Talk:El Súper Clásico (Mexico)

This desperately needs expanding
This is one of the most important rivalries in the world; why is its article a stub?--DethFromAbove 11:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is incredibly poorly written too... Hari Seldon 22:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Benchmark
Well, I am no fan of either América or Chivas, but if you are interested in expanding this article, I would recommend to take a look at Clásico Regiomontano. I think that this article should look something like that. Hari Seldon 12:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? Half that article is trivia, the other half is unreferenced material and whats left is a list of more trivia. If you delete all of that what you get is a stub article, just as this one --Legion fi 08:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability?
Okey, it is notable. I just wanted to catch your attention. But I do think that it needs MAJOR rewriting, because it is heavy on biased comments, original research and unreferenced material. If the article cannot be expanded forward stub state obseving wikistandars then, even though it is notable, it may be nominated for speedy deletion. --Legion fi 08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is indeed listed as --stub--.... All unreferenced claims have been erased. Hari Seldon 04:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Every time I log in the numbers are different and they are all sourced
I think there are diffrent pages with different numbers we should check out what are the differences. Most of them say is the match 197 http://www.esmas.com/deportes/futbol/liguilla/noticias/627756.html


 * Well, first of all, one has to double check the source. Originally, I had placed a source from mediotiempo.com, and then editors have come and changed the numbers using the same source. Since the numbers they used did not match the source in the article, I had reverted them.
 * Then, the source has changed. It no longer references mediotiempo.com, but FootballDerbies.com. FootballDerbies is not an authoritative source because the information published is provided by fans, not by reporters. However, I haven't reverted them because the numbers match the source, and because I wanted to show good faith.
 * This new source is more authoritative, however, what we need is one that is more precise.
 * I believe that the difference between the source from mediotiempo.com (the portal of sports newspaper "Record") and esmas.com (the portal of "Televisa") has to do with the way both sources count the Clásicos. One way to count them is to just look at how many times the two teams have met officially (in competition, such as the league, a cup, or play-offs). However, this only gives you a partial view, because the teams have also met plenty of times in friendlies. Thus, mediotiempo.com apparently isn't counting those. That doesn't mean the source is wrong, but merely incomplete. What I would suggest is to use more than one reference for this particular issue.
 * Hari Seldon 15:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:America.PNG
Image:America.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) 19:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ClubAmericaLogo-1.png
The image Image:ClubAmericaLogo-1.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page
I want to propose a Disambiguation Page for El Clasico and Superclasico, as one could interpret it as the Argentine (River Plate vs. Boca Juniors), Spanish (Real Madrid vs. Barcelona), or Mexican (America vs. Chivas) derbies, not to mention any derby in the Spanish speaking world that is called as such. Could we get some consensus on that? I think it heavily needed. 68.94.127.5 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on El Súper Clásico (Mexico). 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/20080409202336/http://www.esmas.com/futbol/mi-clasico/el-clasico-de-clasicos-club-america-vs-chivas/ to http://www.esmas.com/futbol/mi-clasico/el-clasico-de-clasicos-club-america-vs-chivas/

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) 18:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)