Talk:Sporting CP/Archive 1

Translation
Can somebody translate that second paragraph from Portuguese? It's been here since last December! -- Arwel 02:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * done wS 16:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Extinct modalities deleted
Why have the extinct modalities, and winnings from them, been deleted from Sporting's record? History is just supossed to be erased??! I don't get it. One's wins aren't real achievments because the club has stopped the modality?? Really, I'm stunned..

I completely agree. Can someone PLEASE add the main titles of the Extinct Modalities. This is perhaps on of the main problems of this not so well written article about this great team. Peterpanalfacinha (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sporting's uniforms
I think we should change the colours of the uniforms represented in the pictures, it doesn't look very correct. We could also post the actual uniform picture and all other old uniforms.

Response
The uniforms are fine. They are the new 2006/2007 Sporting official uniforms changed because of the new contract with Puma. I agree with having pictures of them, but until now there are no pictures available. We have to wait till the start of the season

81.84.26.64 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * what about all old uniforms?

Shorts
The shorts' colors are wrong, they should be black instead of white!

Transfers
I have removed the recent transfers section, as Wikipedia is not a news service.Cloudz679 19:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Something wrong with the flag of Slovakia
I cannot fix the flag of Slovakia. On the left of the player Marian Had is not the flag, only words with link. By hit on this link, the SVG-graphic loads. Whta happened? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gluggy (talk • contribs).

Adrien Silva
Adrien Silva with the text :


 * Adrien Sebastian Perruchet Silva is a Portuguese Footballer from Angouleme France in March 15 1989. He is currently on the books at Sporting Lisboa, after graduating in the youth academy.


 * Having performed very well in a couple of pre-season friendlies the youngster is being touted as one of the brightest portuguese prospects for the coming years.

is currrently up for deletion. Travb (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png
Image:Sporting Clube de Portugal.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 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 (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Transfers 2008/2009
Is there any confirmation for buying Marat Izmailov - Lokomotiv Moscow for 4.5 million €? I've found only rumours about it, but no info, that the deal is finished and contract is signed. Can you provide any references? Ipinkbear (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong reference - André Martins
The André Martins link is wrong. That's not the André Martins who's playing in Sporting U19 Squad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.187.52.211 (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Young Squads
Shouldn't the young squads section be moved to Academia de Alcochete article? Sporting is the only team with a young squads section, we should move it to an academy article(in this case Academia de Alcochete), like most of the english clubs articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.60.88 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

referred to incorrectly..
how is calling Sporting, Sporting Lisbon incorrect so to speak?

They are based in Lison, hence Sporting Lisbon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkingoftheworldx (talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's not actually part of their name. It's like calling Rangers F.C. "Glasgow Rangers", which is also sometimes done. 86.136.250.154 (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A colloquial name for a team doesn't have to be part of their official name though. Many colloquialisms are technically inaccurate, so stating that Sporting are "referred to coloquially as Sporting, Sporting CP or, erroneously, Sporting Lisbon" is somewhat awkward usage in my opinion. Blankfrackis (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with your first statement, the fact is the club in question should not be referred to by the expression "Sporting Lisbon". I personally don't refer to Everton as "Everton Liverpool" or to Juventus as "Juventus Turin". It's an usual custom in Britain to refer to foreign clubs (whose name isn't inherited from the city in which they're geographically located) by appending their respective city as a suffix. In this particular case, the club should be referred to as "Sporting" or "Sporting Portugal".Pinky Brain (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sporting Lisbon" is what they are commonly known as in the UK, regardless of whether it's official or not. Similar to "Inter Milan". ed g2s &bull; talk 10:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of Sporting Clube de Portugal / Sporting Lisbon
Does anyone know the correct way to refer to the club in links to this page? Sporting Clube de Portugal may be correctly technically but the club is known almost exclusively as Sporting Lisbon in England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tffff (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This same issue seems to be causing debate now between myself and User:RRR22 - the text read
 * and often incorrectly as Sporting Lisbon by English-speaking nations
 * I dispute that this is incorrect, so have reworded the sentence.
 * My reasons are as follows:
 * This is the common name used across the English speaking world, so even though it is not the "official" name, it is not incorrect. Language is defined by its usage. And on English Wikipedia we have the WP:COMMONNAME policy.
 * The argument is that we don't say "Chelsea London" to denote Chelsea F.C.. Well, we don't in English, but in Polish, the club really is known widely as "Chelsea Londyn" and that's where the Polish article on the subject is located: Chelsea Londyn.
 * The official club website acknowledges here that the club is widely known internationally as "Sporting Lisbon" - it does not suggest that such usage is "incorrect". I've included that as a reference in the article.
 * Thanks! SteveRwanda (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The club can be refered to as any name anyone wants to refer it to. That, I think, is not disputed here. As such, one of the links to call the page can be Sporting Lisbon.
 * What I assume is more important is how the club is wrongly called. Sporting Clube de Portugal has, since being first labelled "Sporting Lisbon", tryed to get rid of the name and has reached some agreement within UEFA on that matter. That is encyclopedia material. Someone researching for the club must know how the club itself treats the incorrect name its being called, and that the well-known-abroad name is in fact wrong.
 * I believe that the and often incorrectly as Sporting Lisbon by English-speaking nations statement is a good introduction to letting people know how to correctly speak of the club (or anything for that matter) even if they choose not to.
 * RicardoFachada (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Ricardo. Do you know of any outside sources (e.g. newspaper articles, websites, books) which mention the fact that the club does not wish to be known by the name "Sporting Lisbon"? I notice that the Sporting Clube de Portugal section does not currently have any citations. A sensible compromise here for the introduction to the article might be to state that the name is widely used in English countries but that the club does not wish to be known by that name. I would like a reference for that, though, because otherwise it sounds like original research. Thanks &mdash; SteveRwanda (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with SteveRwanda, have requested references in that section of the article. What RicardoFachada described as "correct" is not the top issue here. Names commonly established in English are used, with good reason. Since Sporting CP is barely used in English-language media, it is illogical to refer to the club in that way. C679  21:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A simple query in any search engine shows that "Sporting Lisbon" is commonly used in the English-speaking world. I have compiled edits made by IPs and accounts that tried to remove "Sporting Lisbon" or add POV to it by saying that it's "wrong", "erroneous", "incorrect", "offensive", etc. SLBedit (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect information about their European titles
"Sporting is, after Barcelona, the club with more European titles across all of the disciplines in which the club competes[4]." This information is constantly being input in the Sporting page, but it's not correct. And the link related to that information has no reference to it!!!

Sporting is not even the Portuguese club with most European titles in the disciplines the club competes, the club is Maratona Clube de Portugal. And there are some more European clubs with most titles than Sporting, as Luch Moscow, Real Madrid... Paulojmartins (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.162.195 (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hy Paulojmartins, after a small amount of research I have come to a conclusion that the information could be innaccurate, but not in the way you intend it to be.
 * Information at Sporting Clube de Portugal's website states that Sporting is the third club with more European Cups in all disciplines, after Barcelona and Real Madrid. Here, refering only to wins in major European championships.
 * What I believe is in fact correct is that Sporting, after Barcelona, is the club with more European Titles across all disciplines. This, I assume, would include all medals and other titles in all sports the club participated. In the same way Sporting is probably the European club with most Titles across every sport (here including World titles), after Barcelona. All of Sporting Clube de Portugal's medals and titles can be checked at.
 * RicardoFachada (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

RicardoFachada, either way the information is incorrect. And none of the sources sustain it. One of the links you refer is about medals won by Sporting athletes representing their country not Sporting, I believe those are not Sporting titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulojmartins (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * True, and that's why I am removing that information. 85.240.139.248 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Olympic gold medals (Continental and Global)
"(...) the teams and the athletes of Sporting won 50 Olympic gold medals (Continental and Global)"

What does this means? Continental and Global Olympic gold medals!?

Sporting athletes have won 1 Olympic Gold Medal. Paulojmartins (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.162.195 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page not moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sporting Clube de Portugal → — To keep in line with most of the other Portuguese clubs that use brevities instead of their full name.  VEO one five 08:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be "Sporting Lisbon"? That's its usual English name.--Kotniski (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Sporting_Clube_de_Portugal#Museum
It is highly unclear what is ment with the sentence under "museum". Can someone make something readable out of this? Sporting Club of Portugal have in exposition in is Museum situaded in Stadium of Jose Alvalade more than 16.000 Cups and Trofees.--Narayan (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Biased Content
The contents of this article are clearly biased. There are numerous references to Olympic titles that go without official support. There is no mention about the club's dark ages. In a period of 40 years the club won less than 10 football titles. There is no substantiation of any of the reported numbers. Everything seems to be written with an obsessive focus on big numbers and empty european references of glory such as the vague "has more european titles than most clubs in the world", "more than x titles", "more than x cups", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.132.89.228 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is biased indeed. 85.240.139.248 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

False information
This article presents false information sourced by the club itself and its fans. 85.240.139.248 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Honours
Archimedes1973 reverted me without justification, he's doing WP:OWN. 85.240.139.216 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sporting didn't win Intertoto. Sporting was runner-up twice in third most important competition, the league cup. Regional honours are unsourced. 85.240.139.216 (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Lie
3.5 million fans spread across the globe The source doesn't support the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.129.151 (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe some unbiased reliable volunteer should do a bit of canvassing throughout all the "Casas do Sporting CP" spread all over the world to ascertain with some degree of certainty what the approximate number is. CharlieCares (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Sporting Clube de Portugal. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ecwc/news/kind=8192/newsid=3569.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * checked. Matthew_hk   t  c  14:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Logo
has been adding a different logo over and over for no reason. This is getting tiresome. SLBedit (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the logo User:Pddalmeida is adding isn't the right colour. I have access to the correct logo, I'll upload it. – PeeJay 17:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Jornal Sporting clearly fails WP:NMEDIA, just like O Benfica did (see the discussion). It should be merged into this article. SLBedit (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: ✅  Dr Strauss   talk   18:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

– Per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. This request was made before years ago, but no one voted on it, so I'm requesting it again. Sporting Lisbon is another option if people think that is better. Evertonfc13 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal → Sporting CP
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal (athletics) → Sporting CP (athletics)
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal (beach soccer) → Sporting CP (beach soccer)
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal (billiards) → Sporting CP (billiards)
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal (cycling team) → Sporting CP (cycling team)
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal (futsal) → Sporting CP (futsal)
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal (handball) → Sporting CP (handball)
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal (roller hockey) → Sporting CP (roller hockey)
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal (volleyball) → Sporting CP (volleyball)
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal (rugby union) → Sporting CP (rugby union)
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal (table tennis) → Sporting CP (table tennis)
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal (women's football) → Sporting CP (women's football)
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal/Tavira → Sporting CP/Tavira
 * Sporting Clube de Portugal (disambiguation) → Sporting CP (disambiguation)
 * Oppose Support Where are the references in support of WP:COMMONNAME? Their website states Sporting Clube de Portugal as site title and in footer. 1 Same with FB 2. Hmlarson (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * the sources you linked are primary ones; it doesn't really matter what they use (in Twitter they display "Sporting CP"), for example, Benfica's website also presents the club's full name despite being internationally known as "S.L. Benfica" (SL Benfica), or just "Benfica". SLBedit (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm... well, based on the actual examples you provided below, I'll change my indication. Maybe next time, you'll include them in the nom as your basis/evidence per WP:COMMONNAME. Hmlarson (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support "Sporting CP" is the common name used on Wikipedia. It's also used on the following websites: FIFA, UEFA, ESPN, Goal.com, Soccerway, Transfermarkt, Macron, World Football, European Handball Federation etc. ("Sporting Lisbon" is used on many English websites.)" SLBedit (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as the "CP" term is like the "FC" of Barcelona or the "AC" of Milan. Asturkian (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * Post closing comment/rebuttal: ESPN used Sporting Lisbon, Sporting Clube de Portugal; Sporting CP may be also used by the media, but not the only common name ESPN used. For consistency, why not Sporting C.P. (with dot) to match S.L. Benfica and other Portuguese club in the cat (except FC Porto)?  Matthew_hk   t  c  02:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sporting CP. 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/20100629112428/http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/ecwc/history/season%3D1963/intro.html to http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/ecwc/history/season=1963/intro.html

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) 05:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz talk &#124; contribs 15:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sporting CP → Sporting Clube de Portugal – The previous move discussion was closed improperly as no evidence that Sporting CP is the common name in English language media (or the most common English name of the club).

Per guideline WP:NCST, "Sporting Clube de Portugal" should be used, as it is used in the club's official website.

Per WP:NCST and WP:Commonname, Sporting CP is not the most common name, as Sporting Lisbon was used by The Independent, BBC, ESPN.

Sky Sport had used both full name and Sporting Lisbon

UEFA.com had used full name, full name and Sporting CP for the women section and also full name and Sporting CP for the men section. But it still not ambiguity "Sporting CP".

as WP:Other stuff exists, other Portuguese club had abbreviated the suffix, does not mean the WP:Article titles of Sporting had to do so Matthew_hk   t  c  14:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Matthew_hk   t  c  14:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - what has changed since the RM 12 months ago? GiantSnowman 08:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I always thought for a long time the club was called Sporting Lisbon, but for English clubs we shorten to FC, why is it any different to shorten to CP for Sporting? Also correct English when shortening name parts you're suppose to add in the periods. C.P. Sporting would be the correct naming convention in true English. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – As per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. Sporting CP is the most concise version of the club's full name and commonly used       ; this suggestion would be like suggesting that the Chelsea F.C. page should be renamed Chelsea Football Club. Clyde1998 (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like a trick on cherry picking source to slide to Sporting CP, which i presented major traditional British/English language media Sky Sport, BBC, The Independent and ESPNFC(ESPNsoccernet) to prove Sporting CP is not the (most) common name. But again,
 * For example The Guardian had way more usage of Sporting Lisbon than than Sporting CP
 * as well as BBC (Sporting Lisbon v Sporting CP)
 * Sky Sport (Sporting Lisbon v. Sporting CP)
 * Unless you argued that they are not reliable and unpopular English language source
 * Thus Sporting CP clearly fails Article titles: " When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources,", which should be claim the subsequent "editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.", where the 5 criteria are:
 * Recognizability
 * Naturalness
 * Precision
 * Conciseness
 * Consistency
 * F.C. had no ambiguity means football club but it is not for CP. Unlike S.L. Benfica which the club itself used the SL abbreviation in their English website, Sporting itself did not used CP in their English website.
 * As well as other name such as Sporting Lisbon was more frequently use short name despite people argue it was a wrong usage. The previous discussion and this discussion seems fail to show exactly Sporting CP fits the 5 criteria more than the full name "Sporting Clube de Portugal".
 * For example, both the suffix Portugal and Lisbon (or in some foreign language, Sporting Lisboa) correctly point to the Portuguese club (if people knew Lisbon is the capital) from other club just know as "Sporting" (such as S.C. Braga, Sporting de Gijón, Defensor Sporting), but CP is not easily recognisable as "Clube de Portugal" nor it is commonly used in traditional English language media. Matthew_hk   t  c  19:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I'm cherry picking. I've laid out articles from ESPN (major US broadcaster), RTÉ (Irish national broadcaster), FourFourTwo (major football magazine), The Scotsman (major Scottish newspaper) and BT Sport (major UK broadcaster), along with a few other sources. These can't be described as rouge sources.
 * Using the same method that you've used BT Sport favour Sporting CP, as does FourFourTwo  and ESPN,  while RTÉ used to favour Sporting Lisbon but now appears to prefer Sporting CP (judging by the article dates).  Other sources also favour Sporting CP: Fox Sports (major US broadcaster),  UEFA,  FIFA  and the Sporting CP website.  Clyde1998 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Fox Sports (AUS) use Sporting Lisbon, Sporting CP and Sporting Clube de Portugal on the same article. https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/premier-league/west-ham-transfer-news-sporting-lisbon-respond-to-william-carvalho-rumours/news-story/f1c6174397c6b76dc60e30d0e02c6229?nk=10d626dd88ff738c0235b626a7d67766-1533731060 It still fails as the only/most common name as Sporting CP. Matthew_hk   t  c  13:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * regarding google hit result on site:sporting.pt, would you like a more qualitative approach to actually read the article (and cite it). Matthew_hk   t  c  13:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read their website and Sporting CP is used: Fixture list, Last league report Clyde1998 (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Sorry Mat, but I must oppose you on this one. Consistency would further mean we shoould then move S.L. Benfica to "Sport Lisboa e Benfica" and F.C. Porto to "Futebol Clube do Porto". This are the 3 big ones from Portugal and the 3 using shorten commonname makes sense. Changing one of the doesnt. FkpCascais (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It did not fails consistency because Sporting CP is never a common name, while SL Benfica and FC Porto are common name of the two clubs. Sporting Clube de Portugal sometimes refer as just "Sporting", does not mean adding CP would really help to distinguish with others. Matthew_hk   t  c  19:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It just likes Tottenham Hotspur F.C. knows as Hotspurs, so abbreviated to T. Hotspur F.C.. or Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. known as Wolves so abbreviated to Wolverhampton W. F.C. or Bolton W. F.C.. It had to be shown CP abbreviation is so popular in order to abbreviate it. "A.C." abbreviation in Italian football is popular and adapted in Italian and English website of Milan, but CP is not in both Portuguese language and English. Rather, they instead adding location as suffix in the secondary source. Matthew_hk   t  c  19:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I would suggest next time any move instead of throwing technical term such as WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCST or less popularity Naming conventions (companies) and then cherry picking citation and/or starting voting instead of discussion, any move discussion should use table/ matrix form for all the criteria as well as inform WP:Footy by tagging. the last move was without tagging and closing by an admin that was blocked for other reason and ignoring previous discussion on Sporting CP was barely used by " English-language media" (quoting ). And here is the incomplete matrix :

–– Matthew_hk   t  c  13:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since I've been tagged here, I must mention that I still believe Sporting Lisbon is the correct title, and moving from one less-desirable name to another does not have any merit. The club not preferring it themselves is not necessarily reason enough not to use it, cf. Inter Milan. C679 21:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see, the table is – removing SCP and Sporting (as no-one seems to be suggesting renaming the page either of these): Clyde1998 (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, fine as it is, the common name is Sporting which won't work, and Sporting Clube de Portugal and Sporting Lisbon are examples of the extremes of such debate (official cumbersome native language name vs English childish term), so to be me Sporting CP is a decent compromise between the three. Just a general musing here, if we just named every club as their official title with redirects into English and any short/common versions they use, we wouldn't need to have these multiple tedious naming discussions... Crowsus (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Honours; Is being runner up an honour or not?
According to logic, every conqueror has vanquished an opponent and the vanquished deserves as much mention as the conqueror. Wikipedia is supposed to be an impartial verifiable fact depository. In sports every winner defeated the opponent and in a elimination tournament we need two opponents in a final. However, according to some, finishing second is not worth mentioning as an honour. Following that logic, why give finalists a silver medal? Should we lobby against such a recognition? Who needs runner ups... Are we going to wipe out all the silver and bronze medals from competition all together? Who are these administrators, policeman and censors that decide unilaterally what is an honour or not? I say, reaching a final or finishing second or third is an Honour worth mentioning. CharlieCares (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Finishing second in the league is not considered an honour. When runner-up honours are mentioned in the article's body, they can be removed from Honours section. You can get more information at WT:FOOTY. SLBedit (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I did check the place you suggested. There's no official policy regarding omission of a tournament runner up... Besides, I wasn't talking about a league as in a national championship like  Serie A, La Liga, Ligue 1 etc, I'm referring to knock out competitions like FA Cup, Taça de Portugal, Europa League and so forth. In this case the format is designed to create two streams that lead to two finalists and that on its own is already a milestone for any participant. As such, the organizers issue finalist medals to the losing participants precisely to recognize the losers importance. Although you say if mention is already made in the main article, there's no need to listed in the honours section... It sounds more like personal opinion than general consensus. In fact "runner up" credits shown in the honours sections are more common than otherwise and rightly so, for once it shows a quick to glean summary of the entity's history highlights. Anyway, it seems you have the knife and cheese in your hands but you also do lots of good work as well. CharlieCares (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I know the difference between a domestic league and a knockout competition. Only Wikipedia guidelines are considered official, but even those can be challenged and consequently changed when consensus is reached. The listing of runner-up honours has been discussed several times at WT:FOOTY – it's not my opinion – you can search its archive (e.g. "runner-up honour"). As a rule of thumb, if a club or player has won a trophy or medal in a specific competition, there's no need to list a runner-up honour related to that competition. If a club or player has only been runner-up, and that honour isn't mentioned in prose, then we should add the runner-up honour. SLBedit (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I understand your point and Wikipedia's policy parameters. I concede having the history portion mentioning such achievements, as not rendering it ignoble. The point I'm making has to do with the ease of a quick glancing of the history achievements in the Honours section, instead of needing to peruse the whole content of the web page. If someone picks up... runner-up 2005-6 UEFA what ever, it raises a level of curiosity as to which team won the final... That's the reason for my persistence. At any rate, keep up the good work you do. CharlieCares (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Club articles are generally different to player articles when listing honours, As a rule of thumb on previous consensus you don't list runner up on club articles in honours. Per seasonal prose know, there is no problems listing runner up in competition that year and it should be sourced. Govvy (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Censorship attempt
Could you please stop the pathetic censorship attempt by multiple IP addresses and new accounts? I have requested page protection. SLBedit (talk)
 * SLBedit - The article has been semi protected. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. However, the information was effectively censored and I don't want to get blocked by restoring it again. SLBedit (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * SLBedit - Good call on keeping an eye out for yourself like that. I agree; you definitely don't want to put yourself into a position where you risk being put under the "admin spotlight" because you made a bunch of reverts. Always better to be safe than sorry and just ask for assistance. It's not worth the risk and the trouble. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Due to the fact of this article being attacked by a (notice Benfica acronyms SLB) with support of  I contacted Wikipedia for a solution. That "fact" is from a editorialized article(notice CMjornal and Record, portuguese tabloids), and that reflects the bias of Benfica fans, that a agreement between 2 teams to defend their interests is an alliance against Benfica. That goes against Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view of promoting things from a neutral point of view. I don't understand the interest of Oshwah to keep that, looks like a such conflictive issue in a such small point would be very easy to solve with the removal, and not claiming "censorship". This matter would be easily solved with a neutral point like: "Recently Porto and Sporting resumed their institutional relationship after 4 years of cuted ties.".--Pmmsoares (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, a sleeper account. SLBedit (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

blatant sock puppetry goes on by, who is. SLBedit (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SLBedit, that editor is now blocked. But please stop using the word "censorship", which is inappropriate here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * user continues edit warring. SLBedit (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SLBedit, not for the next two weeks. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored some of the information previously removed by Pddalmeida, but kept the source user added. SLBedit (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019
Iuri Medeiros' loan goes until 30 June 2019, not until 31 December 2018 as it's said in the page. Also, Alan Ruiz is now loaned to Aldosivi, and not to Colón. 2804:431:B70C:9792:BCD9:9A83:AD42:DB94 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ SLBedit (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2019

 * 1) 26 is Crisitan Borja


 * 1) 20 Lumor is on loan
 * 2) 18 Carlos Mane is on loan Rpmears19 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ SLBedit (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019
Nani signed with Orlando City Rpmears19 (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020
Sporting are not referred to as Sporting Lisbon, that is absolutely wrong. It is either Sporting CP or just Sporting. 128.175.21.238 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. Two sources in the article use it in the very titles, so it would seem that at least some do refer that way. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Youth systeam
A user that goes by a already bias name of SLBedit is constantly deleting any kind of information about it, leaving alone a not updated link to a wiki page, I dont understand the reason, since it give clear information and interesting facts about it in a very short way, just as present in the page of SL Benfica, i dont understand why in Sporitng CP keeps being erased and left with no information about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OctopusFactCheck (talk • contribs) 15:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know why SLBedit removed the first paragraph as it was more or less covered by the Guardian citation in the paragraph below it. That content should be restored, and sourced using that. Also OctopusFactCheck, you are hardly being WP:CIVIL, it's really not nice to accuse someone of being bias. Govvy (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed it because The Guardian source doesn't say Sporting is known for its academy, nor it says it's among "top three clubs" or anything like that, and because there was no footnote in the paragraph. SLBedit (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Club Officials
Hi I would like to suggest an important change to this article. Can some one please remove the Other from the Club Officials heading? Leoes de Portugal are not part of the club officials. They are a separate entity that is authorised by the Club to use colors and logo and such. They are important, and have their place in the article, but so do many other groups that are part of this family. Never as Club Officials, This is wrong. The link (90) that references that entry is for a page outside the sporting.pt FQDN.

Please note these are the club officals atm: https://www.sporting.pt/en/club/institution/board-of-directors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.49.38.102 (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Number of registered supporters discussion
Would it be possible to edit the page with this more up to date information regarding the current number of registered supporters: https://web3.cmvm.pt/sdi/emitentes/docs/fsd596518.pdf This PDF is a prospectus, with detailed club information to the Portuguese Security Markets Commission, prior to the launch of new debt. As you can see o page 17, there is specific info re number of registered supporters. The document, to an official governmental body, reports that Sporting Clube de Portugal, as of 30 September 2018, had 172.756 registered Supporters distributed in several categories.

I am not an experienced user of Wikipedia, may I please put it out to who ever reads this talk, to give me a hand editing that paragraph

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisito (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime I read how to propose an edit to a protected page, and made a request, as per below. I think it can be better worded, but the most important action would be to correct this information

The current information, by the way, was published in a Portuguese tabloid, by a compulsive biased reporter, that has published several biased articles.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisito (talk • contribs) 2018-12-18T15:13:37 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2018
Please change "As of August 2018, Sporting has 90,000 members, with around 50,000 being eligible to vote in the club's elections.[1]"

To

"As of September 2018, Sporting Clube de Portugal has 172756 registered members, in several categories" as per official clube information to the Portuguese Securities Market Commission here: https://web3.cmvm.pt/sdi/emitentes/docs/fsd596518.pdf, page 17. Cisito (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a primary source. SLBedit (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You mean the CMVM? A governmental agency? Does this mean Wikipedia does not use governmental sources as references in its articles? Because the document is published by the CMVM, not Sporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisito (talk • contribs) 12:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Or as Wikipedia puts it: "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does. "

My edit fits the description above, like a glove. Instead of trying to oppose it by default, you could take a few moments to read the definition.

Also, this corrects a biased article that should never have been used. There are numerous articles about the progress of Sporting's number of registered supporters, over the last 5 years. And you go and use one from a known biased journalist.

It feels like you have an agenda, but I don't want to jump to that conclusion straight away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisito (talk • contribs) 12:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that you are the same person who tried to censor information on this article. SLBedit (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)