Talk:CONCACAF Champions Cup

message: These are two completely different tournaments - I think it would be much more readable to have them exist in two different articles. Right now the records and statistics sections are misleading. -Dazzling4 (talk) 24 Feb 2022 (UTC) 04:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No they should not be separated. It is a renaming and restructuring of the tournament, yes, but it is still a continuation of the same tournament. We don't separate the UEFA Champions League from the European Cup and we don't distinguish the Premier League as separate from winning the English championship, so there is no need to do that here. Jay eyem (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Unlike the CONCACAF Championship and CONCACAF Gold Cup which are generally considered to be seperate competitions, the Champions Cup/League are considered by sources to be the same competition that was renamed. BLAIXX 18:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, in that case then the "Finals" and "Records and statistics" sections should only contain statistics from the current iteration of the tournament, to be consistent with "Attendance records", "Awards" and "Results by league" sections. Dazzling4 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: NO, this is precisely the OPPOSITE of what we just mentioned. This IS a continuation of the previous tournament, so the data regarding the older iterations should remain. Making that wholesale change was completely inappropriate. Jay eyem (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to insist that these sections are cleaned up. The inclusion these unnecessary statistics violates WP:NOTSTATS and is detracting from the quality of this article. Please consider examining how the official CONCACAF website discusses the history of the CONCACAF Champions League - in their explanation of the tournament (specifically in the section titled "The Champions") they only refer to tournament editions after 2008. Further, in the "ALL-TIME CONCACAF CLUB CHAMPIONS" section, they seperate "Scotiabank Concacaf Champions League" from "CONCACAF Champions Cup." this should indicate that the aggregated statistics in "Overall performances by club" of this article do not even follow the CONCACAF standard. As such, I propose removing the aggregated statistics from this article, or at least separating them like on the official CONCACAF website. Dazzling4 (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the link you shared shows very clearly that the Champions League is a continuation of the Champions Cup, so there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to make this distinction. I am ok with cleaning up the stats a bit so that there can be greater focus on the prose (such as what has been done at UEFA Champions League, e.g. removing the list of finals, the "results by league" section, the "awards" section, and the needless separation between "Champions League" and "Champions Cup" statistics), but there is no reason to separate the tournament because of a name and format change when even CONCACAF itself acknowledges it as the same tournament. Relevant statistics can be moved or merged into CONCACAF Champions' Cup and Champions League records and statistics as needed. Jay eyem (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t know what you mean by “continuation,” but the wording on the official CONCACAF website does not seem to indicate that this is the same tournament. They state “the Scotiabank Concacaf Champions League (SCCL) is the region’s premier competition for clubs.  It was introduced ahead of the 2008/09 season, replacing the Champions’ Cup, which had decided the Confederation's best side since 1962.” Just because on replaced the other doesnt mean they are the same competition. I think we need to be consistent with the source material here. Also, I’m glad you agree about cleaning up the irrelevant tables - but we should take this opportunity to recontextualize this article to focus on CONCACAF Champions League instead of the CONCACAF Champions’ Cup. (That doesnt mean that information about the Champion’s Cup should not exist in this article, but stating things like América is the most successful club of the CCL is just not true.) Dazzling4 (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important that we also consider secondary sources, per Wikipedia policy. Just for one example, the CBC claims that "No MLS team has won the Champions League since 2000" and calls Club America "seven-time Champions League winners", clearly grouping together the competitions' two names. BLAIXX 06:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but a journalist could simply misunderstand how CONCACAF wants to market this tournament. I'd say that the primary source holds more weight here. Dazzling4 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with that last statement on priciple. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources" (WP:PSTS). There is already a website that follows CONCACAF's prefered marketing (Concacaf.com), Wikipedia does not need to be that too. BLAIXX 15:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the Wikipedia policy but (in this instance) it is inappropriate to use a secondary source to justify the claim that the statistics of these two different tournaments should be aggregated. As stated in WP:PRIMARY, a "primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is exactly the situation we have here. The primary source separates the two tournaments and matter-of-factually states that one replaced the other (not that one is a rebranding of the other). Therefore, the use of this primary source is correct in this instance, and the statistics need to reflect the facts present in the primary source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazzling4 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely and vehemently disagree with your interpretation. CONCACAF makes it VERY clear that this is a continuation of the previous tournament. You are hanging onto the use of the word "replaced" and COMPLETELY ignoring that they are aggregating the results of the tournament together in the very source that you posted. It would also be perfectly accurate to describe that the UEFA Champions League "replaced" the European Cup, but we still include them together for VERY obvious reasons. Plus this is entirely over-reliant on a primary source, and I completely disagree with your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY here. If anything, it is less straightforward to separate the two when CONCACAF considers one the continuation of the other. There is absolutely no reason to be separating the two. Jay eyem (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misunderstanding my suggestion - I am saying that we should be separating the "Overall performances by club" section the same way that the CONCACAF website separates the champions in "ALL-TIME CONCACAF CLUB CHAMPIONS". Insinuating things like the fact that Saprissa has won the CCL 3 times is simply not true. Dazzling4 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by your previous edits, you seem to want to remove any statistics for the tournament prior to the 2008–09 CONCACAF Champions League, to which I strongly object. This is the same way that UEFA says that Real Madrid have 13 Champions League titles, despite the fact that they have only won seven since the 1992–93 UEFA Champions League. Because it is a continuation of the same tournament. So while Saprissa has not won the "Champions League" three times under the new format, it has won the tournament three times, so there should be no issue with that inclusion. Jay eyem (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my new proposal for changes to records and statistics at the top of my sandbox page. Also, I'm okay with maintaining Club América as the most successful club if these changes are accepted. Dazzling4 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this separation is unnecessary, but at this point, as long as all the info is still on the page, I'm fine with it. Jay eyem (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the two sections clearly need to be combined. Like previous posters have pointed out, the European Cup (1956-1992) and Champions League (1993 - present day) are the same competition, even though the name and formats have changed. The same can be said for the UEFA Cup and Europa League, for the English First Division and the Premier League, for the Scottish First Division/Scottish Premier Division/Scottish Premier League/Scottish Premiership. Fore each of those examples, the List of Champions takes all iterations into account. DanielSmith5 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't we separate CONCACAF Champions' Cup and CONCACAF Champions League? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Does anyone know why Leones Negros UdeG's 1978 shared win was omitted from the records and statistics? Dazzling4 (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Where specifically was it omitted? It looks like it's there to me. BLAIXX 00:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right I didnt put it together that they were listed as just "UdeG" Dazzling4 (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Leones Negros UdeG]] omitted from [[CONCACAF Champions Cup and Champions League records and statistics]]