Talk:CR Flamengo/Archive 1

Infobox
Hi. Well, this had been done once, I undid it and no one complained at the time. Now, a few months pasted, it was re-done again. So, to avoid this back and forth every now and then, I feel we should get consensus for this: it's about the positioning of the infobox. I understand that, for most football clubs' articles, the box is placed at the top of the article. That's not bad per se, and I don't know the specifics of every article. However, for this article, I maintain that the best place for it would be the "Trivia" section. A couple of reasons: 1)Layout: the inforbox is a perfect fit in the Trivia section, being completely contained there. I believe that this gives the article a better appearance; 2)Pertinency: the data contained in the box is completely pertinent to the Trivia section (although some would also be pertinent to the newly created performance timeline for the National Championship section), so it seems (to me) fitting that the box would be placed there. It is not necessarily the best choice to do something in an article simply because it was done that way in other similar articles. They aren't identical, the developing of the theme may vary, the general layout or even the sheer amount of information may be different. Sometimes, adaptation is required for a better presentation. Opinions? Regards, Redux 19:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As one more time the infobox was moved to the top, I counted how many times this happened, and the result is that it occurred at least 4 times, by 4 different people: Ed gs2 (see on 14:00, June 6, 2005), Dr31 (see  on 12:57, July 20, 2005), an IP user (see  on  09:26, August 17, 2005) and Abu Badali (see  on  15:31, August 22, 2005).

I also support moving it to the top, so, it seems that there are 5 people supporting moving the infobox to the top (me, Ed gs2, Dr31, 200.201.187.237, and Abu Badali) and one people are against (Redux).

So, I think that we should keep the infobox on the top, as this will prevent reverts ad aeternum.

Carioca 21:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * All the moves were carried out for no reason other than that similar infoboxes were at the top on articles on other Brazilian football clubs. See my comment above for reasons why that doesn't seem to be sufficient reason for keeping it that way.  I also find it remarkable that I started a discussion to get consensus on the topic and waited almost a month for a reply that never came &mdash; during which time the infobox remained at the top, btw.  Given the complete lack of interest from, really, anyone, I moved the infobox back to its previous location.  Of the four moves you counted, two were made to revert this last repositioning of mine, without a word either here or in the edit summary (considering that "moving the infobox up" really says nothing, except to state the obvious).  That's not how things are supposed to work on the encyclopedia people.  Quite sincerally, I waited more than it would be reasonable for any argumentation in opposition of my reasoning, but no one seemed to care until I went ahead and repositioned the box again.  Perhaps I should also call attention to WP:NOT, especifically the part Wikipedia is not a democracy... it works by consensus .  I was the only one who made any effort to achieve that; other than that, you have two people who moved the box in order to make it look like Fluminense,  Botafogo and others, and two other people who simply reverted my edit after the month-long period with no valid reasoning, which would be required since I had started a discussion on the topic that went completely ignored.  Sorry, but it would seem that policy is with me on this one.  Regards, Redux 04:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm sorry for moving the Infobox without consulting the Talk Page. Mea Culpa. As you said, I just wanted the article to be similar to that of others Futeball Clubs.


 * But, since (now I know that) we're having a disscussion here, I will state my opinion: Even after reading you arguments, I still believe that Infoboxes belong to the top of the articles. Argument n. 1 (The Perfect Fit argument) is to much of personal taste. And, even if I agreed with your taste, we have to consider that it's weak in the sence that as the article grows, and changes, this perfect fit thing may cease.  And if we are to agree with Argument n. 2 (The pertinent to Trivia argument), I wonder why this would not be true for all other futball clubs articles. What's so special about Flamengo in this matter?  Regards, --Abu Badali 16:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for participating in the discussion. Well, as for "the perfect fit", it's not so much an opinion as it is a fact: after all, it is a perfect fit in the sense that it is completely contained in the section (whereas at the top &#150; and this is my opinion &#150; it seems to disturb the layout of the first part of the article, as it spreads over multiple sections).  You are right that it is theoretically possible that the article could change and the "perfect fit" could cease to exist.  But considering the article's history, that is not too probable.  I was actually (if memory serves me) the last one to add significant amounts of content to the article.  After that, people have only added loose sentences, clarifications, players' and coaches' names to the lists, etc. &mdash; and the infobox itself, but that was done as a standard thing for all the articles on football clubs. About the second argument, it's not that Flamengo itself is special in any way, it's just, as I said in my original post, that articles about similar topics (in this case, football clubs from Brazil) can be developed differently.  A number of factors can weigh in this, such as the level of commitment of the contributors who may add more information, in more detail.  The articles are not standardized, and they are not structured in the same way.  So, what I meant was that for the way the Flamengo article is structured and developed (which is not the same as those of Fluminense, Botafogo, etc.), the infobox in the Trivia section seems to work best for the reasons I stated.  Regards, Redux 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * One good reason to keep the infobox on the top is that in this position it gives some basic info about the club, useful to the reader who do not have enough time to read the entire article. Also, in my opinion, it looks weird see the infobox in a position different from the top of the article (especially because Flamengo seems to be the only football club in Wikipedia whose infobox was moved to other position). The football infobox (as well as other similar infoboxes, like the taxobox, the comics hero infobox, the country infobox and the president infobox) seems to be designed to be placed on the top. The suggested football manual of style of Wikiproject Wikifootball also places the infobox on the top of the article. About the perfect fit argument, the fact that the infobox is completely contained in the trivia section doesn't seem to be a reason strong enough to justify moving it to there. About the pertinent argument, I really do not think that is a good idea to place the infobox there, because there is no need to have the same basic information duplicated in the same place (the trivia info and the infobox gave some info about the club's stadium and nickname). It is better, because of this reason, to place the infobox on the top, and let the trivia section stay where it currently are. Regards, Carioca 22:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Fine. We can keep it there then. It still doesn't look like the best option to me, and I'm always reticent about standardization, but it's not a big deal anyways. Regards, Redux 01:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Supporters
I think it would be of worthy to point out that Flamengo has the largest number of supporters in all of Brazil, being the fifth ranked in Sao Paulo (a rival soccer city), and with the exception of perhaps some Chinese team, the largest in the world. LtDoc 04:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC) ),


 * This is a good idea, but I doubt that Flamengo is the football team with most supporters in the world. The only info I found about Flamengo's supporters size in Brazil can be found in this link and in this other link. Regards, Carioca 22:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Campeonato Brasileiro Série A article
A group of paulistas mocked Flamengo is this article, saying only 4 times champion. Please joint forces against this ridiculous POV is widely recognized Flamengo is 5x brazilian champion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.79.24.219 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

The official champion of 1987 for CBF (and FIFA) is Sport Club do Recife. I guess that Wikipedia must have the official information. Of course it's important to show that Flamengo claims this title, but, unless it is recognized by CBF, it's better to show Sport as the champion of that year. (150.164.85.254 (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Actually, according to Wikipedia's official policies, the article should be fair to all sides of a controversy. --Carioca (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flamengo rowing shield.gif
Image:Flamengo rowing shield.gif 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 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 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flamengo Flag.gif
Image:Flamengo Flag.gif 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 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 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1987 National Title
Hi there,

There's been some dispute between the formatting of National titles of Flamengo in this article. As supporters know, 1987 national title has caused a lot of controversy here in Brazil. Despite ALL this controversy, what I'd like to point is that the title should NOT be listed in the list of national titles. It's been argued that the title is listed with a footnote, but, in my opinion, this might prompt one to think that Flamengo actually (de jure) holds the title, which is NOT true. So, in my opinion, the title should be removed from the list, and the reference to the footnote should be kept. (Dpmelo 05:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC))


 * The matter is addressed within the article in a footnote. Any other doubts I suggest you talk with admin Redux. Regards —Lesfer (t/c/@) 21:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dpmelo, I do understand what you are saying, but what needs to be taken into account is that, when it comes to Brazilian football unbelievable things do happen. As a result of an unresolved standstill, 1987 ended up with two champions, in two parallel competitions.  That the CBF did not had its hand on one of them, and ended up awarding the berths in the 1988 Copa Libertadores to the winners of the tournament it had organized does not mean that the competition organized by the Club of the 13 was extra-official and does not count.  Remember: FIFA was pressuring CBF to find a solution, and the CBF proposed a final "showdown" between the 4 teams (first 2 in each tournament), which is hardly what would be expected if one of the competitions was not to be taken into account.  The solution found by CBF was cooked up only when all attempts to resolve the situation failed, and FIFA was on its heels for a solution.  It was a half-baked solution to an impasse that was allowed to take place when it shouldn't have. Here is an analogy: in 2000, the CBF was forced to decline from organizing the National Championship.  The Club of the 13 then took over and created the "João Avelange Cup".  The difference is that there wasn't a parallel competition organized by the CBF.  But still, there seems to be no arguing that Vasco da Gama's title should not count: for all purposes, that club is the national champion of 2000.  That in 1987 there were 2 national champions may be pathetic, but nonetheless it is what happened.  So the title is included and there is an extensive footnote explaining the situation. Wikipedia is not supposed to decide which side should prevail in a 20-year-old controversy that is still under some kind of debate.  We need to make the proper acknowledgement in both this article and the one about Sport Club, as well as any specific article about the 1987 national championship(s).  But in effect, if we were to say anything like "this title doesn't count" in an open controversy in which both sides claim the title and are both recognized on some level, we'd be violating the NPOV.  I hope this helps.  Redux 14:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Redux, thanks for your explanation. However, I'd like to reinforce my position, based on the fact that, as an encyclopedia, we should prevent, among other things, Ambiguity. If you take a look at Flamengo article, it currently lists it as 1987 champion. On the other hand, if you look at Sport Recife, it states Sport as 1987 champion. If you go to Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, it lists Sport as well. What I wish to convince you is that we should take into account the final decision of Brazilian Justice, as you can find in "http://cruzeiro.org/blog/?p=956", accessed in June, 26. Don't you think that we have an ambiguity here, and that we should take care of it to avoid wrong assumptions by Wikipedia readers? Kind regards. (Dpmelo 16:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Hi. The answer is really twofold: One, you are right about ambiguity. We must absolutely make sure that all articles mentioning the 1987 result convey the same message. It doesn't help Wikipedia that we are as clear as possible in one article and then have one or two other articles state that either Flamengo or Sport is the "undisputed champion" or the like. I had mentioned that in my previous post. Now, the second part, as to how we should standardize this. First, it is important to note that decisions from legal courts are not necessarily supported by FIFA. Going back to my example: the reason why the CBF would not organize the 2000 National Championship was because Gama FC had obtained a judicial injunction forcing the CBF to include it in the 2000 championship, because it claimed that its relegation the year before was not valid. The Brazilian courts agreed, FIFA didn't. As a result FIFA threatened the CBF that, if Gama was included as a result of a extra-sporting courts decision, the CBF would suffer dire consequences, including the exclusion of the Brazilian national team from the 2002 World Cup. That is why the Club of the 13 had to take over, since the CBF could not afford to disobey the Brazilian Court, and it could not go up against FIFA. Naturally, this situation involving these two clubs is very unlikely to cause FIFA to threat with excluding Brazil from the 2010 World Cup, but the principle is the same: the judicial decision would cause certain records and/or publications in Brazil to print "Sport" there, but in terms of the illusive "world of football", an ultimate decision would have to come from FIFA, not a civil court. An example on a similar situation: at the end of the 2005 national championship, Corinthians FC became champion, but there was a highly controversial result in Internacional FC's last game, which could have made that club champion. That was in early December. In late December, or maybe early January 2006, an Internacional supporter filed suit in a Rio Grande do Sul federal court asking that the Court forced the CBF to rectify the result of Internacional's last game and either award it the title or at least have it shared with Corinthians (I think). Immediately, FIFA informed that if the CBF was forced by a Civil Court to change the outcome (which it could have been, since the Court has jurisdiction over any entity on Brazilian soil), FIFA would exclude Internacional from all official competitions as of 2006, starting with the 2006 Copa Libertadores (which Internacional eventually won). As a result, the club's Board had to plead with the fan directly to drop the lawsuit immediately, since it would ultimately hurt the club more than it would help; and it was done: FIFA has a zero-tolerance about resorting to civil courts to force changes in outcomes or a recognition of any given claim. It exists exactly so that clubs and/or people who would favor a club, will not seek civil courts as a means to have any kind of understanding about a football result prevail. That notwithstanding, the existence of a court-ordered decision could, and perhaps should be included in our explanation of the incident, which must be homogeneous across all articles referring to the situation. About the article on the results of the National Championship: how exactly it would show there would depend on the source used: if we are mirroring an official board, such as one that may be found online on the CBF website, then it would read "Sport", with a note explaining the situation and citing Flamengo; if, however, the board was compiled by users from multiple sources (including offline sources, such as magazines and almanacs), then the correct approach would be to have "Flamengo/Sport" (or "Sport/Flamengo", whichever) with the note expanding on why there are two names in the 1987 slot. But it is absolutely necessary to remove any ambiguity and retain a NPOV and realistic approach on the subject. We might consider coordinating the homogenization of the articles in a common place, a single thread somewhere to decide how exactly this would be done. Redux 21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Superleague Formula templates
I've started a discussion about the use of the Superleague Formula templates on football club articles at Template talk:Superleague Formula following some discussion at Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. Since this article features the template, your views would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

More information on 1987 title
Dear Redux,

First of all I'd like to congratulate you on the you show towards a delicate topic on brazilian football.

One particular sentence of your explanations caught my attention:

"Now, the second part, as to how we should standardize this. First, it is important to note that decisions from legal courts are not necessarily supported by FIFA."

Having said that, it is important to notice that both CBF and FIFA claims that Sport Club do Recife is the title holder of the 1987 brazilian championship. Actually, Sport is also the champion of Copa União, since this cup comprised both the Green and Yellow modules.

http://200.159.15.35/seriea/campeoes.aspx 1987 - COPA UNIÃO - Sport Recife (Pernambuco)

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/brazil2014/destination/cities/city=6099/ "All three teams have had glorious moments in Brazilian football, although Sport stand slightly apart from their competitors thanks to two major titles: the Campeonato Brasileiro in 1987 and the Copa do Brasil in 2008."

In other words, there is plenty of evidence that CBF and FIFA agree that Sport Recife was the champion that year. Not only the brazilian judicial system, even though this is a very important (and, I might say, definitive) opinion.

On the other hand, it is also fair to note that some media vehicles consider Flamengo the champion. This should not come as a strange thing since Flamengo has a much larger fan base than Sport, so picking Sport as the champion could deplete these for-profit companies (TVs and newspaper) of plenty of revenue.

The note in Flamengo's wiki article, which you refer to, also contains imprecisions:

1) The Green Module was not brazilian first division. The Yellow Module, for exemple, had 4 of the 10 best teams of the 1986 cup (including Guarani, runner-up to São Paulo in 1986). How can the runner-up in one year not be in the so called 1st division in the next year? Doesn't make sense to me (and, I really think, to noone).

2) The so-called Brazilian Supreme Court of Sports referred on the wikipedia article is not a public institution. In fact, it is a private institution located in Rio de Janeiro, influenced by Flamengo, which has many of its "judges".

Given the facts explained above, I would appreciate if you could revaluate your point of view and make the correct modifications where appropriate. If you don't agree with these points, I'd kindly ask you to explain your point of view. I'd be glad to be able to provide you with additional facts on this much hot discussion.

Regards,

FactChecker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.52.180 (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FIFA, Conmebol, CBF and STJD say: Sport Recife Brazilian champion of 1987!
STJD(Supreme Court of Sporting Justice):http://www.trf5.gov.br/archive/1997/04/199405000372353_19970424.pdf CBF(Brazilian Football Confederation) : http://200.159.15.35/seriea/campeoes.aspx Conmebol(South American Football Confederation) : http://www.conmebol.com/articulos_ver.jsp?id=58115&slangab=S and FIFA(International Federation of Association Football) : http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/brazil2014/destination/cities/city=6099/index.html

They all say that the Brazilian champion of 1987 is the SPORT CLUB DO RECIFE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.38.195.175 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Templates
Would somebody please try to fix the templates (Template: Clube de Regatas do Flamengo and Template: Campeonato Brasileiro) at the end of the article? I've already tried and tried but I just can't figure out what's the problem. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 15:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Carioca (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) —Lesfer (t/c/@) 17:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Searching for New Talent
To Whom it may concern

I am Deon Amos from 25 Shad Place Eastwood Pietrmaritzburg Kwazulu Natal South Africa 3201. Mobile: 073 259 6405 Business: 033-342 3444 Home:033-387 5894.

We have embarked on a project to recruit loacal talent in dis-advantaged communities and have name our teal Eestwood Flamingo as the majority of our players and management are FLAMINGO FC supporters back here in SOUTH AFRICA. We would like to be advised on your style of football and wish to ensure that our team displays the similar trend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.149.19 (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you guys stop trolling?
I know you guys love Flamengo and all, but we should stick to the undisputable facts. The undisputable facts are that Flamengo won, all as national titles, 5 Brasileirão and 1 Copa União. I do understand all the controversy and the fact that it is against NEUTRAL to state simply that Flamengo won six times the Brasileirão. Conversely, we should make clear that it won 5 Brasileirão plus 1 Copa União and then comment on the 1987 controversy. --Andregoes (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Stadium ownership and mandatory games
Axtschlag (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I watched the last correction, and I'm inclined to disagree. There's no use to misguide a foreign researcher in falsely believing that Maracanã, state owned and worldwide icon, is somehow 'exclusive' of Flamengo team use. It's a state funded and administrated stadium, used for many minor leagues beside Carioca Championship and 'Brasileirão'. The Parque da Gávea is a fully functional and original stadium that actually belongs to the football team, and the Maracanã stadium is also used by other teams than Flamengo, whenever there are issues with the team's stadium, or any arbitrary decision from the sport legal instances. It's not clear further in the text, and it may confuse when there's not a specific description of the situation.

As a matter of facts, there are several legal problems concerning debts of the team, and a 'fan' view should not distort and omit real information. The club has never gave importance in upgrading its own stadium, but this is seem as a rather controversial administrative view of Flamengo direction. To dismay of native brazilians, that know very well the importance of Maracanã stadium, the article is biased by understating the actual situation of the club, and the real information.

The association of the team with the stadium is a biased 'fan' view, and I believe it deeply distorts the information.

For a quick solution, it could be added, by the side tag, another categories, the "Mandatory Stadium" together with "Stadium" (ownership).


 * I posted a reply for your question in the Sport Club Corinthians Paulista's talk page. As a side note, Flamengo currently uses Gávea only as a training ground for the youth team. --Carioca (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move
Clube de Regatas do Flamengo → Flamengo (sports club). Because of WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that long name is unnecessary. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Flamengo (sports club) is a very bad name, and most likely people will find it confusing, as the club is mostly a football team. However, I can create Flamengo (sports club) as a redirect for the current article name. The club's full name is well known and most magazines use that name. Besides that, very few Wikipedia club pages use a name like the one proposed by 82.139.5.13. Regards, --Carioca (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or maybe, Flamengo (football club). While there's already a article named just Flamengo. BTW I thought naming Flamengo (football/sports club) wasn't bad idea. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Copa Intercontinental isn't a worldwide cup
Only FIFA Club World Cup (2000to2012) is the unique world championship. Johnny gruss (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

– The football club qualifies for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as well as WP:COMMONNAME. However, I do not know what would be an appropriate page name for the Flamengo neighborhood. I suggest Flamengo (bairro) or Flamengo (neighborhood) but other suggestions are welcome. MicroX (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Clube de Regatas do Flamengo → Flamengo
 * Flamengo → ?
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. MicroX (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment the common format appears to be Flamengo, Rio de Janeiro (this commment does not imply support or opposition to the proposal ) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not PRIMARYTOPIC, and we do not use COMMONNAME for football clubs, the debacle that was the Inter Milan RM aside. GiantSnowman 09:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - even though the football club might have more pageviews than the neighborhood, I believe the article titles is more precise when it shows that the football club is a football club. The football club from Arsenal also got more pageviews than the neighborhood, and I think it would be a bad precedent to start moving places to titles with disambiguation to have the football clubs at their most common name. Mentoz86 (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment – After reading some of the opposing arguments, would anyone support redirecting Flamengo to Clube de Regatas do Flamengo and the original article about the Flamengo neighborhood be moved to Flamengo, Rio de Janeiro? --MicroX (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mentoz86 said exactly what I had planned to. Number   5  7  13:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The term is too generic to refer specifically to the football club. – PeeJay 15:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Crest
There seems to be different views regarding how the club's crest image must be inserted in the infobox. Before I first edited it, the crest's image was in the infobox simply with the |image        = Flamengo braz logo.svg" parameter. I then, following the Infobox picture help page, changing the parameter to | image = " The purpose of this edit was to set a size for the crest image, as the original .svg file is not small, and if left unset it also shows up quite big in the club's infobox. There was no intention of adding a caption to the image, and it certainly lacked a proper alternate text. then reverted my edit (in his words, "fixed" it), changing the parameters to | image        = Flamengo braz logo.svg| caption       = Flamengo's crest The new edit by Walter Görlitz also added a caption to the image (something largely unusual for football club articles), and I then made another edit with the parameter set to | image =  Walter Görlitz edited again, removing the set size and referring to the Template:Infobox football club Walter edited again, to the current revision which has the following parameter: | image         = Flamengo braz logo.svg referring to Template:Infobox football club. As I pointed out to him in his talk page, the purpose of my first edit regarding the crest was solely to set the image size, as is a common practice in football clubs articles (includind Featured ones, such as Liverpool F.C. and Chelsea F.C.). Some other FAs, of course, don't have a set size for the image (such as FC Barcelona), but their crests do not show up too big in their infoboxes.
 * alt          = An escutcheon with horizontal red and black stripes, with a monogram of the letters CRF in its upper-left part
 * caption      = Flamengo's crest

Aside from the Infobox picture Help page reference, the WikiProject Football/Clubs general style guide (also with a template on WikiProject Football/Clubs/Template) also suggests the inclusion of a fixed width for the club badges. In another example from an FA, the Aston Villa F.C. article, which has a crest with a format similar to Flamengo's, has a set size of 150px. I see we haven't reached a consensus here, maybe because of lack of understanding or simple confusion, and because of this I brought the discussion to the article's Talk page. All in all, my opinion is that, if left with no set size, this article's infobox image gets too big and visually unbalanced, and suggest inserting a fixed width to it, with no caption whatsoever. Felipe Bini (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just use the correct template formatting. It's simple. I didn't even read your essay. Giving examples of other articles where they don't follow the template's documentation doesn't really help make your case. I fixed them as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I didn't even read your essay." Is that supposed to be a good thing? Not that I think that you'll read this "essay" either, but I saw your more recent edits and they work under the template documentation, but should we ignore the WikiProject_Football/Clubs/Template? Also, the caption is still useless. Felipe Bini (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to be a comment. You can place whatever value you want on it. Just use the template correctly and understand how images work. We should not ignore the porject's template, we should remind them that they're terribly behind their own templates, be WP:BOLD] and fix their example. The project has not been concerned with formatting for about five years, which is one reason I stopped being a member. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The example infobox in Template:Infobox football club shows  as the standrad, but the usage presents individual parameters for size, alt and caption. If the project has not been concerned with formatting for about five years, then why should this dubious documentation (which is also under the scope of the "not caring about formatting for five years" project) be the one to follow? Why not be WP:BOLD and conform it to what's the most common practice around (if one exists)? This is largely open to interpretation, a clear consensus about how the parameter must be set doesn't exist even within the template documentation itself. This is getting off the point in this article anyway. Do you agree with the exclusion of the caption? Felipe Bini (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the standard, it's the way that the various parameters are encoded in HTML when the page is encoded. The common practice goes against the documented parameters and there are bots that can easily fix the wrong use. The caption is not excluded is it? Do you understand why the parameters are being used? 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that code appears right where the image should be in the infobox and between brackets. In the source of the example there's explicity this parameter set: | image        = Football.svg Like I said, the documentation itself is dubious, it doesn't follow a pattern even within itself. Regarding the caption, it indeed is not excluded, and that's point. You set the width according to one instance (of two) of the documentation, but the caption is almost redundant in the infobox, as it's quite obvious that's the club badge. My point in the previous comment was to ask if you agree this article could do without it (despite the existence of a "caption" parameter in the template). Felipe Bini (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Left side is usage. Right side is rendered. Parameters are explained below and elaborated there. The documentation is correct not dubious. It does follow the pattern it lays out for itself. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you bother to edit the source for Template:Infobox football club/doc and check the "Example" (which is rendered in the main template page), you'll see the image parameter with content exactly as I cited in my previous comment: with the file name inside brackets, and the 200px size also inside them. Now, even if you (or anyone else) now edit the template doc as to follow the pattern it originally laid out for itself, the presence of that parameter in the doc page of the template itself means it currently is dubious (and it seems it has been so for a long time), not so "simple" as you said it was. Since there was no answer about the crest caption in this page, I'll remove it. Felipe Bini (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Edited and updated to use the template parameters. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You added the caption so I incorrectly changed the tooltip to a caption feel free to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

1987
New court ruling removes 1987 title exclusive to the Sport and Fla fined--191.209.11.183 (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The question is already being discussed above, no need to create another section for it. The subject of the news piece you mention has already been addressed in the above discussion: the decision by STF (from 2014) is pending revision by Minister Marco Aurélio Mello, and after it, CBF has issued a 2015 Campeonato Brasileiro guide which clearly states both Flamengo and Sport were Brazilian champions in 1987 (page 12 of this book). This is the most recent development of the matter, and as such should be taken into account in the article. Felipe Bini (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * read the source, right to kick (Superior Court of Justice (Brazil))--191.209.11.183 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not even a Flamengo fan, therefore I'm not "kicking" anything. Grow up. Felipe Bini (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See talk pages --191.209.11.183 (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The topic of Rivalry is not entirely correct.
There is no significant rivalry with Atlético Mineiro. The relationship with Atletico Mineiro is like any other Brazilian team.

There is rivalry against another team from Rio de Janeiro that is not mentioned in the article, which is Botafogo Futebol e Regatas (see https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clássico_da_Rivalidade). Another rivalry is against Sport Club Corinthians Paulista, because of the fans, since Corinthians is the team with the second largest number of fans in Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.234.64 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Clube de Regatas do Flamengo. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516234123/http://www.cbf.com.br/competicoes/campeonato-brasileiro/serie-a/2011 to http://www.cbf.com.br/competicoes/campeonato-brasileiro/serie-a/2011
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707020944/http://mkt.flamengo.com.br/novaera/flipping/ to http://mkt.flamengo.com.br/novaera/flipping
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130075648/http://www.flamengo.com.br/site/noticias/noticia.php?id=7983 to http://flamengo.com.br/site/noticias/noticia.php?id=7983
 * Added tag to http://flamengo.com.br/site/noticias/noticia.php?id=8199
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100216133727/http://www.rsssfbrasil.com/tablesrz/rjcamp.htm to http://www.rsssfbrasil.com/tablesrz/rjcamp.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100306040418/http://www.rsssfbrasil.com/tablesrz/rjspcamp.htm to http://www.rsssfbrasil.com/tablesrz/rjspcamp.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"Honors" format
What is the desired format for the Honors section? It seems like there are repeated changes to this section only.
 * 1) State league: State leagues are fairly unique to Brazil, so I have no problem using a new section called "State." However grouping this under "National" also seems acceptable.
 * 2) Total number of titles: whether or not to list the number of each title and indicate if the club has a record number of a particular title.
 * 3) Intercontinental Cup: Changing "International" to "South American," and adding a section called "International" or "Worldwide" for the Intercontinental Cup. Or leaving it as is, with the Intercontinental Cup grouped with the other South American titles.

Can't this section be formatted exactly the same as any other club, like Liverpool or Porto or Feyenoord or any other club chosen at random? As of this writing, the current format is terrible: random titles in Bold, some not in bold, some titles are numbered, sometimes the number is in parentheses, others are not, etc. We should come to a consensus. Zac ary (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs is the style guide. The three you pointed to do not meet that formatting, but if you make it consistent with those (save for including the ones, which are entirely unnecessary) you will not get many complaints. The primary concern has been over their number of wins of the Campeonato Carioca. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think we can use the Football club template for honors then. I rarely see it used, but it's a decent way to organize this.
 * 1. What exactly is the concern over Carioca wins?
 * 2. Do you think there should be a distinction between national titles, state titles, and inter-state titles? Zac ary (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there is a question about whether they won the 1987 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A or not. Not the Campeonato Carioca. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. I think the current presentation is the most honest and fair: noting that the 1987 title is not officially recognized as a national championship but is a major national trophy, and it was contested under the impression that it served as the national championship.Zac ary (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)