Talk:FC Bayern Munich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Association football Portal The article on FC Bayern Munich is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	Supported by WikiProject Munich
	Supported by FC Bayern Munich Task force
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

FC Bayern Munich was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: July 2, 2007

FC Bayern Munich was supported by the football article improvement drive, a weekly collaboration to improve association football-related articles to featured article status.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the FC Bayern Munich article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

• Talk:Bayern Munich/Archives #1
• Talk:Bayern Munich/Archives2
• Talk:Bayern Munich/Archives3
• Talk:Bayern Munich/Archives4

Contents 1 Cleanup 2 Attendance 3 Additions: Club Environment, Organization & Finances 4 Applying consistent style in use of numbers 5 Beginning of the new millennium section 6 Coaches 7 Manager 8 Update 9 deletion 10 Uli Hoeneß 11 References 12 Archive2 13 Archiving 14 Allianz Arena photo 15 GermanyAID 16 History section 17 Translated? 18 Copyedit tag== 19 Article title 20 Do they have a mascot? 21 Club culture 22 External links 23 Squad picture deletion 24 Basketball? 25 a rather funny jealous ManU fan's edit 26 FC Bayern II players in FC Bayern 27 External Links 28 Bayern Munich Junior Team 29 Paragraph on rivals 30 Recent problems 31 Thomas Kraft 32 Task force 33 Lineup 34 Compliments and criticisms for the Good article nomination 34.1 Compliments 34.2 Criticisms 35 famous past players 36 GA review comments 37 Requested move 38 All the players are brazillian... this has to be a bug.

[edit] Cleanup

Everyone has made a lot of progress in bringing good content to the article but in my opinion it now needs a LOT of cleanup. The writing in many places could use a lot of improvement stylistically and grammatically, and there are also many typos. I understand we are not all native English speakers, I'm not trying to denigrate anyone's individual contributions but I want to encourage us to focus a little bit on improving what we have in addition to adding new material. Also, I see little evidence of documentation or citiations. We can get this article to featured article with the content we have now, but we have to put a lot of work into fixing the stylistic and documentation issues first. I have tried to make some initial improvements but there is a lot here to work on. Gail Wynand 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I put another box explaining the grammer, spelling etc. As far as I understand, there is no need for citations. User:Oalexander-En explained to me at least that he knew himself all the information he added. For a cleared picture on the citations problem, you should speak to User:Oalexander-En yourself to solve this issue. Kingjeff 18:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations are needed: WP:CITE is an official policy on Wikipedia for a start. We all "know" lots of things, but we cannot prove them for the purposes of an encyclopedia article without citing verifiable sources. Oldelpaso 19:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Oalexander-En is the one to speak too about citations. Kingjeff 20:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'ver personally asked User:Oalexander-En about getting citations/sources. We'll see what he says. Kingjeff 20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why has the section on the Bayern Munich youth program removed? Just becuase there is a separate artcile about the program does not mean there should be no linked summary in this article. Personally, I think it should go back in here. Poj21

I have no idea why it was deleted. Kingjeff 23:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attendance

Do we really need attendance records? Kingjeff 04:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably not really, maybe they shall wander off to the up and coming statistics section. Maybe it goes reasonably well with the fan image for the time being? what do u think?

Oalexander-En 16:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds reasonable. Kingjeff 16:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Nazi remarks. Lock this article please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.162.200 (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additions: Club Environment, Organization & Finances

The section Environment is pretty much putting the club into its place and from that point probably ideal as intro.

Organization & Finances describes what some may consider one of the most important issues of modern professional football. It also provides a much needed clarification of the club structure.

The history section has been reined in somewhat (20%) but is still to long for a frontpage item and needs further shortening (ca. 40%) - a long version is intended to survive on a seperate page.

Some stats I suppose will also have to be trimmed and a dedicated stats page introduced.

Cheers,

Oalexander-En 17:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applying consistent style in use of numbers

Using the actual number looks better then actually writing it out. Kingjeff 16:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It can be 1 or the other, it simply should be consistent within the sentence/article as outlined in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I didn't check the rest of the article, but there was a clear inconsistency in the sentence. Patch the article up according to the guideline if you're so inclined. Wiggy! 16:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand it can be either. But I think it looks better with the actual number. Kingjeff 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning of the new millennium section

Since a millennium is 1000 years (and a very long time), shouldn't it be "Beginning of the 21st century"? Kingjeff 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah. That was the big buzz then. Everybody was calling it the turn of the millennium, not the turn of the century. Don't get the chance very often, so best to indulge yourself. Besides, millennium sounds cooler! :) Wiggy! 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coaches

Do we really need national flags for coaches? That I think is making the table to big. Kingjeff 18:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I myself am not such a big fan of those flags either. Feel free to eliminate them. Maybe you eish to replace them with the ISO standar abbreviations after thewit name (eg.: HU = Hungary, Yu = Yugoslavia (which would apply for Cajkovski and Zebec, as in all hyonesty I suppose they considered themselvesd rather Yugoslaves than regionalists) if they are not German.

Oalexander-En 18:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think anything relating to country representation is irrelelvent for coaches. Kingjeff 19:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Oalexander-En 15:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manager

• As far as I'm concerned, the manager and head coach is the same position. Uli Hoeness is a general manager or sporting director. Kingjeff 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

His position would probably be best anglicised as "general manager" of the club. Oalexander-En 12:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Just did a HUGE update. I am unsure about the pre-WWII history, and googled it up, and I am too tired to redo the f'ed up "Other star players" section. I welcome constructive input. Onomatopoeia 18:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't welcome the changes. The way you had it, you might as well add every single player in club history. The table truly was to big. Kingjeff 19:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Always nice to hear such compliments after raising an article to the next level! *cough* As you wish, I am an 1. FC Kaiserslautern fan, and honestly, famous FCB players can really s... tay in bed :P :). BTW, I re-added Wimbersky and Angerer, because European and World Champs are legit "famous players". Onomatopoeia 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletion

don't you think the deletion of "early success" is unwarranted? it can be incorpoarated along with what you've added. also, im not entirely convinced about the fans pic,what do you think? Kinda crazy 15:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Every relevant fact from Early Success is incorporated now in "Origins ..."

Even more exciting facts of greater importance, such as the crucial presidency of Landauer, and the coaching of Townley ( a most exciting person, I shall release an article about him soon!)

Fans Pic

What is relevant about the fans pic? There is nothing particularly topical about it. At first sight it could have been indeed a scenery from 1860 Munich. Good would have been a scenery with the old Olympic stadium in the background (would have told something extra), AZ stadium inside pics have no particular bayern touch about it (irrelevant inside stadium architecture). We'll see what comes to hand representing some somehow Bayern, and it's meaning. Maybe an old Kaiser with Müller, or maybe some smaller pics illustrative to sections, phases in history, etc. a lot of people disliked the Olympic stadium in its later stages, but at least it provided what could be termed a unique Bayern typical scenario that was classy to look at.

Oalexander-En 18:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not 1860 Munich. If you read the actual topic for the pic, then I indicated that it really is a fan pic. Kingjeff 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I understood this as can be glenaed from my note. It remains a picture not typically descriptive of the club!

Oalexander-En 20:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uli Hoeneß

Isn't there a lack of information about Uli Hoeneß, the general manager of Bayern Munich since 1979? 129.217.129.133 05:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To some extent you may be right. Feel free to write a Wikipedia Article about him. Start by clicking on this link: Uli Hoeness

Oalexander-En 14:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

The article's looking good, but please can people add the references that have been used as they're editing? Just create a section called References near the bottom and list them there. Don't worry about formatting etc, I can fix that for you. It's important as this article is likely to be good enough for the main page soon, but there's no way it will get put on without a References section. See Wikipedia:Cite sources if you'd like more info. CTOAGN (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive2

Some of the discussion in Archive 2 is still current - things that were being discussed yesterday. Oldelpaso 18:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They may be current as in when the last post occured. But I seriously doubt that there will any replies to the ones I archived. I was very careful to which ones I archived. If you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive, there were a few complaints and even accusations of me blanking the page about me archiving. So, I was careful in archiving. My reasoning is if the topic looks like it ended, then I archived it. If I was in doubt, then I left it on. I really wasn't looking at the actual date and time itself. Kingjeff 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

But you've already annoyed people by doing something similar, what, a week ago? If you think a talk page that isn't in your user space needs archiving, and the messages you want to archive are fairly recent, just leave a message asking people if they mind it being archived and do it a few days later if nobody objects. I've already told you this. Archiving a talk page is never that urgent.

I've also suggested that you keep your talk page contributions to a minimum for a while as so many of them manage to annoy someone, but you ignored that as well. It's as if you're trying to wind people up as much as possible while just staying within the rules or only just breaking them so you don't get banned. I've noticed that you've been blocked three times, one of them for harrassing other users, so I'm giving you a final warning. If you annoy anyone on WikiProject Football again, you will be blocked. CTOAGN (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been getting allong with everyone over here. Kingjeff 22:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It may take as long as a week for people to come and go and see and reply to messages. Some people leave messages with the intention of hoping someone will pass by. That could take time. Try to set a high limit for yourself, say 40kb and ten days. And ask others, as they are going to be the ones affected. Put up a new header like this:

[edit] Archiving

Is everyone ok with me archiving at this point? Kingjeff 22:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Leave it there 24 hours, and then if no one has a complaint, then go ahead. But try to err on the side of caution. I hope your edit-mates here will be gentle. --DanielCD 01:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allianz Arena photo

Why was this removed? It looks stunning and really should be in the article imo. CTOAGN (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone also took the photo of Felix magath. Kingjeff 14:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GermanyAID

This is a nominated article at GermanyAID

[edit] History section

• I have restored this section. The existence of History of Bayern Munich does not mean that the history section should be removed, rather it means that the history should be summarised with a header

Main article: History of Bayern Munich

at the start of the history section. See IFK Gothenburg for an example. Oldelpaso 23:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• • ok, I put the link to the history article in the history sction. I'm unsure of how to do the summary of the history of the club. Do you want to do it? Kingjeff 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I may do, time permitting. I'll at least try to make a start. Its mostly a case of chopping down whats already there and rewording to make it more concise. Oldelpaso 09:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've cut down the first 3 subsections and done some copyediting, will do more later. Oldelpaso 10:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe maximum 2 or 3 paragrapgh at most. Having the exact same headlines as the other article defeats the purpose of having a main history article. Kingjeff 15:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Its still work in progress at the moment - I find its a lot easier to start with all of it and cut down than to come up with a summary by starting from scratch, I don't anticipate keeping all the subheadings. I think 2 or 3 paragraphs would be cutting it down to far. Taking the Featured Articles Arsenal and IFK Gothenburg as a guide, Arsenal has 770 words and IFK has 931 for the history. When the split to the history article occurred, the Bayern history section had more than 3,900 words. So far I've cut it down to about half that, but I'm still a long way from finishing. I'll reassess things once I've had a look at the New Millennium subsection. Oldelpaso 15:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, my college english teacher said summaries should be 10% to 30% of the original article or in this case section. Kingjeff 21:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translated?

Why is the name translated as Bayern Munich? I feel like it'd be better not to translate it at all, but if we're going to it should be Bavaria Munich. Unless I'm unaware of some strange practice where the team is referred to as Bayern Munich in the English speaking world...which could very well be true. Basically, why is half translated half not? This guy

Have you tried googling it? "bavaria munich" football (1,330) - "bayern munich" football (1,430,000). Also, see BBC coverage, CNN coverage and their own official English website. Bayern Munich's the name. As to why it is like that, I don't know. Poulsen 11:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aright, fair. I actually was thrown off, because there's not a lot of logic to is, but then as i was writing the message i realized that maybe it was generally accepted. I've only discussed/read about them in germany, so i cant say that i've ever seen it written out in english. It seems arbitraty but hey, if its what's done, it's what's done.

I also have a strong dislike for translated names, such as Hannover being written as Hanover. It's just dumb. So it was mostly a knee jerk reaction. That guy, again.

Since I had the same question, I did a Google search that led me to this Yahoo Answers page:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070316105014AAGX8kA

The upshot is that the team is not named "FC Bayern Muenchen" at all, but rather "FC Bayern", and their logo has their name and hometown. That explains everything, so it's too bad it's wrong. I just looked at the German Wikipedia, and sure enough, they're "FC Bavaria Munich" (but auf Deutsch of course). So once again the behavior of us wacky English-speakers is left unexplained. It's like American bike-race fans pronouncing "Tour de France" to rhyme with "Ponce", when they rhyme "France" with "pants" in every other context. I guess people like to be internacional, but the u-umlaut is too hard.

Somebody has vandalized the list of German Cup wins

[edit] Copyedit tag==

How is the spelling, grammer etc in the article. Do es anyone think it should be removed? Kingjeff 23:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

They look fine to me. That tag had been up for ages, so I've been bold and removed it. CTOAGN (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

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

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

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

[edit] Do they have a mascot?

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

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

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

[edit] Club culture

"Bayern Munich is renowned for its well-organised ultra scene.." Haha,this is a good joke.They are famous for having a spoiled crowd that shortly claps after goals and sit down immediately.Every German football fan who has already seen a game of them will confirm.Bayern "fans" won't do but that sentence is ridiculous. -Lemmy- 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Shut your mouth. Kingjeff 19:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Link section updated. Plz do not insert any link in German as this will be deleted again!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.50.227 (talk • contribs) Forum/ Site only in German! - deleted!

[edit] Squad picture deletion

Auslaender31 deleted the 05/06 squad picture with the comment:

Removed 05/06 team photo, changed section title to reflect current season roster Current team photo available quite soon I'd imagine

Seeing the old picture was uploaded in November and the squad didn't change drastically I propose we put the picture back in until the new one is up (with apropriate image captions of course).--BSI 19:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a squad picture is really needed so drastically in this short amount of time until the next season starts (three weeks). is it really so fundamental to the article? I don't think so, I say leave it as it is (without pic)until the new one is up.

--Jadger 04:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need one at all? Kingjeff 04:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is useful as eye candy, but the 05/06 season is already over, so we don't need that one, especially since such drastic changes have been made. just leave it until a new one is made up for this season

--Jadger 04:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basketball?

Is this also a basketball team? --Howard the Duck 10:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as i know it is. Kingjeff 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a rather funny jealous ManU fan's edit

[[2]] i fixed it, it was kind of funny it went unnoticed for so long.

--Jadger 02:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FC Bayern II players in FC Bayern

Should FC Bayern II players that have been called up or given squad number at FC Bayern first team be listed on current squad section? I notice Mats Hummel #32 made 1 appearance in DFB Liga Pokal and recently Christian Saba #37 has been called up for DFB Pokal squad [3]. Other than that there are also Thomas Kraft #33 and Stefan Maierhofer #34 who also have squad numbers at FC Bayern first team but as far as I know, they have not been in first team yet. Martin tamb 16:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say keep with players who have played from FCB II or on the game day roster. Kingjeff 17:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so Mats Hummel are in. Martin tamb 17:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Link of the fan club added to this section. Next time post to the board before editing please! Its about an official club for world wide fans (internationals) of Munich's Bayern! (site in English) Thx and regards, RS

[edit] Bayern Munich Junior Team

I think the function of junior team article is talk about how success the youth system is, and no room for youth squads (except Bayern Munich II, which compete in profession league.) Matthew_hk tc 14:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also we can borrow some ideas from A.C. Milan and Manchester United F.C., they use template link pages.

And Bayern Munich II can split into another article, like reserve team of Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, Inter Milan Matthew_hk tc 15:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Matthew_hk tc 15:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph on rivals

These days Bayern considers itself a national club, which is reflected in polls determining them as both the most popular and most loathed club all over the country. Bayern's main rivals are always the clubs who put up the strongest fight against its national dominance. In the 1970s this was Borussia Mönchengladbach, in later years this category has expanded to include Hamburger SV and Werder Bremen. In the last decade or so, Borussia Dortmund and Bayer Leverkusen have emerged as the most ardent opponents. Recently Schalke 04, and again Bremen have been the main challengers, but only with limited success. In the German Football Association Cup Tournament, or DFB Pokal Alemannia Aachen has become something of a thorn, but for the most part for Bayern, the real rivals these days are the great clubs of Europe.

In their dreams, Bayern can dismiss the rest of the Bundesliga and walk through Germany alone, but why are they fourth in the table? Is it possible that teams consisting of mere mortals can still provide trouble for mighty Bayern? What a horrid paragraph. 75.183.8.246 09:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent problems

In my opinion we should write something about the problems FC Bayern have in "Bundesliga" and "Champions League". Coach Hitzfeld announced that he have never seen a such bad situation in his long career. Dagadt

[edit] Thomas Kraft

Who is this guy? And why should he be part of the roster? According to [4] 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)

[edit] Task force

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

[edit] Lineup

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

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

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

By the way, [5]

"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)

[edit] Compliments and criticisms for the Good article nomination

[edit] Compliments

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

[edit] Criticisms

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

[edit] famous past players

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

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

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

[edit] GA review comments

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

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

[edit] Requested move

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

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

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