Talk:S.L. Benfica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Football (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Portugal (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger proposal[edit]

Merge Discussion

I propose that Mística and O Benfica be merged into S.L. Benfica#Media. I think that the content in the both articles can easily be explained in the club main page, without need for unnecessary forks, especially when they have so little content (avg 66 words) and no attempt at expanding them have been made. Additionally, both subjects probably don't meet WP:NMEDIA, especially the lack of significant reliable secondary sources. Threeohsix (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Nothing is gained by deleting those articles. (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If we merge them, Wikipedia will lose data about the newspaper and magazine. SLBedit (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a merge discussion. Nothing is deleted in an article merge, except non-cited material. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@GenQuest: Content that will be lost: information in {{Infobox newspaper}} and {{Infobox magazine}}, including the covers. SLBedit (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the proposal met opposition, more opinions are needed. I have actually asked BDD for a opinion about this matter before. The unreferenced content in the infoboxes (keeping the covers is possible) is worthless if the articles don't follow notability guidelines (there's also a problem with verifiability in both). Just to add to my proposal, the space devoted to both articles in the club main page is just: "Moreover, the club publishes the weekly newspaper O Benfica and the quarterly magazine Mística". If you expand with a little more information, you'll pretty much duplicate all of the content.--Threeohsix (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Threeohsix: Is it time to remove the merge template? SLBedit (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless you agree with the merger, it is not. Since I think you're reason to retain the article doesn't hold any merit, comments from other users is needed. That's why is listed at WP:PAM.--Threeohsix (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think both meet Wikipedia:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals. At least O Benfica does (2). SLBedit (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That is a guideline, first comes the WP:GNG for all articles at WP, wwhich states "A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources". Where are the significant in-depth coverage from secondary sources? For that and for its really poor content, it could be easily absorbed here, as I my proposal explains.--Threeohsix (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what qualifies as significant, but the Diário de Notícias source is reliable and secondary. SLBedit (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It is reliable and it is not enough to establish significant in-depth coverage. It's trivial passage 11 years ago about the increased sales. If that counted, so SLB fans reference from SOL newspapers would established notability and two admins thought it didn't. Not gonna comment your embarrassing attempt of connect comments of the newspaper director to the article itself. Guess the google search did find much did it...--Threeohsix (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I simply added a reference (then replaced it) about a living person. Don't embarrass yourself. SLBedit (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
A reference that serves nothing other than "prove" that José Nuno Martins was the director in 2014. I think that your opposition is just because of the pictures that you uploaded and don't want deleted. As I said in 28 December, that pictures can be merged here too if that is the "content that will be lost". All the text in the infoboxes, can easily be written here in prose without much trouble. It's up to you.--Threeohsix (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
He still is the director, unless you find another source. The covers are not the reason. If the articles are not notable enough, then someone else should merge them with this article. It's not up to me or you to decide. SLBedit (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
How is Hala Madrid notable if it only provides primary sources? (unlike Mística) SLBedit (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"All the text in the infoboxes, can easily be written here in prose without much trouble" I can't insert ISBNs ISSNs in prose. SLBedit (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I've see that you copied all referenced content into this article, so this discussion lost its objective, it's basically merged... What I meant by all the infobox content be turned into prose is useful information like foundation, type, probably editor. Things like is ISSN, who is the printing company, language, where is based, etc is just trivial information that adds no real information to the reader. Do you really think the ISSN is relevant to a passing reader? I understand that you tried in good faith improve both articles by expanding the infoboxes, but the fact is that it didn't change its problems. There isn't verifiable sources to improve it. It should have never been created in the first place. I myself I've created articles that now I wouldn't do because they are simply not expandable due to the lack of coverage. Example, Pavilhão da Luz Nº 2, many sports like athletics, canoeing, table tennis, billiards. So I focus in what I can improve, now I'm at season articles, before I did list of players, European football, build the table in managers and in presidents, before that I developed futsal, volleyball and handball articles. It's not how many benfica-related articles there is here, its how good they are. Dozens of stubs shows interest, but also show lack of effort and commitment to push them to a better quality. Hope you understand my motives and don't think I'm in a personal vendetta because I' don't like O Benfica and Mistica.--Threeohsix (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Players on loan[edit]

What about moving the players on loan listed in Benfica B to this article? After all, Benfica B is the club's reserve team, it does not loan players (the club does). SLBedit (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Because there are dozens of reserve teams and many have loans players listed, this propose should be discussed at WT:WPF to have a community consensus. Personally, I don't object showing here the ridiculous amount of loaned players the club has. However, i'm certain this will inevitably bring the idea that every player signed or loaned belongs in the first-team season article, which I disagree, because it is deceptive to the unfamiliar reader; many signings and loans are "projects" that only ever reach the first-team in the best case scenario. This is something all clubs do.--Threeohsix (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The first-team squad is one thing, players on loan is another. Don't worry about season article(s) because the "projects" can be removed. Right now, this article shows Luís Felipe, Steven Vitória and Yannick Djaló as being part of the first-team, which was true, but there isn't other place to put them. SLBedit (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think any shift is necessary. If the players were part of the B team before they went on loan, they should be listed on the B team page. If they become part of the first team after they return, by all means move them to the first-team squad list then, but not before. – PeeJay 19:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
That's the confusion I want to avoid. For example, Sidnei, Rui Fonte and César last played for the B team, but they had already played for the first-team. I don't think we should list them as B players. Other players such as Candeias and Diego Lopes have never played for the club, and should be listed in the main article. Finally there is players such as Raphael Guzzo who have only played for the B team. SLBedit (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Threeohsix: So where do we list Pelé? SLBedit (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we move Jorge Rojas to the B team? Moved. SLBedit (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Pele is first team, Rojas is B team. Common sense should apply, if the signed players are 23 or 24, it is unlikely that we'll ever play for the B-team. If a player has played for the first-team than it makes sense to be here.--Threeohsix (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Sidnei shouldn't be listed here because he last played for the B team. SLBedit (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent seasons[edit]

@JP26235 and Besteirense: please don't add the current season before the League Cup final ends. SLBedit (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


What's the point of having a section dedicated to the club finances if it's not updated? SLBedit (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)