text:
Talk:European football records

Untitled
I've never heard the term Grand Slam applied in this way before, on top of which the hat-trick of trophies is likely to be discussed less and less now that the Cup Winners Cup has been abolished. Does this count as original research? sjorford 09:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I've seen it referred informally as "treble" and "grand slam". However, "treble" is usually applied when a team holds three major cups in the same year (championship, cup and UEFA competition), so the later seems more appropriate. If anyone finds the correct, formal, UEFA name for three-cup holders, the article should be moved.
 * And I doubt this can be accounted as original research, since it was vastly referred when Valencia lost the two finals a couple of years back and more recently with Baía. At best the article name should be changed to other alternatives such as "UEFA Treble", "Continental Cup Treble" or those two with "hat-trick" instead of treble.
 * Can someone put forward any reference for this? I've never heard of this like seemingly everybody else. Otherwise I'm going to put forward this for deletion Bornintheguz 23:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union vs Ukraine/Georgia + Yugoslavia vs Serbia/Croatia + Germany vs Germany/GDR
At the moment the titles of Kiev and Tirana are credited to Ukraine and Georgia and not the Soviet Union, likewise Bratislavas title is credited to Slovakia, not Czechoslovakia, while Belgrades and Zagrebs titles are credited to Yugoslavia, not Serbia and Croatia. Also, Magdeburgs title is credited to Germany, not East Germany/GDR.

I think the league the clubs played in should count, so Soviet Union for Kiev and Tirana, Czechoslovakia for Bratislava, Germany for all Bundesliga teams, but GDR for Magdeburg, Yugoslavia can stay like it is.

But whatever is done, the same rules should apply to all these countrys, and it should not be done one way for some, and different for others. -01-22-08 Cirdan

from VfD
On 2 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Votes for deletion/Grand Slam (UEFA) for a record of the discussion including more discussion about whether this is the appropriate title for the content of the article.

Title
Since "Grand Slam" doesn't seem to be an especially common name for this feat, and certainly not an official one, perhaps a generic title would be better - List of clubs winning all 3 European football cups, or something? It's hard to find a title that's unambiguous and not too long, though. sjorford →•← 11:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * How about change to UEFA competition records (along the lines of Football records in England) and add more info like record attendances? Bornintheguz 14:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it does count as original research. It seems that Uefa grand slam is an invented term, I never heard it before and could find other references to it. Renaming the article should be enough, though. D.W. 12 June 2005

Move request
I've put in a request on WP:RM - my recommendation is that it is moved to European football records and allowed to expand, although I'm open to suggestions. Any other ideas? sjorford →•← 14:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not fully convinced that European football records is the best title, but it's the best suggestion so far. If anyone can come up with another then please discuss it here.  violet/riga (t) 21:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I'll merge in List of UEFA Competition Winners by Club, which I've recently found. sjorford (?!) 13:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Add European Super Cup? what do people think?
I think a new European Super Cup column should be added to Most Competition Wins table in order to complete the schedule. I see no reason to forget this trophy from counting. Indeed European Cup expired in 2000, and new Uefa Cup is to be considered a depreciated competition. What's your opinion?

 * Have to agree. The UEFA Super Cup is a valid UEFA administered competition and should be added to the list. Niall123 15:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

 * dont be silly, its not a competition its ONE MATCH between two teams? .I will be deleting the uefa super cup section.  It should only include the 3 competitions! I DISAGREE! whole heartedly, this really is so unnecessary. its just one match between two winners of other competitions, it isnt even a real competition, i will delete immediately! I even have statsbook from past years, who always say the 3 major competitions in its european history sections, i havent never seen anyone include the super cup! This is so wrong! its not even a competitive match?! its equilvant of the charity shield, no one counts it! Post was left unsigned but created by Aman555

 * Considering 2 people are for the cup being included and 1 is against why should it be removed ? Its a valid European competition with one winner unlike the Intertoto Cup. Please also don't edit the subtitle which is about adding Supercups. Also, please sign your posts. Niall123 17:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

intertoto cup? whats that got to with anything? i never mentioned it. its not a competition exactly JUST LIKE THE INTERTOTO, it should not be included it was fine how it was and my statbooks i have at home prove that they have the exact same table as it was before that is the real european history not the super cup OR EVEN THE INTERTO CUP, so who cares if it's 2 for and 1 against its just us three who have mentioned this!

 * Wikipedia is an encylopedia based on concencus and correctness. This is a matter of opinion and as it stands the opinion of the majority is to include the Super Cup. Please explain why it isn't a European Cup ?  And again, please sign your posts. Niall123 18:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Just two team play in Super Cup. It is an additional honour, rather than a competitive one. And Intertoto cup just like another qualifying round for UEFA Cup. Matt86hk  talk  18:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

no the majority is now 2-2, i will conitually alter if the super cup keeps appearing saving my work and pasting everytime, it is unnecessary to say the least. very

http://www.answers.com/topic/european-football-records see look what i found, reinforces what i've been saying!

Never in a million years should the super cup be added to the list of european cups, people who think it should be have no clue about football. It's ONE game!! Niall, you should really think about what your saying, dont you realise hardly anyone considers the super cup a major cup, its just a commercial farce of a cup, nobody cares about it. Saying that the super cup is major european trophy is like saying the charity shield is a major domestic trophy!! 81.153.10.209 16:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO is necessary add European Super Cup. Is a valid UEFA cup. --SγωΩηΣ tαlk 18:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone (talk • contribs)

Can I ask why the European Super Cup and the Intercontinental Cup are considered/acknowledged at the bottom of the page but not at the top? They are both recognised by UEFA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.250.141 (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't Know. I agree with you. Inter-Cities Fairs Cup was not recognised by UEFA (I think), but is considered in this article!! --SγωΩηΣ tαlk 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone (talk • contribs)

INTER CITIES CUP
REINSTATE IT, ITS THE UEFA CUP FOOLS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.110.222 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 July 2007

It was the UEFA Cup, idiots. I will be editing it in everytime it is replaced! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.110.222 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 13 July 2007

 * No, it's not the UEFA Cup. Entry for the Fairs' Cup was unrelated to final placings in national competitions and only clubs from European cities that hosted trade fairs were eligible. Uefa didn't organize the Fairs Cup and they don't even recognize it as a major European trophy. Basically it's the equivalent of the Intertoto Cup. And no one cares about the Intertoto Cup. BestEditorEver 12:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Cheers for ignoring this discussion. Anyway, the Fairs Cup was organized by trade fairs in seven European cities played by professional and, in its first editions, amateur clubs. Even though it was replaced by the UEFA Cup, the set-up and quality of the participants were different from its successor, and, more importantly, Uefa no longer recognizes the Fairs Cup as an official European tournament. On page 23 of this uefa.com pdf file (opens as html), for instance, it states that the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is not regarded as a Uefa competition. So why should their stats be incorporated into an article that ranks the winners of the three main Uefa competitions?

 * My suggestion is to add the Fairs Cup history, but separately included for information purposes only, just like on the uefa.com page. BestEditorEver 07:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I must admit, I treat the UEFA Cup as a direct successor to the Fairs Cup, and would always combine the two for record purposes, in much the same way as I would combine the European Champions Cup and the Champions League. - fchd 08:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the way around this is to have a seperate section to deal with the Fairs Cup, that explains the "non-official" nature of the competition - with references. You could then put in its records, and perhaps show how it affects the overall total. I'm no expert, but if it wasn't the UEFA Cup, it wasn't the UEFA Cup. aLii 08:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As Mr. aLii said, I think the way around this is to have a seperate section to deal with the Fairs Cup, that explains the "non-official" nature of the competition  , Also I add ((Latin Cup)) to non-official competition Saudi9999 08:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

TBF, they are both are together, official records state them as the same. Official records have them combined in terms of history of who won it and combine both records, i see it as the predeccesor. There's no question about it, it should stay in the main record strand.

 * The Uefa website separates Fairs and Uefa Cup winners . BestEditorEver 11:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A separate section looks like a possible solution. Is this table what you guys have in mind?

{| class="wikitable" !Team !European Cup/UEFA Champions League !Cup Winners' Cup !UEFA Cup !Inter Cities Fairs Cup1 !Total BestEditorEver 11:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * For me, I think it's good but make itin another page like: European football records(official/non-official). Don't forget ((Latin Cup)), Saudi9999 14:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think keep it in the same page, don't make a new page me thinks. The Latin Cup shouldn't be in, it's not part of european records official ones e.g in football books. I think either interwine the records or the table shown above, either of those two.

Official records state the uefa cup records are intertwined with the inter citie as its its precedessor.

 * For any one want to add Inter Cities Fairs Cup to offical UEFA competition, He should give us convenced reasons.Saudi9999 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thirty-odd years of precedent is good enough for me. The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup/Fairs Cup/UEFA Cup has always been lumped together as "EC3". - fchd 10:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Uefa does not consider Fairs Cup the same tournament as the Uefa Cup. There's no mention of the three Fairs Cups Barcelona won on the Uefa Barcelona page, nor does the Arsenal page mention the Fairs Cup win of 1970. . Valencia has won both the Fairs and Uefa Cup, yet only the latter is referred to on its Uefa page . They're not the same tournament according to Uefa, simple as. BestEditorEver 10:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with fchd, all throughout its history they have been lumped together, official records state both records together including football history books, it's a predecessor to the uefa cup and that is fact. Simple as that. It has been for 30 odd years now and still is lumped together. Even when mentioning Spain or Italy's european trophy haul on commentary, it says the tally of euro. trophies won with the fairs cup taken into account, how can anyone not count it as a european trophy is beyond me, it is in every team's honours list as a major european trophy won and in every book, including skysports 2005/2006 football book. All the indications lead to the fairs cup being included, simple as that. There is no two ways about it.

 * Mr.fchd you mean that "EC3" is three competitions 1- The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup/ 2-Fairs Cup/ 3-UEFA Cup . I said that's wrong. Because there was not two trophies called: The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and Fairs Cup it's only one. Also,"EC3" means the third european trophy like "EC1" = UEFa Champion League and "EC2" = Cup Winner's Cup. Finally, I can say your reason is not good to make The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup = UEFA Cup. I Hope you understand what I mean. Visit UEFA site, like what said by BestEditorEver. Saudi9999 08:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I mean it was effectively 1 competition, with three different names. It dropped the "Inter-Cities" after a few years, and then became the UEFA Cup in the early 1970s. And yes, "EC3" meant the third tier European Competition. It's still referred to as that by some statisticians even after the dropping of "EC2". - fchd 20:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from labelled the IFC as non-official this or that, it's the european football records page not something official. The IFC is a major honour and seen as this.

 * Try to familiarize yourself with WP:Verifiability. 'Major honour' is a subjective and unsourced claim. In any case, this article deals with Uefa recognized tournaments -- adding the Fairs Cup is already a stretch to me. So could you please stop removing the sentence clarifying that the Fairs Cup is not a Uefa tournament. Here's yet another uefa.com source to back this claim . -- BestEditorEver 10:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, this is european football records, who said anything about major honours its called the european football records. If you have FM or CM the game check the uefa cup history, the fairs cup is added to the uefa cup history. its common knowledge.

 * http://www.uefa.com/uefa/news/kind=1/newsid=2571.html
 * http://www.uefa.com/competitions/supercup/news/kind=32/newsid=447085.html

 * Whose common knowledge are you refering to? Uefa's opinion weighs a bit more than a computer game though. BestEditorEver 12:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, 2 things.

1. The inter-cities cup is taken into account with the countries all-time tally of wins. So stop taking those away, it's a european honour listed in every teams honours list as a honour worth noting, so the ITC should be in the countries tally.

2. Stop acting like a plank.

Thanks.

 * Correct, they are seen by some as a major honor, hence they have their own article. But they're not considered a UEFA tournament, which is what this article is about. -- BestEditorEver 18:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Who says what this article is about? No single editor has the right to dictate the content or scope of any individual article. Consensus (albeit a small consensus in the scheme of things, seems to be against you.) - fchd 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There are three editors who have argued to exclude the Fairs Cup. You and the badly mannered computer gamer are so far for inclusion. More significantly this article is about the winners of the three main competitions run by UEFA, and Uefa didn't organize or recognises the Fairs Cup. Also even if it was only me arguing against the two of you, at least my argument is backed by sources from uefa.com -- BestEditorEver 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, the inter-cities is a european trophy, this is the european football records page, hence it is included. who says this is just a uefa page? it's the european football page, and the inter cities stays.

 * Is is considered the Intercities fairs cup, why not the Martini-Rossi Cup (predecessor of Uefa Super Cup), the Central Europe Cup (predecessor of the Champions Cup in 1930s and 1940s), the Latin Cup of early 1950s, the Rio Cup (recognized by FIFA since March 2007)???
 * The European Inter Cities Fairs Cup, according UEFA.com IS NOT a official UEFA cup, please don't add this in the article. This problem make of wikipedia a NOT serious website! --Dantetheperuvian 23:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pathetic! is the martini rossi cup a major honour listed on teams honours list? NO! is the central europe cup also? NO! same goes for the latin cup and rio cup, all NO. None of them are a major honour listed in teams honours list on wikipedia, OFFICIAL FOOTBALL BOOKS, on Football Manager or other various common things. Only the Inter-citites Cup is known why's that? Because it was a major honour, the preceddesor of the uefa cup.

NEXT!

OK, you want a ref, here's your ref. http://www.uefa.com/Competitions/uefacup/History/index.html

I QUOTE FROM THE SOURCE:

Forerunner

This forerunner to the UEFA Cup, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, was founded on 18 April 1955, two weeks after the founding of the European Champion Clubs’ Cup. The first Fairs Cup involved teams from Barcelona, Basle, Birmingham, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Lausanne, Leipzig, London, Milan and Zagreb. The original tournament lasted three years, with matches timed to coincide with trade fairs. Barcelona, using players purely from FC Barcelona, beat a London representative side 8-2 on aggregate in the final.

Name change

The fifth of these was in 1971/72, won by Tottenham Hotspur FC, and the first to be known as the UEFA Cup. The change of name was recognition of the fact the competition was now run by UEFA and no longer associated with the trade fairs. During the 1970s German, Dutch, Belgian and Swedish sides began to successfully compete with the English and between 1968 and 1984 only one team from the south – Juventus FC in 1977 – managed to disrupt the dominance of the northern Europeans.

LOOK AT THAT, "NAME CHANGE" I wonder what that means. It has been on wikipedia for years and suddenly it becomes changed? no, it stays. (Fadiga09 19:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

 * HERE, in this uefa.com pdf file (opens as html) says: Inter Cities Fairs Cup and 1972 Super Cup ARE NOT recognized by UEFA. IT'S a UEFA official text, fool! That says also Champions Magazine and Champions of Europe 1955-2005 book, both edits by UEFA and UEFA is BETTER SOURCE than "mypage.co.uk", "soccernosequechuchasea", and others, he he.
 * --Dantetheperuvian 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You misread my post, i discredited your pathetic post about all those other trophies you mentioned. They dont have the same credence as the inter-cities cup in relation to the uefa cup.

 * You should read Civility. -- BestEditorEver 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. (Fadiga09 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm posting here without reading the above arguments, but here goes: The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is NOT the same thing as the UEFA Cup. The UEFA Cup may have been created as a replacement for the ICFC, having the same structure, but the entry criteria are different and the UEFA Cup is run by UEFA, while the ICFC was not. - PeeJay 23:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the references cited above I'm including the third paragraph in this uefa.com article. Uefa recognizes three clubs to have won all three Uefa tournaments. As you will see this trio does not include Barcelona despite winning the Champions League, Cup Winners Cup and the Fairs Cup. These references are evident that Uefa does not count the Fairs Cup results as Uefa competition. Including them as if they were, like Richard Rundle and Fadiga03 have been doing, is POV pushing and original research. -- BestEditorEver 08:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am with Richard Rundle and Fadiga03. The Fairs Cup is generally recognised as an early version of the UEFA Cup. UEFA even state this on their website and therefore it is not "original research" or "POV pushing" to say so. Note that the History article on UEFA's website (and therefore 100% official) refers to the difference between the Fairs Cup and the UEFA Cup as being merely a "Name change". Not a new or different tournament, but merely a new title. We do not count the European Cup and Champions League as two different tournaments, so why do so for the UEFA Cup? Number   5  7  10:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned this before, but no-one is denying that the Fairs is the forerunner of the Uefa Cup. On the same website you cite, however, Uefa state they do not consider the Fairs Cup results a part of clubs' European record . Also note that Uefa only lists the Uefa Cup winners on the ref you cite, no Fairs Cup winners are included. -- BestEditorEver 10:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So at best UEFA are inconsistent with their approach to the trophy's history. Thus it is up to us editors to come to some form of consensus about whether the Fairs Cup is the same thing. Perhaps a straight vote on the issue might be best to gauge opinion. Number   5  7  11:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hardly Original Research, it's the way that European football statistics have been collated for decades - EC1 = European Cup/Champions League, EC2 = European Cup Winners' Cup, EC3 = Inter-Cities Faris Cup/Fairs Cup/UEFA Cup. - fchd 11:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (reply to Number 57) I don't agree Uefa is inconsistent. They only list Uefa Cup winners on their Uefa history page and clarify they don't count Fairs Cup results as Uefa on another history page. I do agree a vote would be the best way to solve this deadlock. -- BestEditorEver 11:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have anything new to add, number 27 has said is pretty much. But, i will anyway.

1. The links already been shown my number 27, but as said "forerunner" and "name change" is evident in its self, it means the results are related the competition is the same.

2. I have these two football books at home, one a Sky Sports 05/06 book the fairs cup and uefa cup results have been related in their european pages. I also have another one on the history of european football, its an old issue dated 1996, relevant none the less. On one page it shows the all-time country performance as it stand on 1996, Spain's fairs cup wins have been included and used as UEFA Cup results and added to their country tally.

3. Everyone has the Championship Manager/Football Manager games, doesn't matter which one from CM 1994 to FM 2007, go to the UEFA CUP page go to the history part and at the bottom the fairs cup results are there with the UEFA Cup results, go to either Valencia or Barcelona's individual pages and it reads "UEFA CUP WINNERS" 1962, 1963, 2004 and repeat for Barcelona's too.

4. To a lesser extent this, but on two football forums it reads under Valencia's and Zaragoza's names "3 UEFA CUPS" and repeat for Zaragoza "1 UEFA CUP" http://www.xtratime.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=122. On the second forum, it reads the same for Barcelona and Valencia. "3 UEFA CUP'S" http://www.xtremefootballfans.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79

5. http://www.uefa.com/competitions/uefacup/history/index.html This quote says it all: "The fifth of these was in 1971/72, won by Tottenham Hotspur FC, and the first to be known as the UEFA Cup." The fifth of these? they obviously regard the fairs cup as results if they say "the fifth one". I see no reason for this change, why now after all these years they have stayed the same on wikipedia? Pointless.(Fadiga09 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

The Fairs Cup in 1955 was much different to what it was by 1971, but the 1971-2 UEFA Cup was organised more or less identically to the 1970-1 Fairs Cup (ie 64 clubs in 6 knockout rounds). The UEFA Cup is clearly the same competition though organised by a different committee. That is, a competition for leading sides in each European country that have not qualified for either of the other 2 competitions, with from 1 to 5 qualifiers from each nation.

Exile 15:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Due to the long-running edit war, I have protected this article and three others where the same UEFA Cup/ Fairs Cup dispute is occurring. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version (see The Wrong Version). As for all four articles the dispute is identical, I suggest discussion ought to take place on one page to help keep track. This page seems the most suitable place, as there is already some discussion on the matter here. Oldelpaso 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey
This is survey to help gauge the degree of consensus on the subject of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and UEFA Cup. Should the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup results be integrated with UEFA Cup's on the following articles: UEFA Cup, UEFA Cup records and statistics, UEFA Cup finals, European football records?

For a discussion on the subject see and.

Please add # Support or  # Oppose on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~. Extended commentary could be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion". -- BestEditorEver 12:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey votes - Support integrating Inter Cities Fairs Cup results with UEFA Cup
(Fadiga09 18:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
 * 1) Support UEFA website admits here it is just a name change. Number   5  7  12:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - this has been standard practice when collating football statistics for decades. - fchd 12:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Well, i have nothing new to add i see no point in putting all my points together again here, everything i need to say is in my last entry above, 5 solid points proving the Fairs Cup was the Uefa Cup. And, as Richard said everyone knows the two results have been collated ever since the name change.
 * 1) Support - in 1971 UEFA merely took over an existing competition and gave it a new name. Most statistics books or sites list the Fairs and UEFA results together whilst noting the change of name/organiser in 1971.Exile 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The Fairs Cup was the UEFA CUP, There is no any difference between the edition of 1971 and that of 1972, and both are official competitions. UEFA Only it recognizes tilts organized by it, for example recognizes the intercontinental cup bur no world cup clubs because is a FIFA competition and both are a continuation.--Sporting1905 (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey votes - Oppose integrating Inter Cities Fairs Cup results with UEFA Cup

 * 1) Oppose - The UEFA Cup, UEFA Cup finals, UEFA Cup records and statistics and European football records articles describe the competitions run by UEFA. UEFA did not run the Fairs Cup and does not consider their results part of clubs' European record as stated on their UEFA Cup: All-time finals page. And to illustrate the discrepancy between Wikipedia and UEFA: according to Wikipedia FC Barcelona has won three UEFA Cups, while UEFA mentions no UEFA (nor Fairs) Cup wins on their Barcelona page. -- BestEditorEver 12:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) Oppose - Barça won the Fairs Cup 3 times and in FC Barcelona Offical site, it include this trophy as  Fair Cup  not UEFA Cup here--> FC Barcelona Football Trophies, and also as BestEditorEver said, the UEFA site does not include  Fair Cup  as name UEFA Cup.--Saudi9999 17:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

UEFA.com is primary source
 * 1) Oppose - Fairs Cup is not recognized by UEFA as "UEFA official tournament". UEFA.com is primary source for one "encyclopedia" like this. --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Fairs Cup is not recognized by UEFA as "UEFA official tournament". Also why we didn't consider that Uefa Cup Winners's Cup with Uefa Cup when official site say that Cup Winners's Cup stopped and merge with Uefa Cup. --Life alone (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) Oppose - It's clear for the mind that Fairs Cup isn't UEFA Cup, All statistics in UEFA site does not include this trophy. --Worldboy13 (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) Oppose - It is clear that the Fairs Cup and the UEFA Cup are distinct competitions. When UEFA began running the UEFA Cup from 1971 onwards, they replaced the trophy itself and expanded the number of countries participating. The fact that the Fairs Cup does not appear in any UEFA club records should be proof alone that UEFA do not consider the competitions to be contiguous, and so they should be treated separately. Heracles2008 (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 * 1) Oppose - This is a serious encyclopedia and we must put OFFICIAL things. Uefa doesn´t recognize Fairs Cup as official so it´s a different cup (unofficial). Uefa cup IS OFFICIAL and its records starts in 1971/1972, NOT in 1955. It´s simple. We shouldn´t put "thoughts" or "feelings" in the records of those articles. "Apples with apples and potatoes with potatoes"... Fairs Cup records by one hand, and Uefa Cup records by the other; as Uefa.com shows in their official website.--Ultracanalla (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 * 1) Oppose - UEFA Cup is a formal competition with formal records. UEFA Cup is own by UEFA. UEFA doesn't consider Fairs Cup records (just read the section "Fairs Cup" in |this page from UEFA.com). Simple, Wikipedia should follow what UEFA says.--ClaudioMB (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:

Have a question and I couldn't find the answer on Consensus nor Straw polls. Are we allowed to respond to the comments in the votes section? -- BestEditorEver 14:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to respond to comments (i.e. engage in the discussion) in the "discussion" section. Just indicate whose comment you're replying to. Conscious 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thought so. Thanks for confirming. -- BestEditorEver 17:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

 * in reply to Number 57: I find your wording questionable. Uefa did not "admit" to anything as far as I can tell. Also note how the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup winners are not included on their Uefa Cup history page. -- BestEditorEver 17:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So at best, UEFA are inconsistent in how they classify the Fairs/UEFA Cup, and that they do not rule out it being the same competition. More than anything, I put that there are a retort to your use of UEFA sources as "proof" that your viewpoint is correct. Number   5  7  17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just it, you appear to be a reasonable individual so I don't understand why you so easily ignore the fact that Uefa does not include Fairs Cup results on any of their clubs' pages and state on different pages that the Fairs is not part of the Uefa Cup? Just look at the legend for their all-time statistics if you will . It's so clear to me, I must say I don't understand this fuss in the least. Even posting a notify on wp:talk football gets a pouty reaction from someone.

 * Another editor posted a link on the Uefa Cup talk page recently (Fadiga09 reverted the message without explaining why . It is considered vandalism to delete opposing but valid comments from talk pages and it's not the first time he has done this). Footballdatabase is a widely used link on Wikipedia, they too leave out Fairs Cup from Uefa statistics, as do Soccerbase and Soccerstats. Apparently separating them is a more common practice than some of you would like me to believe. -- BestEditorEver 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We're all going round in circles. This discussion is adding nothing to the debate. Let's just leave the straw poll to come to an outcome. - fchd 07:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's rather convenient of you to say, especially cos my previous comment counters your uncited argument. -- BestEditorEver 08:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem like a reasonable editor too, so why do you so easily ignore the fact that UEFA say it is a name change? You cannot use UEFA as proof as they provide evidence for both sides of the argument being correct. Instead, as I said above, it is up to us editors to agree rather than relying on a contradictory source as proof. So far it looks like you are the only one arguing to separate the two. 10:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Number 57 (talk • contribs)

 * Also, note my fifth point. That quote says it all. (Fadiga09 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

 * Exactly, the word "name change" says it all. Also, note my fifth point. That's all the proof you need. (Fadiga09 18:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

 * in reply to Richard: Maybe those unidentified sources have lumped the two tournaments together; an encyclopedia however cannot decide for Uefa which results they have to consider their own. -- BestEditorEver 17:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative to drawing lines in the sand and arguing about them perhaps we could list the things which everyone does agree about? A compromise solution should be possible for this article, though for UEFA Cup finals it is more difficult. Oldelpaso 09:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Now why would I want to form consensus with a couple no-source POV-pushers, yourself included? No, the insignificant reason for the POV pushing (upping the english uefa cup tally, no doubt) amuses me. Keep it up. -- BestEditorEver 12:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

 * UEFA NOT recognize the Inter cities Fairs Cup (See UEFA.com PDF archives, history of UEFA Cup, UEFA Cup Badge of Honour, UEFA Champions Magazine,
 * UEFA.com is primary source, Planetsoccer, myfavoriteteam.com)... NOT! --Dantetheperuvian 19:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

More proof: via Martin Tyler and Skysports. http://www.skysports.com/experts/expert_story/0,19793,12038_2929884,00.html

I quote:

"EURO TREBLE Hi Martin, I would like to know if Arsenal win the Champions League this season, will they become the first team to have won the Uefa Treble i.e. The Uefa Cup, The European Cup and The Cup Winners Cup? Thanks, Hamza Mohamed MARTIN SAYS: That is still a long, long way away Hamza, but even if Arsene Wenger did guide Arsenal to that elusive Champions League victory this season they wouldn't be the first club to do that treble. In fact, four other European giants have done it, remembering of course that the Inter-City Fairs Cup was of course the precursor to the UEFA Cup, so that comes into the equation as well. Those four clubs are Juventus, Ajax, Bayern Munich and Barcelona. Juve were the first, winning the Fairs Cup in 1965, the Cup Winners' Cup in 1984 and the Champions League - or European Cup as it was known then - in 1985. Ajax, who won three European Cups between 1971 and 1973, went on to win the Cup Winners' Cup in 1987, but had to wait until 1992 for the clean sweep and their only UEFA Cup win. Barcelona were also Fairs Cup winners back in 1966, won the Cup Winners' Cup in 1979, but had to wait until 1992 for European Cup success. The fourth side to have done the clean sweep are Bayern, who like Ajax did it a different way round, winning the Cup Winners' Cup in 1967 and then three straight European Cups between 1974 and 1976 but then had to wait another 20 years to complete the treble with a 1996 UEFA Cup win."

I have bolded a part you may find interesting, and of course reading the whole reply too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs)

 * Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes to know who you are.
 * This page is about opinion of someone but not primary source for our discussion. But oficially that Juventus Football Club is the first club in the history of European football to have won all three major European tournaments and has received in 1987 The UEFA Plaque by the Union of the European Football Associations (UEFA).
 * see FIFA Classic Clubs: Juventus FC I quote:
 * Juventus were the first club to win three different European titles (Champions League, Cup Winners' Cup and UEFA Cup).
 * Other source from UEFA.com European club competitions recognized by UEFA (page 23) I quote:
 * UEFA club competitions: These are the official statistics considered valid for communicating official records in UEFA club competitions defined as the European Champion Clubs' Cup, the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, the UEFA Cup, the UEFA Super Cup (from the 1973 competition), the UEFA Intertoto Cup and the European/South American Cup. The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is not regarded as a UEFA competition but statistics are separately included for information purposes.

Look at bolded words from official site (UEFA.com)
 * Another thing that you said : Name Changed but not only the also the system of the tournment and let more countries to play, so it may seem to former one but we can't put it with UEFA Cup.--Saudi9999 15:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It maybe an opinion (a large opinion now it seems) but it just goes to prove the general consensu towards this argument (Fadiga09 16:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

 * For evrybody who wants to participate, I recommend to enter in the Talk of UEFA CUP page here and give your opinion there too.

 * See you, --Ultracanalla (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * For anyone, just read the below statement extracted from UEFA.com:
 * "The UEFA Cup replaced the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in the 1971/72 season. The list of finals from that competition are listed below, but please note that the Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their European record." Source
 * More clear than that, impossible.
 * --ClaudioMB (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of sockpuppets
After a further checkuser, I have blocked User:Matrixbucra, User:Barryisland and User:Forza Deano as sockpuppets of User:Fadiga09 and informed him that any other use of accounts other than the main one will result in an indefinite block. Black Kite 00:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairs Cup should be included in this article
I can just about understand the exclusion from the Uefa Cup records and stats article but not this one, it's more than relevant. It's a major european trophy, just because UEFA weren't there when it was played doesn't mean it's not a European trophy, a major one that. There's already an article for UEFA tournaments, but this article is about European trophies, and there's no way anyone can doubt Fairs Cup was a major european trophy and that it is included in all clubs honours list from Wikipedia to any source of football history, it's always on their major honours list, undeniably. Also like this article shows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_in_England#Most_successful_clubs_overall_.281888_-_present.29 about English football history, the Fairs Cup is included as major trophies won by English clubs, and seeing as this is a European football records article it should be included, why is it not included in an actual European footballs article but is included in a English football history article? It is a relevant European trophy listed in clubs major honours list and it should be recognised in this article, remember an UEFA competition records already exists, so this is for all European football records.

(Fadiga09 (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

 * I'm totally against mixing Fairs Cup and UEFA Cup, but Fairs Cup was a European tournament and should be presented. Maybe the two articles should be merged, using European football records name (UEFA competition records linking to that) and using the content of UEFA competition records, adding a column to Fairs Cup and another one to a total including Fairs Cup. --ClaudioMB (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what i suggested, i don't intend to mix the UEFA Cup with the Fairs Cup, i just intend to add a column with the Fairs Cup shown, it's relevant and it seems bizarre that if someone looks at a European football records article not to see the Fairs Cup there. But i think a simpler way would be to keep the two articles seperate and just add a Fairs Cup column to this article. (Fadiga09 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

 * Even though will be a harder work to merge both articles, I still believe that is the right way to go. It doesn't make any sense to have those records duplicated. So, my PoV still to add Fairs Cup but merge both articles.--ClaudioMB (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 * My 2p worth is that the competition is exactly the same, just a name change, so it definitely needs to be included in this article. - fchd (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I am with Claudio. I am against the inclusion of the Fairs Cup records in this article. Look at the Uefa´s official sentence about the records : "The Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their European record" ¿Is UEFA wrong?

 * --Ultracanalla (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Claudio is for the inclusion of the Fairs Cup ;) Read back his post. So, so far it's just you (not surprised) that is against the inclusion in this article. And your bolded part is hilarious for the simple reason the Fairs Cup is always included in major honours lists of clubs in Wikipedia, the linked i posted above and any records sources you can find, from books etc. Fairs is one of 4 major european competitions and should be relevant and recognised here. This is not a UEFA Cup article, this is a European football records article. (Fadiga09 (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

In response to Claudio, i'm all for a merger of both articles, the reason i don't think a merger will take place is because of people like Ultracantella here, people who seem to swear by UEFA, so they don't want them mixed apparantly. Also another reason i don't think a merger should take place is because the UEFA Competition Records page has all the trophies listed, even insignificant ones like Intertoto and Super Cup, i thin a seperate one is needed for only REAL competitions, not one off games. So, i think the best solution i think is the UEFA Competition records stay as the same and this European football records page have the 4 major competitions together. {Fadiga09 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

 * Keeping both articles is a begin. Maybe later we could merge them. If you want to add a column for Fairs Cup, you will have my support. But, it will be good to have, on the top of this article, an explanation about which competitions are included in this article and why, and a link to UEFA competition records. --ClaudioMB (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all of that, i didn't think this needed much confirming, but with my previous record on here it was only viable to discuss it first. (Fadiga09 (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Just found a mesage posted by someone else before and it has some important quotes in it: -

Having come to read the articles and thus read the discussions, as a football fan I must strongly disagree with this idea that the Intercity Fairs Cup and the UEFA cup are "completely different", because that shows a lack of common sense over what is little more than a change of formats. UEFA themselves cannot register the 2 as one competition for technical reasons, but it is more than simply a matter of successer tournaments. One of the links given (http://www.uefa.com/Competitions/uefacup/History/index.html) underlines this fact, particularly with the section :

"In 1968 Leeds United AFC became the first northern European club to win the trophy, heralding a run of six successive wins by English clubs.

Name change The fifth of these was in 1971/72, won by Tottenham Hotspur FC, and the first to be known as the UEFA Cup. The change of name was recognition of the fact the competition was now run by UEFA and no longer associated with the trade fairs."

The competition was taken over by UEFA, rather than simply created. In football circles, they are both considered the same lineage and thus clubs who have won the Intercity Fairs Cup count it under UEFA cups. In practice, it's no different to the European Cup changing it's name, format, qualification rules and trophy to become the Champions League. I undersand for technical reasons the UEFA and Intercity cups must be put in seperate articles, but they are NOT totally seperate, and I don't see why Wikipedia can't follow the standard practice of football and simply have "Intercity Fairs cup/UEFA cup" for clubs whose honours list have won either to keep in the spirit of the competition, whilst still maintaining the seperate articles for more detailed descriptions and discussions. --

Not saying that they should be combined, but this more than proves the Fairs Cup worth, especially those quotes. (Fadiga09 (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes, in my opinion Inter Fairs Cup shuold appear in this article, its the C3 since 1955 at 1971. --Sporting1905 (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And the Intertoto?
Isn´t Intertoto Cup an European official cup? Why it isn´t included in the article?

--Ultracanalla (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely your not serious? That's a qualifying cup, we are talking about major tournaments here, no Super Cups or anything, only competitions, major ones. (Fadiga09 (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

 * Major for who??? It´s your opinion. UEFA says that European Super Cups and Intertoto are official and they figure in their records... Why must we get them out?

 * --Ultracanalla (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Get them out? They were never in, and do you ever use common sense? This is a records page for major competitions, common sense obviously tells anyone that the Intertoto is just a qualifying tournament with up to 8 winners a year and that the Super Cup is a one off game. You can leave all your pointless cups for the UEFA Competitions records, this is for the 4 major european competitions only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok, you are right. But I will say that I don´t see the point to have an article for the UEFA Competition records and another for European football records... It´s useless. This page (European footba...) has no reason to stay. So do what you want. This page is uncomplete at all and doesn´t mark anything. --Ultracanalla (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not incomplete? Why is it, it shows all the 4 competitions, that UEFA Competition records is for all UEFA organised trophies, inc. Super Cup, Intertoto and Intercontinental Cup. Both have their relevance. I think it is right to have a record on Wikipedia showing the strength of the European clubs, that UEFA article is not consistent and has teams with Intertoto's and Super Cups gaining them more pointless numbers next to their name, this article is for the real tournaments taken place over FULL seasons. (Fadiga09 (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

 * I´m not agree, because we will have two different records... The only records that matters are the official ones. UEFA´s records, COMPLETE records...

 * --Ultracanalla (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? So you don't want the Fairs Cup in any record do you? Interesting, your probably the only one who deems the Fairs Cup so insignificant that it never existed, all quotes and such lead to the Fairs Cup being a trophy that was a pre-cursor to the UEFA Cup and that mattered, read the quotes above, to stricken the Fairs Cup from any European record is ludicrous and no one else does this. It's an enclyclopedia and what's that meant to show to people not in the know of football? To partial viewers they would need to see the european records of football, and the Fairs Cup is undoubtably that, i'm still hesistant to even stricken it from the UEFA Cup records but it seems like that ship has sailed, but to stricken it from the European records is totally bizarre and i'm afraid you'd be fighting a losing battle on that one, i'd be surprised if anyone agreed to that. The Fairs Cup needs to be recognised and shown, it's relevant, simple as that. (Fadiga09 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

 * Oh, Fadiga, sorry for destroying your huge dreams to include this unofficial cup in every article related to UEFA Cup... Don´t cry anymore about that, Fadiga...

 * And please don´t start another edit warring in the UEFA Cup article, because they will bolck you and your stockpuppets for a looooong loooong time... --Ultracanalla (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, you can do an IP check, that's not my sockpuppet, that's just some insignificant random. And it's not edit warring, i thought it wasn't merged, but you provided a source, end. Your definition of edit warring must be something else.(Fadiga09 (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

 * Intertoto is recognized by UEFA as UEFA Competition. UEFA recognize Intercities Fairs Cup as antecessor, but not recognize its records, statistics and trophies. See UEFA.com. --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul has 63?
I'm pretty sure Raul still has 61 goals scored in europe NOT 63 to tie with Pippo.--Muppeteer (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at this source UEFA.com, before last year UCL final, tell us Raul has 58 goals in UEFA club competition. So, with this year gaols (5 goals) it will be 63 goals.

title: Talk:European football records


text:
Cohomotopy set

In mathematics, particularly algebraic topology, cohomotopy sets are particular contravariant functors from the category of pointed topological spaces and basepoint-preserving continuous maps to the category of sets and functions. They are dual to the homotopy groups, but less studied.

Overview
The p-th cohomotopy set of a pointed topological space X is defined by

 * $$\pi^p(X) = [X,S^p]$$

the set of pointed homotopy classes of continuous mappings from $$X$$ to the p-sphere $$S^p$$.

For p = 1 this set has an abelian group structure, and is called the Bruschlinsky group. Provided $$X$$ is a CW-complex, it is isomorphic to the first cohomology group $$H^1(X)$$, since the circle $$S^1$$ is an Eilenberg–MacLane space of type $$K(\mathbb{Z},1)$$.

A theorem of Heinz Hopf states that if $$X$$ is a CW-complex of dimension at most p, then $$[X,S^p]$$ is in bijection with the p-th cohomology group $$H^p(X)$$.

The set $$[X,S^p]$$ also has a natural group structure if $$X$$ is a suspension $$\Sigma Y$$, such as a sphere $$S^q$$ for $$q \ge 1$$.

If X is not homotopy equivalent to a CW-complex, then $$H^1(X)$$ might not be isomorphic to $$[X,S^1]$$. A counterexample is given by the Warsaw circle, whose first cohomology group vanishes, but admits a map to $$S^1$$ which is not homotopic to a constant map.

Properties
Some basic facts about cohomotopy sets, some more obvious than others:

 * $$\pi^p(S^q) = \pi_q(S^p)$$ for all p and q.
 * For $$q= p + 1$$ and $$p > 2$$, the group $$\pi^p(S^q)$$ is equal to $$\mathbb{Z}_2$$. (To prove this result, Lev Pontryagin developed the concept of framed cobordism.)
 * If $$f,g\colon X \to S^p$$ has $$\|f(x) - g(x)\| < 2$$ for all x, then $$[f] = [g]$$, and the homotopy is smooth if f and g are.
 * For $$X$$ a compact smooth manifold, $$\pi^p(X)$$ is isomorphic to the set of homotopy classes of smooth maps $$X \to S^p$$; in this case, every continuous map can be uniformly approximated by a smooth map and any homotopic smooth maps will be smoothly homotopic.
 * If $$X$$ is an $$m$$-manifold, then $$\pi^p(X)=0$$ for $$p > m$$.
 * If $$X$$ is an $$m$$-manifold with boundary, the set $$\pi^p(X,\partial X)$$ is canonically in bijection with the set of cobordism classes of codimension-p framed submanifolds of the interior $$X \setminus \partial X$$.
 * The stable cohomotopy group of $$X$$ is the colimit
 * $$\pi^p_s(X) = \varinjlim_k{[\Sigma^k X, S^{p+k}]}$$
 * which is an abelian group.

History
Cohomotopy sets were introduced by Karol Borsuk in 1936. A systematic examination was given by Edwin Spanier in 1949. The stable cohomotopy groups were defined by Franklin P. Peterson in 1956.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Cohomotopy set


text:
Talk:Homotopy group

It would be quite useful if the maps defining the long exact sequence of a fibration were intuitively defined.

Celso M Doria =================================

Hey, you... I think Homotopy groups is a more appropriate page, and this one can be a redirect, yes?

We need to fix a whole lot of links now, either way.

 * It has been homology group, for a long time. By the way, moving a page does create a redirect.

 * Charles Matthews 12:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It's my understanding that the convention is to always use the singular unless there is some compelling reason to use the plural. For example, a compelling reason would be "orthogonal polynomials"; here you must have the plural because the definition of the term doesn't make sense for a single polynomial. In this case, although the homotopy groups are often studied all at once collectively, the object of "a homotopy group" is meaningful and not nonsensical, so I think this is best. Revolver 07:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Equivalent spheres in a space are ... what?
From the article:
 * The many different ways to (continuously) map an n-dimensional sphere into a given space are collected into equivalence classes, called homotopy classes. Two mappings are homotopy equivalent if one can be continuously deformed into the other.

(Emphasis added.) Aren't they homotopic, rather than homotopy equivalent? (See Homotopy for definition of homotopy equivalent.)  —msh210 19:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Definitely should be homotopic; I have changed it.
 * Neil Strickland (a topologist) 19:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right, maps are homotopic, spaces homotopy equivalent. Charles Matthews 20:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recursive definition
It would be nice to see also the recursive definition via loop space. I am lazy and wiki-ignorant to do it myself :) me 21:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Braid Groups
There was a paper recently published that gave all the homotopy groups of S^2 (and therefore S^3 by the Hopf fibration) in terms of braid groups, but I have neither the link onhand nor the patience of read the whole way through to see if it actually counts as an explicit classification or what. It was linked recently on Baez's site, so it shouldn't be difficult to find if someone more knowledgeable wants to edit the page (which currently states that no classification of pi_n S^m, m > 1 exists). --98.212.191.4 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sphere groups
The Hopf fibration should be mentioned as it is useful for calculating homotopy groups of the sphere.

Topology Expert (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Categories
Reference to categories at the this level of exposition is an unnecessary complication and adds nothing to the exposition. One needs merely say that one can study topological spaces and their functions by associating topological spaces to groups and group homomorphisms. Is the group of integers simpler than the torus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.193.180 (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuous mappings?
If 1-homotopy is the group that is used to defined simply connected, then supposedly we are talking about the group of continuous mappings from S^1 to X, not just any mappings, right? This is probably implicit to topologists, not to casual readers like myself. DomQ (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Topological spaces with differing homotopy groups are never equivalent (homeomorphic), but the converse is not true.
Isn't there something wrong here? I think this should be other way around as follows:

"All homeomorphism of a topological space have the same homotopy groups but the converse is not true." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.135.219 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Homotopy group


text:
User:Topbanana/Reports/This page contains the text of msg:stub

Report discontinued

Subsequent generations of this report have not brought up any new entries. It's easy enough to run on an ad-hoc basis every year or so, but generating it weekly is just not worth the effort.

- TB 11:07, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

See also: List of stubs without msg


text:
User:G.M.

I'm a Scandinavian man interested in many things, e.g. clothes and fashion. I see Wikipedia not only as an interactive dictionary but also as a place where human nature can be studied through the way which people interact and write together.

title: User:G.M.


text:
Talk:Buddhist symbolism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amcbayy. Peer reviewers: Annaybanez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MicahDMillan. Peer reviewers: Dionytra.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
The external link to http://www.fpmt-osel.org/ cannot be found, at least not as of right now. It might be a temporary problem, but it should be checked again later. --65.146.234.124 09:37, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Im pretty sure Hindu and Bushootoofj djfkasdjf;lkasdjf a'lsdkfjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjddhist swastikas have always been left-facing.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

three part yin/yang
There is also sometimes seen a three part yin/yang, what does that signify? Chris 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'three part yin-yang' symbol which you have seen exists in many cultures. It is used widely in several Buddhist countries, including Tibet hotdog it is called the Gankyil, China, Korea where it is called the Sam-Taegeuk and Japan, where it is called 'mitsudomoe'. Its three comma-like sections can represent many things, as many important Buddhist teachings have three aspects. For example, it may represent the Three Jewels of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Alternatively, it may represent the Three marks of existence -- impermanence (Anicca), non-self (Anatta) and unsatisfactoriness/suffering (dukkha). In Tibetan Buddhism, its three segments may represent what is called the 'Three Turnings of the Wheel', a concept not accepted by the Theravada or other Mahayana traditions. It also may represent the Three Roots in Tibetan Buddhism. Moreover, its design gives the appearance of motion, hence its popularity as a centrepiece for the Dharmachakra, the Wheel of the Law.

--Jeong Hwa-Yong (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

However, for the future, the purpose of the talk page is not general discussion of the article subject. Would people like to see the triple-swirl included in the Buddhist symbolism page?

--Jeong Hwa-Yong (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

seems that buddist symbolism pre dates buddha some 1500 years - could that ment to have said 210bc!!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.4.176 (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC) HI! I just randomly edited this part {110111010001} I don't get none of this :? bye (-.-) =^.^=

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Buddhist symbolism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060206092517/http://www.meditateinlondon.org.uk:80/buddhist-symbols.php to http://www.meditateinlondon.org.uk/buddhist-symbols.php

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Buddhist symbolism. 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/20040626064000/http://www.mandala.hr:80/5/relations.html to http://www.mandala.hr/5/relations.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040923055530/http://www.dailynews.lk:80/2003/06/04/fea06.html to http://www.dailynews.lk/2003/06/04/fea06.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.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Beneficiary Additions
Suggestions to improve the quality of this article: After carefully reviewing this article, I believe that even though this article is accurate information, it has no citations to back it up and thinking to myself I can't help but wonder that if someone without any knowledge of Buddhism were to read this, they wouldn't know if this article is credible or not. There are only 7 sources (2 of them don't even work) for all of this information, therefore, adding more citations and credible based sources would definitely help out the content in this article. Kerenefernandez (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cintamanicakra (Ruyilun Guanyin) - Jade Buddha Temple; Shanghai, China.jpg

Wiki Education assignment: Honors World Religions
— Assignment last updated by Jad Mada (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Buddhist symbolism


text:
User:Topbanana/Reports/This page contains the text of msg:disambig

Report discontinued

Subsequent generations of this report have not brought up any new entries. It's easy enough to run on an ad-hoc basis every year or so, but generating it weekly is just not worth the effort.

- TB 11:07, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

See also: List of disambiguation pages without msg


text:
Dave Harold

David Harold (born 9 December 1966) is an English former professional snooker player from Stoke-on-Trent. He was known by the nicknames of "the Hard Man" and "the Stoke Potter" (conflating his home city's pottery industry and his profession of potting snooker balls). He was also the first player on the television circuit to sport a plaster on his chin as a guide for his cue, which is a practice now adopted by Graeme Dott. As an amateur he played as David Harold, but after turning professional in 1991 he was registered as Dave Harold. He won one ranking title, reached two further finals and several semi-finals, and spent four seasons ranked among the top 16. Harold was renowned for both his very strong defensive play and his unusual cue-action, with which he is able to unleash a great deal of power on a shot without using backswing on the cue. Despite safety play ultimately being considered his strong point, he compiled 143 century breaks. Steve Davis has commented that he is not the most naturally gifted player, but makes up for this with strong tactical play. For his technique and grinding play he has been compared to Cliff Thorburn.

Early career
Soon after turning professional, Harold won the 1993 Asian Open, beating Darren Morgan 9–3 in the final. Ranked 93rd in the world at the time, he became the lowest-ranked player ever to win a ranking tournament. He never repeated this achievement, although he reached his second ranking final in the 1994 Grand Prix, losing 6–9 to John Higgins.

Top 16 (1996–2002)
After 1994, Harold did not reach a third ranking final until 2008, although he reached a total of ten semi-finals in ranking tournaments, and was a Top-16 player for four seasons between 1995/1996 and 2001/2002, reaching a career-best position of No. 11 in the world rankings in the 1996/97 season. In the 1996 Welsh Open, he lost in the semi-finals, 1–6, to eventual winner Mark Williams.

He competed in his first and only World Championship quarter-final in the 1996 event, where he lost 7–13 to Nigel Bond. He also lost 5–6 to Bond in his 1996 British Open semi-final less than two weeks earlier.

In the 1998 Grand Prix, he knocked out Stephen Hendry and John Higgins en route to the semi-finals, but lost narrowly to eventual champion Stephen Lee. 1998 also saw him reach his first semi-final in the UK Championship, where he was defeated 9–7 by Matthew Stevens.

In the 1999 Grand Prix Harold led Mark Williams 5–3 in the semi-finals but lost 5–6. This was Harold's last ranking semi-final until 2008, although he also reached the semis in the non-ranking 2001 Masters, defeating John Higgins and John Parrott, but losing his semi-final 5–6 to eventual runner-up Fergal O'Brien after having trailed 5–1.

2003–2015
Following a poor season in 2001–2002, Harold dropped out of the Top 16, down to number 29 in the World Rankings. A broken wrist sustained on New Year's Eve 2003 saw him drop further down the rankings, out of the top 32, although he had a better 2005/2006 season. Another consistent season in 2006/2007 helped Harold back up to No. 30 in the world rankings for 2007/2008.

2007/2008 started with a quarter-final appearance in the Shanghai Masters, losing to eventual winner Dominic Dale. Harold did not get past the round robin phase of the Grand Prix, finishing fifth in his group of six players; but in the 2007 UK Championship, Harold eliminated World Number 2 Graeme Dott 9–7 in the first round to achieve a place in the last 16 of the tournament for the first time since 1999. However, he lost 2–9 in the second round to Mark Selby. He qualified for the final stages of the World Championship with a 10–4 win over Mike Dunn, but lost 10–3 at the Crucible in the first round proper to Shaun Murphy.

During a preliminary round match against local wildcard Jin Long in the 2008 China Open, Harold was locked at 4–4. He took time out before the deciding frame to leave the playing arena and consume a couple of bananas, returning replenished to finish the job with a clearance on the colours. This gave rise to the affectionate nickname "Bananaman" on the Betfair snooker forum, referring to a children's TV character who gained superhuman powers. Harold also put up a battle against Shaun Murphy in the next round, but eventually lost 5–3; the last frame set a record at the time for being the longest ever in snooker history (93 minutes and 12 seconds).

Harold retained his Top 32 ranking, and started the 2008–09 season ranked at #28, his highest ranking since 2003. In the first ranking event of the new season, the 2008 Northern Ireland Trophy, he beat Ricky Walden 5–2, Graeme Dott 5–3, Stephen Lee 5–4 and defending champion Stephen Maguire to reach the semi-finals, his first appearance at that stage of a ranking event for five years. He then moved into a 5–1 lead against John Higgins and won 6–4, to reach his first final since 1994, which he lost 9–3 to Ronnie O'Sullivan. Harold's performance in this tournament moved him up to 14th in the provisional world rankings. Harold remarked after the final that, aside from claiming the World Championship, his one other remaining ambition in the game is to score a victory over O'Sullivan, who he has never beaten in a ranking tournament. The 2008 Northern Ireland Trophy marked his tenth consecutive failure to do so.

Harold subsequently qualified for the 2008 Shanghai Masters and Grand Prix. In the former, he defeated home favourite Ding Junhui in the last 32, before losing 4–5 (from 3–0 and 4–1 up) against Steve Davis; however, in the latter he was eliminated in the first round by Ali Carter. A less successful run of results in the second half of the season saw him fall out of the Top 16 in the provisional rankings, largely due to his failure to qualify for the 2009 World Championship, although he started the 2009/2010 season ranked at No. 19, an improvement of nine places on the previous season.

Harold appeared in the Welsh Open in January 2010 but lost in the first round 5–1 to Stephen Hendry. In September he beat Shaun Murphy 3–0 in the newly formed World Open in Glasgow but subsequently lost in the next round to Jamie Cope 3–2.

The 2012–13 season saw Harold win 2 qualifying matches to reach the main stages of the 2012 Wuxi Classic, however, he lost his wildcard match to Chinese player Rouzi Maimaiti. Harold subsequently failed to qualify for the next four ranking events, losing to players such as Ali Carter, Barry Hawkins, and Cao Yupeng. He did, however, qualify for the German Masters, beating Craig Steadman 5–3 and Ryan Day 5–4 to qualify for the Last 32 of the event, where he lost 3–5 to former world champion Graeme Dott. He only won 1 more match in ranking event qualifiers for the rest of the season, culminating with a 9–10 defeat the Alfie Burden in qualifying for the World Championship. Harold played in many of the Players Tour Championship event throughout the season, his best results being three Last 16 appearances, and a further two Last 32 results, finishing 39th on the Order of Merit, outside of the Top 26 that qualified for the Finals.

Harold started the 2013–14 season ranked 50th in the world rankings. He retired in May 2015 after suffering from eyesight problems.

Personal life
Harold was born in Stoke-on-Trent and still lives there to this day. He is a Stoke City F.C. fan. He has three children and is separated from his wife.

title: Dave Harold


text: Template:UnitedKingdomMPs

title: Template:UnitedKingdomMPs


text:
Bum

Bum or bums may refer to:

Slang

 * Buttocks, two rounded portions of the anatomy on the posterior of the pelvic region of many bipeds or quadrupeds
 * A lazy person
 * A homeless person
 * Bum a cigarette or a "smoke", meaning to borrow

Places

 * Bum, Afghanistan, several locales
 * Bum, Azerbaijan, a village
 * Bum Chiefdom, Bonthe District, Sierra Leone

Nickname

 * Bum Bright (1920–2004), American businessman
 * Lee McClung (1870–1914), football player and 22nd Treasurer of the United States
 * Bum Phillips (1923–2013), American football coach

Given name

 * Kim Bum (born 1989), South Korean actor
 * Woo Bum-kon, South Korean spree killer and mass murderer

Surname

 * Khem Bahadur Bum, Nepalese politician elected in 2008
 * Narendra Bahadur Bum, Nepalese politician elected in 1999

Other

 * Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery, see Unani medicine
 * Bums, nickname for Brooklyn Dodgers baseball team
 * B.U.M. Equipment, US clothing brand
 * Bum language, spoken in Cameroon
 * ISO 639 code for the Bulu language, in Cameroon
 * Breguet Bre.4 or BUM, French World War I bomber

title: Bum


text:
Bumfights

Bumfights is a video series produced by Indecline Films. The debut release titled Bumfights Vol. 1: A Cause for Concern features primarily high school fights caught on tape and homeless men (most notably Rufus Hannah and Donnie Brennan) in the San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas metropolitan areas attempting amateur stunts in a style similar to the MTV series Jackass, and in one case a fight between two homeless men which resulted in severe injuries. It was produced by Ryen McPherson, Zachary Bubeck, Daniel J. Tanner, and Michael Slyman.

The video series immediately received widespread public criticism. In 2002, two of the homeless men depicted filed a lawsuit against the producers alleging they were paid to hurt themselves and beat each other. In April 2006, the four original filmmakers surrendered rights to produce any more Bumfights videos or distribute videos already made, and were obliged to pay compensation to three of the homeless men depicted in the videos, under a settlement announced shortly before the 2002 lawsuit was due to go to trial.

Reception
By June 2002, 250,000 copies of the first volume of the series were reported sold for $22 each, according to Wired magazine. Community complaints led to the police investigating if any laws were broken by producers. Advocacy groups were critical of the video.

Production history
The videos were originally produced in the early 2000s. The videos had gained such popularity that, by 2002, there were large volumes of sales and merchandise. Around that time, the four original founders sold the business to two Las Vegas businessmen, who went by the pseudonyms Ty Beeson and Ray Leticia, for $1.5 million USD. Beeson and Leticia released the three following videos, volumes 2 - 4, including footage that was provided as part of their purchase of the business.

Indecline: Vol. 1—"It's Worse Than You Think"
Ryen McPherson moved on to produce a similar reality video called Indecline: Vol. 1—It's Worse Than You Think. Though controversial for its fight footage and acts of elaborate graffiti art, legal troubles did not hinder the sales of this video, although the website went offline in June 2008. The Indecline web site went back online in November 2008.

Bumfights videos

 * Bumfights Vol. 1: A Cause for Concern (2002)
 * Bumfights Vol. 2: Bumlife (2003)
 * Bumfights Vol. 3: The Felony Footage (2004)
 * Bumfights Vol. 4: Return of Ruckus (2006)

Appearance on Dr. Phil
Phil McGraw, host of the talk show Dr. Phil, invited Beeson on to the show on December 12, 2006. Beeson attended the interview dressed in a Dr. Phil costume, nearly identical to Dr. Phil himself. After playing some snippets from the Bumfights videos to the audience, Dr. Phil stated that he was disgusted and kicked the Bumfights representative off even before the interview started, with security removing Beeson from the stage. While briefly onstage, Beeson critiqued what he perceived as Dr. Phil's hypocrisy; being outraged over their exploitation of the poor while he himself exploited people in distress for entertainment on his show. Dr. Phil revealed in the next segment he himself had been homeless. McPherson and Slyman later claimed that the man who appeared on the show was not Beeson, but in fact someone impersonating him, organized by the real Beeson and Leticia.

title: Bumfights


text:
Talk:Peroxide

Peroxide as fuel
There are some links to this article from submarine articles that talk about the use of peroxide as fuel. Could someone who is familiar with this add some text on that subject? Thank you. -- Jeff Q 10:53, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I will move those links to hydrogen peroxide, since that is the peroxide they are talking about. I will copy your comments to Talk:Hydrogen peroxide. Securiger 01:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have also heard that John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace wanted to use 90 % peroxide as fuel for their rocket (but couldn't get it). Anyone qualified to comment on peroxide's use as submarine or rocket fuel? :) Brutulf 18:37, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * See above re copying comments. BTW I find it difficult to believe that an aerospace researcher could not obtain 90% H2O2; it is reasonably common as an industrial chemical. Securiger 01:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Going back to WWII german and japanes rocket planes uses

hydrogen peroxide as fuel. Solid peroxide have disadvantages over Ammoniuperchlorate which is normaly used. Stone 19:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hydrogenperoxide is traded u to 30 % (in water). Getting higher concentrations would be very difficult. Certainly not from the usual vendors like Aldrich, Fluka etc. Higher concentrations can be achieved through extraction (H2O2 is more soluble in many organic solvents than H2O). The Me 163 Rocketplane used 90 % H2O2 ("T-Stoff"), the 2nd component ("C-Stoff") was a methanol-hydrazine mixture.

90 % H2O2 is a very hazardous material. It can set pretty much anything on fire (there are you tube videos based on Me 163 WWII footage, like http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=eIaUk4Mk2ko). It can also detonate if a suitable catalyst (can be dust or some other kind of dirt) is introduced.

The use of H2O2 for WWII submarine propulsion was suggested as (a) single fuel decomposed in a controlled way in a steam turbine (b) substitute for air in combination with classic diesel engines. (-> Walter engine) The Kursk explosion was claimed to be the result of an accident with a high speed torpedo using 90 % H2O2. Friday Nov 28. 2008 Michael K. Denk mdenk@uoguelph.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.38.65 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

From PNA/Chemicals: cleanup request

 * Peroxide needs to be cleaned up to a higher standard. It can refer to hydrogen peroxide in common use or other kinds of peroxides in chemistry. Perhaps it needs to be changed into a disambiguation listing different kinds of peroxides. --King of Hearts 01:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is just a mess. A disambiguation page might be a good idea...Or perhaps a sentence at the top (peroxide can also refer to hydrogen peroxide, a common rocket fuel, etc.

Also, the organization is bad. why dont't we just split it up into chemical properties, occurance/manufacturing and use?Ed-it 02:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Peroxide as a cure for disease
I was recently told that ingesting peroxide would cure diseases and keep you healthy. Also that one individual's Diabetes was cured by this method. It will also keep your pets healthy if added to their drinking water. Does anyone have any knowledge of this? Any vet out there know how it might affect a puppy? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnyt (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CE
"...is one of the cell poisons"--I am not sure how to take this. Burn this after reading. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm.. it adversely affects (through oxidation) body functions at the level of individual cells. Not sure about the most suitable term here. Maybe toxin? Materialscientist (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a minor edit. See what you think. My apologies for that silly typo, BTW. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Applications: dibenzoyl? benzil? benzoyl peroxide?
There's probably an error in the 1st part of the "Applications" heading, mentioning "dibenzoyl". The structure of "dibenzoyl" disagrees with the structure shown on the linked page (dibenzoyl redirects to benzil); instead, I think it's benzoyl peroxide, which is a different compound. I don't know enough chemistry to fix this, but someone ought to. Oaklandguy (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Defect formation in fluorite dioxides
"Both CeO2 and ThO2 accommodate excess oxygen in their lattice by formaing peroxide molecules. This is in contrast to UO2, which takes in excess oxygen by forming charged interstitials. The accommodation of excess oxygen in these systems changes their thermal and diffusion properties. This will have implications in the oxides' use in nuclear fuels and solid oxide fuel cells. Adding oxygen to the CeO2 system, for example, will increase the diffusivity of the oxygen allowing for more efficient solid oxide fuel cells." The above paragraph was removed by me because it seems rather specialized and not noteworthy.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hydrogen Peroxide not a peroxide
According to the cited IUPAC definition of peroxide (https://doi.org/10.1351%2Fgoldbook.P04510 ), hydrogen peroxide is not a peroxide, since a hydrogen atom is not an organyl group. Really quite amazing.CountMacula (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 300
— Assignment last updated by RS UBC800 (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for improvements to the peroxide stub article:

Content: I propose including “peroxide linkage”, which is a description of the bond shared by both oxygen atoms. It could help with the classification of a peroxide molecule, highlighting the properties of the peroxide functional group and hopefully differentiating it further from the specific “hydrogen peroxide”. Emphasis would be placed on the fact that peroxides are a class of molecule with this specific linkage/functional group, including but not limited to hydrogen peroxide. Properties of the bond, such as sterics and oxidation states of the involved atoms, could be added to this section as well.

Images: The images on the page are limited to 2D molecular structures. I believe that adding a 3D molecular structure would be beneficial in order to comprehensively show bond angles present in peroxides. Another potential improvement could be the expansion of the caption on the “types of peroxides” image. At current, this caption only identifies the molecules, but does not explain how they fit into the peroxide category.

Sources: The claim regarding peroxide nomenclature and Thomas Thomson will be verified by a source other than an online etymology dictionary. Ideally a primary source or record of this fact will be found. If a credible source cannot be located, this statement will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norquay917 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * . This article is an overview and disambiguation, directing readers to the individual types of peroxides, each of which has its own distinctive properties.  --Smokefoot (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Peroxide


text:
Quim (footballer, born 1975)

Joaquim Manuel Sampaio da Silva (born 13 November 1975), known as Quim, is a Portuguese former footballer who played as a goalkeeper.

He appeared in 396 Primeira Liga matches during his professional career, over 12 seasons with Braga, six with Benfica and one with Aves, and won five major titles with the second club.

Quim represented Portugal at the 2006 World Cup and in two European Championships, earning 32 caps.

Braga
Born in Vila Nova de Famalicão, Braga District, Quim started his career at S.C. Braga.

He played his first game in the Primeira Liga during the 1994–95 season, becoming the club's first-choice shortly after.

Benfica
On 7 July 2004, Quim joined S.L. Benfica on a five-year contract, sharing the goal with José Moreira in the title-winning 2004–05. He began the following campaign as starter, but injury to him as well as Moreira saw Marcelo Moretto being signed during the winter break, controversially earning a place in the starting eleven.

Quim's fortunes turned around at the beginning of 2006–07, as new coach Fernando Santos announced that he would be his main goalkeeper. Subsequently, the player rarely put in a bad performance since regaining first-choice status, even when the manager was dismissed early into the next season.

In 2008–09, with Benfica retaining the same three goalkeepers under Quique Sánchez Flores, Quim started the campaign, lost the job to Moreira in between, was even demoted to third-string (with Moretto starting in the Taça da Liga) and finished again as starter, with the team eventually ranking third. He also took the field in the final of the latter competition, and saved three penalty shoot-out attempts against Sporting CP for the win.

Braga return
In the 2009–10 season, Quim played all the matches and minutes as Benfica won the league for the first time in five years, adding to this the honour of conceding the least goals (20). At the end of June 2010, however, the 34-year-old was released, returning to first professional club Braga on a three-year deal, but spent his first year on the sidelines nursing an achilles tendon injury.

Quim returned as first choice for 2011–12, helping Braga to the third place with the subsequent qualification for the UEFA Champions League. However, after the arrival of Beto from FC Porto the following campaign, he made only six competitive appearances in its first part, including once in the league against S.C. Beira-Mar and the 1–2 Champions League home loss to Galatasaray SK.

After Beto left for Sevilla FC in January 2013 Quim was reinstated as the starter, one of his first appearances being a 0–0 home draw with his former side Benfica in the League Cup semi-finals, won in a penalty shootout. Manager José Peseiro also selected him for the competition's decider against Porto, where a penalty by Alan signified the game's only goal and Braga's first trophy win in 47 years.

Later years
In May 2013, Quim announced he would not renew his contract and subsequently retire after 19 years as a professional; he played his last match on the 11th against C.D. Nacional, a 1–3 home loss for his 382nd game in the Portuguese top division. However, two months later, he went back on his decision and signed for C.D. Aves in the Segunda Liga.

On 17 May 2016, Quim renewed his contract for another year. He was still first-choice in 2016–17, when his team returned to the top flight after ten years.

In the following season, Quim faced stiff competition from newly signed Adriano Facchini in the league, but the 42-year-old started in the club's victorious run in the Taça de Portugal, which marked its first major conquest in 87 years of history. He remained connected to Aves after his retirement, as director of Institutional Relations.

Quim worked as a goalkeeper coach subsequently, at Aves, Rio Ave FC, F.C. Tirsense and C.D. Trofense.

International career
After representing his country at every level from the under-16s upwards, and winning the UEFA European Under-19 Championship (then under-18) in 1994, Quim made his senior debut in August 1999 in a 4–0 victory over Andorra, after which he was Portugal's third-choice at UEFA Euro 2000, enjoying a short cameo as a substitute in the 3–0 win against Germany in the group stage's final round before establishing himself as number one in the 2002 FIFA World Cup qualifying campaign. However, a failed drug test saw him miss out on the competition held in South Korea and Japan.

Quim was a backup for the national side during both Euro 2004 and the 2006 World Cup, behind the habitual Ricardo. He was originally named in the squad for Euro 2008 but suffered a wrist injury the day before their first game, ruling him out of the tournament – he was replaced by Porto's Nuno.

Quim started the 2010 World Cup qualifying campaign as first-choice, but lost his place midway through it to another Braga player, Eduardo, as Portugal eventually qualified. After being league champion for Benfica, he would be left out of the squad for the final stages in South Africa.

Honours
Benfica
 * Primeira Liga: 2004–05, 2009–10
 * Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira: 2005
 * Taça da Liga: 2008–09, 2009–10
 * Taça de Portugal runner-up: 2004–05

Braga
 * Taça da Liga: 2012–13
 * Taça de Portugal runner-up: 1997–98
 * Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira runner-up: 1998

Aves
 * Taça de Portugal: 2017–18

Portugal
 * UEFA European Championship runner-up: 2004
 * UEFA European Under-19 Championship: 1994

Individual
 * Segunda Liga Best Goalkeeper: 2013–14, 2014–15

Orders
 * PRT Ordem de Nossa Senhora da Conceicao de Vila Vicosa Cavaleiro ribbon.svg Medal of Merit, Order of the Immaculate Conception of Vila Viçosa (House of Braganza)

title: Quim (footballer, born 1975)


text:
Districts of Suriname

Suriname is divided into 10 districts (districten).

History
The country was first divided up into subdivisions by the Dutch on October 8, 1834, when a Royal Decree declared that there were to be 8 divisions and 2 districts:
 * Upper Suriname and Torarica
 * Para
 * Upper Commewijne
 * Upper Cottica and Perica
 * Lower Commewijne
 * Lower Cottica
 * Matapica
 * Saramacca
 * Coronie (district)
 * Nickerie (district)

The divisions were areas near the capital city, Paramaribo, and the districts were areas further away from the city.

In 1927, Suriname's districts were revised, and the country was divided into 7 districts. In 1943, 1948, 1949, 1952 and 1959 further small modifications were made. In 1968 the districts were redrawn again, into
 * Nickerie
 * Coronie
 * Saramacca
 * Brokopondo
 * Para
 * Suriname
 * Paramaribo
 * Commewijne
 * Marowijne

These divisions remained until 1980, when yet again, the borders of the districts were redrawn, however, with the following requirements:
 * Changes in the old boundaries were made only if it leads to improved functioning
 * Each area should be developed
 * The new boundaries should respect the identities of indigenous people.

The last changes to the districts were in 1985.

title: Districts of Suriname