Talk:Clube Atlético Mineiro/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Clube Atlético Mineiro. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Romax

An anonymous user (User:70.48.102.114, his contributions here) keeps adding a player called Romax in the list of famous Atlético players. However, he seems to be non-notable or non-existant, or, most probable, a hoax, so, I removed it. A Google search get no results. This is the player's entry he added to the article:

• Romax - Known as "The Boy Wonder" had success in Brazil's U-17 National Team, where he won various titles and excelled in scoring. Played few games for Atletico as a serious knee complication cut this future legend's career short.

Regards, Carioca 04:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Gilberto Silva vs. Atlético Mineiro

In November 2002, Gilberto Silva sued Atlético Mineiro. Does anybody know the outcome of this case? Details are here: http://ussoccerplayers.com/latest_soccer_news/329826.html

I think a note about this case on this article and the Gilberto Silva article would be useful - but I can't find any more information other than the link.

--GilbertoSilvaFan 11:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove the quote about the largest number of fans

I will remove the quote about "the largest number of fans in the state" from this article based on the discussion in Cruzeiro article, because two other surveys from Vox Popoli and Ibope shows that Cruzeiro have the largest number of fans. So, we can't be sure of those data and this is a encyclopedia and not a fan site.

the discrussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cruzeiro_Esporte_Clube

UPDATE:

I do not want to sound annoying, but people still seem to be adding this information about Atlético's fanbase. Sorry, but if the supporters desire a trustful reference for Atlético Mineiro, these people have to point references on any numbers shown, or else it may seem that the article writers are just guessing statistics out or, like stated above, adding biased contributions, which must not in any case happen in any kind of encyclopedia. We don't want Atlético's supporters to look bad to the entire world, do we?

I would thoroughly like to recommend for users who really feel it necessary to state this sort of information without pointing reliable sources to do so in websites like Orkut.com or Galoucura.com.br, or just shouting it loud in Governador Magalhães Pinto Stadium, leaving Wikipedia to those who are looking for precise info and not an ultra site. Cheers, Cheiro de lysoform 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Since we can not reach a consensus, I suggest that we just ommit this information. It is rather irrelevant as the amount of fans do not interfere with the quality of the club's football. As long as we do not have any agreement, I think that the accuracy of this article is really being disputed.Cheiro de lysoform 00:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and remove this information. Carioca 00:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is a fact that Cruzeiro has the largest fanbase in Minas Gerais. MANY surveys from MANY different people have been done and the results never change. Atletico having the biggest fanbase in Minas or being "traditionally known as the most popular club in Minas Gerais" (as you put it)should not be mentioned at all in this article because that statement is factually incorrect. And it should be also noted that in 1981 there was a challenge issued from both organizations to see which of the two teams could get the most fans into a derby match that year (a match that went down in history as " o clássico dos ingressos". The result: Cruzeiro put 1,427 more fans that Atletico in the Mineirao that game. More importantly this was during a time when Cruzeiro had a clearly inferior team. That was in the 80's..imagine now.

Change to British English variety

The article started with no consistent usage of any English variety, with some prose written in British English and other terms being in American English. The infobox was originally in the standard (British) version and then altered to American style. In July 2013, Carioca established the American English variety in the article source (without placing a Varieties of English template on the talk page). However, even while I do understand MOS:RETAIN, I believe that if a variety must be chosen, British English would be more appropriate to the article.
First, the word football, used in British English to refer to association football, was consistently used instead of soccer, its American English counterpart, since the beginnings of the article. If the currently established variety should be truly used and enforced, all instances of football should be changed to soccer, for instance, something that never happened before of after the variety was established, meaning that in spite of the insertion of the American English tag in the source, that variety was not de facto established. As far as I've searched, soccer is a word only used in articles about American and Australian clubs (because of their obvious strong national ties), which is obviously not the case. Also, checking articles for football clubs from non-English speaking countries (including FAs, GAs and B-class articles), in the ones where an English variety is not clearly established (which was the case in this article before the insertion of the tag in the source), the use of British English terms is far more common than that of American ones (in fact, i have not seen the American variety being been adopted in non-American football club articles). This option for British English terms I believe stems from the fact the sport itself originated in England, also a national tie of sorts between the topic and the British variety (more so than no national tie whatsoever, in the case of American English). This, I believe, along with the other points addressed, would be a valid reason for the change. Felipe Bini (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, change the article to British English. --Carioca (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

Reviewer: LuizM (talk · contribs) 17:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No problems.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Ok.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Ok.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Ok.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clube Atlético Mineiro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• WC78 BRA-ITA.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Reinaldo - Atlético Mineiro.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

2021 season

why did you reverted my alteration? i just added more details from that season, i'm a Galo fan and i just wanted to let it more understandable for people that don't chear understand better what happened and how important it was for the club and the fans. 45.232.140.43 (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)