Talk:FC Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City F.C. (1993)

Rename

Per discussion at the AfD, where several contributors were uncomfortable with the current article name, I propose to rename the article Bayern Munich v Norwich City (1993). This is not a vote, or even a !vote, but an attempt to find some consensus by debate. Please contribute in this section. --Dweller 11:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why we need to disambiguate with 1993 in the title since this is the only Bayern Munich v Norwich City game ever played? The title should be as short as it unambiguously can be. My suggestion is a simple Bayern Munich v Norwich City. TerriersFan 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I was coming here to asking a rename, but I see there's already an ongoing discussion about the issue. I support Dweller's proposal, that is consistent with several other somewhat similar articles, such as England v Hungary (1953). --Angelo 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd err on the side of TerriersFan. I think that unless it needs to be disambiguated from another match, it doesn't need the year. The Rambling Man 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Angelo, there have been other England v Hungary encounters hence the need to disambiguate. TerriersFan 16:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else? I'm inclined to go with the arguments that there's no need to disambiguate, until, erm, there's a need to disambiguate <grins> If no-one strongly objects in the interim, I'll move this page to Bayern Munich v Norwich City in a few hours. If this debate develops, I'll wait. If anyone posts "too late", there's no reason why it couldn't be moved again. --Dweller 09:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry, I can't see another BM v NCFC matchup in our lifetimes...! The Rambling Man 10:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeky binman! --Dweller 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Olympic stadium

An editor changed one use of Olympic stadium to Olympiastadion. My view is that we should stick with the Anglicised version as in its WP article. Whichever form we use we should use the same form in each occurrence. I have also fixed the link to Olympic Stadium (Munich). TerriersFan (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is kind of like a fanboy page. Yeah Ok it was a good game for Norwich, but most clubs have had spectacular results of a kind during their history, and who will really benefit from an entire page devoted to a game that happened all those years ago. Possibly only serves as a happy trip down memory lane for Norwich fans surely. Should be considered for deletion imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunsnroses15 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Please do not take this as being anti-English or anti-Norwich, but an article about a UEFA Cup second round tie involving any team does not justify a separate article. We have a 1993–94 UEFA Cup article as well as a Norwich City article, that should be more that sufficient to document it.

Further more, as the article stands, it is written from the viewpoint of someone describing a famous victory, not of someone writing a detached account of a match. Hence why I've proposed deletion.

Wannabe rockstar (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your prod was inappropriate and I have removed it. Prod is "for cases where articles are uncontestably deletable". This cannot fall within prod, as it has already been "kept" at AfD. In terms of your argument about "viewpoint", the notability of the match is because of its place in one of the club's histories. That it is not notable for both is neither here nor there. Finally, the article is not here to present an "account of a match". Wikipedia is not a repository of match reports. It's an encyclopaedic account of a notable incident in football history and that's how it's been written. --Dweller (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, this is very far from encyclopedic. No encyclopedia entry about a match between two clubs focuses solely on one of the two clubs, and would not solely describe the match, its buildup and its aftermath from the point of view of only one of the participants. This reads like the Norwich City website's account of the match, nothing close to what one would expect in what claims to be an encyclopedia. This ties in somewhat with the comment I made in the Project Football talk section about bias; the majority of editors on the English Wikipedia are, naturally, fans of English teams, and thus there are few fans of other European clubs to help keep things neutral.

And as has been said, this is not sufficiently notable. One could just as well start an article about, for example, Legia Warsaw's shock defeat of Blackburn Rovers in the 1996 Champions League. Such an article would have just as much merit as this one, but would no doubt be immediately deleted because unlike in this article's case, few people are likely to lobby for its continued existence. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This article easily meets the general notability guideline with the significant coverage from reliable sources. Furthermore, WP:EVENT can be considered:

• "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content"
• Recentism is obviously not a concern and coverage is not trivial. There has been continued coverage. It appears to be historically signifigant.
• Coverage is not local to Norwich

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayern Munich 1 - 2 Norwich City was to keep. If you want to revisit it nominate it in the appropriate fashion/request a merge. Furthermore, if Warsaw v Blackburn meets the above mentioned guidelines, is historically significant, and will improve Wikipedia: Go for it.Cptnono (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Layout review

Per the mention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, here are some thoughts on layout:

• "'An exotic day out with a football match attached'" as a subsection header needs to go. This certainly jumps out as fluffy writing better suited for a news story or essay than an encyclopedia
• I did not see any FA match articles from a quick look but there are a handful of GAs that you can use for a base. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Showcase
• I would probably remove put the information in "Tactics" in other subsections ("Match summary" for game stuff and "Background" for prematch stuff)
• A better lay out might be

• Lead (summarize the article per the guidelines. This will mention why the game is notable so the first subsection does not need to.
• Background - All of the info you have in "An exotic day ..." basically
• Match

• Summary - Prose
• Match details/ Match facts - Standard team info and all of that you have in Match facts right now (This subsection might be better at the end of the article. Poke around the GAs and double check what the most common is)

• Post match Reaction - Probably a good bulk of the notability will be asserted in this section. Make sure it is not overly complimentary. What was the reaction in Munich? A couple lines with how Norwich did in the remainder of the tournament will be needed somewhere. Remainder of tournament.

Cptnono (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exceedingly helpful and thorough. I'll take a careful look at your suggestions. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How's it looking now? --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't get too cocky. I saw that screw up with the lost ref (but nice work by the way). In the first sections:

• "The match is notable for several reasons:" Falls dangerously close to noting what is noted and trying to hard to assert nobility. Re wording might be in order
• ""great success in the early Nineties"." Leaves me wanting too much. Who said it and why.

• "clearly nobody had alerted Walker to the doomed nature of his mission ... the day before the game he was telling anybody who would listen that he fancied it."" Is similar. The quote is used bot so randomly that it loses its encyclopedic feel. I obviously get it but who is saying it and why? A couple words connecting the prose to the quote is needed.

• In The Times, columnist Martin Samuel... The Times should be in italics
• "Walker had focused his attention on an unlikely weak link in Munich's team: Lothar Matthäus was the captain of Germany, a player with a distinguished pedigree in European football." Grammar is a little off. "...link in Munich's team: Lothar Matthäus. He was..." or another reworking is required.
• The Independent also needs italics

• Does that whole line need a modifying sentence? ie: "Before the match it was expected that...."

• Should Walker's image be uprighted (not sure on the guideline here)?

Exceedingly biased

As noted above, this article reads not like a report of a match, but as a rather fanboy-ish account of what the match was like from a Norwich fan's point of view, and takes several shots at Bayern Munich, which I don't think belong here. 99.234.182.107 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)