Talk:Continental football championships

message: :Image:Concacaf logo.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 21:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Concacaf logo.png

message: :Image:UEFA.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 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 04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UEFA.png

message: I would like to see two significant changes.:
1. The women's section should be broken up into two sections for club and national team sections, as per the mens' sections.
2. I think all the tables should have a couple of columns that describe the current champion and most recent tournament.
Let me know what you think?
--TinTin (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional changes

message: The "continents" used here doesn't match none of the current continental divisions of the World. For example, Australia is in the Asian championship. There are several other examples. FIFA calls them continental championships sometimes, but do we really have to just accept that? And if the article must change, what to do then? Call them regional championships and federations? I am just aiming some encyclopaedic consistence, since call them continental can be misleading. MPA Neto (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Continental Confederation" is the widely used, common name.  Yes, it's well known that they don't line up with any of the traditional breadown of "Continents" - for a variety of reasons, and has become less so over time, but I don't think this article would be the place to discuss such, might I suggest talk:List of football federations or more likely talk:Geography of association football.  However, in this article the word "continental" in the lead should be de-linked, I will do so.  Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely need to maintain the use of the phrase Continental.  In football it's important, even if geographically questionable, as many of the continents are then further divided into Regions.  Examples of Regions in a football sense include CONCACAF can be divided into North America, Caribbean and Central American regions, similarly Asia is divided into East, Central, Western, and South East Asian Regions.  --TinTin (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Australia is an oddball. It was once part of the Oceanic Confederation but decided to switch to the Asian one for a better chance at winning. Other than that, ruling out the oddity of Russia being entirely part of the European Confederation for obvious reasons, the continents seem to shape out fine. Two other examples of deviation are Israel which is part of the European UEFA due to political reasons and Turkey which is not entirely Asian by many accounts, even though their capital is now officially on the Asian continent. KarstenO (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continental? 

message: This sub-section within the Men's Club section is a bit of a worry.  Currently it only lists two UEFA competitions, but there are also numerous other competitions which where continental championships which are not included in the article.  I just feel expanding it this way, is a bit of a Pandora's box.  AFC and CONCACAF have changed their competition formats, and names multiple times, should these all be listed? --TinTin (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Abolished competitions sub-section

message: Regarding this, what exactly is the problem? The page not fitting in the screen? --Theurgist (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , yep, pretty much. Especially for mobile devices, it goes way off the screen. ABC paulista (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, probably timelines would do. Winners of different competitions shouldn't be listed in the same column without any notes. But that's just one of the problems this page has. Contrary to its title, what it really lists is champions, not championships. If those lists are really needed, they should be amended and maybe split into four different pages: men's national teams, men's clubs, women's national teams, and women's clubs. --Theurgist (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , honestly, I don't think that lists of champions are needed, the article worked without them just fine. But I don't think that this article has enough content currently to warrant splitting. ABC paulista (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my point: if the big lists are needed, they should be turned into lists of championships (with host countries, etc), and, possibly, split into multiple pages. But I agree that they aren't a great addition to the article, so I removed them, and also improved the small lists. --Theurgist (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I've reverted back and removed manually all the champions' lists, because I don't like the new format you promoted. The previous one was more "sorting-friendly", where one could sort the wat they wanted to. Your version has multiple distinct info contained in the same column, which messes up with the sorting process. ABC paulista (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my version also had some additions that are not in the reverted one. If it's about separate columns for the numbers of titles, this can be done easily. If it's about teams tied for most titles getting separated in different cells in the same column, this can be done too, although it would bring about other problems with the sorting: any type of sorting would cause each row to be repeated as many times as there are teams in that column (test out with the current version). --Theurgist (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , these "problems" aren't problematic at all because, even if some info might be reapeated in some columns, the other columns would have distinct info to differentiate the instances. It would only be a problem if some instaces would have the same info in all columns, sometinhg that isn't present right now. I also disagree with the way you removed the confederations from the name of some competitions and from others you didn't, it felt random and damaged standardization. And also how you removed the teams in some instances where there are multiples ones tied as the biggest winners, it felt unnecessary since the tables themselves aren't big enough to warrant this reduction. ABC paulista (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the shortest valid names for the competitions. For example the AFC Champions League is also known as the "Champions League", but the AFC Cup is not usually known as the "Cup". An exception was the abolished competitions, where I always used the full names. And I removed the teams where four or five were tied, but not where just two were tied. This was in order to minimize wrapping. --Theurgist (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, still disagree with both moves. Removing the Confederations names just caused some competitions to appear with same name, and that should be avoided when possible. And I don't think that wrapping is a problem in this case, there aren't many cases of such. ABC paulista (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but even then, I still don't like the separated cells for the tied teams. A table lists entries and their values, and cells are merged if multiple entries have the same value. The way it is, it looks as if the teams are the actual entries ("Teams with most titles by continental championship") and the championships are the values. --Theurgist (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a must to merge the cells, its just preferrable in some cases. I'm not against the merge, as long as they aren't sortable. Merging would mess with the sorting process, defeating its purpose and rendering it useless. ABC paulista (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored my version, this time with unsortable columns listing all teams, with dedicated columns for the numbers of titles, and with the competitions' names in full. --Theurgist (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything seems fine now IMO. ABC paulista (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: Someone recently added the Caribbean Club Championship on the rational that it was organized by CONCACAF.  Setting aside the fact that it is dubious to say it was organized by CONCACAF and not CFU (I'd argue that at best it's in the same boat as the FIFA Arab cup between FIFA & UAFA), I think it raises a bigger issue of what should the inclusion criteria be for a competition to make this this article?  If we are including the Caribbean competition then the UNCAF one should as well, and probably the old North American Competition, but then we should also add the various African and Asian regional sub-confederation competitions.  If this list is instead to be limited to competitions that any team from any country within the Continental Confederation has access to (be it now or potential access to based on future sporting prowess - for those that use a mathematical points system influencing participation in future years), then the Mercosur & Merconorte one's should also be dropped.  Thoughts? Gecko G (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I included them folowing the precedent set by the inclusion of both Mercosur and Merconorte, which were all organised by the main continental confederation of their respective regions, unlike the UNCAF Interclub Cup or the Caribbean Club Championship, which were organised by the regional confederations UNCAF and CFU, respectively. But I wouldn't oppose implementing the second criteria you cited. ABC paulista (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion Criteria?