User talk:Lf20

Welcome!

Hi Lf20! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 05:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Campeón de Campeones moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to 1974 Campeón de Campeones. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLAR notice

Hi there. While reviewing new pages, I noticed that a page you created, Instalaciones La Noria, does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a standalone article. As an alternative to deletion, I've redirected it to Cruz Azul. If you disagree, feel free to revert my redirect and we can proceed to a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. (If you reply to me here, please ping me as I am not watching this page.) Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I was reading through Cruz Azul's article and noticed the fantastic work you've done there. Great job! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025–26 Cruz Azul season, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrés Montaño was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Campeón de Campeones

Hello - hope this message finds you well. I'm working on a draft (User:Morogris/2026CC) for the upcoming 2026 Campeón de Campeones cup. Saw you recent work across Cruz Azul articles and figured this was right up your alley in terms of interest. Feel free to update it as you see fit, I will work on a background section and explain how Toluca and Cruz Azul got to this instance. I'm thinking we can publish it in a few weeks or perhaps close to the date. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 18:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morogris,

Thanks for reaching out! It's awesome to connect with another editor interested in Mexican football. Coincidentally, I actually created a draft for this a little while ago, which is currently waiting for review at Draft:2026 Campeón de Campeones. Since it's already in the draft namespace and just needs the green light to go live, it might be easier if we combine our efforts there. I actually started a "Background" section detailing how Toluca and Cruz Azul qualified, but you are more than welcome to check it out, modify it, or expand it with whatever you had planned! Feel free to add anything you want to get it ready for the mainspace.

Looking forward to working together! Lf20 (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great! See you there. I will move my stuff to that draft. I'm a new article reviewer and I'm confident this article could be ready today or tomorrow once updates are made so I can move it to the mainspace soon. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 19:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the multiple pings. Article is now live: 2026 Campeón de Campeones. Saludos! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 20:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome news! Thank you so much for the review and for moving the article to the mainspace so quickly. I just checked the updates you made to the background section, and they look great! The context about the World Cup and the venue history adds a lot of value to the article. Also, I just polished the lead paragraph and cleaned up the outdated kits in the infobox since the new uniforms haven't been revealed yet.

Looking forward to keeping this article updated with you as the match gets closer. ¡Saludos! Lf20 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! By the way, do you have a source for the 53rd and 52nd claims? I removed them because none of the sources mention it and we would need a reliable source. I'm concerned this would be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Morogris (✉ • ✎) Morogris (✉ • ✎) 23:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! I actually included those numbers to maintain consistency with the articles of previous editions. Regarding the source, the main Campeón de Campeones page lists all the previous editions (including the amateur era). If we need a reliable external source to verify and reference the count, we can use the RSSSF page, which lists every single edition since the tournament's inception: https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mexsupcup.html

Let me know if you think we should add this link as a reference to back up the 53rd/52nd claim, or if it's better to leave it out for now. Lf20 (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks. I did the math myself (removed all the "not held" and MTY's unofficial one) and also got 52 for the Campeon de Campeones held across time. If we want to keep this we need a footnote and this source to explain the math for readers who want to verify it themselves (I can take care of that).

My concern is around the "Campeonísimo" designation. For clubs that won both the Liga and Copa, the title was automatically declared rather than the Campeon de Campeones tournament being held. Should that technically count as a Campeon de Campeones designation in this count? That's where I worry about original research. I'd be more comfortable having a third-party source make that claim and clarify the number of editions (but they would probably not do the math like we did using RSSSF and just read it off our articles).

Curious on your thoughts. If anything, we could explain the number of editions in the main Campeón de Campeones article with a footnote there, and consider removing it here and in the other annual articles. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 03:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually checking the main Campeón de Campeones article (in the History and Competition format sections) here on English Wikipedia, and it turns out the history and format sections already explain this. The article explicitly states that teams winning both tournaments are automatically awarded the trophy, specifically citing the 5 traditional Campeonísimos (León in 1949, Cruz Azul in 1969, Guadalajara in 1970, Puebla in 1990, and Necaxa in 1995) and the recent modern cases of Atlas in 2022 and América in 2024. Since the main article already establishes that those automatic years officially count as tournament editions, the math for the 53rd/52nd claim is fully backed up by Wikipedia's own centralized context. Additionally, major sports media outlets like GOAL also publish the complete list counting every single one of these editions, including the 1942 amateur one and the automatic titles (here is the link for reference: https://www.goal.com/es-mx/noticias/campeon-campeones-liga-mx-todos-ganadores-torneo/1vm4p7p4he9pv1gdeko33lypyz).

Knowing this, I think it's completely safe to keep the edition count in the lead text of the 2026 article (and the previous ones) for consistency. We can even use this GOAL article or the RSSSF link (which is already in the main article's External links section) as a formal citation to bulletproof the math.

Let me know your thoughts! Lf20 (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I forgot to mention that the Spanish Wikipedia follows this exact same consensus and criteria. They count the "Campeonísimo" titles as official editions to reach the same number, so maintaining it here keeps the consistency across both wikis. Just wanted to add that extra context. Lf20 (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The GOAL source is exactly what I was looking for, thanks for sharing! One question: where can we confirm the "amateur" 1942 claim? I don't see it mentioned in the GOAL article or in the RSSSF.

My two cents is we should include a footnote with the sources explaining the math so readers understand it's not explicitly stated in any one source and requires manual counting. I'd suggest doing this across all articles where we apply this kind of math, otherwise I worry someone could flag it as WP:SYNTH or readers may be confused if they ever check the sources. I can take care of the footnotes and ping you for review! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 06:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear the GOAL source helped! Regarding the 1942 edition, it actually makes perfect historical sense. Mexican football officially turned professional in 1943 (starting with the 1943–44 season), so anything played before that belongs to the amateur era. You can actually verify this consensus directly on the Atlante F.C. honours section here on English Wikipedia. It explicitly lists the 1942 Campeón de Campeones trophy under their amateur era achievements. This makes 1942 the first edition in history, while the 1943 edition was the second overall, but the first one of the professional era. Furthermore, as mentioned, the chronological list of winners in the GOAL article begins precisely with Atlante in 1942, and our main Campeón de Campeones article explicitly details this 1941–42 trophy in its History section as well. Your suggestion about the footnotes is perfect. Including a clear breakdown with these sources will completely protect the articles from WP:SYNTH and keep everything transparent for the readers. Thank you so much for offering to take care of that! Feel free to ping me whenever you have the footnotes ready for review. Lf20 (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The Atlante honours section has no sources so not sure where to consult the professional era claim to verify. According to these sources from ESPN and SI, the professional era began in the 1943-1944 season, so my understanding is that this excludes the first two editions of the Campeon de Campeones, meaning the math adds up to this upcoming edition being the 51th (not 52nd) in the professional era?

By the way, I've added a footnote to the 2026 Campeón de Campeones article explaining the math for the 53rd edition, feel free to check it/make any changes. I'm thinking that once we resolve the professional era claim, that is better suited for the Campeon de Campeon (main) instead of in the annual editions. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 16:56, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. Thank you for setting up the footnote, but to be honest, I'm not a big fan of having it only in the 2026 article. If we keep it here, we would have to add it to every single annual edition for the sake of consistency, which would be very inefficient. I think the best alternative is to remove this footnote from the 2026 article entirely and move it to the main Campeón de Campeones article, keeping the annual pages clean and standardized.

Regarding the 1943 edition, while it's true that there are unfortunately no specific online articles explicitly stating "this is the first professional edition", the timeline makes it logical. The match was played in September 1943, which was already part of the 1943–44 season (the official kickoff of professionalism in Mexico). This is why both the English and Spanish main articles already state that 1943 is the first edition of the professional era and the second overall.

To maintain the exact same pattern as the other annual articles, I have re-added the "52nd professional edition" claim to the lead of the 2026 article. I think that we need to move the detailed mathematical footnote to the main page so we can centralize the historical breakdown there. Let me know if you agree. Lf20 (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to add the footnote to all editions, not just 2026 -- I just wanted your thoughts before going back to update them all!

The reason the footnote needs to be in every annual edition is that we can't expect readers to visit the main Campeón de Campeones article just to understand the math. Without it, the information would be (1) unsourced in those annual edition articles and (2) essentially citing Wikipedia, which isn't allowed. Hope that makes sense!

On the "professionalism" point, if reliable sources aren't explicitly making that distinction for the Campeón de Campeones, we probably shouldn't either. I totally get the appeal of tracking it, but breaking it down into separate "professional" vs. "non-professional" counts per edition goes a step beyond routine calculation and starts to feel like original research. We can absolutely mention in the main article that professional football began on 17 October 1943 per ESPN, SI, and RSSF, but maintaining two separate counts across all the edition articles isn't really supported by our sources. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 23:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think readers landing on an annual edition article really just want to read about that specific edition — they're probably not too concerned with the professional vs. non-professional breakdown. The total edition count in the intro works great, but the non-professional count feels a bit trivial for those articles specifically (though it's totally fitting in the main article for background context!).

That said, I'd be open to a compromise ... maybe a brief mention of the distinction in the background section of the edition articles, while keeping the fuller discussion in the main article. But both in the intro paragraphs is odd. Let me know what you think! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 23:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it more closely, I completely agree with you. Having both numbers right in the intro is definitely confusing for the reader, and since the main Campeón de Campeones article already handles the amateur vs. professional history beautifully, it's redundant here.

Let's go with your idea: we'll keep only the total count (53rd edition) in the lead. Since you offered to add the mathematical footnote to the annual articles to back up the total count, I can take care of going through the previous annual editions to remove the "professional era" count so they all match this clean new standard. Lf20 (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'll take care of it. It's easy for me to do both (add the footnote + remove the professional fact claim) per edition. I skipped the Supercopa ones because their wording was different but I will come back to them at the end. Cheers! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Want to join Wiki Loves Fútbol?

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Fútbol! We're running it during the 2026 World Cup, starting now until July 19. Help us edit pages on everything futbol: think national teams from across Latin America, players, host cities, and the stuff around the cup that usually gets short shrift, like the immigration and culture angles. We're working in both English and Spanish.

Here's the fun part: it's set up like a Panini sticker album. You collect stamps for different kinds of contributions: editing an article, adding a photo over on Wikimedia Commons, doing a translation, or starting a Wikidata item. Fill the album first to win $200. That’s not all: we are also giving out $25 prizes to the “Player of the Match” every week the contest runs. You don't have to be a power editor to play. Everyone is welcome!

If you're a little curious, come take a look at our target articles. Do you think we are missing some good articles? We are open to suggestions! The best place to actually get going is our WikiLatinos Discord, that's where the article missions will live, where the leaderboard is, and where someone can point you to a good first edit if you want one.

Hope you'll jump in. Oscar_. (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention for two Mexican clubs

Hello Lf20. I'd like to invite you to contribute to a discussion around the naming conventions of "Pumas UNAM" and "Tigres UANL" in WP:FOOTBALL, see discussion here. Feel free to provide your thoughts if you'd like. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 20:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kits

Hello, hope you're doing well! Do you have experience creating kits? I've nominated Toluca FC 6–0 Club América (2003) to Good Article review but the kit for 2003 is off. I kept it as standard red for now, but I have no experience creating kits so unsure how to make one. I recently started making the squad images through a Claude prompt I've made, but no luck yet with the jerseys. Any guidance would be helpful, appreciate it. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 18:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Morogris! Regarding the jerseys, I don't really have experience creating kits myself. However, I can highly recommend checking out user WikipedyjniAK. I've asked them to create a kit in the past and they did a fantastic job. You could drop a message on their talk page; they are usually very helpful with this kind of request. Lf20 (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]