Jump to content

Talk:Copa Libertadores

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleCopa Libertadores was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 21, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 21, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
July 19, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 26, 2010Good article nomineeListed
July 16, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 18, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

"Pasion libertadores" cultural impact section

[edit]

"Pasion libertadores" section on cultural impact looks simply like a sef promotion rather then actually informing something about the tournament. Someone founded a website about a topic that seems very normal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.171.102.228 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

[edit]

This article needs a good coverage such as the world cup, Copa America, UEFA Champions League, etc. articles. I'll start with it shortly. -SpiceMan 12:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The text is wrong

[edit]

I'm brazilian and my country didn't have a war to be independent.We were colony of Portugal then D. Pedro I payed money to Portugal ,so we got independent. After the independence we had 2 Emperors that went to Europe in the end of their lifes.The text is wrong. EDIT: Brazilian War of Independence. Augusto Fontes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.160.122 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Details for Every Year

[edit]

I think this article would be much more complete if it has details for every edition of the cup like the UEFA Champions League article. I noticed that some editions like the 2005, 1997 and 1994 have a Details article but they are incomplete or they need to be cleaned up. I know that creating a Details article for every year of the Libertadores might take a long time, but if enough people are interested in helping, it will make the Copa Libertadores article complete. - Bruno18 16:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started the article for 2005. I am willing to do the same with 1992 and 1993. FTota 16:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will probably find RSSSF immeasurably useful to the task, if you haven't used it already. (By virtue of the fact it's linked in the article, I'm sure you're aware of it.) But then, it seems that a Wikipedia page would largely just be a more readable formatting. Perhaps the ideal would be a RSSF-to-Wikipedia bot. - PhilipR 05:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did use RSSSF to make the 1990 and 2002 articles. The only problem is that it takes too long, especially in the recent years where 32 teams participate (more teams=more games=longer articles ;) ). Like you said, a bot would be perfect but I have no idea on how to use/create one. Bruno18 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have spent a lot of time making the results look much better then before. You are welcome Gethomas3 05:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous winners

[edit]

An anon user changed:

  • "Between 1960 and 1979 the previous winners did not enter the competition until the semi-final stage"

with

  • "Between 1960 and 1989 the previous winners did not enter the competition until the semi-final stage".

I couldn't find references for neither year; anyone had better luck? Mariano(t/c) 07:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, as the 1987 champions (Peñarol) had to play quarter-finals in the 1988 edition. Bruno18 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do then? Set back 1979? I didn't find any refenrece to 1979 either, and don't know who wrote it. Mariano(t/c) 06:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me do a little bit of research and come back with the answer ;) .Bruno18 14:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've checked the results. The last time a champion had a 'bye' to the semifinals was in 1986. That year River Plate won the tournament and directly played the semifinals in the 1987 edition. Time to edit the article. Bruno18 17:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Another question:


Why is River Plate's runners up position from 1948 part of the list of former winners, but Vasco da Gama's victory is not?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F4:4738:B300:C5C6:FEF8:994A:C902 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

[edit]

I've been absent from this page for a while but I now see that the teams' crests where changed by the country's flag. The teams don't represent their countries in this competition, they represent themselves. The country of origin only matters when providing a quota to that league's teams. We should change back to the teams' crests, since that would be the correct interpretation. Ideas? Opinions? If no comments/opposition appears I'll change them in a few days.

Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its really because the cresta are either indistinguishable, or huge and annoying, but mainly because, thats what they do everywhere else. Basically yeh, Im strongly against the use of club crests, and for country flags, despite the teams not there to represent their country, they still do, part of the winnings go to the FA of the team. People support teams from their country. But above all, people recognise flags, not logos, and the logo only gives the same information as the club-link anyway.
Also I'd like to point out, the emblems were removed months ago, whereas the flags were put up in the last few days. The emblems were removed by User:Ed g2s on the grounds that it was not fair use, as it served only as decoration.Philc TECI 00:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the crests were better because they actually represent the winning team, I personally don't find them confusing. With that being said, the flags don't look bad either. Oh, and thanks to both User:Philc 0780 and User:BlueMoonlet for making the champions table look nicer. Bruno18 01:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers!! thanks. Philc TECI 01:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"People support teams from their country".... Well, not very true in Argentina. Most people just root for their teams, period. "winnings go to the FA of the team", that's not true, they just go to the team. The FA only gets TV revenue sharing. Lastly, the crests direct you to the club and there is very clear where the club's from. I don't think the country flag should be there at all, and it really doesn't look any better than the crests did. If we don't want the crests, fine, but the flags should go as well. Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I cant prove any of the facts you contest, on the grounds that I cant speak for everyone, and all of the regulations are in spanish, but as in all international club competitions, a percentage of all money awarded goes to the winning teams FA, something in the region of 5%. Television rights are also divided between club and country.
If you are going to change them back, I think there are several things you should do first, discuss it on talk:WikiProject Football, as they are working to get a consistency between all football related articles of similar subjects, and also discuss with User:Ed g2s to why he originally removed them. If you do this first, an edit war would be impossible. Otherwise I fear there will be a slow moving war between us all. Philc TECI 18:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, it will be probably a good idea to do so. I'm not sure I want to undertake the painful process of discussing these since I know it's going to be long, and I wish I had been active in WP when User:Ed g2s removed the crests, 'cause now the "Status Quo" is different. I may actually surrender before starting the quest. Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll raise the point and see where the discussion goes, I'll express the view you expressed here on your behalf, and ask Ed g2s to comment. We'll see what happens. Philc TECI 20:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Phil, I'll check the project and intervene a little bit if necessary. Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If anyone was following this, several users agreed that the logos are on a fair use, and are not essential to the article, and so cannot be used under the fair use policy. Philc TECI 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Past Results

[edit]

Wouldn't be better to change the name of this section? IMO it is a bit misleading as the table only shows the results for the finals, not for every game of the Copa as the title seems to suggest. Also, I think it would be better to "flip" the table and show the last champion first (in other words, go in descending order from 2006 to 1960). Let me know what you think. Bruno18 20:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Copa América has Copa América tournaments as subtitle, and FIFA World Cup has World Cup summaries. Regarding the order, I have no preference, but both Copa America and World Cup have ascending order. Mariano(t/c) 06:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed the title to "Past tournaments". IMO it suits the article better but if you don't like it feel free to change it. Bruno18 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 final

[edit]

I don't believe it's appropiate to have both Sao Paulo and Internacional in the "Past Results" table as one column is for the runner-up and the other one for the champion (the leftmost column in this case). Having Sao Paulo in that leftmost column can confuse people who are looking at the article and are not familiar with football or the Libertadores, making them believe that Sao Paulo is the 2006 champion. We should only add the teams once the finals are complete. After all, this is an encyclopedia and the main objective should be to inform people but not confuse them.

I'm also against declaring Brazil as having 13 championships before the finals are played. Yeah, I know that this is an all-Brazilian final and that the champion will eventually be from that country but there's always a remote chance that something might happen.

So in conclusion, I'll go ahead and revert the changes made by that anom user and if somebody disagrees and wants the article the way it was PLEASE discuss it here and at least give at good reason of why you want the article that way. Peace. Bruno18 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the country but in the past we have arbitrarily added the countries, the idea is that we can add the finals' results after the first game to keep track. Maybe a footnote explaining wouldn't be a bad idea. Sebastian Kessel Talk 14:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like it doesn't matter. Anom users from Brazil keep changing the article and I'm not willing to play an edit war so I'll leave the article as it is. Bruno18 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Libertadores in Brazil

[edit]

In Brazil, it's Copa Libertadores da América and not Taça Libertadores da América. People can check this at Portuguese Wikipedia [1].

Libertators of America Cup??? C'mon!

[edit]

In English the people always refer to this championship as Copa Libertadores. Libertators of America, as it's written in this article is a an useless and non-official translation. --201.37.187.220 02:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may refer to it like that but the article should also give a translation of the name to the people that don't know what Libertadores means. Bruno18 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an explanation about it -> "The name of the tournament is an homage to the Libertadores (Spanish word for Libertators), the main leaders of the independence wars of Latin America"
This is an old discussion, but I'm chiming in to voice my agreement that it's misleading to translate the name into English in the first sentence; as written right now, the opening sentence leads readers to believe that the trophy's name in English is the Liberators of America Cup, which it is not. The trophy's name in English is the Copa Libertadores, as can easily be verified through checking any English-language coverage of the competition (such as Soccernet's Libertadores page). A translation of the name into English is appropriate, but, as already pointed out, it's much better at the end of the first paragraph, in the sentence explaining that the cup's name is a homage to the historical Libertadores. I'm amending both the first and last sentences of the opening paragraph to reflect that. Binabik80 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the article moved?

[edit]

The original and complete name of the tournament is "Copa Libertadores de América". Copa Libertadores is just the "short name" for the tournament and the user that made the change didn't even specify the reason. I think the article should be moved back to the complete name. Bruno18 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed to the most common identification of this Championship in the English-speaking countries, as well as the official Conmebol International name (Copa Toyota Libertadores) [2].
"Copa Libertadores DE América" is just for the spanish-speaking countries
"Copa Libertadores DA América" is just for Brazil and portuguese-speaking countries.
"Copa Libertadores" or "Copa Toyota Libertadores" (with the sponsor) is the official international name.
--Mrzero 03:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico In the cup

[edit]

Can some one explain, how was mexico added to a south american cup?, the article doesn't explain.

Maybe no one knows the reason. It is easy to verify which teams played, so we know Mexican teams started to complete. I imaghine iots the money as Moexico is a rich country compared to the conutries in eth Copa. Chivista 20:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

richer than which country? i can think of at least 4 or 5 countries in southamerica with higher incomes and higher quality of life... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.164.11 (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Libertadores2007.jpg

[edit]

Image:Libertadores2007.jpg 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America's Libertators Cup ?????

[edit]

What kind of translation is this? This is an odd and unofficial translation which is not adopted by any kind of press. Even English-speaking countries call this competition "Copa Libertadores". I'll remove this statemant of the article. Sometime ago people wrote "Libertators of America Cup" and now "America's Libertators Cup". What would be the next weird translation? "Cup Libertators of America"??? C'mon people!!! There's no english translation and period! --201.82.130.253 (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official name of Copa Santander Libertadores does not redirect to the Copa Libertadores page - I think it should, considering that the article initially refers to the competition as the Copa Santander Libertadores.

I've just added the redirect. Salt (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home and away

[edit]

Hi, I've noticed the way the knock-out matches appear in almost all the articles of each edition is quite misleading on home and away matches. It's quite confusing because the team seeded first is not always the one who played at home first, but it seems like that by the way it looks it the articles. I think it should be fixed up.Ipsumesse (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage

[edit]

Under the section Media coverage, only media in UK and Australia are listed, giving a wrong preception that the tournament is only covered in these two regions. I think this section is strongly insufficient concnerning its information, and even does not have value of existence if the there is not further data available.

So, does anyone know whether there is a list of media coverage which is more complete? Or should I start a separate article like List of UEFA Champions League broadcasters, so that people can add information concerning their own countries? Salt (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libertadores and FIFA World Club Championship

[edit]

From the article:

The winners of the Copa Libertadores have gone on to win more world club championships than any other FIFA confederation. They have also won three out of the first four editions of the official FIFA World Club Championship.

This is not right. Corinthians -- a CONMEBOL member -- won the first edition of the Fifa Club World Cup in 2000 without winning Libertadores first. Maclaine (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image File:AlbertoSpencer.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sueño Libertador section

[edit]

According to the Sueño Libertador section, "A similar, yet barely used term was invented for attempting to win the little-prestigious Intercontinental/FIFA Club World cups called Projeto Tóquio". However, there is no source for this statement. And it is non-neutral to say that those two cups (Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup) are little-prestigious without providing at least reliable sources for that. I added two tags. Any comments are welcome. --Carioca (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find books online regarding Sao Paulo FC. They were the ones who invented the term in 1986 after winning the Campeonato Brasileirao. Other Brazilian clubs then use that term as a reference to create "Proyect Tokyo".
It doesn't take a genius to know the the prestigue of the IC/CWC is laughable. It is almost a bad joke on the sport. The Europeans definetly don't care about it. Even in South America, there are clubs such as Sao Paulo, Estudiantes, and River Plate that didn't really gave that much enthusiasm for playing those games. It is like if you were to ask anyone in Europe the prestigue of the UEFA Champions League or and South American for the prestigue of the Copa Libertadores: that is something you can't find on any book or note. You simply KNOW by talking to fans.
Better yet, I will post a note on the discussion board of the Champions League in order to ask an opinion of this. Seeing as that site is worked by Europeans (most of English and German descent) we can get a fair view of their side.Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be correct, but still that statement needs a reliable source. Regarding the Projeto Tóquio, in Brazil we never used the phrase Sueño Libertador (or Sonho Libertador), so while Sueño Libertador was the phrase used in Spanish-language speaking countries, Projeto Tóquio was the phrase used in Brazil. --Carioca (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in fact I agree with you that it is not prestigious at all. However,even though you are correct that it is not prestigious, and at the Champions League talk page those Europeans agree with you, it is still not a reliable source. I think it should not be in the article unless you can find some reliable sources. That is the way to write articles in wikipedia I suppose. Cheers, Salt (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Coverage

[edit]

Can we get any specific information as to the media coverage of the Copa Libertadores? Does anyone know of good websites, sources, etc?

Total teams

[edit]

Leave it at 39. We don't know what the format will be for next season since they added a new team to the competition. --MicroX (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we don't know the format, there is no qualifying round for the Copa Libertadores. 39 qualify and the competition proper starts at the First Stage. Digirami (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The only time there was a preliminary round was prior to 2004 when they had 2 Venezuelan teams and 2 Mexican teams compete for two spots in the group stage. Today we have 6 stages, starting in the first stage and ending in the sixth stage (the finals). --MicroX (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article 2, section 2 of the 2010 Copa rules states how many teams there are in the competition proper (40, because of an extra two Mexican teams). Article 3 state that the competition starts at the First Stage, where 12 teams play. Teams advance to the Second Stage, where 26 teams qualify directly to. The competition proper 'does not start in the second/group stage (unlike the UEFA Champions League). There is no need to state how many are in the Second/group stage in the infobox. Digirami (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-FAC comments

[edit]

Comments arising as I read through the first couple of sections:

  • Is it right to call the Copa de Campeones a precursor? Was it a direct precursor, or was it simply the first attempt at a trans-continental club championship?
    • Yes. You will find more information on the article itself.
  • In places I've seen reference to the Libertadores being created after the Intercontinental Cup was proposed, as there was at that time no way of determining which South American team ought to contest it. Is there anything to this?
    • That is complete BS. The Europeans were the ones who instigated that notion as a means to make their own European Cup seem important (which went along with the European's destruction of the growing prestigue the IC had at the end of the 60's). The truth is that a UEFA secretary did come all the way to South America to propose the Intercontinental Cup but it was seen more as an welcomed but unneeded incentive. Argentina and Brazil, with the backing of most of South America, wanted to start the Copa Libertadores but it was Uruguay who put heavy resistence towards the inception of the tournament (the history article of the Copa Libertadores covers it). Only through some under-the-table deals did the Libertadores came to be (back then, Uruguay had a lot of sway in CONMEBOL).
  • It proved to be historic justice for many (even today) due to Peñarol's great contributions to the creation of the tournament - according to whom?
    • Put "justicia historica peñarol 1960" on google and you will find many different sources as to who.
  • but the Copa Libertadores did not receive international projection what does this mean?
    • It means that it received no international projection. Before Santos won it in 1962, the tournament didn't receive much coverage even in South America. Once Santos and Pele entered in 1962 did that change.
  • As raised in the FAC, there are many peacock terms and weasel words. As it says at WP:WEASEL, Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed.
    • I understand where you are coming from now. I will attribute everything.
  • Terms like "tricampeon" need to be explained for the layman.
    • Fair enough.
  • No mention of the Battle of the Bombonera where 19 players got sent off?Oldelpaso (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That belongs in the history article of the competition(where it is far more specific). The short, history section serves as a summary of the competition and I only mentioned the winners of each edition, sometimes the runners'up and a few exceptional cases. I would think most people will agree with that notion. Besides that, what Battle of the Bombonera? First time I ever heard about it. Can you provide a link or anything?Jamen Somasu (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Copa Libertadores/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Resolute 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • (lead) "The six surviving teams join 26 teams in the second stage" - The six surviving teams of what? This is explained later in the article, but is nonsensical in the lead without context.
Fixed
  • There are peacock terms throughout. i.e.: "demonstrated their magic" (Beginnings) and "Peñarol would defeat River Plate in a dramatic playoff". (beginnings) What was dramatic about this? Check the article throughout for use of such terminology
Fixed
  • "Independiente would go on to successfully defend the title in 1965;[16] Peñarol would defeat River Plate..." (Beginnings) - In a lot of cases, statements like this can be simplified: "Independiente successfully defended the title in 1965; Peñarol defeated River Plate..."
Fixed
  • "The playoff match finished in a tense 0–0 tie and was defined in a vibrant penalty shootout, with a highly remembered save by Hugo Gatti on Vanderley in the last penalty." (Argentine decade) - Needs a reference, particularly for the save. "vibrant" is another peacock term.
Fixed
  • There is mixed reporting of the match scores throughout. In some cases you say a team won "2–1" and in others, "1–2". I would recommend that for consistency you list the winning score first. I am presuming that you are listing the score of the home team first and visitor second, but that is both unnecessary and confusing for a reader such as myself, as Canadian scores would list the visiting team first then the home team.
Unfortunetly, doing that would go against the concensus of most of the world. It is well known that the score is listed with the home team to the left and the visiting team to the right; which saves space and time from listing whenever someone wins at home or away.
  • "Argentinos Juniors went on to win an unprecedented title by beating America de Cali in the finals via a penalty shootut." (Pacific uprising) - what was so unprecedented about this title?
Fixed
  • "it proved to be their last hurrah in the international scene as Uruguayan football, in general, suffered a great decadence at the end of the 1980s." (Pacific uprising) - I don't think "decadence" is the word you intend to use here. Do you mean "decline"?
Fixed
  • "it was the first ever time that no club from Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil managed to reach the final. This trend will continue on until 1992." (Pacific Uprising) - mixed tense. The first sentence is past-tense while the second is present-tense. Change the second sentence to "This trend continued until 1992."
Fixed
  • "São Paulo beat Newell's Old Boys of Argentina to begin a legacy that established the club as one of the best ever teams of all time." (Renaissance) - this sentence is awkward, and I am not sure what it means. Who says they are one of the best teams of all time? And what is the context? Best Brazilian team of all time? Best South American? Best in the world? Also, you don't begin a "legacy". In North American terms, I think you are trying to call them a "dynasty".
Fixed
  • "The Copa Libertadores will stay in Brazilian soil for the remaining of the 1990s..." (Renaissance). Wrong tense. The 1990s are in the past, and this sentence needs to reflect that. "The Copa Libertadores stayed on Brazilian soil..."
Fixed
  • "Vasco da Gama will defeat Barcelona SC with ease to enter in the gallery of champions in 1998." Wrong tense again. Vasco da Gama defeated Barcelona.
Fixed
  • "However, the Copa Libertadores suffered notably from corruption allegations and accusations of bribery (as well as constant threats to referees, bad organization, increasing stadium violence and low attendances in the early stages of the tournament). South America's biggest stars begun migrating en masse to the more economically-rewarding European leagues depriving the competition of some of its former exposure." (Renaissance) - The statements on corruption and on the competition facing declining exposure due to defections to Europe both requrie references.
Fixed
  • "...revitalized the club to establish it among the world's best." (Resurgences) - Need reference showing Boca Juniors was considered to be among the world's best.
Fixed
  • "Boca Juniors will win the 2001 edition after..." Wrong tense again, Boca Juniors won the 2001 edition
Fixed
  • The phrase "managed to" is overused, and pretty much unnecessary on all counts. "Managed to win" and "managed to defeat" simplfies down to "won" and "defeated". The simpler a statement is, the easier it is to read.
Fixed
Nitpicking
  • Simple statements do not require multiple references. i.e.: "Estudiantes de La Plata, a modest neighborhood club and a denominated minor team in Argentina, had a style that prioritized athletic preparation and achieving results at all costs." does not require four refs. Too many references stacked like that break the text up and make the article harder to read
  • alt text should be added to all images
I had problems with people not believing one reference. So I put four.


On the whole, it is a decent article - broad in coverage, neutral, and the history is well balanced. There are a couple statements that require references, and I'd like to see some of those peacock words cleaned up before I can pass it as a GA. As such, I am placing it on hold for now. If you do intend to try for FA again, it will need to be looked at by an experienced copyeditor first. Please leave a message on my talk page when you are ready for me to take a second look. Cheers! Resolute 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an advocate and will do it anyway, but for future reference is alt text a requirement again? I've taken a four-month break from the main content processes (except DYK), so I'm not really up to date on that kind of thing.
I've got my toe dipped into several things at the moment, but if time isn't a major concern I think I can take this under my wing. Despite being (correctly) indeffed on civility grounds, the nominator was undeniably prolific, and this article deserves to be taken the last few steps. Regards, --WFC-- 02:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is not a written requirement so far as I am aware, though it is obviously preferred. I would not hold or fail an article for its lack - I noted that under nitpicking rather than the main review because the history indicated that after two FACs it was probable that a third attempt would eventually be launched. And thanks for picking up the article. I'll be here when it is ready for a second review. Resolute 02:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes, Jamen. I am not convinced by your explanation on the scoring format however, as I looked over numerous football related FAs and found that they consistently list the winning score first regardless of who the home team was. Keep in mind that articles should be tailored for everyone, and "won 2-1 on the road" is clear to everyone where "won 1-2" is not as obvious in all regions and mixing scores can be confusing. However, I am not going to dig my heels in over that point. There are still a few colourful phrases, but that has been cleaned up, and my concerns about tense and referencing are addressed. As such, I am passing this as a GA. Cheers! Resolute 00:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Match Ball

[edit]

Would whoever removed the Advert tag please actually consider making the Match Ball section NOT an ad first? By any definition, it's an advert.

24.16.229.98 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try doing it yourself? I really see no other way to write it; I merely stated what Nike (and other third-party sources) stated about the ball itself. 74.232.219.90 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Decade 2010-

[edit]

Hi all,

I would like to start a new section to reflect the new decade:

Consolidation?: 2010-2019

The 2010 edition witnessed the consolidation of the Mexican participation with Guadalajara reaching the final against Internacional. Internacional won its second title with an aggregate score of 5-3.Gabriel arisi (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem

[edit]

I can't delete it this time. So, please stop adding the poorly sourced "official anthem" section, that is a TV theme used by one of the broadcasters. Copa Libertadores doesn't have an official anthem.--190.8.113.40 (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copa Libertadores 2007.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Copa Libertadores 2007.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the anthem section

[edit]

Per above, common guys, do something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.196.104.52 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Impact

[edit]

There are multiple issues to deal with in the section "Cultural Impact". First of all, the section's lede is superfluous, it doesn't add anything to what you can say of any other footbal club international competition (see WP:WEASEL). The subsection "Sueño Libertadores" is based upon a 2004 Mexican article about the first Mexican clubs to participate in the tournament, hardly a global point of view of the Libertadores Cup; clearly a case of WP:UNDUE. The investment made by several clubs to win the trophy are well sourced and worth of mention, but only under a new header. The completely unsourced subsection "La Copa se mira y no se toca", whose title derives from an old fans' cliche common to several countries in South America used to taunt rivals, has nothing to do with the early supremacy of the "Atlantic" football giants of the continent over those of the "Pacific" or western region of the continent. It could stand, however, if a source citing this phrase in the context of Libertadores Cup is found in a source originated in these countries (Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia).--Darius (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Copa Libertadores. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 December 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. GiantSnowman 18:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC) GiantSnowman 18:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Copa CONMEBOL Libertadores de América → Copa Libertadores – Reinstating naming convention, no discussion over previous moves. MYS77 ✉ 13:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move, no consensus or explanation from Nicolas.colimil. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Copa Libertadores. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is right

[edit]

All content is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.223.6.221 (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Dominance (2010-2013) and Argentine Comeback

[edit]

I think these subtitles in the History section really should be changed. I don't think these eventual winners represent much and it seems like a narrative created just for the sake of the article. Maybe a better idea would be to merge the sections in a decade subtitle and add another section for "River-Boca in Madrid and single match final (2018-present)"? I don't have the time to do it right now, but it seems to be more relevant. Suggestions welcomed. Snitor (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to your suggestion about a more neutral and less editorialised header, and tried to clean up the quality of writing, yet it is nowhere near the rest of the article. I don't know who the primary author of this page was when it became a GA in 2010, but he or she is sorely needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E1AB:4500:953C:C1AA:9F84:9B0F (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Copa Libertadores/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Article has not really been updated for a decade and contains multiple orange level tags. Main editor is inactive. AIRcorn (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 November 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Libertadores → CONMEBOL Libertadores – A user moved this page to CONMEBOL Libertadores with the rationale "For some years now, CONMEBOL, which is the organizer of the event, has been advertising the expression “CONMEBOL Libertadores” as the new name of the competition. So it is only fair that this article recognizes the new official name of the competition." The article was then moved back to Copa Libertadores with the rationale WP:RMUM. The page was again moved to CONMEBOL Libertadores with the same rationale. I moved it back here to maintain status quo and to start a move discussion to avert a move war. I don't have a preference one way or the other myself TartarTorte 18:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name

[edit]

The article states: "In 1965, it was named in honor of the heroes of South American liberation, such as Simón Bolívar, José de San Martín, Pedro I, Bernardo O'Higgins, and José Gervasio Artigas, among others". But it's not like that. The name Libertadores was used before, just look at these two articles from 1960 and 1961:


http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/153931_03/3482

http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/112518_03/5292 VAN ZANT (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copa_Libertadores&oldid=1216489775"