Talk:FC Bayern Munich/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

Untitled

Shouldn't Owen Hargreaves have an English flag in the playing squad? Allthough he originally is Canadian he does play for the English national football team, and since this article is about a football team I believe that he should be represented with the nationality he represents in football. Anyone agree? Arnemann 28 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)

I disagree. He's Canadian. 65.92.78.164

Canadian pride or not, the convention on Wikipedia is to show the flag of the country the player represents. --Dr31 29 June 2005 12:27 (UTC)

But he represents England, not Canada. Kingjeff

Who is Hadi Mirzai? Kingjeff


Shouldn't the reserve squad have there own page? Shouldn't the youth squad go to Bayern Munich youth system? Kingjeff


@84.155.234.127. Can you prove they are not Bayern fans?

Bayern Munich youth system

Is there anyway to comfirm that Rensing and Wessels were ever part of Bayern's youth system? kingjeff

Austrian flag

Does anyone know the letters for Austria. I thought it was AUS but that's Australia as you see in the reserve squad list. Kingjeff 01:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)kingjeff

AUT -  Austria. The complete list of countries can be found here: ISO 3166-1, I just dicovered that yesterday with Salihamidzic in Bosnia/Herzegovina. Poulsen 09:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ In 1963 the top division of German football turned professional and was named the Bundesliga.
  2. ^ Up until 1991/92, the tournament of the European national club champions was the European Cup; from the 1992/93 season it was renamed the UEFA Champions League.

The table as it is now does more to clutter the vision of the viewer than to provide easy information, and the page should reflect the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs guidelines, which is used (with variations) in all other (top) clubs. Poulsen 01:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The information doesn't clutter it up. It's easier to read. Kingjeff 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it easier to read? As said, it has big table sections like "Number of championships won" and "Number of years as Runners up", it pushes information across the screen - instead of showing the runners-up years at the natural place of reading - left side - it is awkwardly placed to the right on the screen.
However, no matter what you and I think, look at the top of the page - as a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Goals to standardize football pages, of which you are a member youself. We should be enforcing the guidelines laid down by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs - any major changes of article style is to be discussed there first, as a part of the joint football project. Poulsen 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe policy needs to change. Kingjeff 02:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think so, then start with changing that. Poulsen 02:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. Table is smaller. Kingjeff 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the runners-up does not make it Wikipedia:WikiProject Football standard. I'll put the proper style in. Poulsen 02:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
How about just shutting down wikipedia altogether. Kingjeff 16:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Article title

I've moved this article from FC Bayern Munich back to Bayern Munich, where it has mostly been for a long time. Wikipedia conventions are to use either official names, or most common English names, whichever is most appropriate. Bayern Munich is the name universally used in English, and Bayern München (or more completely FC Bayern München) is the official name in German. Either of these would be appropriate as far as I am concerned, but FC Bayern Munich makes no sense, as it combines the "FC" prefix from the official German name with the English form "Bayern Munich". — sjorford++ 10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong. FC Bayern Munich is the official english name of the club. That's why I moved the page to that title. check the official english homepage of FC Bayern Munich: [1]. Please move the article back to FC Bayern Munich (proper official names should be prefered over common informal names in this encyclopedia imo).--BSI 16:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. Kingjeff 00:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Do they have a mascot?

If so then someone should add info about it.. thanks -Anthony- 11:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes its name ist "Bazi" but i dont have a picture yet

That's not correct. "Bazi" was replaced by "Berni" (a bear, hence the name) in May 2004. I don't have a picture either. jaellee 18:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are some pictures on the FC Bayern Fanshop Website (here: [2]). The mascot is not a very important part of the FC Bayern identity though. OdinFK (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 3

Anybody not okay with me archiving up to this point? I will not archive 'Article title' as I think it is still useful and 'Do they have a mascot?' as it is still recent. I'll do it in a week from now. OdinFK (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Kraft

Who is this guy? And why should he be part of the roster? According to [3] he isn't. Last thing I heard was that Dreher plays for another year. --jaellee 09:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He's the 4th goalkeeper. Kingjeff 14:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Task force

There is a new task force related to Bayern Munich. Anyone interested can come here and check it out. Kingjeff 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lineup

Added a possible image of next years formation, it is possible and based on their history. Go to http://www.football-lineups.com/ to see. Dpool2002 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't deal in probability here. Kingjeff 23:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In soccer, it is never the case that the exact same starting formation is used every game. For that reason, there is a lot of variation. If you look at the website that I linked, it has shown what the starting positions are for all the players throughout the course of their career. It also shows the teams default formation for the past year and throughout their history. Based on knowledge of this, as well as the positions of the recent acquisitions they have made, it is only obvious to see that this will be their formation next year. For that reason, the image should be allowed. If not, then you might as well take off the roster as that is changing as well (not that Klose just got added by the team). If you don't want to deal in probability in terms of this, than a massive changing of all sports articles must be done. Considering I have a bachelors degree in sports broadcast journalism from a top 5 journalism school in the U.S., have been in the sports field for 8 years and am a soccer beat reporter for the local sports radio station, I would say that I am more than qualified to draw conclusions. I've spent a great deal of time editing that formation and it illustrates the potency of the Munich attack next year. Dpool2002 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, [4]

"In soccer, it is never the case that the exact same starting formation is used every game. For that reason, there is a lot of variation."

For this reason, we don't put starting lineups. It's already been tried for some national team and has been rejected. Kingjeff 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I propose we do a cleanup of all those types of images on every sports page. How do we start a project on this? Thanks!--Dpool2002 00:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you go to WikiProject Football. Are you a Bayern Munich fan? Kingjeff 00:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. No, I am a Podoloski and Lahm fan, and a general soccer fan. In the US, there isn't much good football to watch (except american), and my family is originally from Mexico, so I tend to follow a few mexican teams and mainly certain players in europe, on various teams. If I had to pick a team I would pick Barca as they have my favorite player, Marquez, on that team. I also like Atletico Madrid as they have my second favorite player, Fernando Torres. Thanks for the clarification by the way, and I apologize if I came off as harsh. It just took me a while to do and I didn't understand why it was being deleted, however now I do. Thanks again! Dpool2002 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I need some users to work on those two player articles. I'm with WikiProject Munich and the FC Bayern Munich Taskforce. Kingjeff 01:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look here. This is an official policy page of what Wikipedia is not. This paticular situation is called Crystal Balling. As I just told you before, I'm looking for people to take on the Philipp Lahm and Lukas Podolski articles. Right now, at the level of these two articles, I'm looking to make these into B-Class article. Kingjeff 01:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem doing those two. It will take me a little time and also if you could send me a link to what constitutes a source and what doesn't. Dpool2002 03:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


the relvant policy is WP:VERIFY together with as Kingjeff mentioned Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As supplementary read you will find WP:RS interresting. Agathoclea 09:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We just can't have a source. They have to be reliable. Here are 3 credible sources that you can use. Kingjeff 12:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Compliments and criticisms for the Good article nomination

Compliments

Please use a level 4 header which means using 4 of = on each side of the header. Kingjeff 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

Please use a level 4 header which means using 4 of = on each side of the header. Kingjeff 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

famous past players

why were some players removed? can they be put back in please, where are the kovac brothers?? they were an integral part of the team.

First of all, I don't think the Kovac brothers were on there to begin with. Second of all, not every single player is a famous past player. Kingjeff 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Mehmet Scholl is listed under famous past players for the 90's and 2000's. I know he played from 92-07, but should he be only under 1 of them? I don't know, you guys decide what to do.

Why are Ali Daei and Ali Karimi mentioned as past famous players? With all due respect they were never famous in Munich and therefore I suggest we remove them from this list as it is a famous past player and not the all past players list. OdinFK (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review comments

  • The lead para is too short. When was the club formed? who formed it?
  • "Bayern Munich is Germany's foremost football club" - pick your issue (1) violates Show, don't tell policy (2) POV statement. either ways, this phrase is not required
  • 'FACT' tag needs to be resolved
  • Is there a reason why "history" section is third section. I would like it to be the first section
  • Bayern Munich was founded in 1900 by members of a Munich gymnastics club." - how many? what was the main reason
  • "Bayern's first success came in 1926" - jumping from 1900 to 1926 directly does'nt look good. how did the club hold-off for 25 years?
  • the entire history section has just one reference. in fact, the entire article has just 3 references. more needs to be done to validate each of these statements
  • the article needs copy-edits in almost all section. sample of sentences that will have issues during GA/FA reviews:
    • "Sensationally, they made it to the Bundesliga in 1999, and managed to stay in the top flight for a second season."
    • "These days Bayern considers itself a national club,"
    • "has become something of a thorn, but for the most part for Bayern, the real rivals these days are the great clubs of Europe"
    • "However, most of the actual power is exercised by another former player, Uli Hoeness, who is officially deputy chairman of the executive board of the AG; his position is best described as general manager"
    • "Bayern Munich have been in a busy mood during the summer, as they seek to build a stronger team."
    • "On what is reported to be a summer spending spree, Bayern have proven that they can compete financially with the wealthy European teams, with outstanding profit during a losing campaign and a completely different approach to transfer markets. All in all, their spending spree on all their winter and summer signings amount to an estimated $94 million."
  • The history section has 2 paras on signings after the 2006/07 season - something that could have been dealt elsewhere
  • How can you have "famous players" of the past without wikipages for them
  • Please add timelines for former managers
  • Please add a para on the stats rather than have a header and a link to another article
  • How can the first captain of BM not have a wikipage

The article has good content but lacks in references and writing skills and hence the article gets a 'failed GA' for now. Lot more work is required before the article gets GA/FA. Once these comments are worked on, please ping me and i shall be glad to evaluate the revised page. --Kalyan 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move Duja 10:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


FC Bayern MunichFC Bayern München — The official name of the team is FC Bayern München. After there is no consensus in the requested move of Dynamo Kiev, it means that official name should be used - but Bayern Munich is not the official name, so it should be moved. Raymond Giggs 01:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought english names is the consensus on this? Kingjeff 03:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I understand where you're coming from, but I think the Dynamo Kiev decision was a bad one, apparently using vote-counting to ignore WP:ENGLISH. Sometimes if there's a big enough pile-on, the admin just goes with the flow instead of paying attention to the guidelines and policies. Bayern Munich is even more clear cut (and don't get me started on where Inter Milan redirects to...) WP goes with the most common English name where one exists, as per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH, and we can put the official local name in the lead sentence, simple as that. --DeLarge 10:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Is the bilingual Bayern Munich (rather than Bavaria Munich) actually used? I agree that we should follow English, not official, usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Bayern is the english version when refering to the team's name. I've never heard it as Bavaria Munich. Kingjeff 00:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Sports teams has stated clearly:

Sports teams

This is the English language Wikipedia so generally the regular English name should be used. For example, use Bayern Munich rather than FC Bayern München, Red Star Belgrade rather than Crvena Zvezda and so on. Note the English name is not always the 'authentic' name used on the club crest and so on. For example, Sporting Clube de Portugal are always called Sporting Lisbon in the English-speaking world.

That's why this article is named as it is now. "Official name" is not the naming convention taken in Wikipedia... and even if we really want to refer to the official name, see here . A clear title says "Welcome to the official FC Bayern Munich website". --supernorton 05:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support moving to Bayern München (with or without FC). In my opinion, local names should always be used, at least for football clubs. - MTC 08:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
So do you agree changing the naming convention? I have to remind that the naming convention have to confirmed by the administrators. Raymond Giggs 08:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree with changing the naming convention, as I said in the discussion about Dynamo Kyiv. - MTC 09:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The overwhelming majority of English language media use Bayern Munich. Even the club themselves use Bayern Munich when writing in English. Oldelpaso 09:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. Oldelpaso 09:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The club's common name in the media is Bayern Munich. Some members of the media, like UEFA.com, do use Bayern München, but unlike the ratio of "Dynamo Kyiv" users to "Dynamo Kiev" users, people who use Bayern München are in the minority. - PeeJay 10:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Oldelpaso. WATP (talk)(contribs) 10:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The club itself uses the name on its english web pages. --jaellee 12:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Sports teams. It even uses Bayern Munich as an example. The one, in my opinion bad, move of Dynamo Kiev does not create a precedent. The policies and guidelines still need to be followed. Woodym555 15:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • On the point of the Kyiv/Kiev issue, the English version of Dynamo Kyiv's website uses "Kyiv" twice at the top of the page, and also in the titlebar, whereas Bayern Munich's English website uses "Munich" in the titlebar and twice at the top of the page (despite using the German version of their club logo). - PeeJay 17:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - FC Kiev was a bad idea but there is a move request to put it where it belongs. Reginmund 22:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Has the nominator not read WP:COMMONNAME or WP:ENGLISH? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

All the players are brazillian... this has to be a bug.

I'm pretty sure Luca Toni hasn't switched nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.201.181 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently, I did a short edit upon this side, adding the fact, that Roque Santa Cruz (Blackburn Rovers) was the third player to leave the Reds for enterring a Britsh team for the 2007/07 season. Even succeeded in making a link out of his name. But an administrator must have deleted the sentence. Maybe you guys can work that out. Thx, juergen seufert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.176.4.27 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

FC Hollywood

FC Hollywood is another nickname for FC Bayern. It is not one the Munich fans would like to use themselves but everyone in Germany with a slight interest in football knows to whom this nick refers to. Is a nick of this type supposed to be listed? OdinFK (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted Players vs. Notable Past Players

How does it make sense to have a section for noted players which refers to past players only and a section for notable past players. Also the noted players section is so short, that it feels more like a trivia section. Actually considering the content of the noted players section it should probably be a section for honours won by individual munich players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinFK (talkcontribs) 07:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Nwgenya

I heard he joined Bayern Munich. How come he isnt on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.246.229 (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually he has joined just for training purpose. He is not on the team though. OdinFK (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

added criterions met (2,3,5)

I just added, that the article meets the following criteria for a B-class article:

2 (reasonably covers the topic): I think the article is actually quite comprehensive. As I'm new to the community I have no experience with such things, but I think it might be good enough for GA in this criterium. I discuss these things in more detail in the next section though.

3 (defined structure): In recent days I did some rework on the structure but essentially the article has a section for everything of major importance about the club: -The introduction is nice if you want a very quick general overview over the club. -The history is quite comprehensive. Still expandable but that's probably better for the history-article -The stadium part could have some more words about the Bayern premises at the very beginning, but other than that I find it sufficient -The club and its vicinity also covers club culture, which is quite natural as it is not easily distinguishable. Actually the amount of info covered is just right for a section. I wonder if one could find an even better name, though. -Organization and finance seems to be quite short to me, but it definitely covers the important things. -Amateur Sports might get a few additional info but not much. The big other departments are covered in other articles (women's department is still missing) and the minor departments don't need a lot of coverage I guess. -Training facility is the part which I'm most unsure about. Just comes to my mind that one could probably have a section about "Bayern Premises" with subsections "stadium", "training facilities", "club center" or so. The club center is actually not covered at all. -Honours is not exactly beatyful but it serves the purpose (for now...). -Players is just data (which is fine), but really good in my opinion. -Coaches covers what there is to cover. -Presidents is the one section where I'm not sure whether it should be in the article at all. It is really not that importent and most names don't have articles anyway. Seems to be rather useless data for most people. A table in the statistics section should suffice. -Captains could be a subsection of the players' section. It seems to be quite lonely there at the end. -For the statistics part I don't miss anything which I would want to have in the main article.

5 (appropriate supporting material): There are a few pictures I think would enrich the article but those would suffice for FA and are not available at the moment: Team photo (with recent trophies if possible), coaching staff photo (there is one on the FCB site, I'm not sure whether that can be taken due to rights issues; I really have no idea there), captain's photo (when the new captain is announced).

1 (citations): There are some, a lot more than before actually. Sufficient for B-class? I guess so but second opinion would be nice.

4 (grammatics): I'm not a native speaker. I think it's fine but anyway can a native pls check that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinFK (talkcontribs) 13:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


4 (grammatics): I Have reread the entire article thoroughly and think grammar is okay, except for the occasional comma probably. Changed status to grammtic: okay. OdinFK (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1 (citations): The referencing is really good. Some more citations would still be great, but I think the major sources of information are cited. So I changed the status to okay, too.

I like to try now to have this article promoted to good article. OdinFK (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronaldinho?

I see that now Ronaldinho is part of the team? I cannot find any rumors anywhere about ronaldinho coming to bayern.TauntingElf (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

This article does not meet the Good Article criteria and has therefore failed. Issues include lack of inline citations per WP:CITE. Too much information and too many paragraphs go uncited, so the information cannot be verified. Once this has been resolved, please renominate the article. Gary King (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephan Fürstner

In case you're wondering about the status of Stephan Fürstner, too. I copy this from a short conversation between Kingjeff and me:

K: I noticed you reverted a deletion on FC Bayern's wikipedia page. Do we know if Stephan Fürstner has been loaned out to any club like Christian Lell went to FFC Koeln or like Mats Hummels did to Burussia Dortmund? Kingjeff (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

O: I would not presume to be 100% sure, that he has not been loaned out. But: a) there is no article to be found, that he has been loaned out b) he is on various nonofficial sites listed as part of the team c) Bayern lists him still as part of their amateur team d) he has a professional contract at Bayern since 2006 till 2010 e) he had just one appearance in the two recent years

As wikipedia is an Encyclopedia I try not to be guessing, but the only logical explanation I have for that is, that he is not considered to be fully a part of the professional squad, though he has a professional contract. Question is whether he should be included on the Bayern-wikipedia page then. OdinFK (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm still not sure whether he should be included in the professional squad but I'm tending towards 'no' now. Does anyone care to give another opinion. OdinFK (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Kicker Sonderheft for the 2008-09 season has him as not part of the squad. As the magazin is a high quality source and the Bayern Website says the same, I will remove him from the squad. OdinFK (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


from what I gathered here, he was sent to the 2nd team in the 3rd Liga. Kingjeff (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:FC Bayern Munich/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

OK, reviewing in reverse order:

Criteria 6 (Images): PASS. A number of illustrative images present, all seem to have appropriate copyright tags and have captions. A few suggestions, though:

  • Image:Bayern Munchen.png (Is this really low res? The resolution could be dropped a bit to reduce reproduceability while remaining perfectly useable here.
  • Image:FCB-Gebäude_und_Trainingsgelände.JPG (level? Could do with losing the crane arm)
  • Image:Franz Beckenbauer 2006 06 17.jpg (caption could be a bit more detailed; mention that he is a former Munich player, for example, and mention when he became president)
  • Image:Allianz_Arena_after_soccer_game.jpg (In focus? Caption could mention why it's glowing red, if it's of interest.)
  • Image:FCB-Trainingsplatz.JPG (Consider losing this one, although relevant, to the untrained eye it's just a training field and doesn't really tell us anything about the team.
  • Can you find a (free use) pic of the team in action? This would be a useful addition.

More to come... 4u1e (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 5 (Stability): PASS. Some minor instability in the current squad section, but I think that's probably unavoidable at this time of year.

Criteria 4 (Neutrality): minor FAIL PASS
Quite frequent use of non-neutral words to shade the description. This should really be avoided. Non-exhaustive list of examples below, but the article needs review throughout:

  • Lead "Although Bayern won its first national championship in 1932, the club was denied access to the Bundesliga at its inception in 1963." This sounds as if the denial was unfair - was it? Judging by the fuller description given in History of Bayern Munich, more neutral wording would be "Although Bayern won its first national championship in 1932, it did not qualify for the first year of the Bundesliga when it was created in 1963."
  • 'History' 3rd para "decayed into irrelevance". Evocative, but it would be more neutral to give a more factual description, or to ascribe the view to a named source. Similar for "suffered the ignominy". "Denied membership" appears again here, too, and should be treated as suggested above.
  • 'History' 8th para "most successful coach of all time", "agonisingly close", "ignominious" The first needs support from a ref or some stats, the second and third should be deleted.
  • 'Stadium' 2nd para "Conclusions about its state can be drawn from the fact that.." Sounds like WP:OR, and certainly sounds like the authorial voice. Suggest that this can be deleted, without affecting the meaning of the para.
  • 'Stadium' 3rd para "still highly impressive with its architectural lightnes" Attribute this view to someone, or lose it.
  • 'The club and its vicinity'5th para: "their board being stacked with..." has a slightly negative sound (to me, at least). How about "many members of their board being..."

Criteria 3 (Breadth of coverage): Minor FAIL PASS

  • The criterion here is broad coverage, not comprehensive. However, almost every other GA level football team article has a section on the team colours and badge or crest. I think a short section on this would be a useful addition here.

Criteria 2 (Accurate and verifiable):FAIL PASS

Inline citations do not appear to meet the minimum requirements laid out in the GA criteria; "at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons"
Just from the lead:

  • Ref (1) used does not strictly support claim that the team is the most successful in German football, as it does not compare the team with others. It would also be preferable to use a site in English on en.wiki - I imagine such might well exist.
  • Ref (2) does not support the text immediate before it, there is no mention of 140,000 members or of Bayern's relationship to Benfica or Barcelona.

A couple of other examples from later on:

  • Quotes that appear without a ref directly after them - I know this is quite an annoying rule, but if you want to progress to FA, you'll need to address it.
  • " For the 2007-08 season, Bayern Munich made drastic squad changes to help retool and rebuild. They signed a total of 8 new players (and also, sold/released or loaned out 9 players). Luca Toni from ACF Fiorentina, Miroslav Klose from Werder Bremen and record signing Franck Ribery from Olympique Marseille headlined the signings" Ref 24 is used to support this, but only lists the 2008-09 squad, which is the wrong year, and even if it were the right year, would not support the points being made.
  • NEW Colours and crest sections (mostly) not ref'd (I know, I'm just mean :)) 4u1e (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all refs in depth. Please review the article thoughout to be sure that the minimum of references described above is provided.

Criteria 1 (well written): minor FAIL PASS

  • Although mostly clear as to what is meant, some examples of non-native English need clearing up. (southgerman as one word, for example)

*Explain what the Bundesliga is at the first appearance. (My apologies, already there 4u1e (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

  • Suggest it would be worth splitting the 'History' section into subsections, as has been done for many of the other GA level club articles.
  • Use words not numbers for values less than ten (except team scores!).
  • Needs a light copyedit for things like missing connecting words, use of commas, and use of tense.
  • 'The club and its vicinity' 1st para: "moved between the first division and amateur sports" I don't understand what this means. Can it be clarified?
  • 'The club and its vicinity' The intent of the title was unclear to me. The section seems to split into two separate sections: 'Rival teams' and 'Fans'. Suggest the section should be split and these, or some other, titles be used.

OVERALL: FAIL. PASS Most seriously, referencing needs a top to tail sorting out, but tidying up is required for quality of writing, neutrality and breadth of coverage. I'll put this on hold for a week (ending 17 August 2008). Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Further points

I'm doing some copyediting, which is turning up another question. Third para of 'History': "In the years after the war, FC Bayern Munich won some more regional honours until the club in 1926 won the first South German championship, an achievement repeated two years later." The first para says that the team "reached the semifinals of the 1900-01 southgerman championship." How can the 1926 South German championship be the first? First post-WWI? 4u1e (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the very beginning of German Football. When Bayern reached semifinal of the South German championship in 1901, there were not more than probably a few dozen clubs in Germany. I'm guessing here. There might have been more, but clubs were struggling to get training sites and most of them would not yet participate in such a competition. Also the structure of the leagues and championships changed rapidly until ~1920. Therefore Bayern made it to the semifinal of the South German championship in 1901 but that doesn't mean a lot. There even might have been many better clubs around, which just didn't participate yet.
What are the regional honours? From 1901-05 there were Munich city championships held. Bayern wins all of them (four in a row). Other minor triumphs include the first league win in 1910, thereby winning the "Ostkreismeisterschaft" and also due to another league win the "Südbayrische Bezirksmeisterschaft, Ostkreis". Then a "Gaumeisterschaft" was won in 1915. In 1920 Bayern wins the "Kreisliga Südbayern".
If you wanted to explain, what all of these titles meant, it would be very tedious and also not much enlightening for the reader. As far as I can see the South German championship is a constant in that picture. How teams were meant to qualify for the South German championship changed, but the South German chmapionship was almost always the qualifier for the German Championship.
Hope this helps. Don't hesitate to ask, OdinFK (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably wasn't quite clear about the point I was making! Having read the article on the Southern German football championship, I can now see that what you meant was that in 1926 Bayern won their first Southern Championship (not the first one!). I'll edit accordingly. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Denial of access to the Bundesliga

As it was mentioned two (?) times in the review I'm wondering how to write this, without suggesting unfair treatment.

What happened is: Bayern applied for a license to the Bundesliga, when the Bundesliga was incepted. As the DFB had 46 applications and only 16 slots, some teams would be in the league and other teams would not be. There was no fixed way to qualify, but the DFB had several criteria.

The most important regarding Bayern was, that five clubs from the south would be members of the Bundesliga. As Bayern had finished 3rd in 1962 and 1963 in the Oberliga South, and had also won a German Championship, it would have been the more or less logical conclusion to include Bayern in the Bundesliga. Another the criterium, which the DFB apparently found of major importance, was, that a city should have just one team in the league. As 1860 won the Oberliga South in 1963 the DFB preferred to include 1860 in the Bundesliga, despite the fact that there were several other criteria which would have favoured Bayern.

You cannot really say that this decision was unfair. The DFB decided, trying to do the best for the league. On the other hand it is also wrong to say "Bayern did not qualify", because there was no way to qualify. So what should one write instead of "was denied membership", which is correct but suggesting unfair treatment??

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, given that fuller explanation, how about the following wording: "When the Bundesliga was formed in 1963, five teams from the Obersliga South were admitted. Although Bayern finished third in that year's southern division, another Munich team, 1860 Munich, had won the championship and the DFB preferred not to include two teams from one city." Is that an accurate summary? 4u1e (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
For a shorter version (for the lead) I would just say: "Bayern were not selected for the first year of the Bundesliga." 4u1e (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The DFB set up a point system which included the final league positions from the last twelve years. The five clubs from the Oberliga Süd with the most points were chosen for the Bundesliga. Bayern wasn´t among the top five so they were left out. --Hullu poro (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to have some source for that. The way I depicted the process is quite exactly what Dietrich Schulze-Marmeling writes in "die Bayern". The book is a good source for most stuff, but if you have something better, I would like to change the article accordingly. It is not too different in the end, but still it should be corrected if it is wrong the way it is. OdinFK (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If Hullu Poro's version can be referenced, my original suggestion ('did not qualify for') would be the most appropriate. With an eye to GA, suggest that my second suggestion above ('were not selected' - which can be ref'd, or so I understand) be used for now. 4u1e (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

@ Odin: My source is the book Vom Kronprinzen bis zur Bundesliga by Hardy Grüne. The book is mentioned in the literature list of the german football portal, so it´s a reliable source. It says that 1860 was chosen because they won the Oberliga Süd. Nürnberg was chosen as well. Karlsruhe had 419 points, Stuttgart 408 and Kickers Offenbach 382. Bayern had only 288 points. Nürnberg finished every season on a better rank than Bayern in the years before, so you can be sure that Nürnberg had more points than Bayern. Nürnbergs number of points is not mentioned. The reference would be: {{cite book |title=Vom Kronprinzen bis zur Bundesliga. 1890 bis 1963. Enzyklopädie des deutschen Ligafußballs - Band 1 |last=Grüne |first=Hardy |year=1996 |publisher=AGON Sportverlag |location=Kassel |isbn=3-928562-85-1 |pages=414 }} --Hullu poro (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Are you sure, that the ranking was based on the last 12 years? My source says 10. OdinFK (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Grüne says that the ranking was based on the last twelve years. --Hullu poro (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on things still to be done for GA

Okay, I'll do this from #1 to #6:

1.

  • Use words not numbers for values less than ten (except team scores!).: As far as I can see this has been done. Actually it has also been done for the Other sports section. I'd like to change it back there, though. To use words for values less than ten is a nice rule of thumb, but it doesn't apply here. Some departments have more than ten teams, others less, therefore in some departments a number is used and in others a word for the number of teams. Have a look at the section! It looks silly.
    • Agreed - I've changed it back. 4u1e (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Needs a light copyedit for things like missing connecting words, use of commas, and use of tense.: I can't be of much help there as a nonnative. I cannot even give an good estimate how much is missing there, but I figure you (our reviewer) have done some copyediting already.
    • I'll polish it up to my satisfaction, which as we're at GA, is probably all that is needed! ;) 4u1e (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
      • OK - I'm happy with this now. Have changed the assessment above accordingly. 4u1e (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

2.

  • Ref (1): I removed the ref. The information is actually there as statistics on most successful teams are on the cup and league page.
  • Ref (2): I dropped that. Found a newer number of members, but could not find statistics on biggest clubs in the world. If someone has those it would be nice to have that stat again, but probably in the Organization and Finance section.
  • Quotes that appear without a ref directly after them':' Is it okay to see this as a "what you can do to further improve this article"? Actually some work has been done there, too, but at the moment every paragraph is referenced (the lead mostly by wikilinks).
    • No - the criterion is quite clear that this is a minimum level for GA, so I can't really drop it. You should be able to do it by either finding refs in the book you have, or by cutting the offending material. 4u1e (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hm. The way you state this ("Quotes that appear without a ref directly after them - I know this is quite an annoying rule, but if you want to progress to FA, you'll need to address it.") sounds to me as if it is a FA criterium. Misunderstanding probably.
But anyway I'm wondering what is still missing here. "Statement" is kind of a fuzzy word. What is a statement? A paragraph? A sentence? It depends I would say. In my opinion almost all statements have a citation attached. Some don't but in those cases you have a wikilink in the statement which supports the claim (as in the case of "most championships in germany"). It would probably enlightening to me, if you could give one or two examples, where you think the "statement" is still not verifiable.
Finally there are a few things not "really" verifiable, but I wonder what is supposed to be done about that. Firstly there are the Bayern nicknames. I cannot find a source to say "blah blah are Bayern's nicks". I can watch out for some texts using the names and cite that, but in my opinion it doesn't make any sense. Btw FAs like Arsenal F.C. don't reference that either. As a side note I am silly or is that article a lot worse referenced than this one? Anyway the other thing is the paragraph about Bayern's main rivals being the clubs putting up strongest resistance and European rivals. I cannot find a good reference for that, though I could probably find match reports on the FCB-site which p.e. refer to Real as a rival. Is that good enough or desirable, or is it better to remove the paragraph? OdinFK (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • For the 2007-08 season, Bayern Munich made drastic squad changes...: This has been fixed. It is an offline-reference, but that one is valid.
    • Nothing wrong with off-line refs. 4u1e (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Colours and crest sections: Thanks for pointing that out. I forgot, when I did the sections.
    • No trouble! 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please review the article thoughout to be sure that the minimum of references described above is provided.: When I submitted the article for GA-review I thought everything was properly referenced. There were some oversights apparently, but I'm pretty confident that the rest is correct. For the offline references. I imagine that you don't have the book "Die Bayern" at hand. I provided most of the references to this book. I don't know how you check these, but don't hesitate to ask if there is something you'd like to know. For the online references I'll check those once again.
    • Given that I don't have the book (and if I did, I can't read German!) I'm happy to take your word that the book supports what is in the article. I'll check out some more online refs to see whether I feel the problem has gone away! 4u1e (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

4.

  • Stadium 3rd para: Can I attribute this to anyone? I have a book about monuments, which includes the Olympic stadium. I did not care to have a look yet, but the stadium has been praised for its "architectural lightness" so often, that I'll definitely find it there. Certainly it is on the site of the stadium, too, but I wouldn't like to quote that, because it sounds like self-praise.
  • Rest has been done.

6.

  • Image:Bayern Munchen.png: The resolution could be dropped a bit to reduce reproduceability: I don't get your comment on that.
    • Ah, sorry about that. The image of the crest is here under Fair use, and part of the justification given for that on the image page is that the picture is too low a resolution to be used to create counterfeit goods (or words to that effect). Looking at the original image, it's actually quite big, so that may not actually be true. I'm not making it an issue for GA, but you might want to go an ask someone who specialises in this stuff to give you a view. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Franz Beckenbauer 2006 06 17.jpg: Has been done.
  • Image:Allianz_Arena_after_soccer_game.jpg: It's in the text about the stadium. Actually it is even in the caption. I didn't want to get the caption too big, so I kept it short.
    • It doesn't say why it's red, though! See WP:CAPTION for some guidance on trying to create captions that draw the reader into the text. 4u1e (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you find a (free use) pic of the team in action?: I'd love to, but I could not find any. I'm not too sure on copyright issues on the internet. What can be taken, what not? There is a lot of good pictures on the FCB official site. I'd like some pictures with Bayern celebrating championship/the cup and one with the captain, Mark van Bommel. But can I take them and tag them as copyrighted but taken for educational purposes only?
    • Basically virtually nothing you find on the internet can be used. I find it safest to stick to images that are licensed by either GFDL or Creative Commons cc-by-sa. You could try Flickr as a possible source - their search engine allows you to search for images with appropriate copyright. However, if the pictures don't exist, obviously you can't include them! 4u1e (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
      • These should be OK to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Any use? 4u1e (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I checked flickr before. There is few useful stuff concerning Bayern. The only picture I could imagine as support is this one: [5]. Unfortunately it is not that sharp, but it will probably not matter if it is not too big. Agree?
          • I think it would be a small but useful addition, so yeah, go for it. 4u1e (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GA - final points

Nearly there! Can you confirm that the following points are covered by the next hardcopy ref:

  • "'Jew's club'" (and you can imagine how contentious this might be...)
I know how troublesome such statements can be, but it is definitely in the book. The very words "Jew's club" are used in the book several time (in german obviously)
OK. 4u1e (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Their following is mainly recruited from the aspiring middle class and regional Bavaria"
I think "aspiring middle class" is on target as a translation of the German version in the book, which means the same, but the used phrase is more negative. "Regional Bavaria" is actually less fitting. Originally "people who had moved to Munich, but are not from the city" is meant. If you have a nice word for that, please replace it.
OK as is. "Immigrants to the city from the surrounding regions" would probably cover what you mean, although Immigrant is a loaded term nowadays. 4u1e (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "1860 is considered more working-class"
The book has a whole chapter about this rivalry. One section is even titled "workers" against "academics".
OK. 4u1e (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Bayern is considered the establishment club"
That one is in the same chapter about the rivalry. I added a reference, because the one next to that statement was actually referring to another fact.
OK. 4u1e (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "'gymnasts'"
To be honest I never checked on the statement. The closest I could find is following sentence: "The pure football clubs considered MTV and 1860 to be of low status, because there were just "gymnasts"." This describes the sentiment at the very beginning of the 20th century. I also never heard the term "gymnasts" used for 1860. Actually after reading that up, I find that statement veryfiable, but am doubtful, whether it is important enough to stay. On the other hand someone else obviously thought it worth mentioning. The statement in the article could be changed from "often" to "occasionally"?
Is it what they have most frequently been called? If not, is it notable enough to leave in? I've removed it for now (it's still in the history, of course!) for the sake of the GA. When and if you find a source which more specifically describes the term as one commonly used by Bayern supporters, you can add it back in. 4u1e (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "'cult'"
Could not find a source. Dropped it.
  • " calling itself record champion"
Rephrased the section. It is not quite clear from my source when Nuremberg began to refer to itself as record champion, though they definitely did until Bayern won their 10th championship.

Finally: "still highly impressive with its architectural lightness" Can you re-write to make it clear whose opinion it is? I.e. called by... or described as by... Although I'd tend to agree, this is still an opinion and should be attributed to someone as well as being referenced.

Hmm. I don't know who used the term at first. Probably it is so obvious, when you see the stadium, that it cannot really be attributed to any single person. I quoted a sightseeing book, which describes the stadium as such. There are books on architecture. Something like "milestones of 20th century architecture" and those are obvious sources for this description, too. I read one or two of those, but I don't own any, though. The familiarity of this term makes me want to keep it, on the other hand it is very prosaic. If you really think it cannot stay I suggest, that you replace it with "renowned for its unique architecture" or something to that effect.
I've substituted for "renowned for its architecture". 4u1e (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fix those and I'm happy to list this as a GA. Excellent work. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I made two final suggestions above, where I didn't really know what to do/how to put the phrase. If I did not miss anything else, the article should be good now.

4u1e, thanks a lot for your help. This was the first article I submitted as a good article candidate and I learned a lot in the review process due to your suggestions.

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Passed as GA. Well done, hope the process wasn't too painful! It says in the rules that I should suggest that you go and review someone else's GA nom now. I can think of at least two good reasons to do so: firstly, if we all do so, it keeps the backlog down and secondly, it can be just as much of a learning experience as having your own article reviewed. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Müller

Whoever is thinking about adding Thomas Müller to the squad, as has been done several times now: Please don't! He is not part of the squad. I know that he played against Essen in the DFB-Pokal, but he is part of the second team. He can play for the first team if necessary, but he is not part of it. Thanks, OdinFK (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction: He played against Erfurt in the DFB Pokal and he also was subbed in against Hamburg on Day 1 of the Bundesliga. Just saying. Madcynic (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
True. The Bayern squad features just three strikers this season, though: Toni, Klose, and Podolksi. As Toni is injured Müller gets promoted from the second team. He will probably make some games this season, but he is not part of the squad anyway. OdinFK (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Supporters

Stating the Ultra scene is well-organised is only half of the truth.The club fights Schickeria on all costs. Members of SM are not allowed to get season tickets.Never heard that anywhere else,so without telling more about it one could think SM is welcome at the club. -Lemmy- (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Squad / Second team

Can anyone please try to start a discussion here before adding players from the second team to the squad. This prevents unnecessary edit wars. Players like Georg Niedermeier or Holger Badstuber are not part of the squad. These players can be lined up, but this does not at any rate mean, that they are part of the squad.

Two players seem to be a bit in between though. At the UEFA Toni Kroos seems to be recorded as a player from the second team. On the other hand Thomas Müller seems to be a part of the squad as of the DFL. Anyway, in case of doubt I would refer to the official team site. Kroos is part of the roster there and Müller is not. Any good reasons not to refer to the official team site first?

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably the person removing the information that should start a discussion, rather than the person adding uncontroversial, sourced information. The UEFA list is from an official, reliable source, and complements rather than contradicts the FC Bayern list (The UEFA list makes no reference to the second team; 'Player List B' is largely set by age, and Kroos is in there because he is young enough that he doesn't need to take a place in the main list - Cesc Fabregas is on Arsenal's list, for example). These players have been registered for a first-team competition, by the club, and some have already been involved in the first-team. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually I did. But anyway: The UEFA list is definitely official, reliable etc., but what is the meaning of the list? I'm guessing here, but to me this seems to be a list of all players, which may be lined up in any UEFA-competition game this season by the corresponding club. That in itself doesn't make a player part of the squad. I must have seen a dozen lists of the squad of Bayern this season, but the UEFA list is the only one, which refers to Badstuber, Niedermeier, etc. as part of the Bayern Munich team.
The information is by no means uncontroversial, though. With all due respect my mere existence makes it controversial. More problematic though is, that the UEFA list is actually contradicted by almost every other squad list, including several which should be seen as official as the UEFA list. Refer to the FCB site and the DFL site for a start. The vast majority of unofficial sources actually presents a squad of 23 to 24, sometimes including Müller and/or Fürstner, sometimes not, but never Yilmaz, Badstuber, Niedermeier, Ekici, and Kopplin. None of those has participated in a league/cup/international match either, just friendly games. OdinFK (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't contradict any of those lists, though; it's merely more comprehensive, so what we're doing is getting the fullest list from multiple sources. In truth, any youth player at FC Bayern can play in the Champions League, these are a list of players that the club has chosen ahead of time, and given squad numbers - numbers that will be consistent with all other senior competitions. Niedermeier has already been on the bench for two Bundesliga games, and Ekici played in the Supercup (which is semi-official). Furstner has played in the past, so it doesn't seem inconceivable that the other few will be involved during the season. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
But I've already had this same argument last week, and I can't be bothered to go through it again. So do what you want. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you post a link to that discussion? While I'm still not convinced that yours is the way to go, I'd like to see those arguments. Probably the people here, including me, can learn something from that. Thanks, OdinFK (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Arsenal F.C. - there's loads of it towards the bottom of the page. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. If I don't misunderstand this discussion, there were three solutions proposed: Including every player with caps in pro games, including every player with benches in pro games, and including every player with a pro contract. As of now I think we were implicitly following the "include every player with a pro contract" variant. I don't think it is a good idea to use that rule because you cannot really know which player has which kind of contract. This information is very hard to come by as far as I know and also hard to validate. I would therefore prefer to switch to include every player with a cap in pro game. Why that and not benches in a pro game? Benches in my opinion are not all that relevant because almost any player can achieve a bench in the pro squad when many players are injured. Problems with the pro games appearance variant? Ribery for example has not had a cap in a pro game this season, but surely nobody would want to remove him.
My proposal therefore is to include every player who had a pro game appearance in the actual season or the season before. Any player who has any relevance to the team at all should be able to achieve this. OdinFK (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Where does someone like Hans-Jorg Butt fit into that? I definitely don't think we should be excluding players on the Bayern/Kicker/DFL lists, let alone the UEFA one. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Hans-Jörg Butt I would not consider starting to argue that you are right (though he would technically be covered by my definition). I really wonder how to handle this sensefully. In the Arsenal discussion they concluded the argument with a criterium on the basis that this criterium would prevent future edit wars. While any criterium should prevent edit wars I would like to have one which not only works but makes sense, too.
Currently we agree that everybody with caps should be included, which btw includes Thomas Müller. I'm still not for the "one bench" definition, though, because it is so meaningless (my whole family could be benched and it wouldn't hurt the team a bit). I'll make up my mind some more. I don't have a great solution right now. Feel free to suggest one... OdinFK (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to take it to WP:FOOTYTALK. I still maintain that the squad numbers definition works best, but I don't think you'll find many who think that being on the substitutes bench for a competitive game doesn't count as a squad member. Because that's really the definition of a squad. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Did that: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Football#Which players are squad.3F. OdinFK (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this conversation is over yet but what if we did something like how the FC Barcelona article is set up. Under the "Current Squad" list there is a "From the youth system" list. We could call it "From the Reserve team"? Just a thought. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense I guess. I just don't think it is a good idea to have all the players who could theoretically play mixed up together. That doesn't really reflect what the team is. Probably "From Bayern II" or something to that effect would be a more fitting name, but I like the idea anyway. OdinFK (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Squad template

I know there was a discussion about the reserve players being on the senior team roster and as far as I can see on the main article, they are not included. So why are they listed on the squad template? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Club Name

Hi Wiggy!

Are you sure that the full official name is "Fussball-Club Bayern München e.V."? Though I find it hard to dig up some real good evidence, the name really seems to be "FC Bayern München e.V.". While the "FC" is obviously shorthand for "Fußballclub" I think that only the short version "FC" is part of the club name, making it "FC Bayern München e.V.". Even if I'm wrong on that part I still suppose, that the name is "Fußballclub" and not "Fussball-Club". If you have better sources please drop a link. Anybody else is obviously welcome, too.

Thanks and Regards, OdinFK (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Grüne's Vereinslexikon gives "Fußball-Club", which is the common usage throughout the country for "FC" (i.e. Fußball-Club Bayern München e.V.). That reference provides the official full name for each team that it lists as well as the club's common and historical names. I'll have to scan and post a typical club listing so everyone can see what's what. This weekend sometime .... Wiggy! (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

paragraph i'd like to add

Hi!

I would like to add the following text to the article because I think it belongs in it. Well actually I think that something to that effect belongs into the article. Being a Bayern supporter myself I would like to have somebody more neutral read this in advance, because I think it sounds biased right now. Maybe that cannot be helped because the part is inherently positive, but I would rather not decide that myself. Also I don't know really were to put it. Any suggestions? Ah, and if you can improve my English, don't hesitate...

"Bayern has time and again shown to have a soft spot for clubs in financial disarray. Repeatedy the club has supported its local rival 1860 Munich with gratuitous friendlies, transfers at favorable rates, and direct money transfers. Also when St. Pauli threatened to lose its license for professional football due to financial problems, Bayern met the club for a friendly game free of any charge, giving all revenues to St. Pauli. More recently when Mark van Bommel's home club Fortuna Sittard was in financial distress Bayern came to a charity game at the Dutch club. Another well known example was the transfer of Alexander Zickler in 1993. When Bayern signed up Zickler for 2,3 Mio DM many considered the sum to be a subvention for the financially threatened Dresdeners."

PS: I have sources for all of that. Thanks, OdinFK (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would make an neat aside, especially given that you have it sourced. An interesting spin on the country's richest club. I thought that they lent Unterhaching a hand up at one time as well. Wiggy! (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering for a while how this could be incorporated into the article as it doesn't fit into any existing section. Maybe a section about charity could be included, though. I'm thinking about something along the following lines, but it still would be nice if someone could point out areas that need improvement.
"==Charity==
Bayern has been known to be involved with charitable ventures for a long time, helping other football clubs in financial disarray as well as ordinary people in misery. In the wake of the 2004 Tsunami the "FC Bayern – Hilfe e.V." was founded, a foundation that aims to concentrate the social engagements of the club. At its inception this venture was funded with 600,000€, raised by officials and players of the club. The money was amongst other things used to build a school in Marathenkerny, Sri Lanka and to rebuild the area of Trincomalee, Sri Lanka. Recently the focus of the foundation has shifted to support people in need locally.
The club has also time and again shown to have a soft spot for clubs in financial disarray. Repeatedly the club has supported its local rival 1860 Munich with gratuitous friendlies, transfers at favorable rates, and direct money transfers. Also when St. Pauli threatened to lose its license for professional football due to financial problems, Bayern met the club for a friendly game free of any charge, giving all revenues to St. Pauli. More recently when Mark van Bommel's home club Fortuna Sittard was in financial distress Bayern came to a charity game at the Dutch club. Another well known example was the transfer of Alexander Zickler in 1993. When Bayern signed up Zickler for 2,3 Mio DM many considered the sum to be a subvention for the financially threatened Dresdeners."
As before sources are available. OdinFK (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
From memory, they also helped out Hertha once, about 20 years ago. EA210269 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Honours

Hi!

The honours section gets kind of crowded with all those friendly honours and youth championships, etc. Wouldn't it be preferable to put the full honour list into another article (I would do it if you agree)? These local and friendly honours are not really that notable and should not be in the main FCB article in my opinion. I think it is done quite well in the Real Madrid article although I don't know whether Runners-up should really be considered an honour. Would you?

Also I wonder if the number of honours really warrants its own article. Right now I would move the stuff into an new section in the FC Bayern Munich statistics article. OdinFK (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think honours would be too small of an article. I would put everything into a new section inFC Bayern Munich statistics while keeping the the Bundesliga trophies, DFB Cup trophies European Cup, UEFA Cup trophy and Cup Winners' Cup trophy in the main article. Kingjeff (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. (Hope you don't mind me indenting you, Kingjeff) Madcynic (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all. Kingjeff (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Added a real introduction, too. OdinFK (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Captains

Is it true that Kahn and Effenberg were joint captains from 1999-2002? I did some looking up and could not find anything about it. Any sources, or does anybody at least think he remembers this having been so? Also do the former captains really belong into the article? The article is already cluttered with statistics and tables, especially towards the end. And finally is it a good idea to assign the Hall of Famers to more or less random decades? Despite the obvious shortcomings of that approach I don't see any real advantage to that at a mere 15 players in the Hall of Fame. OdinFK (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

2010 shirts

Hi, could someone maybe make a new third shirt? It isnt white/red anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.96.225 (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring towards FA

Hi, I'd like to nominate this article for FA in the not too distant future. Comparing FC Bayern Munich to other club FAs it apparently needs some restructuring, though. It is not that I think each club FA needs to be identical or even closely similar in structure. The Bayern article has some highly unusual sections, though, and when I think about it, other articles probably don't have these section because they don't really belong into a very good article. While the article will not change fundamentally it is still kind of a major overhaul and I thought to discuss that here first. So what do I think has to change?

  • It is generally unusual to have a "Recent seasons" section in the article. I even remember somebody critizising this article for that, but I don't remember when it was. Anyway, a link to the seasons article is probably more adequate. The data is rather ephemeral and the interested reader can easily be directed to the list with the full information. It also removes a table from the article (and many wp-articles are table-heavy anyway; this one is no exception)
  • The captains should be moved into the Bayern Munich statistics article. That one should probably cleaned up, too, but that is a different story. I don't really see how this helps the casual reader and it is yet another table in the article.
  • Notable past players then would go handily into the Players section.
  • Colours and Crest sections should be merged. While these sections could have a bit more information they are basically okay right now I suppose. Only this two short paragraph Crest section is a bit pathetic and if both sections were merged we had a fine section which were thematically coherent, too (see Norwich_City_F.C.#Colours_and_Crest).
  • Training facility. Does this really belong in the club article? Right now I don't know where to put it otherwise, but to me this seems to be marginal information.
  • Other sports. I know I created that one, but I don't really think the way this information is presented right now is adequate. Especially the number of players is highly ephemeral and I don't see how it enlightens the reader. On the other hand I think if those other departments are presented the reader should have a grasp of how big they are. So just mention the number of teams? Any other suggestions?
  • The last part of the history section needs some rewriting. I don't think this is very controversial because that part is overfull with recent data just like so many other articles.

I think some of these things could be explained better, but --apologies-- I just don't really know how right now. Although it is not your duty to figure my ideas aout, I hope you get what I mean. Does anybody oppose or have some suggestions? Regards, OdinFK (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the "Charity" section is totally unusual, too. I don't know whether other clubs participate in charitable activities (i guess so), but it doesn't seem to be as marginal as several of the other sections. This should have an impact on how the club is perceived by someone reading the article. So in my opinion this information is relevant enough to stay. OdinFK (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Pfaff

Why is Jean-Marie Pfaff nowhere mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.13.38 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Where would you like Jean-Marie Pfaff to be mentioned? He's not a current player so he can't be added there. The section on Notable past players clearly indicates that it is the list of players in the FC Bayern Munich Hall of Fame which can be found at the club's hall of fame page. Feel free to press the club into adding him to the hall of fame. In the intervening time, you might want to add him to the list of FC Bayern Munich players. With 156 appearances, he qualifies for addition to that page. Unless he did something outstanding for the club, I can't see him being listed in the prose sections. So where would you suggest we add Pfaff? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FC Bayern München

is the club's official name. The article title should really reflect this. — [Unsigned comment added by Sueisfine (talkcontribs) 17:10, 25 April 2010.]

the club uses the name "FC Bayern Munich", so that's the official english name. It's a topic that has been discussed in the past, accompanied by various page moves, eventually leading to the solution used now (official english name used as article name, official german name mentioned in brackets).--BSI (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Since no one else has weighed-in I'll back BSI's comments and point out that when an acceptable exonym exists it should be used. In this case, that would be FC Bayern Munich. However, we could use (German: FC Bayern München) after the English subject name has been defined. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Something similar was already in the lead. I modified it to use the language template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Date formatting

We should decide whether the date format should be German, British, or American. Another editor pointed this out and we should seek consistency. Date and time notation by country indicates that German format is currently 24. April 2010. The British format would be 24 April 2010 while the American format would be April 24, 2010. (Fortunately April has the same spelling in English and German). I have no preference other than to suggest that this is not the German Wikipedia and should use an English format. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:DATESNO says that either April 24, 2010 or 24 April 2010 is acceptable, so the German formatting with the dot would be wrong. In cases where the article topic does not have strong ties to a particular English-speaking country (which I think is here the case), one should retain the existing format (which also also not helpful in this case) or use the date of the first major contributor. I have no idea who the first major contributor was, but according to this statistic it might be User:Kingjeff.
In most cases where the date format is not clear, I tend to use the format of the player's/club's home country, which would be dmy in this case. --Jaellee (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that there is stronger relationship to Britain than to the US. That would suggest that '24 April 2010 should be used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to count, but is the English formatting not by far prevalent right now anyway? If that's so it seems sensible to change the minority formatting to the majority formatting. Also while I'm not so good with the wikipedia guidelines I remember reading, that --mostly to avoid editing wars over trivialities-- the article should adopt the formatting used in the original submission. 5000+ edits later that is probably a bit farfetched, but I guess adopting the formatting mostly used can be considered to be in the spirit here. OdinFK (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Champions League results

What is the rationale behind deleting the ongoing results? I don't understand why it's being repeatedly removed. If it's bad, fix it, but don't delete it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The rationale is, that the history section is there to cover precisely that: The 'History' of the club. Match by match coverage of the ongoing season is not what is supposed to go in there. That's what the season articles are for. OdinFK (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
But once a match has been played isn't it history? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure is. Everything that has happened is history if you care to use this definition of the word. But to go to the extreme, you sure don't want to have every line up Bayern had in friendlies in 1912 in the main article. On the other hand that Bayern made it to the Champions League final this season definitely belongs into the history section in the main article. While I don't think that each intermediate result belongs in there, which occurrence is significant enough is open for discussion of course. OdinFK (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
What was being added was current and informative. After the campaign is over, a shorter paragraph can be crafted. I have done this myself for my local club. However, simply deleting the information as it is added is, I feel, heavy-handed and should not continue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Often the additions are written in a bad style and the spelling is horrible. I admit that I'm not always in the mood of doing extensive corrections, especially if I think that the added information is to detailed anyway. --Jaellee (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Then fix it, don't simply delete it. Currently there is no information regarding their Champtions League final berth. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. What about On the 27 April 2010, Bayern beat Olympique Lyonnais 3-0 after winning 1-0 in the first leg. That result sent Bayern to the UEFA Champions League Final 2009-10.? (I fixed a typo and the date in the meantime.) --Jaellee (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Champions 2009–10

Bayern are not yet champions. They have a lead of 3 points and 17 goals (see here) and I agree that it is very unlikely that they lose the championship, but it is theoretically still possible. So please refrain from adding the championship yet. --Jaellee (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. My mistake. Totally forgot that there is a slim possibility of placing second. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Release at end of contract

Rensing and Görlitz (no relation) will be released at the end of the month. However, until then they are still members and should stay on the roster. That is also the case on the official roster site. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

While it's disappointing to see someone who shares my family name be cut from my second-favourite team, we cannot cut them from the roster until the source removes them. I have seen many news sources indicating that they will be cut as of today, but we must follow Wikipedia rules on sources. I will not revert any removal though even if the source doesn't show it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

FC Bayern Munich redirects here

The first sentence in the article currently is "FC Bayern Munich" redirects here." That doesn't really make sense. FC Bayern Munich doesn't redirect anywhere, because this is the very article named "FC Bayern Munich". "Bayern Munich redirects here" would make more sense. I mean it's just nitpicking, but I wonder if there is a policy on this kind of statements and what it would be. For comparison, if you visit Real Madrid C.F. they use the formulation that makes sense. Well, I just saw it and to say that again, it's nitpicking, but shouldn't we change that? OdinFK (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The article used to be called FC Bayern München and FC Bayern Munich redirected to it. Since the page was moved, no one has noticed. I'm sorry. I also added links to the women's team, second team, and junior team. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

HALL OF FAME

there now appears to be two different halls of fame. One at http://www.fcbayern.t-home.de/en/company/club/hall_of_fame/index.php and the other at http://www.fcbayern.t-home.de/de/verein/ev/hall_of_fame/index.php I don't mind going with the German hall, but we have to change the reference. And then we have the problem that it's not an English link, but on a German club article, that's to be expected. Perhaps wording to indicate that both exist but that the German hall will be more up-to-date than the English translation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Manuel Neuer to Bayern Munic

FC Bayern Munic will sign Manuel Neuer from FC Schalke 04 to replace Hans-Jörg Butt as the starting goal keeper. He has agreed to a five year deal and is undergoing medical examination at Bayern Munic as of June 1st 2011. He becomes the second summer signing after the club previously agreed a three-year pact with Rafinha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1151 (talkcontribs)

He's actually #3. Nils Petersen signed on May 19. All transfers are official on July 1. Kingjeff (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Renewed international success (1998–present)

Should this topic be expanded to include some of the recent issues with Louis Van Gaal, his termination as coach, the appointment of Andries Jonker, and the race for a CL-qualifying third place finish? All of this would be a build up over the next month until the official chagnes to the squad and coaching staff take place. Thoughts? Erikeltic (Talk) 20:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally the history section should not focus too much on recent events. "If you write something like Van Gaal had a bad start, but at the end of the season almost won the treble anyway. Second season started off even worse and eventually van Gaal was sacked due to strategic differences. His assistant Jonker took over and led the team to the CL qualification." That's about as detailed as it should get in my opinion. I mean in case the reader is really interested in the details there is a whole article called History of FC Bayern Munich, but most readers are more interested in the big picture when they read the normal history section.
Semi-related I think the headline of the section is still adequate. This period of success began with the signing of Hitzfeld and not much has changed since. It might be that this would be seen different in a couple of years if this team turns out one of the great Bayern teams, but right now it is good as is. OdinFK (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I was really referring to "Van Gaal era" which is now history. You raise a really good question though; at what point is their current situation no longer going to be considered "renewed international success"? This year's performance saw Bayern knocked out of CL early and barely make the third place CL qualifying position. Sure they got the Pokal semifinals, but over all it was a very mediocre year for Bayern. Hopefully their success never ends and things only improve from here. I suppose time will only tell, but I think that if (god forbid) they finish in 4th place or higher and fail to make the champions league next year we should consider putting a pin in 2011 and create a Current situation section. Erikeltic (Talk) 14:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Their performance is no worse than some previous years. The didn't get knocked-out of CL play early at all as they made it into Round of 16 after winning their group. There are a lot of other teams would have loved to have made it into the group stages. During the past decade they have finished lower in the league, were knocked out of the Pokal earlier, but made it through to the CL quarter finals. So don't let recent events make it seems as though they are performing poorly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think they are performing poorly either. I think 2011 was mediocre for them. I'm just thinking about the future, if FCB ever does perform poorly. I hope they don't. Erikeltic (Talk) 14:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Current squad

The current squad listing can be found here. Aside from the changes that will go into effect on July 1 (Neuer, Ott, Rafinha, etc.) the article here is current to June 30, 2011. Please wait until July 1, 2011 (even if it's 12:00:01am in New Zealand) before changing the squad. That seems to be the current consensus and is why the page is protected. Thank you. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Current squad has been fixed, although the current staff has still not been changed. Since it is past July 1st, I think this can be done now. Elephantelep (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hawksku999, 9 June 2011

On June 7th former Schalke 04 goalkeeper, Manuel Neuer signed a five year deal with Bayern.

Hawksku999 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This transfer does not take place until the transfer window opens on 1 July. As such, Neuer should not be added to the current squad list until then. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Already done, and article protected to prevent more edit warring. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 186.85.136.72, 19 June 2011

please add manuel neuer, rafinha and nils petersen to the squad, as well as taking out miroslav klose, thomas kraft, hamit altintop and andreas ottl from the squad

186.85.136.72 (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

These transfers do not take affect until 1 July, as stated above. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Not done: pending consensus for the change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Engineer-Ibrahim, 23 June 2011

New Transitions In Team, Current Squad Need To Be Changed.

Engineer-Ibrahim (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The squad changes do not take effect until July 1, 2011. Please see above for more information. Erik the Red (Talk) 21:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Olympiastadion München

I think I know what's going on even though no summaries are being left by either editor. In German, the field is known as "Olympiastadion" which in English is "Olympic Stadium". There's no need to differentiate it from Berlin's because it's understood as the one in Munich because of its location to the club. However, in English, that association isn't immediately obvious and so it's best to leave the city's name in as an adjective. However, as a compromise I would suggest ". I would even edit the paragraph to read "Bayern has played its home games in the Allianz Arena since the beginning of the 2005–06 season, Bayern plays its home games in the Allianz Arena. For the 33 years prior, they played in the city's Olympic Stadium." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable fans of the club

Does anybody know if there is enough notable fans of the club to warrant a section on it? I know of one. But one isn't really enough to start a section on it. Kingjeff (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This Source lists those: Boris Becker, Helmut Markwort, Michael Mittermeier, Horst Seehofer, Edmund Stoiber, Harald Schmidt, Alfons Schuhbeck, Elmar Wepper, Joachim Fuchsberger, Senta Berger, Wladimir Klitschko, Philipp Kohlschreiber, Felix Neureuther (I only mentioned the ones with existing articles in the English Wikipedia). --Jaellee (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that 'notable supporters' is a section that we actually do want to have in an article? None of the other high-profile football club articles have this. This doesn't mean it is necessarily bad practice, but at least it makes me wonder why you think this information should be included. I mean how is it relevant to the topic that some celebs are fans of Bayern? If they contributed heavily I could see this as being relevant, but Bayern being the most-supported club in Germany you would expect some celebs to be supporters. I just don't see how a list of those improves the article. Seems more like a bunch of data tagged on. Also even if we came to the conclusion that notable supporters should be in a good football article, shouldn't it be a subsection of 'supporters' then? OdinFK (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I would say, get rid of it. After all, we don't have a Category:Notable people! It's far to wage a subject to be included in the club article. If some of them would be club members it would be a different matter, then we could have a membership section with statistics. We could mention any members with articles on this Wikipedia there. If we had a notable fan section, we could also have a notable FCB-haters section and include the Die Toten Hosen there, and that would be really ridicoulos! Calistemon (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to have a "Category:Notable people" because people have to be notable to be included in Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with the section. Add the club haters if you want to add them. Kingjeff (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Category:Notable association football fans? Who supports FC Bayern or doesn't hasn't got much to do with the club and shouldn't be in the article. It's trivia at best, which is discouraged. You could add it to the Boris Becker article if you want, but it shouldn't be here. Calistemon (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it trivia? Not really. As for Odin's earlier points: It's not just celebrities. It could be in the supporters section, but that's usually for supporters groups. It does feel like a tag though and every person should be referenced. I would also argue that it's not so much about the club as it is about the popularity of the club. That may change over time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Everything that needs to be said about FCB's support is already in the Supporters section, which states some of the the facts that really define the popularity of a club, like membership, attendences and the number of fan clubs. Which celebrity supports which club in Germany, or anywhere, is just gossip and trivia. And this is confirmed by the very source used for the information, the TZ, a Boulevardzeitung, hardly one of the serious papers in Munich. Calistemon (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Did we arrive at a conclusion now? Can this section be deleted? Or should the issue be discussed in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinFK (talkcontribs) 2011-11-01T10:28:55‎
Yes we have arrived at consensus that it should stay. No we don't need to take it to the project. Yes you should sign your comments. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I took the liberty to add the trivia template to the section, after reading up in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. I think, it falls under that. I think, the senstence In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list hits the nail pretty much on the head. If this information should be part of the article, it is better to place it in the text rather then in a pretty undescriptive list. Calistemon (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to get presumtuous here, Walter. I disagree that the list should stay and I'm certainly not the only person thinking this way as you can see above. So why do you think there was a consensus reached? And why do you discourage taking something to the project when no consensus can be reached? Btw sorry for forgetting to sign in 1000+ comments just once. OdinFK (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't a consensus reached? It seems to be two editors saying one thing and two other editors saying another. Perhaps the consensus is no consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice way of putting it. But what then? If there is no consensus do we leave it at that? I don't really care whether my opinion is the "correct" one here, but I'd rather be convinced (which I'm not right now) that this list belongs in an article than leaving the article like that, just because we could not reach a consensus (and while saying 'we have a consensus that we have no consensus' is a nice metacomment, it does not really help). So what can sensibly be done? Is taking this to the project a sensible option? Regards and no hard feelings, OdinFK (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure. bring it to the attention of the football project. That will open it to a larger group and perhaps consensus can be reached. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A quick look in the archives of the football project confirms that consensus has been reached years ago. For more info, have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 2#Fans (2006). Editors back then were pretty clear in what they thought about such lists. I also can't find any such list at the Manchester United F.C. or the Real Madrid C.F. articles in the supporters section and those two clubs surely attract even more high-profile fans then Bayern. You can either stick with the five year old consensus and get rid of the list or raise the issue again, have it overturned and have every IP address add their favorite little star to football club articles. Calistemon (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football as this could affect more than just this article, lets continue there in a civil manner and respect the ultimate consensus, regardless which way it goes. Everybody happy with this? Calistemon (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Specifically at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Notable fans. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that the post on WikiProject Football has now gone stale but, with the exception of Walter, people were not in favor of such lists, I have moved the content to the supporters section in the form of prose and deleted the list section. I've culled a bit, too, and only left those figures that I assumed to be known outside of Germany, in the English speaking world, too. I don't think, people like Sebastian Wurth (never heared of him before) belong to this list. Calistemon (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It has gone stale, but you have misrepresented the discussion. The consensus was more along the lines of "If there is something to write about, then do it, otherwise don't. Don't create a List of notable supporters section. Create a list of notable supporters who have done something for the team or club." Your edit may not have been sufficiently harsh in removing based on that consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't mind getting rid of the lot about notable supporters, as I agree, none of them does anything special for the club, to my knowledge. If they were club members instead of fans, it might be a different scenario. Given that some of us are in favour of keeping the list, at least in some form, and others, like myself, are not, I was hoping the current compromise would be acceptable to both sides. Calistemon (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Pretty sure the ref indicates that they're all club members as FCB is a member-based club. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't know. I consider myself a Bayern fan and have done so for almost 35 years and yet I've never been a member. One doesn't necessarily involve the other. Calistemon (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. The source seems to be listing only FCB members. Notice this image: http://www.tz-online.de/bilder/2009/03/06/94439/941695403-13_elmar_jantz_475px.9.jpg and the wording of some of the other fans. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Having a good look at the source, Becker, Stoiber and Markwort are actually on the board, Schmidt and Wepper are members. As for the rest, its a bit vague on their status. Being club members or, even more, board members, definetly makes those handful of people notable in regards to the club. Its a completely different thing from being just a fan. Calistemon (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 5 december 2011, regarding the section on Supporters

Hello,

I added information about the ultra scene of the FC Bayern München and in particular the group Schickeria München. The edits, as a whole, were reverted by Walter Görlitz with the following notification: "Perhaps we need some good third-party sources to verify its notability. Primary sources here are not helpful other than to show that the group exists". I tried to start a discission with him on his talk page, but by post there dissappeared as well (altouh it still exits in my contributes). Perhaps, I did not write it correctly, so I will therefire try ty make the post here:

There is no doubt that the Schickeria München exists and its political positions are no secrets. Officially, the group itself describes its political positions as anti-racist and against so called "Modern football". The anti-racist stance can be seen on numerous flags and banners and the group has also participated in public demonstrations against the commercialization of football and against racism. As a third party opinion, I would like to bring up Gabriel Kuhn, writer on the subject of football and politics. I met him in person during the Göteborg Book Fair. I intended to discuss the supporters of the FC St Pauli with him, but instead he pointed at the Schickeria München as an example of the growing number of "progressive" ultra groups in Germany. He also did this kind of statement in an the interview that I posted as source. What concerns the "notability" of the Schickeria München, I can not really say. What is notability in this sense? I do not know the exact answer, but I think that the actions against Manuel Neuer (whether regarded as an act of sheer stupidity or as an legitimate protest against the politics of the club) and the fuss it created, shows that the group does not pass entierly unnoticed.

Best regards

Erik

EriFr (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It was moved from my talk page to the project page. I then notified you that it was there. Please don't make me look like someone not willing to discuss it. The issue is simple: you don't have a single reliable third-party source to indicate that this is more that just a few radicals who want to push a point. Please find somewhere else to politicize your movement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
See WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, I did not know that it was moved, I am not familiar with all funcions of Wikipeida, but thank for also answering here. The ultras scene is mentionend in the article, and this is simply just one of its many characteristics. As far as I understand, most fans of the FC Bayern München see the Schickeria München as a minor despisable element of disturbance, but the group is still visible and something that is discussed. (As an example during an 2010 interview in Der Spiegel regarding the ultra scene of the FC Bayern München, the Schickeria München came immediately at fokus.) I think that explaining this part of the ultra scene is fair to the reader.
Best regards
Erik

EriFr (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Where's the Der Spiegel article? Is it on more fan groups than just Schickeria München or is it on others as well? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is the interview: http://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/0,1518,688265,00.html EriFr (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. That's a valid reference for a brief mention. We'll have to let others weigh-in on this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I would just like to be informed what determined whether a team with a city which has a different name in their own language than in English, will be referred to with the city name of the language of origin or city name in english?

I understand why Moscow are being used since they are using a completely different alphabet and that AC Milan and Genoa CFC is actually called that for historical reasons even in Italy despite the cities being named Milano and Genova there, but what are the reason behind the following:

Use of the English name of the city:

Bayern Munich (instead of München) 

F.C. Copenhagen (instead of København)


Use of the name of the city from the language of Origin:

Napoli (instead of Naples)

FC Köln (instead of Cologne)

AS Roma (instead of Rome)

Sevilla (instead of Seville)

IFK Göteborg (instead of Gothenburg)


To me it seems that as long as a team is not from a country that has a completely different alphabet (and by that I do not mean only a few extra letters) or a club is actually named after the english name, the most common is to use the name of the city from the country of origin, but Bayern München and F.C. København seems to be an exception from this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neberu (talkcontribs) 15:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, when we last had this discussion (as I remember it) it was pointed out by the native speakers, that Bayern is almost universally referred to as "Bayern Munich" in English. OdinFK (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Unlike the clubs listed above, Bayern Munich have localized exonyms while the clubs listed above don't and use the endonyms. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Infamous 1975 European Cup Victory causes riots in Paris.

--212.139.252.54 (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/champions-league/5292028/Footballs-great-conspiracy-theories.html--212.139.252.54 (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories have no place in an encyclopedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

--Boogiejuice (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)This victory caused Leeds United fans to riot in Paris. --Boogiejuice (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)--Boogiejuice (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)my original post was factual too, Leeds were cheated out of victory--Boogiejuice (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure it did. Do you have any news reports to back this? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/a-history-of-leeds-united-violence-1-2171900# --Boogiejuice (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

--80.42.150.162 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Why have you removed my well known facts?!--80.42.150.162 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Since it's "A history of Leeds United violence" save it for the Leeds article not this one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It is totally relevant to the match of Bayern Munich v Leeds Utd which is being discussed here http://www.europeancuphistory.com/euro75.html The main talking point of this final, the referee and Leeds reaction to this performance!--Boogiejuice (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

But this article is about the senior mens club, not about individual matches or the supporters of other teams. Sorry you don't see that. I'll see if others in the football project agree by alerting them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That article is only about the European Cup Final 1975 Bayern Munich v Leeds http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/05/99/uniteds_euro_showdown/347144.stm And a BBC News report of this match and the referee.--Boogiejuice (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It also appears that you're directly copying material from sources such as [6] which is a copyright violation. Feel free to paraphrase the material, but don't lift it directly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Now I see copyright violations from here as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
direct quotes are not copyright violations.--Boogiejuice (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
True. But you were copying and pasting more than just direct quotes as the links show. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The only information from the BBC website that is "word for word" are the direct quotes.--80.42.150.162 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Now. But not here and not here, which was an earlier edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thanks for correcting me, the previous posts were far more interesting and only well known facts.--80.42.150.162 (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

History

It's the case that Norwich City F.C. were the only English team to beat Bayern at the Olympic Stadium. However, is it not also the case that, at the time of writing, they remain the only English team to beat Bayern at home? Has any English team yet beaten Bayern at the Allianz Arena? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.33.138 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

According to UEFA, no: http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=1789583.html --Jaellee (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


as of now, arsenal did in 2012-13, chelsea drew them/won after penalties (though at "neutral allianz arena" in the final), 04/05 was still played at the olympiastadion. (not counting friendlies). bolton drew them in munich in 07-08 uefa cup group stage. 92.196.61.124 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nicknames

As far as I see, FC Hollywood is an ironic title the FC Bayern had in the past. Even if you may hear it now and then, it is neither a nickname in the strict sense nor is it current. -- Zz (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That was the first name by I which I knew it. It may be pejorative, but it was commonly used in the 70s. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
you don't believe that yourself do you? even now that name is almost never used. every once in a while in the yellow press, not in the football context. you could equally well use "scheiss-bayern" as a nickname, it's used even more frequently than fc hollywood. still noone would consider it a nickname. 92.196.61.124 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Rivalries section

Bayern-Real Madrid games are not the most played matches in CL any more, Milan-Barcelona has played 15 games, as of this season.78.133.15.67 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ownership needs updating

Allianz recently made a purchase for EUR110. Now the shares are: members 75%, audi/adidas/allianz all 8.33% http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/insurance/10632357/Allianz-takes-8pc-stake-in-Bayern-Munich-football-club.html Utopial (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2014

Page states "FC Bayern is currently second in UEFA's club coefficient rankings", but the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient#UEFA_Team_Ranking states that they are third. Sk8r2000 (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A proper reference would be www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/season=2014/index.html. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
It depend on what list you go after. On UEFA coefficient article we use reliable Kassiesa which immediately adds bonus points for reaching next step in competition while the UEFA source hands them out at the end of the season. UEFA are also very slow to make updates and often dont update at all at the beginning of the tournament. QED237 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say the besdt is probably to remove "currently" and change after every season like "after 2012-13 season BM was ranked as second team in UEFA coefficient ranking". Especially sine "currently" imposes this being updated regurlarly on wikipedia and that is not the case. Perhaps it can even take years before it gets updated next time. QED237 (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. There hasn't been any objection to Qed237's suggestion in three days, so I have implemented it, after copy editing it a little. If anyone is unhappy with the wording, just let me know and I can change it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 March 2014

Julian Green's FIFA eligibility was changed to USA today. http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/24/fifa-approves-julian-greens-switch-to-united-states-immediately-eligible-to-play-for-usmnt/ Scp333 (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done because as stated above, he's still a German based on the team for which he last played and nationality should not change until he has played a competitive match for the USMNT. There is still the likelihood that he will never do that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that he's been called up to the United States' team for their very next match, I don't think "likelihood" means what you think it means, Walter. If you mean "possibility," sure. But in any event, I'm unclear why the flag has to define whether the player "has played a competitive match for X." There are plenty of players who have not played a competitive match for any national team, and yet they have flags. And the note on the roster, again, says "FIFA eligibility rules," not "most recent competitive match." It seems like you have created an artificial rule, and are now defending it to the last drop, even though there's an insufficiently rational relationship between your rule and the meaning of the flag as listed in the article itself. After all, if his leg gets shattered TOMORROW, nobody's going to write an article about the early end to "German-national Julian Green's career." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, as incorrect as it may be. Called-up means what exactly? Has he been asked to play or sit on the bench? It's the latter. He hasn't been offered a starting role. If you think it's an artificial rule, by all means, ask for intervention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football‎‎. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous. First of all, he probably won't start, but given the six sub rule, it's "more likely than not" that he'll play. Does coming in as a sub now not qualify you? Maybe only if he starts in the final of the World Cup championship game, so only a covet few players even have a nationality.

I'd ask to intervene, but I don't see the need. Why? Because as far as I can tell, I've reviewed project football front to back and it doesn't state the rule you say it requires. The only place any "rule" exists is in the template, which says exactly what the Bayern Munich page says - defined by FIFA eligibility rules, with a link to FIFA eligiblity rules on wikipedia. Which in turn, says "In June 2009, FIFA Congress passed a motion that removed the age limit for players who had already played for a country's national team at youth level to change national associations. This ruling features in Article 18 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes." Article 18, in turn, states:

1. If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams due to nationality, he may, only once, request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions.... 3. Any Player who has the right to change Associations in accordance with par. 1 and 2 above shall submit a written, substantiated request to the FIFA general secretariat. The Players’ Status Committee shall decide on the request. The procedure will be in accordance with the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Once the Player has filed his request, he is not eligible to play for any representative team until his request has been processed.

In other words, he is eligible to play for the United States. He is not eligible to play for Germany. He has not been eligible to play for Germany since he filed his request last week. He is American according to "FIFA eligibility rules," which is what both the actual website and the project page state is the criteria. And you have several times now pointed me to the general WikiFooty project, which, unless I am missing something, says absolutely nothing to the contrary. (If I am missing the particular citation or discussion you are referring to, please kindly point it out to me.) The only intervention I can think of asking is for you to lose your credentials, and I don't care enough about wikipedia entries to bother having that fight. I guess we all can enjoy our little fiefdom of power, like a Condo Association President or Lord of the Flies. But stop acting like your intensity is evidence of your correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

PS - I looked at the Footy page because I was and continue to be generally interested in the logic behind waiting until he plays for his new team before changing the flag. I don't get the logic. But instead of being explained the logic, I get a lot of haughty statements about it being the rule along with a lot of meaningless hypotheticals about him never playing for the United States. Even if he is never capped for the United States, then so what? Doesn't the fact that he's never played a meaningful match for Germany, along with the fact that he's declared his allegiance to the United States, mean that a US flag would not be bizarre even under such an unlikely scenario? I mean, from today on forward, he'll be referred to in press articles as an American national, regardless of whether he is capped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Now try asking on the talk page. There are a dozen unwritten rules so instead of continuing to be obnoxious, do yourself a favour and ask. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia is not a secret handshake club...... 1a) There are no unwritten rules, even if you believe that's the way it should be done. 2) Even if there were unwritten rules, it would seem self-explanatory that the unwritten rule cannot directly contradict the written rule ("FIFA eligibility" controls) 3) You have been obnoxious from the start, and the responses in tone have simply been to reach your level of haughtiness and smug superiority. 4) I've started a conversation on the talk page, but it's silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is work of community and all I can see is an IP trying to say same thing over and over again without listening. And dont expect any answer were you posted. You should post it directly at WT:FOOTY. QED237 (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a work of a community, it's primary goal is to be open source to everyone, not just dedicated handles. It's therefore a work of everyone, not just Walter Gorlitz and QED237 and a handful of other people who make it their personal hobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I consider everone editing on wikipedia a part of the community, both new and old editors, IP's and users. QED237 (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I consider it belonging to everyone so everyone, including anons editing from Washington DC, is free to discuss this over at the footy project page.
And speaking of obnoxious from the start...
As for unwritten rules, there are a lot of them, both on Wikipedia and in live. Get used to it. To that point, read WP:IGNORE.
I'm done discussing this here. I'll watch for my name at the footy project page anon may find a sympathetic ear to pathetic whining. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014

Julian Green's nationality should be changed from German to American. 70.162.49.233 (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Current squad?

I just reffed the latest change in "FIFA Nationality" for Julian Green. So his entry is accurate as of today. But the "Current as of" cite at the top claims the list is current as of yesterday, based on a retieval of a team website retrieved in October 12th. Given how often this subsection would need to be updated to keep it current (i.e. nearly every day.) I think the whole "Current as of" heading should be deleted. It can rarely be considered reliably accurate unless someone checks the team web page daily. What do others think? David in DC (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Changing the heading to "First team squad" and keep the as-of date seems reasonable. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Somebody has posted in the notes to the main page that Julian Green's nationality should not be changed until he plays for the senior side. But as of today he is no longer eligible to play for Germany. If that is the rules "we" (who is this we?) use, then "we" should say so in the page rather than reference to FIFA eligibility rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all he has said he wants to change teams but ut has not been done yet, an application will have to be sent in to FIFA first and that will be done the upcoming weeks. And by "we" it is WP:Footy that always uses the FIFA nationality which is defined as the team the player last played for, and Green most recently played for Germany. It was the exactly same ase for Diego Costa a few weeks ago when he made his debut for Spain. QED237 (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It may have been exactly the same for Diego Costa, I don't know. But WP: Footy only provides the same advice - FIFA eligibility rules. FIFA does not define eligibility as "the team the player last played for." It defines eligibility as the team the player first plays an official match for, up until the player files for his one-time switch, in which eligibility is defined as the team the switch is declared for. And the application is already in. I am okay with waiting until FIFA's approval is official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It was announced by the United States Soccer Federation. That implies the paperwork is already filed and simply awaiting approval. Last team he played for is a horrible rule in this case as Green is no longer eligible for the German National team. It's also a horrible precedent to set in the case of players like Gedion Zelalem who will actually lose his German Citizenship if he makes himself eligible for the USMNT. Last National team to play for is perfectly fine when nationality is ambiguous. It is no longer ambiguous here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan7631 (talkcontribs) 00:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"Simply awaiting approval" means it isn't official yet. Kingjeff (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't official. When he stops onto the field for the US Mens National Team, that's when we change his nationality, not when he purportedly applies to have his nationality changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What does purported mean, other than being condescending? Do you think the press releases by the USSF and statements made to the press by Green himself are likely to be made up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

At the time I write this, I had only see one reference, at the subject's article, of a rumour supplied by ESPN that he had provided the change. No other support existed. WP:AGF. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? http://www.ussoccer.com/news/mens-national-team/2014/03/140318-julian-green-applies-for-association-switch.aspx "Bayern Munich forward Julian Green has chosen to represent the United States in international competition and has applied for a one-time change of association to FIFA. The process is expected to be completed in the coming weeks." That's from the USSF itself. And it was available on March 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes seriously. If you're not familiar with the concept of time I could explain it to you. And further to the idea that he should now be considered an American, I can't remember when it was, but FIFA has turned down the request to transfer on a handful of occasions. I doubt that this will be one of those though. Regardless, we don't indicate citizenship until the player plays for the side. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Fifa.com is using a US flag. Is that not official? Julian Green - fifa.com--24.253.243.188 (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
No. They have used that since he was born there. Until he plays for a senior national men's team it will remain at the birth nation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This is getting into a silly flame war. As I noted above, I am okay with waiting until FIFA makes the change official. But you said "as I write this" and you said that on March 19th, a day AFTER the US Soccer press release. And, I think you are being a little more than cute when you say that FIFA has turned down requests in the past - these have been situations, like Nevin Subotic, in which the player was not technically in compliance with the requirements. In Subotic's case, for instance, he did not have German citizenship when playing in his first official match for the US. There's no issue here, it is a formality. Look, I think it is reasonable to wait until the transfer becomes official, although it is also reasonable not to, because readers of the page are interested in what team the player will be playing for, and do not care about the intricacies of FIFA paperwork. But once his transfer has become official-whether or not he EVER gets capped by the US-he is no longer eligible to play for Germany. Leaving a German flag on Green's profile at that point is deceptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So it's official. Gulati says it's done and he is available to play immediately. Can we change it now?--24.253.243.188 (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No. He hasn't played for them yet. When he actually gets minutes in a competitive match we may change it. Just to clarify there are several points in that sentence. He has to play during (minutes on the field, even as a substitute, it's not acceptable for him to be on the bench during a match) the USMNT, (although a junior US side would also qualify) in a FIFA-recognized competitive match (not a friendly, not a training match, not an inter-squad game). I believe that this was alluded to above if not outright stated. Essentially, if he shatters his legs tomorrow (not that I wish that on him, it's just a scenario) and it ends his playing career, he'll be recognized as a German since he did not meet the requirements for being recognized as a German. At least that's my understanding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
So if he plays against Mexico on the 2nd that won't count either because it's a friendly? Is the World Cup the next matches that could qualify?--24.253.243.188 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, Walter. I am okay with leaving a German flag up. But if you do that, the note above the roster should say "nationality based on team last played for, or country of birth if none." But right now it says it is "based on FIFA eligibility requirements." And I don't know how to put this again so you can understand better - as of today, he is not eligible to play for the German National Team, and unless FIFA changes the eligibility requirement, he will never be eligible to play for the German National Team again. So the article, as currently written, is deceptive to readers. The point of Wikipedia entries is to be informative, not to appeal to those who love regulations and bureaucracy. So to the extent that a German flag is required based on regulations and bureaucracy, rather than based on how people will perceive him, you at least need to change the note above the roster.

And, as a practical point, the way Julian Green will be remembered if he shatters his leg tomorrow and never plays, will be as a promising Bayern Munich player who was a major loss to the US National Team. His German youth international career is insignificant; this has more to do with Germany's overall depth compared to the US than any regulation or rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is such an issue. He's filed an irreversible switch to eligibility for the US. His application has been approved. He's not eligible to play for Germany, and never will be again, unless FIFA's rules change. He should be listed as USA, because, according to FIFA's eligibility rules, USA is the only nation for which he is eligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.80.193 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say the issue is some Bayern fans have with reality. By FIFA eligibility rules, Julian Green can only play for the United States. He can never represent any country but the US from here on out, but I guess some people want a German flag next to his name because it makes them sleep better or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.216.11.5 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Fans recognized for stance against extreme right politics (racism, antisemitism) and discrimination against homosexuals

I think it should be mentioned that some fans of the club has been recognized in media for taking a stance against extreme right politics (racism, antisemitism) and discrimination against homosexuals. I know this is a controversial topic. Therefore I simply suggest an edit.

The latest news:

http://www.tz.de/sport/fc-bayern/suedkurve-fc-bayern-klaren-botschaften-gegen-rechte-hooligans-meta-4341075.html

Additional sources:

http://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/inhalt.fc-bayern-gegen-nazis-und-rassismus.bbe5522b-444f-4ad0-a75b-2aabcf008c4b.html

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/ultra-fans-des-fc-bayern-im-zweifel-rot-1.2107815

http://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/inhalt.gedenken-an-ehrenpraesident-kurt-landauer-fc-bayern-zeichen-gegen-antisemitismus.e95a2e45-0598-4032-8821-d364068c36c5.html

/EriFr (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

biggest sports club in the world

Bayern München has become the biggest sports club in the world with 251,315 members as it was announced today at 19:57

http://www.focus.de/sport/fussball/bundesliga1/fc-bayern-hauptversammlung-im-live-ticker-erste-versammlung-ohne-uli-hoeness_id_4309531.html#aktualisieren

--Ich901 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

here is another source:

http://www.welt.de/sport/fussball/bundesliga/fc-bayern-muenchen/article134834862/Der-FC-Bayern-ist-der-groesste-Verein-der-Welt.html

--Ich901 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

They don't even know how many members Benfica currently has, so how can they say Bayern Munich has more? Where is the comparison? Where is the official and neutral source? If Benfica president would say "we have 300,000 members" and the Portuguese media repeated it that wouldn't make it a fact, and that's what happening in German media... and it's spreading to international media. SLBedit (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Immaterial. We simply have to rely on WP:V and WP:RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It makes Wikipedia unreliable. :( SLBedit (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's unofficial until UEFA says so.

Your edits contradicting the reliable source make Wikipedia unreliable. If you have a problem with that, take it to WP:RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.record.xl.pt/Futebol/Nacional/1a_liga/Benfica/interior.aspx?content_id=915314 "The president of Bayern Munich, Karl Hopfner, has doubts about the number of Benfica paying members, the club [Benfica] that the magazine "The Weekly", of FIFA, confirmed in February as the world leader."

http://www.record.xl.pt/Futebol/Internacional/alemanha/interior.aspx?content_id=917326 "the bavarians assure to have now 251,315 paying members, more 16 thousand than the record that still belongs to Benfica because the new number lacks confirmation by UEFA." SLBedit (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

As SLBendit said it on the discussion page of Benfica: We do not know the current statistics for Benfica, so therefore we can not with certainty say that either FC Bayern or Benfica is the football club with the highest number of members in the world. We can say that Benfica was the football club with the highest number of members in the world at a certain date (or during a certain period), but we can not say Benfica is the football club with the highest number of members in the world at the moment. The same goes for FC Bayern. However. I do not see any problem with saying that there are sources who claim that FC Bayern is the football club with the highest number of members in the world at this date. EriFr (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
http://www.welt.de/sport/fussball/bundesliga/fc-bayern-muenchen/article134834862/Der-FC-Bayern-ist-der-groesste-Verein-der-Welt.html
clearly states: "Zudem haben die Bayern innerhalb der vergangenen zwölf Monate ihre Mitgliederzahl deutlich gesteigert, von 233.427 auf 251.315. Die zuletzt veröffentlichten Statistiken als Maßstab genommen hat der Double-Gewinner damit den bislang mitgliederstärksten Klub Benfica Lissabon aus Portugal überholt und darf sich größter Verein der Welt nennen."
translation: "In addition, the Bavarians have increased their membership significantly in the past twelve months, from 233,427 to 251,315 . The most recently published statistics taken as a measure, the double winners have overtaken the thus far largest club by membership Benfica Lisbon from Portugal and can name themselves the largest club in the world."
It is clearly stated that Bayern is bigger than Benfica according the latest statistics. Welt.de is widely regarded as a reliable source. It is one of the biggest news services and news papers in Germany. It is used everywhere in Wikipedia as a source and I repeat there are no restrictions on the language used in the sources, it is irrelevant.
UEFA is not entitled to decide which club is the biggest in the world on its own. --91.38.173.164 (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe that FC Bayern is bigger than Benfica. FC Bayern has had an truly incredible increase in membership in recent years and I doubt that Benfica has been able to keep up with that. However, I was trying to compromise. I suggested edits on both pages and my suggestion was that we neither say that FC Bayern or Benfica is the football club with the highest number of members in the world at this moment, but that Benfica was the the football club with the highest number of members in the world at a certain date (or during the certain period) and that certain sources (as an example, Welt.de) claim that FC Bayern is the football club with the highest number of members in the world at this date. EriFr (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What you "believe" or what Bayern Munich says doesn't matter. The club itself, Bayern Munich, claims to be the biggest but their claim is not officially supported by UEFA, so it's not a fact. If it worked that way, any club would say they are the biggest. SLBedit (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
So please show me who UEFA states are the biggest club. I'll add, that it doesn't matter what they say though. What matters is what a reliable source says. If UEFA contradicts that RS, we can add it as a contradicting opinion for balance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
http://www.fifa.com/mm//Document/AF-Magazine/FIFAWeekly/02/27/86/02/LowRes_eng_Woche07_2014_Neutral.PDF page 29 SLBedit (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
That article, as old as it may be, list Benefica at 235,000 and the new claim for Bayern is 251,315. So your source supports that Bayern is larger. What are you arguing about? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
(It's Benfica) That article made by FIFA's magazine The Weekly, a reliable and neutral source, compared the numbers of the clubs at the time and showed that Benfica is the biggest club. Here on Wikipedia no one has provided a single reliable source with updated numbers, so it doesn't really matter what Bayern says (they could be lying). It's not a fact until FIFA or someone else independent from Bayern provides an updated comparison between the clubs. Is this so hard to understand? SLBedit (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The article lists a number that Bayern has now surpassed.
While I agree it's good, it's out-of-date.
Its age, coupled with new information from a reliable source means that your club no longer has a leg on which to stand. Is this so hard to understand? You don't understand simple logic or the rules of Wikipedia. In other words, if you can't find a reliable source that states that your club has more than 251,000 members your old sources are no longer relevant and I'm done talking with you. Seriously. Don't bother posting another word here unless it's a RS that supports that claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand logic and rules of Wikipedia just fine. Why are you intimidating me for discussion content on Wikipedia? SLBedit (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Again, it does not matter what Benfica state or claim or what any editor commenting here believes or states about being the biggest club. All that matters is that the claim is supported by a verifiable source. We have that. The fact that it's a reliable source is even better. We make the statement and point to the source and let the reader decide. That's our job. We are not to interpret the information, but if want to explain that Benfica's account practices are shoddy and they may have more members, then we could do that, but again, only if supported by a V and RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It does matter. Most edits in this thread were made by Germans (Ich901, EriFr, 91.38.173.164). You called Guinness World Records and UEFA shoddy. All sources point to Bayern's claim when they should point to a neutral source like UEFA. SLBedit (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I never meant to say that what I think has bearing on Wikipedia, I just tried to calm down the anonymous user (91.38.173.164) while I again argued for my compromise. But I have decided to drop the compromise. I agree with you, Walter Görlitz, in this case, there is a verifiable and reliable source. EriFr (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Guinness World Records Limited is a private company headquartered in London, which is not the only legitimate source for records. In addition to that their records aren't updated frequently. UEFA is just a EUROPEAN organisation and it is not their job to decide which is the biggest club. Welt is not connected with Bayern. They have rather an interest in being regarded as reliable source than taking a side in football topics. My nationality is irrelevant. You have no prove that either me or the Welt is biased on that matter. Ich901 (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Guinness World Records and UEFA are more trustworthy and independent than any German media on this matter, since it envolves a German club. I have updated, in an unbiased way, Benfica and Bayern Munich articles. SLBedit (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the Wikipedia rule, that states a German source is in general unreliable on this matter? Questioning the neutrality of this source is original research and not allowed at Wikipedia. Editors are only allowed to display knowledge from reliable sources. The number of 251,315 members of Bayern fans is also present in their latest report on their homepage. http://www.fcbayern.de/media/native/presse-free/Mitglieder_Fanclubs_KidsClub_13-14.pdf The growth of members is almost linear and not unlikely to be true. Ich901 (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
All I am saying is that those "reliable" sources are not reliable since all they do is reporting Bayern's claim. SLBedit (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
That is not true. They don't report Bayern's claim. Bayern itself has not claimed to be the biggest club. Ich901 (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is true. They report what Bayern claimed. Bayern did claim to be the biggest club, especially in Facebook. SLBedit (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no post on Facebook where it is claimed that Bayern was the biggest club. Welt makes the claim in their article they are not repeating Bayerns claim. They report Bayerns member number. I am refering solely to their article. Benfica is also self-reporting their member numbers. Ich901 (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
For your information, SLBedit. I am Swedish. I would be very interested in knowing how you came to the conclusion that I must be German. EriFr (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Sweden is close to Germany. :) SLBedit (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Ask yourself who is really the biased one in here... Ich901 (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You certainly are. You even created the discussion in S.L. Benfica and bragged about the news. SLBedit (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't "brag" at all, starting the discussion there is only logical as I have started it here. Is this your way of making a "different interpretation" like you did on the interview of the president of Bayern? --Ich901 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I find this to be funny. Now that Bayern supposedly has more members, the news spread all over the international media, but when it was Benfica no one cared. Anyway, currently only Bayern claimed to have more members which is not a fact. SLBedit (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Just because you repeat it and repeat it doesn't make it true. Welt and not Bayern itself claims that Bayern is the biggest club. Ich901 (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I conclude with this (since the discussion leads nowhere): I don't care if Benfica or Bayern have more members. I care about facts. Bayern claims to have X members and arrogantly say they are the biggest, when they don't even know how many members Benfica has. SLBedit (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
No you don't care only about the facts, you also have an opinion in this case which can be for example seen in the usage of the word "arrogantly" above. After a look at your user page and your edits here I don't believe your claim that your edits are unbiased. Especially as are you implying that the edits of those arguing against you are biased. --Jaellee (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Look Bayern Munich fan (see his userpage), don't twist my words. I used "arrogantly" in this discussion to describe Bayern's actions, I did not use it in any article. Now you are lying and attacking my contributions to Wikipedia (clearly you didn't check my overall contributions) because I don't hide the fact that I am a Benfica fan. Now this is Bayern/Germany lovers against me. This discussion got really biased. :) SLBedit (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a Bayern Munich fan, but contrary to you I did never claim that my edits were unbiased. I fact, I didn't make any edits in the article at all with regard to this topic. Of course, a Benfica supporter is unbiased while a Bayern Munich supporter (or a German) is necessarily biased, how could I miss that? I didn't check all your edits (why should I?), I only talk about this discussion and I don't care for your behavior, especially that you accuse me of lying. You described Bayern's actions as "arrogant" (in the discussion above, I never claimed that you used it in any article - see who is twisting words), that is an opinion (or is there a reliable source for this "fact"?). But your claim that you are unbiased and only care about the facts is getting more and more threadbare. --Jaellee (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I try to be unbiased so I wrote my edits in articles are unbiased (but I'm human). That's your problem. I thought you were talking about edits in articles, I didn't read "edits here". Yes and that's my opinion (not a fact). Yes I care about facts when editing articles and you didn't provide any reliable sources about what's being discussed. You jumped in and started attacking me, like I have hurt your feelings or something. SLBedit (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

UEFA / IFFHS ranking in the intro section

The last paragraph of the intro currently reads "After the 2012–13 season, FC Bayern was ranked second in UEFA's club coefficient rankings[12] and first in IFFHS's IFFHS Club World Ranking." Do we want to keep this? Having the ranking after the 2012-13 season in the intro feels very arbitrary to me. I don't know if we want to have anything like this in the intro at all, but if we do, then it should be either the ranking after the last completed season (2013-14) or the current ranking, right? OdinFK (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It now reflects the latest rankings for UEFA as well as IFFHS. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Historical kits

What defines a "historical kit"? SLBedit (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Biggest sports club in the world: take two

I see the Benfica fan and fellow editor sees the need to gratuitously insert his club into this article again. The main problem I have with the insertion here (or anywhere) is that the reference, http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/bundesliga/startseite/616467/artikel_bayern-mitglieder-feiern-abwesenden-hoeness.html, didn't see fit to mention the club so I'm not sure why it needs to be inserted in this article. Without a reference to support, the club should only mentioned in terms of competitions, not in discussions of size of membership, and certainly not in the opening paragraphs.

The fact that he considers the explained removal of material to be vandalism is an entirely other matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"overtake previous leaders SL Benfica (235,000 members)" SLBedit (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting adding that reference to the article? It already has a better reference since it doesn't require the addition of superfluous material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Normally, I see no reason to mention the number two, I think it is superfluous material, but perhaps we should mention it because Benfica has had the first place for quite a long time and it is recently that FC Bayern has taken over first place? (I am not talking about news value, I just think that Benfica is still known among many as the biggest sports club in the world.) However, it should not be made in the opening paragraphs. EriFr (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Two more users think that Benfica is the biggest club in the world. See history page of S.L. Benfica. SLBedit (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, but facts are not subject to public vote. So far there seem no sources available that conflict Bayern's claim to being the biggest club. If you present one, I am very sure that everybody here will consider it. OdinFK (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Who are these "users"? Are they experts in the field? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Bmpaiva and Pt78. Are you an expert in the field? SLBedit (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The policy on verifiability states that "all content must be verifiable." It also states, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." What counts as a reliable source? The policy says "the type of the work," "the creator of the work," and "the publisher of the work" and "all three can affect reliability." So, first of all, was any source given? If yes, what was it and is it credible? Kingjeff (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: Are you an an expert in the field? Our reliable sources are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey i have no idea how this work (all this talking in wikipedia), but i'm gonna give it a try. Bayern Munich says they are the club with most supporters, but who verified that? Their president? the bundesliga? of course that their statements are biased! Benfica's claim is supported by the FIFA [1] and recognized by the World Book of Records [2], the record still stands. There's some guys here always erasing my editing, they must be Bayern supporters no doubt, who is the moderator here? and now one of these guys wants to block me! who's the big shot with authority to say who's right? Pt78 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with both sources is that it is not the most recent source. Here is a more recent source that states otherwise. Kingjeff (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The sources are not the problem. The problem is that Bayern numbers are not confirmed by FIFA or Guinness like Benfica numbers were, but because Kicker, German media, and Bayern Munich fans claim they are the biggest Wikipedia sees it as unquestionable. Recently, Benfica president doubt about Bayern numbers in a interview to a Portuguese newspaper. SLBedit (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
You do have a problem with the sources. What you are saying is because they aren't confirmed by FIFA or UEFA, then kicker magazine isn't a credible source. Have you looked at any of the FIFA Weekly magazines since Bayern's AGM? For all we know, FIFA could have "confirmed." But kicker magazine is a credible source. Are you sure that FIFA or UEFA confirms membership any difference from a completely independent source? Kingjeff (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact that FIFA, Guinness or UEFA have not released an article supporting this claim is not Wikipedia's problem, it's entirely your own. We have a reliable source and that's all that is required by Wikipedia. Feel free to take it to an RfC, but you're splitting hairs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: You stated that "recently, Benfica president doubt about Bayern numbers in a interview to a Portuguese newspaper." We need a credible source for that before we can even think of taking that into account. I have no idea if he said that or not. Even if you did provide a credible source, it's still likely not to hold any water simply. You provided a source from FIFA that puts Benfica as no. 1 in February 2014. Then I gave a source that put Bayern as no. 1 in November 2014. Bayern had nine months to pass Benfica. Kingjeff (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
"I don't know if they (Bayern) did it but has to be the same international entity that validated our numbers to confirm if it corresponds to the truth or not." source SLBedit (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Now we have an image that won't load and some sort of self-published claim that an international entity actually validated their claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The image, from a newspaper, loads fine. Benfica president is just as credible as Bayern's. A Bola is a reliable source. Do you have a problem with that? SLBedit (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
As annoying as it is, being only an image and not a copiable text, the image loads fine for me as well. I have copied the text --word by word-- into Google translate and received this somewhat comprehensible translation:
"more members, more strength
scallop not abdicate the target of 300,000 members. and was not thinking about the 'Guinness book of records' which established the ultimate aims for Benfica.
-continuous feed the dream of reaching the 300,000 socios?
-chegamos here because we were ambitious and that is how we must continue to be. the fact of being a Portuguese club to have the greatest number of members from around the world munito says of what Benfica. I have always been a supportive and optimistic, even in the most difficult moments, and not regret it. liked to reach 300 thousand members, I think we can do and we will be much stronger if we reach that number.


-o bayern munich already claimed to have exceeded the Benfica in number of partners?
-I do not know if we did not, but it must be the same international entity that validated our numbers to confirm whether or not this corresponds to truth. but more than the title of biggest club in membership numbers, what really worries me and continue to grow. the Benfica reach 300,000 members and there is another club with over 10 or 15 thousand, charmed life. the important and Benfica realize that the more members we were stronger. but not cease to be extraordinary that a Portuguese club, a market of 10 million inhabitants, is an international example in terms of their membership program."
OdinFK (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
And this seems to be Benfica's Guiness-certified record of membership: Guiness book entry OdinFK (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
"Vieira doesn't give up on the 300,000 members mark. And it was not thinking about the 'Guiness Book of Records' that he established this objective for Benfica..." SLBedit (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I still don't really see how that helps. As far as I can interpret this interview, Benfica's president (?) says that he doesn't really know, how many members Benfica has, and if Bayern really has more. Bayern on the other hand claim that they have more members than Benfica, based on the fact, that they have surpassed Benfica's last published number. It is not really clear if Bayern bases their claim on any other data, that we don't have, but Benfica never really rejected Bayern's claim. Or at least nobody has come forth with a source that says so. To sum it up
  • There are several old sources that say Benfica is the biggest club
  • The most recent sources making any reference to this subject claim that Bayern is the biggest club (if they know more about Benfica than we is unclear)
  • Benfica has said that they are not really sure if Bayern's claim is justifiable, but they have not openly denied it nor put forth any evidence to the contrary.
Is Bayern bigger? We don't know for sure. There are third party source that say so, but tbh they might just be copying a press release of Bayern. Still it seems justifiable to put 'Bayern is the biggest sports club in the world' into the intro section. If we really wanted to hedge we could make it 'Bayern claims to be', but as long as Benfica doesn't openly contradict Bayern I don't see a reason to do this. OdinFK (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Luís Filipe Vieira didn't imply "he doesn't really know, how many members Benfica has" but also didn't tell a number. I know there will be a recount of members soon. Apart from that, I'm with you. SLBedit (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: I just looked at the list that you are referring to at FIFA Weekly magazine. It's unclear on some of the numbers on the list. How does Manchester United, Arsenal, Inter, and Juventus, all which are for–profit corporations, have members? At the bottom of the list, it clearly asks "Do you know of any bigger club?" which indicates they are depending on people to report it and are not 100% sure about the accuracy of the list. Kingjeff (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Following your logic Bayern Munich isn't also 100% sure about their claim because if FIFA can't know how much members clubs have, Bayern can't also. SLBedit (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you implying that FIFA is going to do that "recount of members" for Benfica? Also, I would like to point out the exact problem with your sources. On 9 November 2006, according to the Guinness book of world record, Benfica had 160,398. On 14 February 2014, according to FIFA, Benfica had 235,000. That's an increase of 74,602. So, membership numbers continue to change. An article from kicker, a credible sourse, states Bayern are over 251,000. Kingjeff (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
What? That doesn't make sense since FIFA is not FC Bayern. You keep using the flawed logic that it has to be FIFA or some other body. Give it a rest. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kingjeff: no, Benfica will do the recount.
@Walter Görlitz: it is clear that you can't have a decent discussion since you have bias against me ("take two", "BS", etc). Arts and christianity (and other religions) don't go well with logic. Give it a rest. SLBedit (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: I`m glad you understand FIFA and UEFA are not involved in membership for professional clubs. Walter Görlitz is correct. There is no need to mention FIFA or UEFA since they aren`t involved with fan membership of clubs. We have to go with the latest credible sources. Kingjeff (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I rephrased "biggest club in the world" to "biggest club in the world in membership terms" as it is more clear. Also, I would agree with SLBedit as Benfica has always known to be the club with the most members. But there are contradictory sources these days and you guys should come to a consensus. Or we could just remove the phrase from the intro all-together, as it is not so much an achievement. I.e., Real Madrid and Barcelona limit their membership to about 100k, with massive waiting lists. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the confirmed record is 8 years old. What we do know, as of the last Bayern AGM, there are recent credible independent sources stating Bayern are the number one club in terms of membership. Kingjeff (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the latest news on Benfica? It seems as if they might have dropped incredibly in numbers (~ 100,000) after a scheduled recount of the number of members, but as far as I understand, this thing is not settled yet.
http://www.abola.pt/clubes/ver.aspx?t=3&id=565359
http://relvado.aeiou.pt/benfica/benfica-perdeu-quase-100-mil-socios-509861
http://desporto.sapo.pt/futebol/primeira_liga/artigo/2015/08/14/benfica-perdeu-100-mil-socios
/EriFr (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 29 external links on FC Bayern Munich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Bayern Munich

I just want all the senior bayern munich players to be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eosunde7143 (talkcontribs) 14:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

We should always follow the sources which in this case is the squad list at Bayern Munich homepage. Qed237 (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

FC Bayern Roster edits

I have some confusion as to why my edits keep on getting reversed. Fabian Benko, Milos Pantovic and Philip Steinhart do not play for FC Bayern Munich. They play for FC Bayern II and FC Bayern Youth (Benko). As for the other three, they are officially on FC Bayern professional contracts, but they have been "demoted" as per the footnote. Those three don't practice with FC Bayern and are only permitted to do so when they are "recalled" which is only in the situation of injury. If you'll notice the footnotes, this is all explained. Then someone comes along and posts a footnote from Bundesliga.de that lists the roster. However, this is inaccurate information. That is a list of all that have at any point been given a jersey and dressed for a game. They do not play for Bayern, rather Bayern II or lower and have been given a "try-out" deal to promote them.

This is analogous to the way the NHL runs contracts. There are several players that have pro contracts, but have been demoted to the farm club. As an example, the NY Rangers and the Hartford Wolfpack. Players are recalled for injury, but otherwise play for the Wolfpack. They may have a Rangers contract, but receive a different salary when called up to play in the NHL.

There is no reason to misinform the general public about "first team" players when it is well documented that none of the following are permanent fixtures on the "first team" of FC Bayern: Lucic Steinhart Pantovic Green Kurt Benko Gaudino

Again, I only see this as a misrepresentation of the facts. In the spirit of keeping Wiki fully accurate, I recommend these individuals be removed from the "First Team" listing as it is simply not accurate.

Furthermore, the three footnotes at the top of the section misdirect readers to different theories/explanations. It's not standardized and not congruent. It's contradictory to say the very least. FC Bayern site says one thing, AZ says three have been demoted, and Bundesliga.de shows all that have dressed.

Clarification is much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.72.94 (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It is that they have dressed for the senior side that explains why some editors have added them to the senior roster, and they have done it with references. I'll let other editors determine if they should be listed here on the first team roster. You have not provided specific references which is why I would revert such removal of content. Not explaining why the edits are being made is another reason why I would revert edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand that they have dressed for a few matches. This only means they have been called up due to injury of other players. The FC Bayern website which I have sourced does NOT claim these players to be on professional contracts. Fact is that those players don't play for FC Bayern. That's a FACT!

Furthermore, Qed237 is threatening me and making personal attacks. He should not be permitted to do such things. How can I block him for vandalism and personal attacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.72.94 (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

They are sourced and have been in the squad this season which normally supports the inclusion of the players. As affects all football articles, I suggest that you can inform Wikipedia:WikiProject Football about this discussion to see if more editors have something to say about this. About blocks I have given you a message at your talkpage on how it works, and I have just given you standard warnings and not any personal attacks. Sorry if you feel that I have been attacking you in any way. Qed237 (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected, 4 days

Work this out without edit warring, please. --NeilN talk to me 21:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FC Bayern Munich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Mia san mia and history section

Does anybody know when Bayern adopted Mia san mia as a slogan for the club? I don't remember them using it in the 90s. It was probably pushed in the mid 2000s, but I couldn't say when. I ask because the slogan is not mentioned even once in the article despite the club marketing it quite aggressively. No matter what you think of the slogan, not mentioning it is just wrong (or an oversight) in my opinion.

A fortunate coincidence might be if it was adopted around the beginning of the Schweinsteiger/Lahm/Ribery/Robben era. The history section is getting unwieldy, especially the last subsection of it. Seperating it between the ending of the Kahn/Effenberg/Scholl era and the beginning of the Lahm etc era would make sense. This would make the whole section more manageable and the Kahn/Effenberg/Scholl era subsection might be cleaned up some more to get it closer to an actual history section instead of an in-text listing of titles. OdinFK (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that it's not worth mentioning. It's just marketing, nothing else. Every company has such slogans and usually they getting changed by time. There is nothing substantial behind it. DrunkenGerman (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that only partly. The slogan might be pure marketing, but in the very least it says something about how the club likes to be seen/sees itself. I am also not aware that they had such a slogan before, so at this point we cannot really say that Bayern changes the slogan all the time. OdinFK (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah but it's like every other company slogan. A lot clubs came up with such slogans since the 00s, it's just a sign that their marketing has become more professional. Like every other slogan it's used to communicate a brand's message. DrunkenGerman (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The thing is that "Mia san mia" has long been associated (positively and in criticism) with Bavarian patriotism (or "Mia-san-mia-Bavariandom") apparently long before its association with the FC Bayern...--131.159.76.34 (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FC Bayern Munich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

YesY The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)