the word includes a non-English glyph, could a parenthetical note describing its pronounciation be added? --Mareklug ^talk 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Ronaldinho

someone has deleted the ronaldinho profile —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomaTomaDJ89 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Catalan sports club

I think there is no point in defining FC Barcelona as a "Catalan sports club", and not a Spanish club, just like the rest of teams from Spain -- which are not defined by their region. Wikipedia should be coherent in definitions, Barsa is in the same cathegory as all the Spanish clubs and should be described as such.

The current definition could be misunderstood by any person who does not know much about sports, specially those from outside Spain -- this is the English page. FC Barcelona professional teams take part mainly in national tournaments, Catalan tournaments being the main competitions only for its amateur teams. Notice the table at the right, where it says Barcelona football team (the most important inside the club) takes part in 'La Liga' (the Spanish League)

The articles about Barcelona B and Winterthur FCB are a good example for this little problem. The former is defined as a "Catalan football team", the latter as a "Spanish basketball team", but both belong to the same club and depend on the Football and Basketball Spanish Federations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.178.151 (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

FC Barcelona is both Catalan and Spanish. But defining FCB as "Catalan" you are giving more info. --BarcelonaMarc 21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

players

i dont know what are doing Julio Baptista, Ricardo Carvalho, Paulo Ferreira and others in barcelona squad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.127.128.233 (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

The pitch on the FC barcelona page

Does anyone know how this pitch, which can be seen underneath the list of squad players on the fc Barclona page, can be replicated in other teams pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davetherave765 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Current squad

Current squad is following the squad posted on the FC Barcelona official web site. If the official web site is not updated, please cite the source with the newest squad.--ClaudioMB 07:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, FC Barcelona eventually uses players from its second team, like Jesus Olmo from Barcelona B, but it doesn't mean they are part of its first team.--ClaudioMB 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

New current squad table format

What's your comment about the new squad table format? Do you have any suggestion to improve it? Keep this new table format or go to the old one?--ClaudioMB 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone did a similar thing with the Fulham squad and me and WATP agreed that it is best to keep the old format because what are you going to do with the likes of Workington where contract and apperance data is hard to come by and another point was it is barely relevant to the main club article. Discuss here if you agree/disagree. Kingjamie 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fc barcelona.png

Image:Fc barcelona.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 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 07:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

henry

in the 'current squad' thierry henry makes a strange appearance... he hasn't signed... yet! can someone change this please!

What do you mean.. Mattythewhite 14:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)