Talk:Malmö FF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Malmö FF is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 24, 2012.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Football (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Swedish football task force.
WikiProject Sweden (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

First relegated[edit]

It would be interesting in what year Malmö first was relegated one division.

--Fred-Chess 17:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was in the 1933–34 season. – ElissonTalk 16:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


Malmö hasn't won Allsvenskan 18 times. According to their webpage [] they've won it 15 times. Besides, it's a fact that IFK Göteborg has won Allsvenskan the most times, and they've won it 17 times, so the number is obviously false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

You are wrong. As an IFK Göteborg fan, I know what you mean, but the numbers 15 times for Malmö FF and 17 times for IFK concerns the Swedish football champions title, while MFF actually has won Allsvenskan 18 times, they did not win the Allsvenskan play-off (which between 1982 and 1990 decided the champions) in 1985, 87 or 89 (but they won Allsvenskan those years). Thus IFK has won the championships more times, but MFF has won Allsvenskan more times. – Elisson Talk 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I came to that consclusion as well (later on, or a couple of minutes afterwards... :p), but thank you. -Martin
It is quite ironic, IFK Göteborg have been awarded 18 champion titles by winning allsvenskan 13 times while MFF have only been accredited with 15 champion titles by winning allsvenskan 18 times. Must be frustrating for the MFF-fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Stadion 2009.jpg[edit]

The image File:Stadion 2009.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the two dominating clubs in Sweden?[edit]

This is erroneous. Malmö FF hasn't won the Allsvenskan in more than 10 years and IFK Göteborg has only won it once in the last 10 years. In addition, the article on IFK Göteborg talks about the "Big Three" which is considered a more accurate statement since it does not say anything about domination which implies "the best in recent time". -- (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Malmö FF won Allsvenskan in 2004, that's much less than 10 years ago. When you say that domination implies "the best in recent time" that is your interpretation, not everyone elses. Everyone knows that football has been played for over 100 years, and in that time, IFK Göteborg and Malmö FF have achieved significantly more than any other Swedish (or indeed Scandinavian) clubs. Even if we put that sort of achievement aside, Malmö FF is by far the largest club in Sweden in terms of economic and physical resources/capacity, it has the 2nd largest amount of members (after AIK) and has produced an unusually large number of national team players for Sweden and some other countries. Malmö FF also holds the record for consecutive top division seasons (68) and the longest winning streak in history (58 games). Put these merits together and you'll see why Malmö FF is considered a dominating club in Sweden, at all times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, as the article has been rewritten significantly I think it is now much more balanced and this item can be considered closed. -- (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment and referencing[edit]

I have just reassessed the article from Start-class to C-class. I would have assessed it B-class if it wasn't for the "Rivals" section being unreferenced, despite containing very specific claims about a 1933 scandal. Once this is fixed, I believe it is ready for B-class. Tomas e (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is now fixed and reassesed from C class to B class Reckless182 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct name[edit]

Reckless182: The correct name is Malmö Fotbollförening, without an "S", which it has been ever since the foundation in february 24th 1910. This can be certified in several places at Look for example in the official statutes: Likse (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have ever been to the President Suite of Swedbank Stadion and seen the original article in Sydsvenskan about the founding of the club you would have noticed that the name is spelled with an S. I have a picture of the article if you want. But it is of course possible that the name in the article is misspelled. Do you have any other examples to prove your case? Reckless182 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar to the article you are referring too. While we're at it, there is actually an old badge from 1910 with the misspelled name (Malmö Fotbollsförening). Not even Eric Persson could explain that since the official name has always been Malmö Fotbollförening, without an "s". However, on the commemorative plaque, which is placed outside Malmö IP, you can see the correct name ( ). At Malmö library all MFF books are tagged with "Malmö Fotbollförening" (*swe?/Xmalm{232}o+fotbollf{232}orening&searchscope=7&SORT=DZ/Xmalm{232}o+fotbollf{232}orening&searchscope=7&SORT=DZ&extended=0&SUBKEY=malm%C3%B6%20fotbollf%C3%B6rening/1%2C39%2C39%2CB/frameset&FF=Xmalm{232}o+fotbollf{232}orening&searchscope=7&SORT=DZ&2%2C2%2C ). I can refer to several official documents but nothing as important as the official statutes (see above). Likse (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok thank you! Case closed. Reckless182 (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Review now initiated. Have initially checked that the "quick-fail criteria" do not apply, and notes that the article has recently (December 2010) been through both a peer review (with all issues raised subsequently addressed, as it seems) and a "make-over" by the Guild of Copy Editors.

Reviewer: Tomas e (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Full review[edit]

In general, the article is well written and quite well worked-through. I have basically only one issue which prevents me from passing the article in its current state, due to combined referencing and POV concerns:

  • The issue is about section 1.2 and the 1934 relegation, as described in the first subsection under the heading. Reference 11, 12 and 44 is exactly the same source (and even the same pages, so they could be compacted into one using <ref name=...>), so this entire section depends on a single source to claim that a) this was actually common practice at the time, b) only MFF's records showed this, and c) it is more-or-less widely believed that the rival Malmö IFK was behind it all. While the second-to-last sentence presentes MIFK's involvement as hearsay, I'm concerned about the last sentence, that is phrased in such a way that it more-or-less presented as a fact (using the term "actions" and "treacherous"). This is a slightly POVish issue. At a minimum, since I don't have access to the book in question, I would like to have it confirmed that Smitt's book gives support for all the specific claims in a credible way, and I would like to see the statement in the last sentence softened to avoid POV issues, unless the involvement of MIFK is sourced in a better way. May I instead suggest something like "the belief in Malmö IFK's involvement has contributed to the long-standing rivalry between the clubs"? The statement in section 4 about the same event also needs similar polishing.
I have adressed the POV issues with replacing the second to last sentence in section 1.2 with your suggestion which I think is better than the previous one. I have also reworded the sentence about the same scandal in section 4 so that it reads: The supposed actions of board members of IFK Malmö in 1933... With the addition of "supposed" the sentence should be less controversial. I've also fixed the referecing for these sentences so that they are not standing as two different sources in the reference section but as one, I noticed that there are at least two other duplicates which I will correct too. Please inform me if you think that the controversial sentences needs more work or if the wording is OK for GA. How would you like me to confirm to you that Smitts book is a legitimate source? I will work on finding additional sources to confirm IFK Malmös supposed actions or at least confirm the existance of hearsay of the 1934 events ASAP.--Reckless182 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I found two sources that confirms IFK Malmös involvement in the scandal. One from the city of Malmös official website and one from the website of the regional newspaper Sydsvenskan Both are respectable and legitimate sources which both explicitly say that IFK Malmö was indeed involved. This should count for something?--Reckless182 (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The other duplicate sources that I found are now also fixed.--Reckless182 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was two good sources (the city and a quality newspaper) that would not be expected to be "fan-written" and were quite specific, including indicating an address of "hearings". This now looks good. Tomas e (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In summary:

  • 1. Well written?: Pass
  • 2. Factually accurate?: Final assessment on hold, see comment regarding sections 1.2 & 4 Pass (after update)
  • 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
  • 4. Neutral point of view?: Final assessment on hold, see comment regarding section 1.2 & 4 Pass (after update)
  • 5. Article stability? Pass
  • 6. Images?: Pass

The article has been put on hold for now, until the issues specified in sections 1.2 & 4 have been addressed. Tomas e (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

After the update I now feel that I can pass the article, as it fulfills the Good Article criteria. Tomas e (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Even more neutral tone[edit]

The article uses words like "glory" and "glorious" at various points. This is normal usage for professional football journalists, and doubtless in the sources too, but maybe we want to go one step further with the encyclopedic tone, and use more neutral alternatives for these words as well?

An issue here is that the best neutral alternatives are "success" and "successful", which are already heavily used in the historical parts of the article, including in most of the section sub-headings. There are a couple of other neutral synonyms for "success" and "successful" which could be used in a few places, but to avoid repetition, it would probably require removing characterisation of the performance from the sub-headings altogether, and just using sub-headings like "1970s, European Cup 1979 and the 1980s" instead.

Is this worth doing or does it make the tone excessively dry? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How about renaming "First years in Allsvenskan and early glory" to "First years in Allsvenskan and early achievements"? This makes the subheading more neutral while still giving the impression that the club did well. For the "Successful 1970s, European Cup 1979 and the 1980s" section I can't come up with a better phrasing. The club won nine titles and finished as runners up in a European competition, I don't see how that could be described by anything else than "Successful". In the third section we have another example: However the most glorious year of the 1970s for Malmö FF was 1979. I see how this can be considered non neutral, how about removing the sentence altogether? We already have Nevertheless the 1979 European Cup run is the biggest success in the history of Malmö FF. by the end of the paragraph. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the glorious sentence and re-worded that paragraph somewhat, as some repetition in it had also been raised at FAC.
The MOS doesn't make any specific suggestions on this aspect of section headings. Looking through the featured UK football club articles that don't already have their history broken out into a separate article, there is only one of them that has history section headings that include this sort of language. In that specific case it goes so far as to use the word "triumph" in some of the section headings, but that article was promoted to Featured in 2006 so maybe things were a bit different that long ago. The other featured articles of this type have their history section headings mostly just broken down into what years the section covers, or sometimes use the names of a particularly famous manager that was in charge for that period. Whether that's a better way of doing it, I'm not sure. Anyway if you don't go that far, then yes, replacing "glory" with "achievements" is a good idea. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I replaced glory with achievements. I don't think its a good idea of naming the sections after which manager was in charge as there have been quite many. I think it looks good as it is now. Perhaps the successful in "successful 1970´s" could be removed if it becomes a POV issue. Reckless182 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Images wanted[edit]

To further improve the article free images of important club figures such as club captain Daniel Andersson and manager Roland Nilsson would be very good additions. Let me know if anyone has free image of these persons or any other club related persons. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Random referencing[edit]

For being a FA, it appears the referencing is somewhat random compared to expected to articles of this level. One example is the referencing for the statement «An upper tier was added to the stadium in the 1980s, and was completed in 1992», where the reference is actually not makes a final confirmation of any piece of the statement (the ref confirm a named part of the upper section, witch was build/completed in 1992, and nothing about the 1980s). Another example is, under media coverage, where it is stated «The second film continues to follow Lasse, but also has a significant focus on Zlatan Ibrahimović, his progress and how he was eventually sold to AFC Ajax during the 2001 season», and where the ref is confirming the Ibrahimović transfere to Ajax, with no connection to the film, or the statement in general. I know it is hard to find verifiable and relevant sources to mediocrate football clubs, but the statements added should come from a RS, or else be removed. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into it when I have time during the week. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Good. I've translated most of the article to Norwegian, by the way, and the major impression is good. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. For your first point, I removed the statement about the tier being built in the 1980's since I couldn't find a suitable ref for it. And for your second point I've added a new ref to support the statement about Blådårar 2. Thank you for making this article even better. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Performance chart[edit]

A chart showing the progress of AIK through the swedish football league system. The different shades of gray represent league divisions.

Have it been concidered to add a performance chart to the article? I've added one here, witch is used in the article about AIK Fotboll, I guess some wikipedian have the tools for fixing one without to much trouble. I think it would be a great improvement to the article, as it highlights the different eras for the football club. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there is one already at List of Malmö FF records and statistics. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that. It is may sufficient to have one there. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Historical rivals[edit]

I would like to add Landskrona BoIS to that list. The 1970 in Scanian football wasn't a contest between MFF and BoIS, however they were very attended events. Usually around 25.000 at Malmö Stadion (even more in September 1977 when it was a real top meeting, altough that's not quite obvious when looking a the table adter the last Day. MFF won, BoIS ended 5th. But BoIS lost 5 matches in sequence during the autumn.) and 15.000 in Landskrona. There were rivalery also in Superettan 1999 aswell, and again during the 2002-2005 seasons. Shouting in Scanian humerous style - "En get!... En ko!... En Malmöbo!" - was funny ! There were no hate though, to my knowledge. Heja BoIS ! Boeing720 (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The rivalry is already mentioned: "Because of geographical proximity, minor rivalries exist with Trelleborgs FF and Landskrona BoIS, which are both also located in Scania." I don't see any reason for us to suggest that the rivalry was any "bigger" than that. Perhaps from Landskrona BoIS side, but not from Malmö FF's side. But historically IFK Malmö and Helsingborgs IF have always been the biggest rivals of Malmö FF, not Landskrona BoIS. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)