Talk:Club Atlético River Plate (Montevideo)

The container River Plate
The fact that the article about Río de la Plata mentions a more plausible origin of its English name, and is properly sourced, I think this story is little more than an hoax, and should therefore be deleted. Unless someone posts reliable sources for this section, I wil personally delete it. I think I can, in fact, provide more sources of usage of this name which predate the foundation of any of these football clubs by several decades. Jordevi 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not include River Plate's defeat against Liga in the historical matches section
No other team-article includes a ignominious defeat in its historical matches, so I request to not do that in this article. By the way, I am the only person that mantain this article, so my word should be heard, I think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.27.188 (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it does. Liga lost to Manchester United last year, but the loss is still mentioned in the article. The fact that a River fans are embarrassed by a 7-0 loss shouldn't stop from having the loss mentioned. The largest loss for a Uruguayan club in the history of continental tournaments is a historic match, and historic matches are not limited to only wins. Digirami (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen plenty of articles including loss information. See List of Everton F.C. records and statistics, for one.  To the IP above, consensus outweighs the individual.  No particular user owns any page.  If it really is "The largest loss for a Uruguayan club in the history of continental tournaments," then it might very well merit inclusion.  I agree with Digirami, "historic" does not simply mean "great wins."  For the record, I'm not Uruguayan, Ecuadorian, or even South American.  I'm just here to try to mediate.  Best,  Cocytus   [»talk«]  20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean, it's not historical for the defeated team. For example, I haven't read anything about the defeat of Liga against Corinthians by 6-0 in 1999 in Copa Libertadores, so, that's a proof against what you are claiming. --User_talk:VH1982 18:48, 25 November 2009 (GMT - 3:00)


 * "Historic" simply means that it is particularly notable, whether for good or bad reasons. Keep in mind, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so just because one particular result isn't included in one particular article doesn't mean that this one can't.  So far, most of the editors here seem to favor including the information.  Consensus carries more weight than the individual.  Best,  Cocytus   [»talk«]  20:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, then I assume that you won't mind me including a section in Liga's article, about the historical matches and include that defeat against Corinthians as well. --User_talk:VH1982 18:48, 25 November 2009 (GMT - 3:00)


 * By the way, I haven't seen too much consensus over this topic, but only two people mantaining one statement againts another opinion. If you tell that consensus... --User_talk:VH1982 18:48, 25 November 2009 (GMT - 3:00)


 * Go for it! If it's notable, then it should be included.  Why not?  Once again, plenty of articles (including records/history pages) include "historic" losses, so it's not unprecedented.  The reason that this is particularly notable is because it's the "largest loss for a Uruguayan club in the history of continental tournaments".  That's the largest loss for an entire country.  Pretty important, I would argue.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  20:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Liga doesn't have a historic match section. Moot point. If it did, the loss could be mentioned. It would depend on several other factors since Liga has a longer history in South American club tournament than River. If that 6-0 loss is their largest in their history in continental tournaments, it could be mentioned. But, please don't add that information to Liga's page (yet). I would rather wait will an "Records and Statistics" page exists for that team since it has a number of history wins and losses (most I probably don't even know of). To simply point one out randomly wouldn't make much sense. Digirami (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking about Corinthians I was talking about Liga's article, I mean, if you include a defeat into River Plate historical matches section, then, staying at the same point I could add the same information in Liga's article. I wish this is not a try to make fun on someone by showing one defeat in front of his/her face... --User_talk:VH1982 18:48, 25 November 2009 (GMT - 3:00)
 * (I realized that, that's why I corrected my statement). Digirami (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say it's "making fun of them." It's a matter of historical significance.  This is an encyclopedia, after all.  This loss is pretty significant, and thus "historic," so it merits inclusion.  Best,  Cocytus   [»talk«]  21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, the historical matches section in River Plate was edited by me, I also started the same section in Caracas FC article and nobody has argued. So, I could make the same with Liga's article, because I suspect you won't start it at all ;)--User_talk:VH1982 18:48, 25 November 2009 (GMT - 3:00)


 * I, personally, wouldn't start any of them, because I'm not a fan of any of these teams, nor do I know enough to make these changes. I only came here because I was alerted to a potential dispute by Digirami, who had requested assistance on Wikiproject Football's discussion page, in hopes of getting a reasonable resolution.  Regards,  Cocytus   [»talk«]  21:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't, and neither should you. You do not know every big win or defeat in their 79 years of existence and 40+ years in continental tournaments. River, by contrast, has only been in 4 continental tournaments, ever. It's easier to single out their worst and best in South American matches. Digirami (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. El Comercio, proof that it is the worst loss for an Uruguayan team in the history of continental tournaments. Digirami (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As a proof of "good faith", I ask to remove that result until the Liga's article includes the same section. I mean, if Digirami wouldn't have ecuatorian heritage he would not made that change in this article, I also suspect that he has something to do with Liga as an institution. Because this is something very debatable, I think that anyone that knew how this situation has been progressed would suspect about that information adding. I think that's the fair thing and I want to remark that I am not talking about removing permanently that loss, but only temporarily --User_talk:VH1982 18:48, 25 November 2009 (GMT - 3:00)


 * That's a proof about your onw feelings, I mean, if something is remarkable should be mentioned. As you have mentioned the defeat suffered by River Plate, I think is equally sensible to put Liga's defeat (against Corinthians) as a remarkable fact... I'm talking about your own reasons, so It's very strange that you deny on that--User_talk:VH1982 18:48, 25 November 2009 (GMT - 3:00)


 * I do not agree. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and your claim that "if Digirami wouldn't have ecuatorian heritage he would not made that change in this article, I also suspect that he has something to do with Liga as an institution" is showing a lack of good faith, if anything. It strikes me as speculation.  The reason this information has been added is because "it is the worst loss for an Uruguayan team in the history of continental tournaments."  That makes it important, not because they lost badly, or it was embarrassing, or anything else.  In order to include the same thing in Liga's article (a loss) you need to demonstrate why it is notable enough, and verify it.  The burden for inclusion is on you.  The consensus to keep this information in River Plate's article stems from multiple users.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude, I'm a grad-student in Miami. And in the same vein, if you weren't a River fan, you wouldn't have removed it (because none of us added it in the first place).


 * The problem with historic matches is the inclusion criteria. What counts as historic and what doesn't. Since I'm usually the only one editing Liga's page, I could do decide on that, but since Wikipedia is built around consensus, I don't. Historic matches for Liga would be significantly longer than that or Caracas and River combined. Even then, I don't know all of Liga's historic matches, so it would be pointless to start something that would end up being incomplete. Digirami (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If that was the way Wikipedia worked, it would never have existed... Wikipedia as a whole is incomplete, as is every article... all it comes down to is whether you can prove, using reliable sources, that a match is notable enough to be included - whether the list is complete or not doesn't come into it. If some are missing, then we add them, not remove the ones that are there (or not add them at all). – Toon 21:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed ;), I started that section of Caracas FC's article in order to other complete them, and that's the way it's being done currently --User_talk:VH1982 18:48, 25 November 2009 (GMT - 3:00)


 * Whatever, It was the worst defeat on Liga's history playing an international tournament (you can verify it if you want), so I think that should be adding in Liga's article as well (what better place that there). By the way, I havent's seen those "many users" agreeing, just you and Digirami.--User_talk:VH1982 18:48, 25 November 2009 (GMT - 3:00)


 * I want to state that the adding of "ecuatorian heritage" was nothing but to make a fair proof about that Digiriami should be a Liga's fan, and, of course, the lasts words of him has prooved that I'm right. Of course I'm River fan, the difference is that I recognize it and I don't hide behind a pretended feeling of honesty. I will take my time to write that section on Liga's article, WITH PLENTY OF REFERENCES. --User_talk:VH1982 18:48, 25 November 2009 (GMT - 3:00)


 * I already provided you with a link to the discussion where multiple editors felt that it should be included. It's here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.  Remember, Toon re-added the information because it was consensus that it should be included--consensus is more than 1 or 2 people.  Feel free to be bold and edit other articles constructively, with references.  I have no objections.  Best,  Cocytus   [»talk«]  21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I have started the same section in Liga's article, I hope Digirami will behave as good user and will not delete it. I mean, it is equally constructive that the adding of the River's defeat in River Plate's article--User_talk:VH1982 18:48, 25 November 2009 (GMT - 3:00)


 * As has been done before I edited Liga's article, we mention significant/historic matches in the context of prose. This does not mean "add a sentence saying we lost to Corinthians in 1999". I'm saying, if it was significant in our history, it would be in the history section of the article. Digirami (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not my feeling, but it seems to be yours. I have STARTED that section in order others to edit it, the information I have added is TRUE, VERYFIABLE and has the merit of being "the worst defeat suffered by Liga, playing an international tournament, ever", so, the Liga's article is the best place to put that information. VH1982 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2009 (GMT - 03:00)


 * I remember you what Toon05 have said:
 * If that was the way Wikipedia worked, it would never have existed... Wikipedia as a whole is incomplete, as is every article... all it comes down to is whether you can prove, using reliable sources, that a match is notable enough to be included - whether the list is complete or not doesn't come into it. If some are missing, then we add them, not remove the ones that are there (or not add them at all). – Toon 21:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VH1982 (talk • contribs)


 * I have removed the entire section as, without a third party source defining what a "historical match" is, it constitutes original research. Dancarney (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing of this would have happened if Digirami would have been able to behave... that section was written more than a year ago. Thanks Digirami!, very constructive attitude :S --190.135.55.202 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

the author
if you go to the webpage of river plate(argentina) they mention the ship with the inscription.for the uruguayan defunct team,i only have oral sources,note that this team dissapeared in the 1920 decade,and documents are unfortunately lost. we just have a picture of this team wearing the mitical light blue jersey that gave place later to the national team jersey

Fair use rationale for Image:CA River Plate.png
Image:CA River Plate.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 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) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

hola mi nombre es galleguillo gonzalo.tengo 20 años y juego de 9 en quilmes de gualeguay,en la liga de entre rios.les escribo porque me gustaria jugar en su club.tambien jugue´ en independiente y en platense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.98.170 (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
✅. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Club Atlético River Plate (Uruguay) → — The current disambigutor is broad and should be moved to a more accurate city-level disambiguator, as per this discussion. Digirami (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Club Atlético River Plate (Montevideo). 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://archive.is/20130421224828/http://www.darsenero.com.uy/ to http://www.darsenero.com.uy/

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) 19:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

More citations needed template removal
More citations needed template removal is being sistematically reverted; nonetheless, I've included several reliable sources for citation, such as: AUF's, River Plate (Montevideo) official site and official uruguayan digital newspapers (e.g.: El Observador).

With the last reference additions, the aforementioned article is one of the most cited among Uruguayan clubs' articles - Not needed to mention that is one of the most up-to-dated articles too.

Therefore, I shall request you to stop adding more citations needed template.

Thanks, VH1982 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC).