Talk:S.L. Benfica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2017[edit]

160.176.98.47 (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
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. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Reformatting the history section[edit]

(continuation from my talk page discussion with another Benfica page contributor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Purij#Changes_in_S.L._Benfica

Benfica had domestic dominance all through the 50s and 60s, but in terms of Europe, they only won in 61 & 62 and reached (though losing) the finals in 63 & 64 which I wouldn't call dominance, just relative success.

Maybe create a new section called 'Decline', 'Decline & club issues, 'Decline & board issues','Decline & financial troubles' or something along those lines, which is better than saying 'crisis', which is a bit extreme. Could included from During the 1970s, Benfica faded.... to and decided to build the new Estádio da Luz, which would eventually cost €162 million, €25 million more....

After that could be another section called 'Luís Filipe Vieira era' with two sub-sections, one for Jorge Jesus and another for Rui Vitória

What does everyone think? Purij (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Benfica didn't dominate the 50s, despite the six Portuguese Cups won. Benfica dominated the 60s and 70s, as a result of having a team that were back-to-back European champions. The sections you renamed were called "European Champions and league supremacy (1950–70)" and "League dominance and European Cup finals (1970–94)", respectively, they didn't say Benfica dominated European football. Domestically, the 80s were dominated by Benfica and Porto, then, in the 90s, Benfica decline/crisis happened. Vieira is the president of Benfica since 2003, but he's not Benfica; same for recent Benfica coaches (even Cosme Damião, Eusébio and other notable figures don't have their names in sections). Creating a section ("Vieira") with sub-sections for two coaches would be ridiculous. SLBedit (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I already had discussed the "Luís Filipe Vieira era" with another user. I think it should be: "League dominance, European Cup finals, and decline (1970–94)", followed by "Crisis and financial struggles (1994–2003) and then the "Luís Filipe Vieira era" would be divided in two subsections "Rebuilding years (2003–2013)" and "Return to domestic dominance (2013–present)". Why mentioning Vieira? Because he's the president with more days in charge of the club, and contributed directly for the new Estádio da Luz, the Benfica TV channel, and several trophies won in many sports, among other things. By the way, I think it's ridiculous to have 4 paragraphs to describe 20 years (1950–70), another 3 for 24 years (1970–94) and 4 paragraphs to tell what happened in 8 years (2009–present). Much of the information about this last period should be condensed or relocated to several season article. Besteirense (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Where is that discussion? Benfica is still struggling with its finances and is still rebuilding, meaning that "rebuilding years" aren't quite over. Calling a four-year dominance "domestic dominance" is WP:RECENTISM and a bit POVish, although sources support it. Condensing text without losing meaning is hard, but possible, sure. "2009–present" should definetely be condensed. SLBedit (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I feel like there is. True, though it's reducing, and their isn't any sort of detail of recent financial struggle, just a vague 3/4 line regarding the 80s in the 'Crisis and return to domestic success (1994–2009)' section, should have more recent information like Benfica having the highest European debt or its debt level in the 90s and early 00s, could even extend the 80s mention on the first line aswell. "Rebuilding years" is very vague, where do you draw the line? Top Portuguese clubs are now all in debt to various extents and have all become selling clubs, no really rebuilding just a change in how it does business, its really in a constant state of selling and rebuilding. True, a four-year dominance is a bit POVish and borderline WP:RECENTISM, calling it 'Return to European finals and national dominance' is good, though later one if no extra section is made and Benfica don't get to a European final, they maybe remove that part from the title. Purij (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a section dedicated to the finances of Benfica. If you're mentioning UEFA's report from January 2017, then Manchester United has the highest "net debt", while Benfica is second on the list. Rebuilding years started in 2003 indeed but it's an ongoing thing if you consider Benfica's Futebol Campus expansion. The stadium, training center, etc. were already built. SLBedit (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
2nd is still noteworthy IMO, good points, Veira era is pretty much the rebuilding years and he did continue to work on improving facilities even after 2003, though focus on youth is when Jorge Jesus left. Fair to call it rebuilding years, though line should be drawn at some point. Purij (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The "domestic dominance" from 2013 to the present I stole it from Paris Saint-Germain's article. About the "Rebuilding years", that was the name of the last section in 2012. The names could be changed, but I think 1994–2003 (Financial crisis/instability and lack of trophies), 2003–2013 (something about resurrection and slow recovery) and 2013–present (Recent years) is a better division than the currently one. About the president's' name being on the title, there are several other examples, like Barcelona's with Núñez and Laporta or Atlético Madrid's with Jesús Gil. Besteirense (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Good ideas Besteirense, agree that your breakdown very works well IMO, maybe do "Financial issues, instability and lack of trophies (1994–2003)", "Luís Filipe Vieira era (2003–present)" which could have 2 subsections, one could be "Stabilisation years, enter Jesus" which could cover 2003-2012 (include half of JJ's time at Benfica), then after that could be "Recent years" covering the last half (last 3 years) of JJ's time at Benfica which where his most successful, along with RV's time. What you think? Purij (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I think mentioning Jorge Jesus is unnecessary. The first subsection of "Luís Filipe Vieira era" could be "Stabilisation years and strengthening of Benfica's brand", where the text should mention the first match of Estádio da Luz, the construction and opening of Futebol Campus, the launch of Benfica TV, maybe that Guinness World Records issue in 2006, among other things. Besteirense (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It's so noteworthy that Manchester United article doesn't have it there, and I already added information about Benfica's debt to finances section. "Focus on youth" is subjective. "Financial issues, instability and lack of trophies (1994–2003)" is too long, just like "League dominance, European Cup finals, and decline (1970–94)" is. "Financial issues and trophies drought (1994–2003)" or just "drought" (with "drought" referring to league titles and lack of trophies – only one, the 1995–16 Portuguese Cup). Purij, why do you keep changing the name of current sections when we are still discussing them? The current division of text can be improved, but at least it's consistent. One way to condense text is to remove information on the doubles (league and cup) and match/game results. Purij, "match" is also British English. SLBedit (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
"Stabilisation years and strengthening of Benfica's brand" is POV. Information on the first match is within Estádio da Luz article. Futebol Campus is already mentioned in training ground. Benfica TV is in media section. Guinness World Record is already in support section. SLBedit (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Why individualize 14 years of club history? Benfica existed before Vieira. Vieira didn't win trophies alone. I'm not saying that I'm against using "Luís Filipe Vieira era". SLBedit (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is writing that Vieira is bigger than Benfica; no employee ever was/will be. He's simply the constant in that time period. If you want to maintain the current year sections, it's obvious that Vieira's name wouldn't fit in there. By the way, his contribution could easily overcome 14 years (his mandate is expected to end in 2020) and there's no problem whatsoever in editing the tittles as the years go by. Anyway, another option is to have "Recent years (2003/4–present), without any subdivision or mention to Vieira. Again, I just think that a division in the year 2009 has any kind of special significance. Besteirense (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
You want to make a division in year 2009, is that it? SLBedit (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I just think that a division in the year 2009 (1994–2009 and 2009–present) has not any kind of special significance. Now that's correct. It made a bit sense when Jorge Jesus was around but not anymore. Besteirense (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay. What do you think of removing match results unless they are really notable? SLBedit (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
So, to you, should the last section start in 1994 or 2003? SLBedit (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
1994–2003 with one paragraph (the first that's already there with minor changes). Then, 2003–present would be the last section (Recent Years) and should have 3/4 paragraphs max. About notable matches, perhaps the first international confrontation between two Portuguese teams (against Sp. Braga in 2011) and the two Liga Europa finals. The ones who translate themselves into titles wins can be omitted ("Benfica won x Primeira Liga, y Taça de Portugal", doesn't matter against whom). I don't know, maybe mentioning the "tetra match" because it was the first time, or the final against Rio Ave in 2013–14 in which Benfica conquered the Triplete. Besteirense (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
How many subsections will "History" have? SLBedit (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the best idea would be to crate an article about the "History of S.L. Benfica", like the one I brought here earlier about PSG. There would be no need to delete the information in that page, since that would be the purpose of it. Maybe, extend the other sections a bit. In this main page, maybe a two section text, the first about the 20th century and the second, a very short one, about the 21st. Besteirense (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay but before the creation of that page, this is the best I could think of: "Inception and first national titles (1904–50)" (46 years = 3 paragraphs) - "International success, league supremacy, decline (1950–94)" (44 years = 4 paragraphs) (or "fading" instead of "decline") - "Crisis and return to domestic success (1994–) (23 years = 7 paragraphs) or "Financial crisis/Board issues/Drought and return to domestic success" Too much paragraphs. What do you think? SLBedit (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've edited it so you can see my changes. The problem with the section "League drought and return to domestic success (1994–)" is that it is basically a summary of all seasons since 2003–04, with a paragraph for each season. It contains too much information. SLBedit (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't like the "League drought" part. Benfica had 8 years in a row without any titles, it wasn't just a Primeira Liga drought. Also, from the 2005 Supertaça until the 2008–09 Taça da Liga Benfica did not win any trophies either. Maybe "Downfall and revival" or something like that. Besteirense (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I changed it to just "drought". "Crisis", "downfall", "revival" and even "decline" are strong words. SLBedit (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Financial trouble dating back to the 1980s, when Benfica completed its stadium's third tier,[28][29] and large investments on players started to deteriorate the club's finances.[30][31] The rampant spending and a questionable signing policy (over 100 players during Manuel Damásio's presidency),[32] which allowed for squads composed of over 30 players, further aggravated the problem", the underlined part contains original research, these claims are are basically an interpretation of what the sources actually provide. SLBedit (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Besteirense: What do you think of these section titles: Inception and first titles (1904–50); Golden years and fading (1950–94) (or golden age); Drought and return to success (1994–)? This would decrease the table of contents size (TOC) box. SLBedit (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The last one could be "Mixed fortunes" to be even shorter. By the way, you should edit the "Benfiquistas usually celebrate the team's conquests at the Marquis of Pombal Square in Lisbon" phrase to start with "Some". The supporters who attend that celebration are a minority, when you consider the 14 million number that the club "sells". Also, I don't think that a capital letter to address them is needed. Besteirense (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't like "mixed fortunes" because it isn't clear what it means. Sol source doesn't say "some". The text should read "Marquis of Pombal Square is the epicentre of Benfica's league title celebrations", information that the source lacks. The word "benfiquista" is both a noun and an adjective. Maybe what's wrong is the use of italics. SLBedit (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Then, maybe a new source is needed to sustain that idea. I know benfiquista can assume the two forms. But supporters is also a noun and doesn't need capital letter. Besteirense (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
That's the problem but it might exist. Supporters is a common noun, no need for capital letter. I'm going to change it to benfiquistas because it's not a proper noun. But what about Águias and Encarnados, are they proper or common nouns? SLBedit (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
When they're used to refer the club, they should be with capital letter. Like Glorioso. Besteirense (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, Benfica isn't referred to by its nicknames. SLBedit (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Besteirense: Is it better now? SLBedit (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I would move the "BenficaCampeão2009-10.jpg" to the Support section (replacing the picture that's already there) and bring back the "Football titles in Museu Cosme Damião.JPG" you erased to the History section. What's the point in having two pictures depicting some fans celebrating two league titles? One is enough. Besteirense (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, because after the text condensation there wasn't enough space for the three pictures. Secondly, because those league titles were milestones, while the League and League Cup double was not so special (it had already been achieved by Benfica three times) and it's already outdated (four now). Thirdly, I like those pictures. "BenficaCampeão2009-10.jpg" could be placed below "AdeptosBenfica.jpg". SLBedit (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't criticizing the removal of one picture; I just thought you left the two pictures who are very similar. Every title is a milestone: the 2009–10 was the 32nd league title and the 2015 double was the third. Where's the difference? The article has two pictures of two teams, two pictures related to Eusébio (three if we include team picture where he appears), one of the current manager and one of the current president, one of Estádio da Luz, two of trophies won and three of supporters. The proportion doesn't seem correct to me. But that's just my opinion. Besteirense (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The difference is that the 2014–15 title didn't end a drought, although it meant back-to-back titles. I would add more pictures (for instance, one of Cosme Damião), not remove, if they didn't get piled up, affecting the layout. SLBedit (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
But is that difference sufficient to consider the 2009–10 a milestone and not the other? I would prefer a picture of the eagle (maybe during it's flight) instead of the one with Eusébio in the history section and, instead of two pictures depicting supporters, one of them could be with the team that actually won a trophy (like this one)Besteirense (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
2009–10 title ended a five-year wait. The trophy of the Tetra or the double at the musem would be the ideal photo. An eagle flying on the stadium isn't more notable than Eusébio. Not every picture can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and then used on Wikipedia, they must have a proper Creative Commons license. SLBedit (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
And the double ended a 21-year wait for a back-to-back league title. Like I wrote, every title is a milestone. The eagle, as a symbol, is more representative of Benfica than Eusébio; it appeared on the first crest in 1904. Besteirense (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Winning two back-to-back titles isn't a goal, it's the consequence of having the goal to win every year. You were talking about Águia Vitória, not the symbol. Do you have something against Eusébio? SLBedit (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
No league title is more important than the other. The 2009–10 Primeira Liga has the same importance as the 2014–15's, just like the 2016–17 title isn't more (or less) important than the 2013–14 just because it was the first tetra. The Águia Vitória is the mascot, the living representation of the symbol. I don't have many things against Eusébio, I just don't like the obvious undeserved prominence he has/had from Benfica (often forgetting other important players, like Mário Coluna who did not have his name replacing the players' in the shirt back in 2014), from the press and from the country (Avenida Eusébio da Silva Ferreira is a ridiculous insult to General Norton de Matos). Besteirense (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
That's your opinion, which doesn't have encyclopedic value. Countless sources prove that Eusébio is Benfica's most notable figure. SLBedit (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Unlike some, I can make my own opinions. About the rest, that was not the point of this conversation, since I didn't refute that statement. Besteirense (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I know what you implied with "unlike some". You should be more respectful. SLBedit (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't be arrogant. If I wanted to direct my comment to you, I would have written it that way. Settle down, there's no need to be always fussing about trivial matters. Besteirense (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
So why did you write "unlike some"? By writing it, you implied that you are better than someone else. Don't be arrogant. SLBedit (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
There's that arrogance I was pointing out. By criticizing someone, that doesn't mean I think I'm better than him/her. For instance, ff I criticize Rui Vitórias' choices, that doesn't mean I think I'm a better manager. The fact that you think you know what I meant better than me is laughable. A little humility would do you some good, since it's not the first time you misinterpreted me. Besteirense (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
You should express yourself better and use a better tone. SLBedit (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Besteirense: Are you for or against the usage of the serial comma? SLBedit (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm for, depending on the situation. Besteirense (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Transfers[edit]

Please take of Mitroglou and add Gabriel Barbosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by RafaFCB17 (talkcontribs) 00:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? Mitroglou was removed, Gabriel Barbosa was added. Both transfers are official. SLBedit (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Finances[edit]

The finances section is in need of a better phrasing. It used to have a infobox with financial information but it was removed as it wasn't being updated. SLBedit (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)