Talk:Copa del Rey

message: Club Vizcaya is an early incarnation of Athletic Bilbao and their win in 1902 should really be listed and linked with that club and included in their record Djln  --Djln 00:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1902 Cup

message: I have added this section below in the spirit of compromise. I hope this can resolve issue. 
*The number of trophies Athletic Bilbao have been credited with is disputed. The 1902 competition was won by Club Vizcaya, a team made up of players from Athletic Club and Bilbao FC. In 1903 these two clubs merged as  Athletic Club Bilbao. The 1902 cup is on display in the Athletic museum  and the club includes it in its own honours list.. However some sources do not include this as an Athletic win. Djln--Djln 23:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise on 1902 Cup

message: I am not disputing that Club Vizcaya won the Copa in 1902. However this team is part of Athletic Bilbao history. Club Vizcaya is not a separate club from Athletic, but is part of the clubs history. Several clubs including FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and RCD Espanyol and Real Union have won the Copa del Rey under different names. All trophies won under their various names are included in one list. So why should the Athletic record be different ?
Below is a timeline which explains the early history of Athletic. 
*Early 1890s: Bilbao FC formed by British workers.
*1898: Basque students returning from UK form Athletic Club.
*1902: Above two teams enter combined team known as Club Vizcaya in Copa del Rey.
*1903: These two teams merge and form Athletic Club Bilbao
*1907: The Club Vizcaya  name is revived as Athletic Club de Bilbao  and  Union Vizcaino entered another combined team in the Copa del Rey.
The 1902 Copa is included in Athletic’s own honours list  and the trophy is in their museum . The eleven Club Vizcaya    players who played in the final - L. Arana, E Careaga, P. Larranga, L. Silva, A. Arana, Goiri, Cazeaux, Astorquia, W. Dyer, R. Silva, W. Evans - are all included in an archive of former Athletic players . Djln--Djln 14:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BarcelonaMarc

message: Arbitration has been requested at on this page. 
Djln--Djln 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1902 Copa del Rey

message: LFP (La Liga) and RFEF (Spanish Football Federation) official statistics don't include the 1902 Cup as an Athletic win. So do the Spanish media (links demonstrating it in Talk:Copa del Rey). LFP and RFEF are the governing bodies of football in Spain, so wikipedia, if it is a serious thing, must reflect the current official satistics. We can argue if Athletic and Club Vizcaya is the same football club or not, but we can't discuss that LFP and RFEF don't include the 1902 Cup as an Athletic win cause it is a fact.   
   
In addition to this, Djln's point of view is already reflected in both Copa del Rey and Athletic Club articles.
If you wish to contribute to above debate further I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football Djln--Djln 13:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User: BarcelonaMarc|BarcelonaMarc]] 

message: Having just read my Football's Strangest Matches book,it states the 1995 Cup Final was played for 79 mins and then abandoned, with the remaining 11 minutes played later that weekend. There seems to be no reference to it here-is it correct and if so do we have any more info?
Lemon martini 16:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1995 Cup Final

message: :Image:CopaDelRey.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 05:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CopaDelRey.png

message: I wonder why everytime Barça is in trouble this comes out again. Forget RFEF, just COUNT the real number of cups the club owns. 24,period. 195.235.227.10 (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1902 cup again 

message: I've semi protected this page for a while to prevent the on-going edit war over the 1902 trophy.  As far as I'm concerned, the number in the table is adequately caveated with the footnote.  But please, conduct your discussions here on the talk page and not by continual edit warring on the page itself.  Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protected 

message: #This article includes statistics about the number of times clubs have won the Copa del Rey.
#The dispute revolves around whether the 1902 victory can be claimed by Athletic Bilbao.
#The significance of 2 is amplified because depending on whether or not it counts, Bilbao are or are not joint leaders with Barcelona, in terms of cup wins.
Please could each party sign this section to say that they agree this is a complete and accurate  (if simple) version of the dispute. 
If I have made an error, or missed something out, please disagree and I will come to your talk page to discuss. Please do not argue or discuss here at this stage. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of dispute

message: I'm going to unlock the article from protection. Everyone seems to be happy with mediation, which is great, so I assume everyone agrees not to make any edits that refer even in the slightest to issues involved in the dispute. IP edits on the dispute will be treated as vandalism. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect

message: It is my assessment that this dispute should be fairly easy to address: it seems to me it's about partial presenting of facts, either way. I don't think this is anyone's fault and I think we can work together to reach a resolution that will leave the article much improved.
The problem seems to hinge on the fact that the dispute is not properly explained in the article.
The first step to addressing this is to create some new subsections in the article, which I've done.
The new Copa del Rey#Controversies section should include a short paragraph on the contentious 1902 competition. I'd like the parties to help work on it here, not in article space. It should be properly referenced, so it is of the highest possible standard. I've proposed some copy below for us to work on together. Please stay cool when you read it! --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment of the dispute

message: Initial issues I'm aware of:
#Each of those claims needs to be cited.
#I've not yet verified that the sources do prove what they're supposed to be proving :-)
#Was "Athletic Club" a team from Bilbao?
Let's work this into a good paragraph and then insert it. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dweller's area

message: The history is very clear and is explained clearly in the foot note that has existed for a year or more. Athletic does not claim anything, they have the cup displayed in their museum, because it belongs to them. Other thing are "oficial" statistic from oficial Spanish institutions. What should the table display? the facts. Not the oficial "facts" that are POV, but the real facts. But... anyway, I don't like football, only history. I wonder which is the motivation for the Barcelona supporters. David (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deibid's area

message: *I hope people don’t mind me contributing to this debate. I am responsible for the majority of the text in this article and also for the foot note explaining the dispute. When I first researched this article it was clear to me that there is a very strong case for the 1902 Copa being listed as an Athletic win. Nothing since has changed my opinion. I would also like to emphasis that I am not an Athletic fan. If anything I have a preference for Barca. That said, I think the following questions need to be addressed.  
**Why is the 1902 Copa in the Athletic museum if they or one of their predecessor clubs did not win it ? Why do Athletic include it in their honours list ?
**Why are other clubs, such as Real Sociedad and Real Union,  credited with wins by predecessor clubs while Athletic are not ?      
**Should we really place our faith in records from RFEF when they recently changed their mind about the 1937 Copa. 
**If Barca had won the 2008 Copa for example, making it their 25th  win, would this edit war have started up again ?  
**Are other editors aware that Barca also claim trophies they won as a part of a combined team ? Early Inter-Cities Fairs Cup wins credited to FC Barcelona should actually be credited to the  Catalonia Football Federation who organised and selected the teams. Djln --Djln (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Djln's area

message: I'm going to have to assume that everyone is content with the proposed new paragraph. I'll add it to the article tomorrow. We'll then look at the next step. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Well that's done (someone should replace the  with a proper citation, btw). Now, we need to address the Statistics section. I'll open a discussion next week about how we might do that. It'll probably appear on Tuesday. Please continue to watch this space. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation continued 

message: Now that we have introduced a paragraph that explains the controversy in detail, we should be able to find some wording that suits everyone to explain that the club with most wins is either one thing or another.
I suggest that the key to this is to refer to the controversy paragraph, without explaining the problem all over again. Being neutral here would mean Wikipedia not vouching an opinion either way on which is correct or official or anything like that. We state the facts and no more than that.
I'm going to draft some proposed wording, below. Please refrain from commenting until you've seen it. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics section 

message: Please indicate here issues you have with the proposed rewording. Please remain civil and calm. Be sure to explain each point in detail. It may help for clarity if you open each comment with a relevant quote from the proposed text. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments sections

message: OK. I think we're getting there. As far as I can tell, there's just the chart of numbers of wins left to address.
Once again, Wikipedia should not be seen to be deciding on the rights or wrongs of the argument. We can't appear to endorse the figure 23 or 24. Nor can we ignore the claim.
I suggest on Bilbao's line we ascribe "23/24" wins to them, asterisked as currently, with a note that (once again) directs the reader to the Controversy section. In the list of wins, we ascribe 1902, again asterisked. Once again, please do comment below. --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Now for the chart

message: Please indicate here issues you have with the proposal. Please remain civil and calm. Be sure to explain each point in detail. --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments sections

message: With all parties now happy, my job's done. Thank you for your co-operation! --Dweller (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Finished

message: Opening para needs to be sorted out as it has become very cluttered, especially regarding the amount of former names. Could we create a table listing past and present names and the years the names were used and an explanation for each name. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening para

message: Are away goals used in this competition?  --  Grant.Alpaugh 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Away goals? 

message: Article currently states: "It is somewhat similar to the English Premier League's Carling Cup; teams from upper and lower divisions will get to play against each other but the number of clubs allowed to participate is restricted."
The problem with this is that the number of teams in every national cup competition, including the FA Cup, is restricted and the Copa Del Rey doesn't differ in this aspect. It is also the sole and primary domestic cup competition for Spanish top level clubs, unlike the English league cup which is very much a secondary cup competition. If no one objects I'll change this to FA Cup. Valenciano (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarity to English cup competitions

message: First of all, I would like to apologize if this topic has been brought up. Secondly, and most importantly, I dont know much about Spanish history so I'd like to apologize ahead in case I offend anybody for what I am about to say.
The intro explains where the name Copa del Rey come from. It translates the name "Copa de Su Majestad El Rey Don Juan Carlos I" into "His Majesty King John Charles I's Cup." I appreciate the Spanish to English translation because I do not understand Spanish. But why does it translate the King's name (Juan Carlos)? I understand that Juan Carlos is the Spanish variant of the name John Charles. But I am under the impression that proper nouns are supposed to be kept the same. Why do need to translate his name?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsonlam1 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, unlike Spanish, English usually doesn't translate the names of Kings (Popes would be the only names to be translated) so I'll change that. Valenciano (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  "English usually doesn't translate the names of Kings"? So that's why the three Prussian Kings and German Emperors are named William I, German Emperor, Frederick III, German Emperor and Wilhelm II, German Emperor on English Wikipedia? -- Matthead  Discuß   09:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Usually doesn't" means there are exceptions. You've just highlighted three. Valenciano (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  King John Charles I's Cup? 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: The Royal Spanish Football Federation (which is the organizer of the tournament, and the only official body in Spain able to recognise national official competitions), has made it clear that the competition Concurso España (es) won by Deportivo La Coruña in 1912 is not a Copa del Rey. It can be verified in this link to its website, where it says:
Translated to English:  Jorges65 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concurso España is not Copa del Rey. Deportivo La Coruña only have 2 Copas del Rey according to RFEF