Talk:Athletic Bilbao

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

  • Article in The Guardian on November 23 2005 about origin of colours of football tops cites Wikipedia on two occasions.[1]
  • Everton F.C. in their match program for a friendly against Athletic on August 12 2006 use Wikipedia version of Athletic history.

Miguel Jones[edit]

There is now seperate article on Miguel Jones User:Djln--Djln 02:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basque Flags for the players (instead of Spanish ones)[edit]

I reckon it makes much more sense, since it is the club's policy to sign only basque players. If you feel Bixente Lizarazu should also get the Ikurrina treatment, or someone else shouldn't you are free to change it --User:Malinskchen

I think it would be a good idea to also include Spanish flags for the majority of the players. The club has a distinguished record in producing Spanish internationals and most either have or are eligible to represent Spain --Djln 17:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC )User:Djln


Just one consideration. The policy of the club is to sign only local players, but not only Basques, some of them are/were from the neighbouring regions, even neighbouring countries like Lizarazu or some English players in the origin of the club. So in that case we should use the flags of:

etc

So, as I defended in the Talk:FC Barcelona discussion, the use of regional flags in the main article is not reasonable. --Uhanu 01:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bixente Lizarazu is also Basque. See Basque Country (historical territory) for explanation about this fact. -Theklan - Discussion 21:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cantera Policy & Flags[edit]

I understand that the policy of the club is still only to sign Basque players. These local players are Basques! Even the players from the neighbouring regions have Basque connections, e.g Basque parents or grandparents or have played for other Basque clubs as a youth, and Lizararu is a French Basque. These points and the clubs British origins are all mentioned in the article. While I agree the use of regional flags has become excessive in other articles, I believe there inclusion can be justified here. Djln --Djln 20:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the policy is to sign only Basque players or players that were formed as footballers in any Basque team. Basque is understood as anyone born (or formed) in the Basque Country, Navarra or the French Basque Country. Apparently is quite simple, but it can cause some slightly different interpretations. For instace: is basque someone born out of the basque country but with basque parents? should both (the father and the mother) be basque? is it enough with basque grandparents? is basque someone that "accidentally" was born in the basque country? Depending on who were the people governing the club, the historical moment and each particular case indeed, there have been some "doubftul" basque footballers that have played in Athletic and others that have not played. Well, what I come to say is that the introduction of the article emphasizes too much this fact, something that under my point of view is purely anecdotal. I don't really think this fact is an important characteristic of Athletic and for me it has non sense to name three footballers that din't play in Atlhetic. There are millions of footballers that have never played.

Lions in the coat-of-arms[edit]

The coat-of-arms of Biscay was supported by a lion. --Error 03:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1902 Cup[edit]

1902 Cup won by Vizcaya not Athletic, check official statistics: Athletic 23 Cups not 24

http://www.segundosfuera.com/futbol/palmares/espana/copa_del_rey.html

http://www.marca.com/futbol/coparey0506/palmares.html

http://www.elfutbolin.com/copadelrey/palmares.asp

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_del_Rey

http://www.nuestrozaragoza.com/historia/palmares/palmares_copa_rey.html

83.1992.2006

  • You are quoting incorrect sources. Read Athletic Bilbao website history section and you will see that Club Vicaya was made up of two clubs that merged and became Athletic Bilbao. It is part of same club. I see by your user page that I am not the only one pissed off with your attitude and edits. If you carry on I will have to start an award for Most Persistant Vandal. Do mind if I name it after you. Djln--Djln 23:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect sources? Official statistics !!! It can be happening ... Im talking to a wall.
    • How are the above official? You have obviously not checked the actual website of the club involved. None of these sites say that Club Vizcaya is a seperate club. It is very simple Club Vizcaya became Athletic Bilbao. Please refrain from abuse.

Athletic Trophy List Djln--Djln 14:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Athletic has 23 Cups, they DID NOT win 1902 Cup, I'm talking about official statistics, Athletic web is changing history just like this wiki article, but Im not sure you can understand because you are very very short. Stupid man. I'm gonna change it as soos as I can, make you a favour, investigate about it in neutral sources. 83.1992.2006
  • Several clubs including FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and RCD Espanyol have won the Copa del Rey with different names. All trophies won under their various names are included in one list. So why should Athletic record be different ? Read up on their history and you will see they are same club. PS Can u stop personal attacks ? They are uncalled for. Djln --Djln 15:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, This source shows 1902 Cup is in Athletic museum. If they did not win it, why do they have it in their museum ?[2]

  • May be u understand this way:

Imagine FCB and Espanyol playing together under the name "Catalonia" a trhophy. They win the trophy, Can U say that Barça has won the trophy? Why do u think in RFEF statistics, official statistics, 1902 Cup don't scores to Athletic and they have officially 23 cups and not 24? Come on, investigate just a little in neutral sources, Athletic's web is changing history and this wiki article too.83.1992.2006

  • If you know your history FCB and Espanyol did actually do this in early Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and FCB DID take the credit. They entered under the name Barcelona rather then Catalonia. Two Bilbao teams, Bilbao FC and Athletic Club, entered combined team called Club Vizcaya, in 1902 Copa. In 1903 BOTH these clubs merged and became Athletic Club de Bilbao. So how exactly are Athletic taking credit from anybody. None of these official statistics say Club Vizcaya is a completely seperate club from Athletic. So why do put so much emphasis on them. A better example is Club Ciclista de San Sebastian in 1909. This win is credited to Real Sociedad[3] on basis that the club changed name. This is what happened with Club Vizcaya and Athletic. Djln--Djln 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liga de Fútbol Professional (LFP), click athletic image (second top left) and check "palmarés"  :

http://www.lfp.es/

You are against all evidence, man. Athletic's official web lies, ask them why if you want but don't help them to change Spanish Cup history.

- "Barcelona" side was effectively FCB with one player from RCD Espanyol in first Fairs Cup. May be we should discuss if FCB deserves this credit, but Athletic in 1902 ALREADY EXISTED as a footbal club, Vizcaya is not Athletic predecessor. ATHLETIC DID NOT WON 1902 Cup. CHECK OFFICIAL STATISTICS. Last time I tell you.83.1992.2006


  • I hate to say this but I consider the LFP an official and very reliable source, and it does state that Athletic de Bilbao won the Copa del Rey 23 times, not 24, the first one being in 1903.

maurimarzal 10:15, 21 August 2006 (GMT)

    • Official sources are not necessary accurate or unbiased and should not be treated as gospel. For example these official sources do not recognise the Copa de Espana Libre of 1937. Although this tournament had only four entrants, this was more then several of the earlier competitions. I am not disputing that Club Vizcaya won the Copa in 1902. However Athletic have 1902 Copa in their museum and include it in their trophy list because this team was a formative team of the modern Athletic. Below is a timeline which hopefully will help explain my reasoning. It is very clear:
      • Early 1890s Bilbao FC formed by British workers.
      • 1898 Basque students returning from UK form Athletic Club.
      • 1902 Above two teams enter combined team known as Club Vizcaya in Copa del Rey.
      • 1903 These two teams merge and form Athletic Club Bilbao. Djln--Djln 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are against all evidence, you are against real history, you are a real liar. Bye.

83.1992.2006

This is going nowhere and will probably descend into another round of edit wars. Please apply for Arbitration here--Tiresais 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Club Vizcaya is a team made up of players from Athletic Club and Bilbao FC and in 1903 these two clubs merged as Athletic Club Bilbao... HOW IS POSSIBLE THAT CLUB VIZCAYA PLAYED THE 1907 CUP FINAL AGAINST Real Madrid ?????? Check your sources. --81.44.115.115 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)--81.44.115.115 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In 1902 Athletic Club and Bilbao Football Club clubs formed a combined team, known as Club Vizcaya , and entered the first Copa del Rey. This would lead to the eventual merger of the two clubs as Athletic Club de Bilbao in 1903. In the 1907 Copa del Rey, the Club Vizcaya name was revived and Athletic Club de Bilbao and Union Vizcaino entered another combined team. This is noted in the article and at the Rsssf archive [4]. It is you that needs to check your sources. Djln--Djln 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1902 Copa compromise[edit]

I have added the the note below to article. Hopefully this will resolve issue.

    • The number of Copa wins Athletic Bilbao have been credited with is disputed. The 1902 competition was won by Club Vizcaya, a team made up of players from Athletic Club and Bilbao FC. In 1903 these two clubs merged as Athletic Club Bilbao. The 1902 cup is on display in the Athletic museum [5] and the club includes it in its own honours list.[6]. However some sources do not include this as an Athletic win.Djln--Djln 23:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to make these changes that are needed[edit]

In the Squad listing;

I have unprotected the article. Go ahead and make the edits you see needed. Shanes 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankski--Tiresais 12:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transfers[edit]

I have removed the list of recent transfers, as Wikipedia is not a news service. Maurimarzal 16:00, 9 September 2006 (GMT)

Name in Basque[edit]

I think this reference to the name in Basque should be removed, as it is not official (the only name is Athletic Club in ALL languages) and, in any case, it is not used by anybody, not even the local Basque press who just refers to it as "Athletic". --tonis1 06:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bixente Lizarazu[edit]

Bixente Lizarazu, despite of being of french nacionality, is also basque, so it can't be argued that he was not inteligible for a pro-basque policy. -Theklan - Discussion 21:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was discussion at the time among the members. --Error 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist presidents[edit]

I have inserted a "dubious" over the assertion of presidents being EAJ-PNV members. It has to be qualified with a timeframe. --Error 01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BarcelonaMarc[edit]

I am not disputing that Club Vizcaya won the Copa in 1902. However this team is part of Athletic Bilbao history. Club Vizcaya is not a separate club from Athletic, but is part of the clubs history. Several clubs including FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and RCD Espanyol and Real Union have won the Copa del Rey under different names. All trophies won under their various names are included in one list. So why should the Athletic record be different ?

Below is a timeline which explains the early history of Athletic.

  • Early 1890s: Bilbao FC formed by British workers.
  • 1898: Basque students returning from UK form Athletic Club.
  • 1902: Above two teams enter combined team known as Club Vizcaya in Copa del Rey.
  • 1903: These two teams merge and form Athletic Club Bilbao
  • 1907: The Club Vizcaya name is revived as Athletic Club de Bilbao and Union Vizcaino entered another combined team in the Copa del Rey.

The 1902 Copa is included in Athletic’s own honours list [7] and the trophy is in their museum [8]. The eleven Club Vizcaya players who played in the final - L. Arana, E Careaga, P. Larranga, L. Silva, A. Arana, Goiri, Cazeaux, Astorquia, W. Dyer, R. Silva, W. Evans - are all included in an archive of former Athletic players [9]. Djln--Djln 14:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LFP (La Liga) and RFEF (Spanish Federation) official statistics don't include the 1902 Cup as an Athletic win. Spanish media, the same. Just check the links above. NO DISCUSSION ABOUT IT IS POSSIBLE. The footnote is enough to explain your point of view. I'm gonna apply for arbitration if you persist ... Ciao. --BarcelonaMarc 19:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of your official links declare that Club Vizcaya is a completely separate club from Athletic Bilbao. I know Club Vizcaya won the cup but it should be included in Athletic record in the same way that the Club Cilista and Real Sociedad records are merged. Apply for arbitration if you want. I am confident that any arbitration will prove me correct. Djln --Djln 19:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Aplied successfully for protection because you two seem too happy to continue the childish edit war and not apply for arbitration. Please go and apply for arbitration so the matter can be settled. Thank you.--Tiresais 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • BarcelonaMarc is not acting objectively or can he be considered as an independent in this issue. On his own user page he describes himself as an FC Barcelona fan. If the 1902 Copa is credited to Athletic then it would mean that Athletic and FC Barcelona share the amount of Copa wins. I believe that BarcelonaMarc must begrudge sharing and that is why he continues to revert edits. Djln--86.135.54.94 12:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then apply for Arbitration and get the matter officially sanctioned... It'll stave the revert wars that prop up from time to time and clog the history unnecessarily.--Tiresais 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • LFP (La Liga) and RFEF (Spanish Federation) official statistics don't include the 1902 Cup as an Athletic win. Spanish media, the same. Just check the links above. NO DISCUSSION ABOUT IT IS POSSIBLE. The footnote is enough to explain Djln's point of view. We could apply for arbitration but I really think is a waste of time for them cause HERE THERE IS NO CASE. I am confident that any arbitration will prove me correct, cause I'm with the official history. NO MORE LIES IN WIKIPEDIA. And thanks for protecting this article from Djln's vandalism.--BarcelonaMarc 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1902 Copa del Rey[edit]

Arbitration has been requested for this page. Djln--Djln 23:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BarcelonaMarc[edit]

- LFP (La Liga) and RFEF (Spanish Football Federation) official statistics don't include the 1902 Cup as an Athletic win. So do the Spanish media (links demonstrating it in Talk:Copa del Rey). LFP and RFEF are the governing bodies of football in Spain, so wikipedia, if it is a serious thing, must reflect the current official satistics. We can argue if Athletic and Club Vizcaya is the same football club or not, but we can't discuss that LFP and RFEF don't include the 1902 Cup as an Athletic win cause it is a fact. - - In addition to this, Djln's point of view is already reflected in both Copa del Rey and Athletic Club articles.

If you wish to contribute to above debate further I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football Djln--Djln 13:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic Bilbao and Copa del Rey[edit]

There is an ongoing dispute at the above articles. The dispute centers around the first Copa del Rey in 1902 and whether it should be included as an Athletic Bilbao win. Myself and another editor User: Deibid believe that it should be. However a third editor User: BarcelonaMarc is constantly reediting the articles to reflect differently. The Copa was won by Club Vizcaya which is not disputed. However Club Vizcaya is not a separate club from Athletic, but rather an alternative name. Several clubs including FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and RCD Espanyol and Real Unión have won the Copa del Rey under different names. All trophies won under their various names are included in one list. So why should the Athletic record be different ?

Below is a timeline which explains the early history of Athletic. [10]

  • Early 1890s: Bilbao FC formed by British workers.
  • 1898: Basque students returning from UK form Athletic Club.
  • 1902: Above two teams enter combined team known as Club Vizcaya in Copa del Rey.
  • 1903: These two teams merge and form Athletic Club Bilbao
  • 1907: The Club Vizcaya name is revived as Athletic Club de Bilbao and Union Vizcaino entered another combined team in the Copa del Rey.

The 1902 Copa is included in Athletic’s own honours list [11] and the trophy is in their museum [12]. The eleven Club Vizcaya players who played in the final - L. Arana, E Careaga, P. Larranga, L. Silva, A. Arana, Goiri, Cazeaux, Astorquia, W. Dyer, R. Silva, W. Evans - are all included in an archive of former Athletic players [13].

I believe the above clearly shows that Club Vizcaya was simply a name used by Athletic Bilbao and is not a separate club. A similar situation occurred in 1909 when Real Sociedad used the name Club Ciclista. However User: BarcelonaMarc has chosen to ignore all this evidence. He argues that Club Vizcaya is a different club but offers no evidence to prove this. I do not believe BarcelonaMarc is acting objectively or that he can be considered as an independent. On his own user page he describes himself as an FC Barcelona fan. If the 1902 Copa is credited to Athletic then it would mean that Athletic and FC Barcelona share the amount of Copa wins. I believe that BarcelonaMarc must begrudge sharing and that is why he continues to revert edits. I would appreciate it if other editers could offer their opionions and/or help resolve this issue as it has been ongoing for sometime and BarcelonaMarc will not listen to reason. Djln--Djln --Djln 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so certain that this is as cut and dried as you're trying to make out. In 1902 Vizcaya was not Athletic Bilbao, but two seperate teams. The change is not the same as a name change from Madrid to Real Madrid. I suggest listing 23 titles for Bilbao, as it is currently, and tidying up the note about Vizcaya. On the Bilbao page I think that you could use something along the lines of:
Copa del Rey:
  • As Club Vizcaya: 1902. 1
  • As Athletic Bilbao: 1903, 1904, 1910, 1911, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1921, 1923, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1950, 1955, 1956, 1958, 1969, 1973, 1984. 23
aLii 11:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These two seperate clubs merged to become Athletic Bilbao. Can anybody explain why Athletic Bilbao include the 1902 Copa in their honours then.Djln--Djln 12:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it's something to list. Heck, Liverpool list their Lancashire League win and Reserve League victories. aLii 12:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you actually read the timeline above or the history of Athletic. Your not really helping resolve this situation. The Liverpool example is irrelevant, you cannot compare a local regional league to a national trophy. Djln 13:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Liverpool didn't win those honours under a different name ChrisTheDude 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point was because it's something to list. Nothing to do with names. Yes I have read the timeline. In 1902 there was no Athletic Bilbao. In 1903 there was. It was not "a change of name", but a merger of two seperate clubs, which later split again into two teams. I think it should all be listed in the history of Athletic Bilbao, but all of your argument is based upon what Bilbao claim for themselves. The Spanish FA apparently don't count it as a Bilbao victory, or at least I haven't seen you dispute BarcelonaMarc's claim. aLii 14:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Copa del Rey is administered by the RFEF, isn't it? Then it follows we should follow their official classification (or else we break WP:OR and WP:SOAP). The article states (though without a reference yet) that the RFEF do not consider Vizcaya and Athletic to be the same club.

To me, it seems ridiculous to me that a club can claim to have won a trophy before it was officially established, so unless the RFEF have retroactively awarded the 1902 title to Athletic Bilbao, then it should be considered that of Vizcaya. Qwghlm 14:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The club was officially established in 1898, being the second oldest in Spain, so it is NOT ridiculous. The cup is in the club's museum. What else is needed? David 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All that's needed is an official acknowledgment from the authority in charge of the competition (i.e. RFEF) that Athletic Bilbao have been recognized as 1902 winners. Athletic Bilbao may claim it as a trophy but they as a unified club did not exist until 1903 (being two separate clubs before that), and in any case it's not up to them to decide who the official winner is. Qwghlm 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if dates are going to be deciding the issue, why does the RFEF, not founded until 1909, get to decide who can claim a trophy played for in 1902, seven years before it was founded. All the RFEF has done is simply list the contemporary names of teams that won the competition. Nobody has shown me any evidence that the RFEF has declared Club Vizcaya a separate club. Why ? Because there is none. I’ve shown clear evidence that they have a common history. In addition Real Sociedad [14] claim the 1909 Copa which they won as Club Ciclista and Real Union claim the 1913 Copa which was won by a predecessor club [15]. So are all these clubs wrong ? I would have thought that one of competitions first participants and organisers would have a stronger say and should be given precedence over a body that was'nt even founded until seven years later. In this case I would argue that Athletic is a more official source then the RFEF. Also isn’t possession nine tenths of the law and Athletic have the trophy in their museum, and the RFEF does not seems to have challenged their right to include it on their honours list. Djln--Djln 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic Bilboa is the legitimate inheritor of the tradition of Club Vizcaya. They have a right to claim the title and a matching duty acknowledge their predecessor. aLii's solution, which clearly and simply lists the facts of the situation, works and is one that I've used more than once when writing about German clubs where this type of situation crops up frequently and is exacerbated by circumstance of traditional clubs playing under alternate identities in East Germany or under wartime conditions, for example. The irony is that this sort of thing adds colour to an article about a club and should go as an interesting tidbit rather than something to squabble over. Wiggy! 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of flags[edit]

This article is getting kind of messy because of its excessive usage of flags. Let me remind WP:FLAGS and note you that the current squad template has become a mess by the inclusion of Basque flags in it. Double nationalities are not supported by the template, so please do not include in it. Then I understand the Basque pride and whatever, but the Basque Country is not recognized by either UEFA or FIFA, differently than other autonomous territories such as Scotland, Wales and the Faroe Islands. --Angelo 13:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates & dashes[edit]

En dashes should be used in scorelines and only full dates and dates with a day and month should be wikilinked, including in the footnotes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Epbr123 20:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move page?[edit]

As the official name of this team is "Athletic Club", I think this should be the page name instead of "Athletic Bilbao"

Erual7 07:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the club is commonly referred to in English-language media as "Athletic Bilbao", so it should stay as that. - PeeJay 17:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Athletic Club" is unclear in English language; better to use the current name (per WP:COMMON). --Angelo 17:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are no talking about what is clear or not in English. The official name is "Athletic Club", and that MUST be the page name. Athletic Club is a proper name and the official one, you just cannot change it. We don't care about the English media, please remember "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.102.46 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Athletic Club is the REAL name instead of Athletic Bilbao, doesn't matter if is it unclear or not Athletic Club is the ONLY name of this team. --Niquinio (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amorebieta, why Venezuelan flag?[edit]

Why is there a Venezuelan flag next to Fernando Amorebieta's name? Even though he was indeed born in Venezuela, he is not eligible to play for Venezuela, but Spain, as explained on the article on him. Therefore his "football nationality" is Spanish, not Venezuelan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wislabe (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact he should have a Spanish flag next to his name - in case he really represented Spain at the youth level (as stated in the article about him). --Angelo (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Venezuelan flag has been reinstated again, probably due to the Venezuelan Football Federation announcing yesterday that they have been in contact with the player about his possible move to Vinotinto. As it turns out, he indeed is eligible for them as he hasn’t played with the Spain full national team and after FIFA removed the "No Switching of National Colors After Turning 21 Years" rule last year, but shouldn't we wait until he actually gets called up and plays a match before changing the flag? –Kooma (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not again[edit]

Not again, Wikizin. Mediation ended for Copa del Rey, this is a different article and has its own issues. Read the talk page, read all the comments, don't act as if this all doesn't matter because of an archived mediation. That is not the way... if you want to start another discussion and then another mediation, go on. But DON't start edit warring again, using anonymous IP, changing facts without discussing... I can tell you that this one will be a far greater battle, don't do this.David (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can undo your edits with my user too, that's not the problem. The mediation ended and Dweller agreed that the resolution will be applied to this article too. Sorry, but it's the same war and it's ended. 23 (24*) is what must be displayed here. Greets. Wikizin (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.110.135 (talk) [reply]

Language[edit]

Does the club operate on a bilingual basis, or just in Basque? If you go to a match, will announcements be in both languages? 71.205.174.204 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During matches anouncements are made in both languages and the club page and the official communications are usually made in both languages. arkaitz.iba (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The brief paragraph about Athletic Bilbao's rivals[edit]

The insistence on starting the paragraph with "It's" completely undermines the value of this contribution. Not only is it sloppy, lazy and unprofessional, it is also grammatically incorrect (see. http://www.its-not-its.info/). I have changed it to "Athletic Bilbao's". Any objection to this revert, then please discuss why, here. Panhead2014 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on this issue, even after being suspended a week for editing war, only Atlhetic is enough. Gringoladomenega (talk) 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What was the problem you had with my edit? Why do you persist in, at first reverting a valid contribution to "It's", which made no sense grammatically, to now to reverting it to simply "Athletic's". What problem do you have with starting the paragraph with "Athletic Bilbao's"? Or is there an ulterior motive here? Panhead2014 (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using too many "Athletic Bilbao" is unnecessary and repetitive. What's the need of doing obvious edits? "It's" is very understandable, as we are talking about Athletic Bilbao, and we are editing in their page! MYS77 ✉ 02:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that English isn't your first language so I can understand if you don't see the difference between "It's" and "Its". Regardless, "It's", in the context discussed here, isn't understandable at all, in fact it is outright wrong. Please refer to the link posted in my first comment in this section highlighting why "It's", is grammatically incorrect. Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still no valid explanation as to objection to the inclusion of "Athletic Bilbao's"? Panhead2014 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't discuss with a guy who clearly has a prejudice with non-native English/American (or any other country who you're from) people. MYS77 ✉ 01:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned on many occasions before; there is no prejudice, your constant claims highlight an unnecessary immaturity and in itself borderline prejudice. I do though have an issue with those who insist on using poor grammar and incorrect English, regardless of where they are from. This is after all an English-language Wikipedia and it is very important, I feel, that the contributors are not ruining articles by reverting edits that are made to improve things like grammar, spelling and syntax. I hope you understand this rather than making unfounded allegations. Panhead2014 (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also will point out that I am neither English, or American, just to highlight that it is actually you who harbours a prejudice. Now maybe you could actually present a valid explanation as to why you feel the edit I made is inappropriate and why you persist in reverting to "It's", which makes no sense. Thanks, Panhead2014 (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As your "reference" shows, we can use "Its" instead of "It's", and we were using this type of grammar to avoid the use of the same words too many times. MYS77 ✉ 23:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The words "Athletic Bilbao" appear how many times before I included it to improve the paragraph? Even your "friend" Drmies noted it was a better edition than what you insist with. You only remove it to antagonise me, or maybe there's a language issue here and you're not familiar with syntax. Panhead2014 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Athletic Bilbao. 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:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Athletic Bilbao. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Player policy[edit]

Jonas Ramalho is the first colored player that ever played for A. Bilbao.That happened in 2009 in a match Athletic (B) vs Amorebieta.

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"2023–24 Athletic Bilbao season" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect 2023–24 Athletic Bilbao season has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 21 § 2023–24 Athletic Bilbao season until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Athletic_Bilbao&oldid=1205452174"