![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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?
Is there anyway to comfirm that Rensing and Wessels were ever part of Bayern's youth system? kingjeff
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
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)
Then maybe policy needs to change. Kingjeff 02:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Problem solved. Table is smaller. Kingjeff 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
It doesn't really matter. Kingjeff 00:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please use a level 4 header which means using 4 of = on each side of the header. Kingjeff 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please use a level 4 header which means using 4 of = on each side of the header. Kingjeff 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The result of the proposal was no move Duja ► 10:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
FC Bayern Munich → FC 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)
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)
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 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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
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)
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)
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)
from what I gathered
here, he was sent to the 2nd team in the 3rd Liga.
Kingjeff (
talk)
14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
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:
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:
Criteria 3 (Breadth of coverage): Minor FAIL PASS
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:
A couple of other examples from later on:
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
*Explain what the Bundesliga is at the first appearance. (My apologies, already there
4u1e (
talk)
07:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
@ 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, I'll do this from #1 to #6:
1.
2.
4.
6.
Regards, OdinFK ( talk) 08:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Nearly there! Can you confirm that the following points are covered by the next hardcopy ref:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
Why is Jean-Marie Pfaff nowhere mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.13.38 ( talk) 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
is the club's official name. The article title should really reflect this. — [ Unsigned comment added by Sueisfine ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 April 2010.]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
New Transitions In Team, Current Squad Need To Be Changed.
Engineer-Ibrahim ( talk) 20:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
EriFr ( talk) 07:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
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 (
talk •
contribs)
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)
-- 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)
-- 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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Julian Green's nationality should be changed from German to American. 70.162.49.233 ( talk) 03:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"Simply awaiting approval" means it isn't official yet. Kingjeff ( talk) 02:33, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Additional sources:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/ultra-fans-des-fc-bayern-im-zweifel-rot-1.2107815
/ EriFr ( talk) 13:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Bayern München has become the biggest sports club in the world with 251,315 members as it was announced today at 19:57
-- Ich901 ( talk) 19:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
here is another source:
-- Ich901 ( talk) 20:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It's unofficial until UEFA says so.
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)
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)
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)
What defines a "historical kit"? SLBedit ( talk) 08:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
References
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I just want all the senior bayern munich players to be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eosunde7143 ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Work this out without edit warring, please. -- NeilN talk to me 21:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bet-on-bayernmuenchen.com/other-fields/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I try to be polite about it: A few days ago I edited the section crest with the following result: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=FC_Bayern_Munich&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=816563083&oldid=816561381
User S.A. Julio, forthwith referred to as "Julio", reverted, to boot in an absurd way, including spelling errors. Please understand, that probably somewhat comepetent users have s/thing better to do than doing Wikipedia 24/7.
Julio according to his edit thinks, Bayern united from 1906 to 1919 with Jahn, therefore one crest for that period. No, Bayern was with Münchner SC earlier on, that's where they changed their colours from Bavaría's white and blue to red (and white?). Here you can see the resulting logos. The 1920 to 1925 stuff there you can forget: they where as such designs for needle you got for 100 matches, and stuff like that. In 1925 - celebrating independence and 25 years they introduced /info/en/?search=File:Bayern_Herb_(1923-1954).png
That stayed on until 1954 when they introduced the current model, which in between got some cosmetic changes. Here https://trikotsammlung.wordpress.com/page/2/ and if you know ho2w to search you see the thing going on and on. Yes, there were diffew4ren shirt badges, which however is a different issue (see eg. Germany shirt badge and association crest)/. "Clubzeitung" was the official journal of the club. They did not print bliue, because this would have been fat more expensive if you have any idea about printing back then
That's all the time this is still worth for me.
PS: The Marmeling book cited as source has no ... ing information on the issue.
Oalexander ( talk) 13:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Really? 1860 is currently (2017/18) playing in Regionalliga (level 4) which is not a professional league. Nevertheless there players are professionals. But which club is number 3? All other Munich football clubs play in amateur leagues. There is SpVgg Unterhaching in league 3 (in former times in 1. and 2.Bundesliga) but it isn't a Munich team. Unterhaching is a municipalityof its own and not part of Munich. ManfredV ( talk) 21:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Gummi2183: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=FC_Bayern_Munich&curid=172326&diff=835939844&oldid=835919735 ? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Add Bayern's 18-19 3rd kit . Grunthog ( talk) 08:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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?
Is there anyway to comfirm that Rensing and Wessels were ever part of Bayern's youth system? kingjeff
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
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)
Then maybe policy needs to change. Kingjeff 02:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Problem solved. Table is smaller. Kingjeff 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
It doesn't really matter. Kingjeff 00:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please use a level 4 header which means using 4 of = on each side of the header. Kingjeff 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please use a level 4 header which means using 4 of = on each side of the header. Kingjeff 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The result of the proposal was no move Duja ► 10:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
FC Bayern Munich → FC 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)
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)
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 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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
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)
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)
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)
from what I gathered
here, he was sent to the 2nd team in the 3rd Liga.
Kingjeff (
talk)
14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
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:
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:
Criteria 3 (Breadth of coverage): Minor FAIL PASS
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:
A couple of other examples from later on:
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
*Explain what the Bundesliga is at the first appearance. (My apologies, already there
4u1e (
talk)
07:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
@ 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, I'll do this from #1 to #6:
1.
2.
4.
6.
Regards, OdinFK ( talk) 08:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Nearly there! Can you confirm that the following points are covered by the next hardcopy ref:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
Why is Jean-Marie Pfaff nowhere mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.13.38 ( talk) 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
is the club's official name. The article title should really reflect this. — [ Unsigned comment added by Sueisfine ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 April 2010.]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
New Transitions In Team, Current Squad Need To Be Changed.
Engineer-Ibrahim ( talk) 20:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
EriFr ( talk) 07:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
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 (
talk •
contribs)
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)
-- 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)
-- 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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Julian Green's nationality should be changed from German to American. 70.162.49.233 ( talk) 03:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"Simply awaiting approval" means it isn't official yet. Kingjeff ( talk) 02:33, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Additional sources:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/ultra-fans-des-fc-bayern-im-zweifel-rot-1.2107815
/ EriFr ( talk) 13:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Bayern München has become the biggest sports club in the world with 251,315 members as it was announced today at 19:57
-- Ich901 ( talk) 19:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
here is another source:
-- Ich901 ( talk) 20:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It's unofficial until UEFA says so.
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)
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)
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)
What defines a "historical kit"? SLBedit ( talk) 08:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
References
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I just want all the senior bayern munich players to be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eosunde7143 ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Work this out without edit warring, please. -- NeilN talk to me 21:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bet-on-bayernmuenchen.com/other-fields/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I try to be polite about it: A few days ago I edited the section crest with the following result: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=FC_Bayern_Munich&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=816563083&oldid=816561381
User S.A. Julio, forthwith referred to as "Julio", reverted, to boot in an absurd way, including spelling errors. Please understand, that probably somewhat comepetent users have s/thing better to do than doing Wikipedia 24/7.
Julio according to his edit thinks, Bayern united from 1906 to 1919 with Jahn, therefore one crest for that period. No, Bayern was with Münchner SC earlier on, that's where they changed their colours from Bavaría's white and blue to red (and white?). Here you can see the resulting logos. The 1920 to 1925 stuff there you can forget: they where as such designs for needle you got for 100 matches, and stuff like that. In 1925 - celebrating independence and 25 years they introduced /info/en/?search=File:Bayern_Herb_(1923-1954).png
That stayed on until 1954 when they introduced the current model, which in between got some cosmetic changes. Here https://trikotsammlung.wordpress.com/page/2/ and if you know ho2w to search you see the thing going on and on. Yes, there were diffew4ren shirt badges, which however is a different issue (see eg. Germany shirt badge and association crest)/. "Clubzeitung" was the official journal of the club. They did not print bliue, because this would have been fat more expensive if you have any idea about printing back then
That's all the time this is still worth for me.
PS: The Marmeling book cited as source has no ... ing information on the issue.
Oalexander ( talk) 13:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Really? 1860 is currently (2017/18) playing in Regionalliga (level 4) which is not a professional league. Nevertheless there players are professionals. But which club is number 3? All other Munich football clubs play in amateur leagues. There is SpVgg Unterhaching in league 3 (in former times in 1. and 2.Bundesliga) but it isn't a Munich team. Unterhaching is a municipalityof its own and not part of Munich. ManfredV ( talk) 21:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Gummi2183: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=FC_Bayern_Munich&curid=172326&diff=835939844&oldid=835919735 ? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Add Bayern's 18-19 3rd kit . Grunthog ( talk) 08:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)