Talk:Vitória F.C.

Kit colours and pattern

These current home colours have been the colours of Vitória in all its life, with this very pattern, and though some stylish variations may appear from time to time, this is the official kit. The only variable kit is the away kit, which features purple and white colours this year, based in the city's colours. --Richard George 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Names and conventions

Sporting C.P. and Milošević are the correct Wikipedia spellings. --Richard George 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sporting CP is meaningless to people outside Portugal. Use Sporting, Sporting Lisbon, Sporting Clube de Portugal is better.

Milošević is the Serbian surname correct spelling, bur per the club official website, and the squad list of inter-national event, it links to Milojević instead of s.Matthew_hk tc 04:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sporting is not a club or team founded by people far away outside of Portugal, «Sporting CP» follows the european convention for the sake of naming teams. Don't spend much time editing articles which you know little more than nothing. I've lived all my life near these two teams, no matter how hard you dedicate your life to Wikipedia you won't know more about them than people who are inside the clubs. Cheers. --Richard George 22:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Seasonal transfers

I propose to keep the yearly informations mentioning which team the player came from. It is elucidative for the visitors. If the player remains more than one season in Vitória, information will be removed. Wikipedians agree? --Richard George 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The new squad list by winter transfer is per official site. Matthew_hk tc 04:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sport season date format

Hey Mareklug, what you are doing with the dates and figures is converting them to an absolutely weird way of spelling sports seasons. I've never seen that in my all life, and I think you'd better start correcting hundreds of teams around Wikipedia. Thousands of teams if you count other sports. Good luck :\ Richard George.ć

• Richard, I changed "1975/6" to 1975-1976 (by way of an example) to enable wikification of the dates. Do you really think this is unreasonable? If so, I'll change them back, but I'd like to see the links on dates preserved. How do you suggest it be done? -- Mareklug ^talk 05:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok. I changed them to this format: 1975/76. Hope this is acceptable. -- Mareklug ^talk 05:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VitoriaFC logo.PNG

Image:VitoriaFC logo.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 Wikipedia: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 11:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VitoriaFC logo.gif

Image:VitoriaFC logo.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 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 Wikipedia: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 22:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JJ Fiorentina.jpg

Image:JJ Fiorentina.jpg 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Major page degrade from May 9th through July (2008)

I'm shocked to see how since edition by 92.3.181.88 (Talk) at 13:43, 9 May 2008 one of the best Wikipedia football club pages has gone down, down, down the drain. User 92.3.181.88 and user Pararubbas have made bad taste changes to the page. The History and News section has gone inferior, totally vandalized with no remorse. It looks vulgar now.

Me and some other careful editors have made this a pleasant page and we are not going to tolerate this bad taste editions, and we are to going to close watch this page and if bad taste persist, we are to submit this page to admnistrators for appreciation since this has become an utter crap, and bad taste seems to be frequent. --Richard George (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since these users don't even care to have talk pages or engage in debates, the History and News setionc of the main article will be recovered imediately.

--Richard George (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed or trimmed several POV statements that appeared to overtly praise the club, such as the "remarkable" "golden age" seasons and "european shock". There are still several statements in the text that I tagged as requiring citations, such as the Euro 2004 stadium attribution and the shaky financial situation. --Pc13 (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Praising like you did in Buraka Som Sistema? Many international Wikipedians have made their contributions and no one has made complaints about the page except you and some other two. All Portuguese, of course, and most supectedly rosen from club rivalry grudges. You just went here and changed as you found it pleased your will. You forget that what you see as POV, may be be regarded as POV itself.

The page has relevant information only. If you are allergic to facts, there are many countries around the world where journalism freedom is as you seem to like.

First discuss, then commit to agreements with other people, then, and only then, things are to be changed. That's what the book says.--Richard George (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Weel, I've let the positive minor changes you've made, not the big personal ones. From now on, please be kind to first make your drastic suggestions here.--Richard George (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's start. I don't have to ask you anything because you don't own the article, this isn't a journalism piece, and even if it was, no newspaper editor would allow so much clubism. I've seen press-releases with a more neutral tone. If I feel it has too much POV, I'll tone it down. Now, first of all, the "golden decade". Why is it a "golden decade" and why was the citation needed removed? Who considers the 1964-1974 period a "golden decade"? Results don't speak for themselves, I'm afraid, so it clearly needs a citation. Since the scores are better in comparison to more recent season, I didn't remove it outright, but being a matter of historical perspective, it needs a book citation.

Then, "the most remarkable season of all time for Vitória the club earned merely a 3rd place". Okay, there's actually a better season score with the club finishing second, so why is the remarkable season a third? Of course, we can't call it "most remarkable". It's excessive praise and we must have a neutral word and a neutral tone, so what's wrong with a simple "best season"? As for name-dropping Yazalde and Eusébio, you seem to be making some kind of point. The "Golden Boot" and the "best player ever" are only relevant to their respective teams' scores, not to VFC's accomplishments. The biggest snag, though, is about what would have happened if Pedroto hadn't left. You have no way of knowing, VFC oldtimers can imagine all they want, but you can't prove in any measure that even without a managerial change the result would have been different.

Then, "European performance". That section title makes it sound like VFC were displaying superhuman football playing abilities. Second, the Notes below the UEFA Cup' seasonal scores. Once more points are being made about VFC's awesomeness (beating Liverpool, the guys who won the Cup three years later [huh?] and Inter) and excusing the defeats (VFC was beaten by the future winners, Newcastle and Leeds).

8th Army has wikified dates without stated relevancy, which goes against MoS preferences. Onward to "Derby" section. To be honest, I could have edited more, such as "the curl of the lip" (literary emotional description) and the extent of the quarrel, where you are assuming a position on the part of VSC fans based on seniority on your behalf. The reference you provide merely confirms VSC's establishment date, but not the "quarrelsomeness" you speak of.

"Present and Future" is a "H1" heading - once more, MoS says "no". It's interesting that you removed three "CN" templates. Surely you could dig through copies of A Bola and Record and find references to VFC's shaky finances. But what I find fantastic are the claims associating VFC's financial downsizing since the 25/4 (don't call it a "coup d'état", it was legitimized) to the region's industrial collapse. That's a very complex claim, and if you're making it I hope you can provide a source from an economics scientific paper detailing how the shutdown of the preserved food industry and the Renault factory, the reduction in cement production and so on impacted on VFC. Then, we have the "festering resentment" about the Euro 2004 public money allocation (boy, are we pissed about not getting a shiny new stadium). What you failed to grasp is that the current ref merely helps asserting that the other stadiums are empty, but it doesn't explain the Setúbal folk are annoyed for being left behind. Haven't O Setubalense and Correio de Setúbal written articles about it, with reactions from the relevant people involved, such as City Hall, VFC's management or the Setúbal Football Association?

"Top level maintenance secured". "Hardest end of season ever"; "Financial impossibility"; "Golden era player"; "First and only club". You don't find anything wrong with these? Nothing at all. Playing up the toughness of the 06/07 season combined with the absence of money, and romanticizing the manager's devotion, how could that possibly be neutral? Needs rewriting. And the "07/08 season" subsection has another "remarkable" (why is it remarkable again?) and you reverted the fully-written numbers to one-figure form again. --Pc13 (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all your answer is bulky, tiresome and penurious, for a start. Second I'm not responsible for most of the things you point, for an instance you should have seen the first instalment of the «Derby», which I consider no derby at all, but since others insisted what could I do but calling for a milder approach. And for a third tier, no other football club page reflects your over-zealous and stingy position. Care to check out British clubs for a good instance, season pages included. You speak of things in an ontological plan, pecking and calling for citations about undeniable things, churning and grudging... oh boy. Besides, anyone can easily trump citations, CN is not a guarantee of truth at all, but most of the times an aggressive weapon not only to block made-up things rather and most of all... incovenient truths. Oh you find fantastic the claims associating VFC fincancial downsizing since 25/4 to the industrial collapse? Really fantastic. Not a Coup d'Etat??? LOL! Legitimate or not, it was a goddamn Coup d'Etat which almost led to Civil War. In Setúbal, bunches of morons assaulted and devasted several symbols of the State, schools included. Sometimes I come to finally understand why Setúbal has turned from the beautiful city Lord Byron spoke about... into one of the most degraded and grey cities of Portugal. It's in most of its people's blood to mistreat it. Had your approach been polite, things would have been different, but you can't expect any other thing than this type of reaction lest we forget the kind of presumptions you've made associating -any- edits in Vitória F.C. with my personality. A shame.--Richard George (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"I don't have to ask you anything because you don't own the article".

Oh yes you've to ask the other users when you mess the page all over the place to please your POV, you know why? Because you don't own the article.

"This isn't a journalism piece, and even if it was, no newspaper editor would allow so much clubism."

In a small sentence you mistake yourself, and make a false presumption.

"I've seen press-releases with a more neutral tone."

Hah! "Citation Needed"

"If I feel it has too much POV, I'll tone it down."

If I feel your POV has too much POV, I'll tone it down.

You see... you are not properly dealing with intelectually inferior people here, so you better be over-zealous with that instead.--Richard George (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to adress my concerns, one by one. TL;DR is not an answer. I don't care whether you're the original author of any piece of text or not, but your blind revert defends keeping the article as it currently is. If you don't believe the VFC/VSC derby is a derby, then you should have asked for citations, and if those had not been provided, you should have deleted it. If it kept being reinstated, you should have asked for arbitration. I don't care how one-sided the British club pages are. That's not an excuse for this one to be too. I have yet to read anything undeniable or an "unconvenient truth" in this article. Assume for a second I'm not from Setúbal (or even Portuguese) and I had never heard of VFC until now. I read the article and see a lot of claims that aren't backed up by an outside source. I tag it and rewrite some things. You revert it and your first assumption is that I'm deleting "unconvenient truths"? I don't even watch football, I just saw an article purposefully praising its subject. How can you prove VFC would have been champion if Pedroto hadn't left (from the text, I can't even tell if he left of his own volition or if he was fired)? Why is the season where VFC was third more important than the one where it was second (seriously, shouldn't it be the other way round)? How did the Setúbal economic collapse (was there one?) wreck the club's finances over a period of 35 years? Are the city's denizens actually irritated in not getting a new stadium (how and why? And why couldn't the club build one anyway? There's nothing in the article stating the Euro stadiums were financed with public money). --Pc13 (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vitória F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131029191541/http://www.statto.com/football/teams/vitoria-setubal/history/modern to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/vitoria-setubal/history/modern

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)