Template talk:International club football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Football (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Article name: an Oxymoron?[edit]

A sporting copmpetition is either between nations, or between clubs. Ocassionally, competitions like the King's Cup might mix club and national selections, but these are usually tournaments of low significance, and are not the subject matter of this template. IMHO, multi-national participation, does not equate to international competition: a player at, for example, Cork City, who played against Appollon Limassol last July, is not thereby an international footballer, ergo this is not an international competition (And as for the Intercontinental cup: that was an appalling abuse of the language). Kevin McE 20:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point. The article on the word international states (bolded text by me) "International or internationally describes interaction between nations, or encompassing two or more nations, constituting a group or association having members in two or more nations, or generally reaching beyond national boundaries." That the word "international" may also mean a match between two national teams, or a player that has played such a match, does not mean that the general definition of the word is wrong. That you try to prove your point by combining the two uses shows nothing else than that the word can be used in different ways. In the example you give, the Cork City player may not be an "international footballer", but he certainly is "a player who has played internationally". – Elisson • T • C • 21:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that most sports journalists would write that the putative Cork City player has "played internationally". I am not sure that I would consider the WP article International to be an authoritative definition, but if you wish to consider that page to have a contribution to make, I would refer you to the section of it that does deal with sports: In team sports, "international" commonly refers either to a match between two national teams, or to a player capped by his national team. The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the adjectival definition as existing, or carried on, between different nations; agreed on by all or many nation. I do not see logical coherence in your wish to label this article as "International club football" and your unwillingness to include these competitions on Template:International football: either this is an element within international football or it is not. Kevin McE 22:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
OTOH, Merriam-Webster defines international in the same way that the WP article does. I do understand that on the British Islands, "international football" is mostly used to refer to national team football. But there is no problem here as "international club football" tells the reader what kind of international football the template refers to. The Guardian uses that term here, and FIFA uses it here. – Elisson • T • C • 22:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1951 Copa Rio[edit]

Is this FIFA document proof enough? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 19:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not looking for "proof". I don't dispute that the 1951 Copa Rio is considered official. I just don't believe it is significant enough to warrant a link on this very general template. Not even the UEFA Cup has a link from it. – Elisson • T • C • 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And how relevant is UEFA Cup? 1951 Copa Rio winner is recognized by FIFA as a world champion. And what about UEFA Cup winners? What is a UEFA Cup winner? Honestly... UEFA Cup means absolutely nothing, just as Copa Sudamericana. Its winners are not even recognized as 1st class continental champions. These are consolation tournaments for the ones that did not reach UEFA Champions League and Copa Libertadores. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 21:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ask the man on the street what tournament he has heard of, the UEFA cup or the Copa Rio. That's what this template is about. And you're wrong, by the way. The UEFA Cup means quite a lot for quite a few teams. – Elisson • T • C • 21:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the header on FIFA Club World Cup is sufficient to allow deletion of both of the now extinct precursors of this competition from this box.

Copa Sudamerican IS NOT for those who didn't make it to teh Copa Libertadores. Teams quealified for teh Copa Libertadores ALSO qualify for the COpa Sudamericana. But Copa Sudamericana gives countries 1 to 4 more spots, as well as having two teams (River and Boca) qualified automatically... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Super cups[edit]

How about adding the Super cups to this template? (UEFA Super Cup, Recopa Sudamericana, etc.) IJK_Principle (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sub-conference level competitions[edit]

Odd goings on here last night. An unregistered editor changed the content, giving ostensibly valid reasons for doing so. This was reverted without explanation: the same edit was repeated and undone again, unfortunately without having been brought to discussion as BRD would suggest. A different IP address then imposed the change for a third time: possibly the same editor, possibly not, resulting in a third reversion, still with no justification of the inclusion of the content being contested, and page protection on the grounds of "excessive sockpuppetry": maybe once is more than enough, but excessive?

This looks very much like assumption that existing content is ideal, and out of hand dismissal of any edit. So why are competitions that are only available to a geographical subset of the confederation's area included for the CONCACAF zone? Kevin McE (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of banned users should be and are aggressively reverted regardless of whether some of their edits are right. Otherwise we are accepting that people banned for egregious breaches of policy or on rare occasions the law are entitled to continue to edit here. That does not mean to say that if they are right we can't later do the right thing though. If you think there was some basis to the edit, it might be worth raising the matter at WT:FOOTY. Regards, --WFC-- 02:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
If that was the reason for the revert, it should have been clearer in the editnote: there was no indication that it was the case. Regardless of who made the change, and what other changes he had made under what name, he had what seems to me a valid point. So let's change the title of this section, and have the discussion that should have ensued from the first change/revert cycle:
  • Neither the North American SuperLiga, nor the CFU Club Championship, are open to the whole of the membership of CONCACAF: these are subregional events. No other conference on this template includes sub-regional tournaments. Should these be retained? Should other sub-conference zonal competitions be included? My suggestion, in the interests of consistency and conciseness, would be no and no. Kevin McE (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Done, no-one having raised any arguments against. Kevin McE (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Individual awards[edit]

This is a club competition template: is it reasonable to have awards that are made to individuals on it. Although many of the performances that will catch the voters' eyes will be in these competitions, others will be in domestic competition, and others will be for national sides. I would propose that links to Player of the year/Ballon D'Or are inappropriate here. Kevin McE (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No opinion voiced to contrary: deleted. Kevin McE (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove navbox from pages not listed in it[edit]

This navbox has hundreds of inclusions [1]. I propose to remove from pages not listed in it. (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't need an RfC for this, it's covered by WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Redrose64 that this is fine to go ahead and do, and that this doesn't need a RfC. Removing the RfC tag. APerson (talk!) 22:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)