Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Germany task force/Archive 2

German football champions
Hi!

I have done a lot of work on German football champions. Currently some British user (NapHit) is trying to improve that article. Actually he doesn't seem to know a lot about German football, having changed the number of BL teams to 20 and using unrecognizable club names. The problem is, while some of his edits are worthwhile many are not, but he doesn't feel the need to discuss anything, even after me and Madcynic told him to pls do so. Any suggestions how to react to such behaviour?

Also does anyone have suggestions about what should be in the article? Some things Naphit changed recently, which I do not agree with: There are a bunch of other changes I disagree with, but I'll leave it at that for now.
 * Should east German football champions be in the article? I think yes because east German football is an essential part of German football history.
 * Flagicons for top scorers? Yes, of course in my opinion. I see few disadvantages, but it gives additional information without distracting a lot. At the same time it makes the article a bit more colourful, which is mostly a good thing for tables.
 * Club names. Should the names in the table deviate from the name of the Wikipedia article about the corresponding club? Naphit is using abbrevations apparently used in English for German football clubs. But different English sources will surely name attribute different names to the same German club. The name of the Wikipedia article about the club is typically chosen after some discussion about what is the most common denomination in the English language. I would deviate from that only if the club changed its name in the meantime.
 * Number of titles in brackets. Certainly not that important but still I see no reason to remove it.

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone in and changed the names, many of which were just silly. I see no objection to flagicons and the number of titles, but I can't decide whether the DDR should have its own article. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also taken the opportunity to completely re-write the lead. It's not perfect, but I think it's an improvement. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit: it's been reverted - it's here, if you're interested.


 * I feel now is the time to explain my edits. I had watched this article before at its previous visit to FLC and peer review. In its previous state the list was very awkward and hard to understand with many flaws which would prohibit it from attaining FL status. My reasoning for abbreviating names is that this is the English wikipedia not German, therefore the clubs should be referred to what are known as in England for example Bayern Munich are not known as FC Bayern Munich. Also look at other lists for instance List of UEFA Cup winners which abbreviates names to their common name which is not always their common name. The flagicons are unnecessary and are not used on similar articles of this nature. It is my intention to nominate this list for featured status, which I think ti will attain following the edits. NapHit (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the names: I would still use "FC Bayern Munich" because the article is under that name and the article are supposed to be under the most commonly used English names. Leaving that aside, some of the names were just silly, "Dresdner" for example, but I see that has very recently been changed. Most of the names have actually been changed to reasonable names in the last hours.


 * As is the list might be promoted to Feature List, but I still feel that you should discuss edits as you make them, if you are asked to. Many of the changes have not yet been discussed and quite probably never will be if the list gets promoted to FL. Why have you removed the championship years in the club list? Why have you removed the East German championships? Why have you removed the number of championships? Why are the tables 100% width (it looks terrible)? What was hard to understand? You claim that but never proof it... You might even know all these things a lot better than I or anybody else, but still I find it contemptuous not to discuss. Wikipedia is supposed to be cooperative and that just wasn't. Regards, OdinFK (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The opening paragraphs are historically inaccurate (big time) and need a major re-write. The article is not about the Bundesliga - it is about German football champions, which is not at all how it currently reads. Wiggy! (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Indent) At the risk of being overly bold I have re-written the opening paragraphs of the article in order to better summarize the history of the championship in Germany and clear up the ambiguity around the Bundesliga and East German championships found in the original version. The new material is more tightly focused on the national championship itself, buts needs some citations (restored, sorry guys) and there should also be some information about championships staged (primarily in Berlin) prior to 1903. There is also a good backstory to the 1904 championship involving Britannia Berlin, VfB Leipzig, and Karlsruher FV that could be referenced or somehow otherwise incorporated. I can stick some of that material in later, but in the meantime, have at 'er boys. Maybe we should shift this conversation to the article talk page, as well? Wiggy! (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Historic names and capacities of German stadia
Is there any information available on the topic above, may it be in digital (internet) or physical (books et al) form? Grüne's Vereinlexikon covers the topic only very rough. For example, the capacities for the Grotenburg-Stadion, home of Bayer 05 Uerdingen, are listed with 18,000 spectators in 1971 and 34,500 spectators in 2001, although (according to the German wiki article) several construction steps were made inbetween, which of course resulted in different capacities.

A good source might be this book. Is there anybody among us who possesses it and thus is able to give feedback on its usefulness? --Soccer-holic (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Over-achievers
I have recently been involved in the creation of the List of football players with top domestic, continental and international honours. One slightly frustrating aspect of the list is that there is no short-hand name that I am aware of, in the English-speaking world at least. This may be because no player from an anglophone country has yet succeeded in making the list. Needless to say there are numerous German players and I wondered if there might be a German language phrase for the achievement. Any help gratefully received. Ben  Mac  Dui  13:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can follow this thread maybe. http://www.toytowngermany.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=120489&st=0&gopid=1512522&#entry1512522 Wiggy! (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying this - however I'm looking for a German expression to describe the players on the list rather than a translation of "over-achiever". Apologies if that wasn't clear. Cheers. Ben   Mac  Dui  20:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Chemie Leipzig
In 2008 supporters have formed a breakaway club of Sachsen Leipzig called Chemie Leipzig as the team was also called before 1990. As the club enjoys a descent support and follows just the same example as Austria Salzburg did, I guess it is notable here.What do you think? -Lemmy- (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It should propably be added to the article. The club may rise through the ranks and warrant its own article one day. EA210269 (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. A possible rise may take quite some time, though, as the 3. Kreisklasse Leipzig (or in other words, the bottom division) is on level 12 of the pyramid. By the way, what are the colors and the logo of the new club? --Soccer-holic (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.chemie-leipzig.de/ ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added it to the article. Wiggy may be able to tell us whether the current logo is identical to the old one, I will leave a note on his talk page. EA210269 (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the are indeed using an old logo. It is displayed in several places on their website and is visible in several game photos on the site. It does not appear they are using the BSG logo as displayed at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemie_Leipzig, but an older version that combines elements of that logo with the standard SV Chemie logo in use in the DDR in the 50s and 60s. Wiggy! (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Fußball-Bundesliga 1995–96
I have a problem with the final table in said article. 1. FC Kaiserslautern were demoted that season (the one or another may remember Kaiserslautern's Andreas Brehme crying in the arms of Rudi Völler, then Bayer 04 Leverkusen, after the match between their teams on matchday 34), but nevertheless won the DFB-Pokal and thus qualified for the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup 1996–97.

How should this fact be displayed? There are quite a few options:
 * Coloring the row yellow as sign for their CWC qualification, but leaving an (R) behind the club name and a footnote - this is the current status, but it might probably be misleading/unclear to readers
 * Coloring the row red as sign for the demotion, but leaving everything else as it currently is
 * Coloring the row red AND changing the cl2 template to "2. Bundesliga", but with adding a footnote about their CWC qualification
 * Building a custom row of some sorts in a way similar to the row for Arminia Bielefeld in the 1971–72 article (Have a look at the source code for details)

--Soccer-holic (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The current yellow might lead somebody to believe the club was relegated after some form of play-off, as custom in Germany in the past and now again. I think, it should be red and the cup winners cup qualification just a footnote. After all, relegation was a far more drastic event in the history of the club then qualifying for the cup and being knocked out in the first round. Also, for example, the Fußball-Bundesliga 1969–70 article has no team marked as qualifying for the cup winners cup as the German Cup was one by regionalliga side Kickers Offenbach. EA210269 (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the season articles, by the way, what a change, looks really good! EA210269 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could go with a red row, except for the last column being yellow, with both the info about the cup and relegation being put in. Might also suggest a secondary intro paragraph describing this as a noteable feature of the season;
 * The season was also noteable for the uncommon finish of 1. FC Kaiserslautern. The club was relegated in a dramatic (?) contest on the last matchday by Bayer 04 Leverkusen, but qualified to take part in the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup 1996–97 by virtue of its DFB-Pokal (German Cup) win that year.
 * That might add a little more dimension or interest to the article, while still being in the vein of the introduction that summarizes the season in general terms. Wiggy! (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph, slightly altered, might actually be a good fit for the "Season overview" section which has yet to be written. As for the color of the row, I will change it to red in any case. And the custom-built row seems to be a good idea on second and third thoughts as well. Give me ten minutes. ;-) --Soccer-holic (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Opinions? --Soccer-holic (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. EA210269 (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

BSC Erlangen
Hey guys, I had an official request by the BSC Erlangen to use Wikipedia as a source for the clubs history. Currently, it hasn't got a history section on its website. How is that? I think, what we do and write here doesn't go completely unnoticed, even in Germany itself! EA210269 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bravo! Well made. Wiggy! (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hertha BSC Berlin II
User:Sir Sputnik created a separate page for the reserves of Hertha BSC, but they play in a not-fully pro-league and have never done so - doesn't this mean they fail notability? Madcynic (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the rules for clubs are a lot more lenient than for players. Hertha II have played in the Regionalliga (and in the cup final), they easily pass. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say, most of the teams players propably could be considered professionals anyway. EA210269 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Consistent club names
I wonder if it is reasonable thing to do and in the scope of this project to provide a guideline on the use of German club names. Especially in tables I can often see that club names are edited back and forth, because people don't agree whether it should be "Bayer Leverkusen", "Bayer 04", or "Bayer 04 Leverkusen" for example. This is quite a nuisance and helps nobody.

For the most famous clubs in the world the abbrevations are quite clear: "Real", "Chelsea", "Milan", "Bayern", etc. It is often clear for the Bundesliga, too, but if a guideline would be provided everybody could look up the "proper" abbrevation. More consistency and less copyediting would be the result I guess. OdinFK (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I always follow kicker, which seems to be the most common usage. The "rule" - inasmuch as there is one, is to almost always use two words, so teams with two word names, such as Eintracht Frankfurt, don't show their initials, but teams with one word, such as Stuttgart, do.   ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, we should stick as close as possible to the English names, which fit in 98 per cent of the cases. Thus, I would use two-word shortages for clubs like Eintracht Frankfurt, Bayer Leverkusen or Borussia Dortmund. For teams similar to VfB Stuttgart, VfL Wolfsburg or Hamburger SV, the city name seems to be appropriate.
 * As for Hertha BSC Berlin, I would go with "Hertha BSC" instead of "Hertha Berlin" because a) there is more than just one team called Hertha in Berlin and b) "BSC" is an abbreviation for "Berliner Sport-Club", just similar to Portugal's Sporting C.P.. Another debatable case is TSV 1860 München. I would opt for "1860 Munich" in order to be in line with "Bayern Munich". (Can some mod move the article to "TSV 1860 Munich", please? ;-) )
 * Two things are to be determined, though:
 * 1. How do we deal with teams who include two-digit numbers in their names, e.g. Schalke 04 or Hannover 96? Both "Schalke" and "Schalke 04" are equally used, as well as the two Hannover variants.
 * 2. Second, what about clubs like Rot-Weiß Ahlen? Keep the hyphen or omit it? Keep the 'ß' or change it to 'ss'?
 * --Soccer-holic (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Teams such as Rot Weiss Ahlen, Rot-Weiß Oberhausen and to top it off Rot-Weiss Essen should be called and spelled as they are on their official sites, that means keeping the hyphens, ß's and whatever deviance from actual German orthography there may be. (German Orthography only accepts Rot-Weiß as the correct form.) Madcynic (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that there is another Stuttgart team. As for Hamburger SV, HSV is a more common abbreviation than Hamburg. I feel that we should follow kicker (adjusting for certain translations) in lists, tables, infoboxes etc, but in article text, then shortform names are fair game once the proper name has been established. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually your statements make me think that it would be indeed useful to have such a list. While Kicker is very useful for the German Wikipedia it is of almost no use for the English one, because English sources refer to German clubs different than German sources and the English Wikipedia should use the name most common in English usage. The HSV example is quite illustrative here, too: Imagine a final table once in English and once in German. The German reader would be quite surprised to find "Hamburg" and not "Hamburger SV" or "HSV". On the other hand most English would not know what "HSV" is supposed to mean and would refer to the club plainly as "Hamburg", but very rarely as "Hamburger SV". OdinFK (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ..or even Hamburger! I also often see Karlsruher. For those who are not aware of the German language: When the town's name is first in most cases it means Sports club or football club, whatever from town xyz. In English it would be Liverpudlian FC, for example. You could never leave FC in that case. -Lemmy- (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Club Player's Honours
Cheerio, lads! I created on my club's article a section for the player's who won a world cup title or olympic medal. Eintracht_Frankfurt Now I think about inputting players who won a medal while signed not at Frankfurt yet or anymore. I find Eintracht Frankfurt records to be the wrong place so I think about creating a new article for that one to let only the World Cup winners in the article with a link to the new page. What do you think which title is appropriate? Eintracht Frankfurt players who won international titles or anything else? -Lemmy- (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable players
Gentlemen, I'm guessing that some or all of you have noted that this bit of business is being stirred up again. I'm wondering if we might sidestep the b.s. and as a group get down to creating List of Deutscher FC players pages for each of the German clubs (over time, this is not an imperitive). That way we've got a place to gather up all the names in one place without cluttering the club articles. We won't have to worry about notability criteria (in the short term) because we're just parking all of the players - be they hackers, journeymen, workhorses or stars - in one place without applying any judgement. They either have an article to link to or there's a red-link suggesting interest in creating an article.

That's it. That should let us accommodate both the guys who are overzealous and spend their time listing everybody and those who get wound up over just how noteable somebody has to be to spare them execution.

I can foresee that maybe over time the work of various club supporters, keeners and enthusiasts might be able to help those pages evolve to some sort of standard format that includes subsections or line item tags for top-scorers, internationals, appearances, whatever without in the meantime having to get embroiled in the crap stirred up by mission-bound editors. We'd be waaaay ahead of the game to build those list pages instead of getting into futile debates.

Comments? In the meantime I'm gonna maybe be bold and wander off and rescue one or two of the summarily removed lists. Sheesh. Wiggy! (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite a bit of work involved at that one but it would certainly sidestep the difficult Notable player issue. I propose however, that such lists should be created for current and forme Bundesliga clubs and, possibly for current 2nd Bundesliga clubs only. Otherwise there may be a notablity issue in itself. A List of TSV Rain am Lech players would properbly not survive the test of notablitiy. I think, to expand the lists to include appearances for the club and goals and to split it into country of origin would properbly be a quite informative. I'm sure some such lists already exists for other clubs. EA210269 (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:09, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Club logos
I had a chat to Wiggy and he is willing to do some research into providing logos to every German football club article. I'm in the process of compiling a list of articles that are missing its logo. If anybody else would like to help out, just upload a logo (make sure you provide a rationale, otherwise the bots will be after you!) and strike out the name on the list! Here is the first verison of the list, not yet complete. EA210269 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Uploaded a pic for Greifswalder SV. Nevertheless, please check if I have messed with the fair use policy... --Soccer-holic (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty close. I just pasted in the standard one off my user page. Logo needs a summary, a fair use rationale for each article it appears in and the logo tag. Should be good. Good find. Wiggy! (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hertha BSC Berlin
There seems to be an argument over what the clubs common or proper name is, it has been moved three times in the last couple of days. A discussion and vote may be needed as there is quite a few options! Currently, and that could change quickly, the article sits at Hertha Berlin, the club logo learly says Hertha BSC Berlin and the club website, on a quick glance, calls it Hertha BSC. Whats the general opinion as to what the article should be under? EA210269 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, the old Hertha discussion. Do people have nothing better to do with their spare times? Anyway, I would go with "Hertha BSC" as a compromise since "BSC" is the abbreviation for "Berliner Sport-Club" and also the name the club itself refers to. However, the English media tend to call the club "Hertha Berlin" for unknown reasons. I would thus suggest to first create a heated discussion between the "Hertha Berlin" and "Hertha BSC Berlin" options and eventually come up with "Hertha BSC" as a compromise. --Soccer-holic (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, it is surprising how the club refers to itself as "Hertha BSC" on the German part of its website and simply as "Hertha" on the English part. As a consequence, all English media are constantly referring to the club as "Hertha Berlin" instead of its actual name, thus the on-going discussion here. We should point to the official name on the club homepage and modify the lead section of the article to something like "Hertha Berliner Sport-Club von 1892 or short Hertha BSC(ref to said page here), commonly known as Hertha Berlin, is a German football club based in Berlin. --Soccer-holic (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for now we are stuck with the fact that we have a Hertha Berlin article and a Category:Hertha BSC Berlin. Also, while Hertha BSC Berlin is by far the most famous club with the Hertha in the name, this reveals that more then 20 clubs in Germany carry Hertha in its name, three of them in Berlin: Hertha BSC Berlin, Hertha Zehlendorf and CFC Hertha 06. Just writing Hertha Berlin is in my eyes ambigious. EA210269 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left a notice on the main project talk page and pointed to the article talk page for further discussion. Let's seee how this one develops. --Soccer-holic (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm for calling Vereinslexikon as the authority on the thing. We can point at it as a reference, set up whatever we need for redirects, and fix any related cats. That approach offers the benefit in future of being able to resolve similar differences affecting other clubs. Wiggy! (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with that idea but I doubt you can get every editor to agree on it. There is a lot of people out their who believe they themself are the source of all knowledge when it comes to football. EA210269 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I'm still hopeful of being able to apply a neutral, authoratative standard that everybody can use. :) Wiggy! (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In the case of erroneus bottom template displays...
...make sure that the article has the template(s) wrapped in and. Should further errors apply, please check if the template has "fb start" and "fb end" as well as after the "fb end" and "{{Navbox|child" instead of just "{{Navbox.

The reason for this is the current transformation from all fb nav boxes to conventional Navboxes. The process will be applied gradually, with the last step taken by a bot. In order to have the bot aware of a template, we need the fb start and end lines around each use of the template.

If there are any more errors which can't be fixed at once by applying the steps above, please contact me so that I can have a look. --Soccer-holic (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

FC Pommern Stralsund
Somebody should create an article for this team. While they only play in the 7th-tier Landesliga Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, they are the successor (in a way) of Vorwärts Stralsund who spent two seasons in the DDR-Oberliga. (FC Pommern Stralsund). Opinions?Madcynic (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll maybe have a run at it tonight when I get home unless someone beats me to it. Wiggy! (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is quite a lot of former East German clubs who deserve an article and yet havn't got one. I started a small East Germany section on WikiProject German football/Requested club articles, feel free to expand it on what anybody thinks are essential articles or clubs from there. Vorwärts Stralsund is already there! EA210269 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's just too much fun stuff to do! I've got the FC Pommern article roughed out, but have split out the predecessor side (pre-1967) as a separate article in line with what's in Vereinslexikon. I need to pluck some material out of the German article to beef up the English and do up the second article on the predecessor. Anybody want to add some stuff to FCP that's post-1994? Wiggy! (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a look as to what I can find. EA210269 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Should Pommern be listed under East German football clubs, given it has been formed only in 1994. Both the redirects, Motor and Vorwärts are already there, that may be enough. Generally, it may be a good idea to list the redirects of the clubs last name in the East German league system in that category rather then its current, often unrelated, name. EA210269 (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Club and league notability
Currently, Wikipedia has a policy regarding player notability but none really for clubs and leagues. I was wondering if we could set a Germany-specific guide line for the future. So far, it has never been an issue with this project as we are so few contributors but the need may exist one day. I personally favor a notability system like this: Sounds comlicated, I know, but due to the ever changing league system in this country, an easy system is hard to achive! I would leave existing articles out of this rule, we don't want to delete what somebody already went through an effort to create. In the interesst of equality, this should apply to men and womens clubs and leagues, but not to youth leagues. Whats the thoughts on this notability system? I think, Hardy Grüne used a similar system for his German club guide, Wiggy could tell us more on that. EA210269 (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clubs: Have to have achived one of the following to be notable
 * Played in a tier-one league prior to 1945
 * Played in the first three tiers from 1945 to 1994
 * Played in the first four tiers from 1994 to 2008
 * Played in the first five tiers from 2008 onwards
 * Played in the first three tiers of the East German league system
 * Played in the DFB Pokal or FDGB Pokal
 * Provided a player for any German national team
 * Leagues: Have to have achived one of the following to be notable
 * Tier one league before 1945
 * Tier one, two or three league between 1945 and 1963
 * Tier one to four league between 1963 and 1994
 * Tier one to five league between 1994 and 2008
 * Tier one to six league from 2008 onwards
 * Tier one to three leagues in East Germany
 * TBH, I would only choose clubs that have played in the first two tiers of the DDR league system. The first two leagues comprised anything from 30ish to 72 clubs in one season, and I doubt that there is much information about the third tier out there anyway. I have similar qualms with "has played in the cup". I fear it'll be just too much and a lot of stubbing. Should we not at first concentrate on covering all teams that have played in the top two East German leagues first, before going even more into detail? Same with inclusion of the 5th tier a per 2008. Madcynic (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Deutsches Fussball Archiv has all Bezirksliga (tier three) tables for East Germany, just means, digging through a lot of name changes to make sense out of it. But its on the (very)-long term list of mine. Overall, its only meant as a guide rule. The work ahead to get anywhere near the boundries I have set with my suggestions are, at current contributor strength, years away. I just would like to prevent newcomers wasting there efforts on tier eleven clubs. The boundries I have suggested are largely based of what the major German newspapers, websites and other media cover. EA210269 (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've simply been following what Grüne laid out for the most part. We ended up having articles for each of the clubs in the top four tiers of German football as of last season before the introduction of the 3. Liga. Since then, for my part, I've just been contributing based on who's asking for what, the elimination or red links, or my own passing interest/curiosity. Ultimately I'd be hopeful of seeing a page for each of the clubs listed in the Vereinslexikon, along the lines of what's been started over at de:wikpedia. In the past couple of weeks I've just been nibbling away at that work in alaphbetical order and may get down to emulating what they did over at de:wikipedia by working from a list of whats in the book.


 * With respect to the East German clubs, I've not put a lot of effort into that area so far. The stuff from the west was a little more accessible and interesting, and to be honest it took me a while to wrap my head around how things worked in the East. The Vereinslexikon covers off any club that played in the top flight regional divisions before WWII, any club that played in the Gauliga system, any club that played in the top four divisions of postwar western football (to 2001) and any club that played in any recognized national championship. It includes East German clubs that competed in the DDR-Oberliga (I), the DDR-Liga (II), and the 2. DDR-Liga (III). Its got a lot of cup related stuff (Tschammerpokal, DFB-Pokal, FDGB-Pokal) but I'm not sure how comprehensive it is in that regard.


 * So following what's gone by so far I'd lean toward covering off all the Oberliga and DDR-Liga clubs first, while probably starting with the big clubs or those who had some link to a noteable predecessor. Once those are done I'd look to covering off the 2. Liga sides and any other club thats made some sort of mark or that emerged as notable since 1990.


 * Overall it looks like its meandering along okay and we've got a body of work that's pretty comprehensive in terms of the number of clubs covered that compares reasonably well to whats available for other countries. Its getting deeper as the top stuff gets covered off or where it touches on clubs that were once upper tier sides that slip to lesser competition. I think the expressed notion of a long term view suits in approaching this. Eventually I think some focus needs to be placed on improving the general quality of the articles for the most notable clubs (top couple of divisions, past national champions or national cup winners, other historically notable sides). Wiggy! (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

FC Bayern logo
Has anybody had a look at ? How did it slip past the bots? Should we do anything about it? EA210269 (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think in reality that, despite the presence of a handful of pretty agressive rulebangers, the image and bot people aren't as organized as they might seem to be. The enforcement of a lot stuff happens in a pretty haphazard manner and often isn't backed by a clear, easy to interpet and apply, rule (which is why it is so often contentious and p*sses me off in its righteousness). Remember also that the bots are reactive and can't stop the thing from actually happening in the first place - they only respond after the fact. I advised another editor earlier who was doing the same thing (can't remember who) that he'd get caught out at it eventually and would have to either remove the images or be prepared to defend their use. He backed away from it as I recall and I've been removing the odd image link that has been bot-tagged.


 * However I'm not personally inclined to chase around doing this sort of work and generally only get involved where I think someone is getting out of hand in what they're doing. For example, right now there's at least two or three bots running around resizing what they view as over-sized images despite the fact that there's no clear cut rule in place (which a bot absolutely must have in order to make a determination). So a lot of stuff is happening by fiat and isn't necessarily legitimate. I've been over at one of the image policy pages participating in getting that sorted out, but it seems to be in a wait state at the moment, even though there has been some useful discussion that looks to be pointing at a fair consensus-based rule. I'm planning at some point to re-size some of the resized images that are now too small, or break up composites that seem to be the ones attracting the bots, and would feel entirely within rights to do so. In the meantime I've been sticking to logo images that are generally 300x300 which seems to be okay with all but the most freakishly extreme enforcers.


 * Do anything about it? Once the bot catches up with it, I suppose, but that's just me and reflects my generally ill view of the image police. In the meantime User:Geregen2 should probably be clued into this discussion just as a heads up. Wiggy! (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is, I think, that the German Wikipedia is pretty liberal with images and contributors coming across find it hard to understand the draconian policies here, as does myself. Nevertheless, policies they are and we have to stick to them until we are able to change them. In any case, I don't really consider it my buisness to take steps in this case, there is better things to do on wikipedia. I was just surprised to see that this went unnoticed when every time you or me don't get a fair use rational to an image quick enough, we get lecture by a bot! EA210269 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It'll get caught eventually. Maybe you and me are simply known not to lead clean lives! :) Damn the bots! Now back to useful stuff ...


 * Keep well. Wiggy! (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You could have a point there! I think, BC and FN secretly conspire to program bots to hunt us down! EA210269 (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

German football championship
We are still missing almost all articles on the championship seasons. I was wondering, whether we could come up with a common format and then create them, piece by piece. Have a look at German football championship 1933 please. Much of it I've copied from the German article, some I've added myself. Has anybody got any ideas on how to improve the layout on the article? Input would be appreciated. EA210269 (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User:OdinFK gave me a few useful suggestions and I have expanded the changes to German football championship 1932. EA210269 (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Season articles?
Should we create a season article on the 2008-09 Regionalliga when it's over? Madcynic (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question. I tend to slightly oppose because the level of the league and its groups is semi-professional at best. But then again, the French third and fourth divisions, as well as their Italian and Spanish complements, also have their own articles. (The English league system is not comparable and thus omitted in this list.) Anyway, in case of a positive vote, I would propose to include a lot of prose, a single location map (perhaps size 640px) with dots of three different colors and only the final standings of each group. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Soccer-holic. Actually the differentiation between pro and non-pro leagues is quite clear-cut right now as I see it. While the old Regionalliga was some kind of mixed bag, now we have pro 3. Liga and non-pro Regionalliga. Based on this I think an article is not necessary. On the other hand if you think you can write a good article with well-sourced, good prose, I see no reason to oppose that endeavour... OdinFK (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd suggest the new Regionalliga is still a mixed bag. The new 3rd Liga is clear-cut pro, true, but that doesn't make the Regionalliga clear-cut non-professional. The issue of sourcing is always troublesome as the sources will be mainly in German. I'll have a look into the DFB statutes for the Regionalliga to see what they say about professionalism. Madcynic (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mass moving/creating redirects
Can anyone who knows the procedure do a mass move of the DDR-Oberliga season articles from their hyphenated to their endashed variants? At the same time, many of the DFB-Pokal season articles are without the prescribed redirect from the hyphen to the endash. Madcynic (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did the Oberliga moves in a fit of boredom. I'm all exhausted now. ;-) Madcynic (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Rot-Weiss Essen
I came across this article while chasing some IP vandalism. I reverted some obvious misinformation entered by the last editor, when I started following the edit history backwards, it seemed that there might be more pieces of misinformation further back. Could someone with knowledge of this club please look at this page to see if further cleanup is needed? Thanks,--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The page has been tidied MoS-wise now and seems content-wise to be alright as well, but please double-check nevertheless. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 07:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User:Rettetast
Does anyone else in this project believe that using a flag on our navboxes would be covered by the MoS and thus also believe that the edits made by above user are unwarrented? See here for what I mean. He removed the flag from all Germany templates, citing policy but without indication on any talk page I'm aware of. Madcynic (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I left him a note before I saw your comment here. I'm with you in my feeling that the edits are unnecessary. I'm tempted to just put them back, but am not looking to get into any to-do at the moment. Eventually they should be restored or all the templates somehow modified to reflect that they are for German competition. A similar problem exists for the navboxes of other countries, Spain for example. Wiggy! (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you add the flag back you should also write the country name. You can't assume that everyone knows the german flag or can distinguish it from similar flags. There are accessibility concerns when using icons instead of text. Colorblind people can have problem identifying such small icons. Rettetast (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see the flags causing any problems. Colorblind may not be able to see them but I don't think their presence would offend them. If you think, adding the country name is neccessary, why didn't you do that rather then remove the flags? Same effort! EA210269 (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember which context the reader is seeing these templates. Template:U19 Bundesliga West for instance is used on the bottom of articles like Rot Weiss Ahlen. It is the article itself that should that should reflect which nation we are in not a template at the bottom. I did not add the national names because they aren't important in that context. If you disagree and think that the flags are important and convey information, country names should be added per my reasons over and WP:MOSFLAG. A minor point is as you all know flags can be controversial. By not using flags we don't have to deal with problems like using the swastika in a template that transcludes on 25 pages. Rettetast (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Saarlandliga
From next season onwards, the Saarland FA will operate a new tier-six league, the Saarlandliga (currently only a redirect), which will slot in between the Verbandsliga Saarland and the Oberliga Südwest. It will consist of 15 clubs from the 2008-09 Verbandsliga season plus two teams from the Landesliga and one from the Oberliga. In all but name it is a continuation of the old Verbandsliga and I wouldn't think twice about moving the Verbandsliga article to Saarlandliga, wasn't it for the fact that their will still be a Verbandsliga. What approach should we take? New league or just a name change? Ideas would be very welcome. EA210269 (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably a new name and article and an explanation as you have provided here. Makes the most sense given that there will still be a Verbandsliga in place alongside a new entity. Wiggy! (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, I've created an independent article and updated the others. EA210269 (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated Vereinslexikon on its way
Recent word is that a updated version of the Vereinslexikon is in the works and that the good burghers at the WappenSalon will be paricipating by providing some of the logo work. Cool. Wiggy! (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know when it comes out, Wiggy, I might try to purchase it. I'm back in Germany in October for a few days, hopefully its out by then! EA210269 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea to have articles on DFB-Pokal finals?
Hi!

I just recently saw that there is an article on the 2008 DFB-Pokal Final. While the naming is not consistent with the naming of the general DFB-Pokal article I was wondering if it is useful to have this type of article at all. In my opinion all the information can easily go into the respective seasonal cup article. It is unlikely that there will be so much notable information on any cup final that it warrants a stand-alone article. The mentioned 2008 final article is a far cry from that anyway. (no offense meant to the user who created it)

If you agree that we don't need this type of article I will to a merging proposition. Also I suppose Template:DFB Cup Finals would be useless then. OdinFK (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In principal, I can't think of any reason why there shouldn't be, after all, every FA Cup final seems to have its own article. Right now, there is only one, 2008, and its information could quite easily be added to the main article, considering how little it is. I would approach the creator and ask him if he intends to expand it before going any further. If not, at its current stage, I would support a merge. EA210269 (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Generally it might be possible to create an article for every finally, however, in contrast to the FA Cup final which receives a lot of English-language coverage, we would have to mostly rely on German sources and would therefore occasionally have issues with GA noms. I'd suggest just extending the final part of the season article à la the FDGB-Pokal articles I have created. Madcynic (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. The user who created the page unfortunately did not answer, though. OdinFK (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick question over DFB-Pokal formatting for the first rounds
Do you prefer the 2008–09 or the 2007–08 format? Both have their pros and cons, so I thought I'd ask before the 2009–10 article gets expanded with the Round 1 matches after those have been drawn... --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion both are a bit ugly. Unfortunately the articles about every other cup competition look a lot worse, so I would go with the 2008–09 format as it allows us to put more information in it without actually crowding the article. I would not want to enter all that information for the historic competitions, but as somebody put all this information into the 2008–09 article I suppose it will not be a problem to get the same information into the new article. Therefore the format allowing for more relevant information should be appropriate. OdinFK (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2008-09 format, as per OdinFK. Madcynic (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet another quick question - is there any opposition to use Template:footballbox collapsible instead of Template:Fb match (for examples on the looks of these, see below)? The advantages of the collapsible footballbox are that it uses regular wiki markup instead of templates for the teams and non-cryptic parameters. According to its documentation, it is also adjustable in line width (and, if needed, background color). Given that we don't want to create another *guesses* dozen of fb team templates for just a single occasion, this might even be a better choice than the current format.

Collapsible footballbox

Fb match 

What do you think? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Not a friend of these fb templates for all those non-pro clubs myself. They're just unwieldy. Madcynic (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok then. A partial test implementation for Round 1 can be found here. Let's hope for some nice derbies à la Concordia HH vs HSV, TeBe Berlin/Union Berlin vs Hertha BSC or even Offenbach vs Eintracht Frankfurt...;-) --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The information is the same, but the collapsible football box is more beautyful in my opinion. Also I find the way you present the templates a bit unfair (no offense) to the Fb match template as collapsible has flagicons and these always look better due to the added colour. OdinFK (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I just took the example from the template documentation and pasted it in here. *fixed with standard text* :-)


 * Thanks. Makes it really easier to judge this (colour just is so important for our perception). After some consideration and a look at your example I think I might have been wrong with preferring "collapsible football box". Right now I'm undecided, but I'll give a few thoughts: "collapsible" has a date in the collapsed version which I find rather useless for the information presented as most (often all) games of a round are held within three days, I like the way this is presented in DFB-Pokal 2008–09 very much; using "collapsible" for a seasonal article leads to an excessive use of horizontal lines, with "fb match" the rounds will look a lot more like they are a unity; about "fb match" I dislike how the uncollapsing the details changes the size of the box and as mentioned by Madcynic having hundreds of templates for 5th tier clubs is awful.
 * So what do we do? Regarding the last problem we could create an alternative version of "fb match" that doesn't use a second layer of templates for the involved clubs/stadiums, instead relying on manually entered information. It's really done very quickly and then we could use "fb match" and "fb match2" alternatingly in the same table, not having to create template for every club entering the cup. OdinFK (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would still stick with footballbox collapsible, for one reason - it is more flexible than the conventional footballbox and allows for something like this. The date problem could thus be solved as following:
 * The "date" and "time" parameters are optional - if not given, the space is left blank without any extra characters. Further, the template allows for custom background coloring. So, how about giving the date only in the first footballbox of a day and shading all matches of the same day in the same greyscale color? For a visual, check my sandbox.
 * However, should this example not be satisfying enough, execute "Plan B" and create the fb match2 template. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm. The New England Revolution example is certainly a good example for the use of this template. I don't really think it applies here, though. Colour coding is nice for a seasonal club article as you can figure out the club's results at a glance. For the cup, I wouldn't like to use the home team as reference as it is quite arbitrary. Just pointing this out, I'm not here to thwart your efforts, Soccer-holic. Anyway I see no killer-argument for either template and I can very well live with either one being used although I have have now a slight preference for "fb template". We should decide what we do, though. The pairings have been announced... Regards, OdinFK (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, a decision among two or three people is always a little difficult, so what do the other project members think? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How did you know, User:Soccer-holic? OFC versus Eintracht! You wouldn't know the result already, too? You could make us a rich man! EA210269 (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Put your money on Offenbach... ;-) A Berlin or Hamburg derby would have been nicer, though. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of UEFA club competition final matches
Hi!

Is it just me or is 1959 European Cup Final for example not in the scope of this project? This ("Not to be include: International competitions or matches") from the project page should be rather clear in this regard, but I'm asking as every UEFA competition final is tagged as being in the scope of this project (and that of the opps countries project as well). If you agree I'll remove these taggings in a free minute. OdinFK (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, it seems the referee got someone's attention. I would suggest that int'l matches with a team from Germany do indeed fall into the scope of the project, but that the involvement of mere individuals is no grounds for inclusion. Thus, the 1974 European Cup Winners' Cup Final would be included, due to 1. FC Magdeburg being the finalist, but the 1980 European Cup Winners' Cup Final would not be included, despite Rainer Bonhof's appareance for Valencia. Madcynic (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Wikipedia has a large backlog of unsourced BLPs. Many are about footballers. At WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs we are trying too make a dent in the backlog. You can find unsourced BLPs about German footballers here. Rettetast (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

List of German football transfers summer 2009
The article needs either to be split up in several subarticles or drastically shortened. The current size is a whopping 188 kB, and this is only owed to the inclusion of all the templates, the actual size might be around estimated 1,5 MB or something. In any case, it takes ages to load for a DSL1000 connection, so I do not want to imagine what users with worse connections are doing here. Any suggestions? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see! Some of the templates down at the bottom don't seem to work very well either, even so I can't see an obvious fault with them. What do you suggest? Break it into first and second Bundesliga? They would still be pretty large then! EA210269 (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the long wait is due to the fact that so many templates are used, because while the template saves time and space on the actual page, its execution takes time. Maybe the reason the bottom templates do not work is a time-out of some sort on wikipedia's servers. Anyhoo, I'd suggest a league-wise split. Madcynic (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Either that, or we switch to a conventional sortable wikitable if this takes less space than the templated solution (can somebody have a look at the English list please?), or both. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no trouble browsing this article on WiFi, but does this information belong in one article anyway? I mean the title "German football transfers" is a bit vague already. We don't list the transfers from Westwacht Aachen to VfL Sindelfingen or something like that. A more fitting title would be something along the lines of "List of transfers in the Bundesliga summer 2009". In this case the article would have to be split in three parts and the problem is gone. Ah, just what Madcynic proposed? I aggree with that then. OdinFK (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is so much information in this article right now, that I do have problems browsing it now. It is 230KB and the transfer period has just begun. Also part of the references for some reason don't seem to work. Is anybody actually against splitting the article? Everybody seemed to agree when we discussed it three weeks ago. As EA210269 pointed out the subarticles would still be pretty large, but at least they would be below 100KB. Any suggestions for a sensible name? I proposed "List of transfers in the Bundesliga summer 2009", but there might be nicer way to name the article... OdinFK (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What about:
 * List of Fussball-Bundesliga transfers summer 2009
 * List of 2nd Fussball-Bundesliga transfers summer 2009
 * List of 3rd Liga football transfers summer 2009

Is this form of sub-dividing any good? EA210269 (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Make those "ss" in Fussball "ß" and it's good as far as I am concerned. OdinFK (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

While I certainly wouldn't object to splitting the article, I would prefer to simply remove the section on the 3rd Liga. This would solve the issue templates not working, since it would put the article back bellow the template include size. As I see it, it would be simpler, and would conform with the transfer lists for other top European leagues. (England, Spain, Italy, France, and The Netherlands). Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge top scorers into List of German football champions
Recently I was wondering why the Bundesliga top scorers list has no template at its bottom, referring to all the other league's top scorers in Europe. Apparently we are the only project to maintain such a site. As there is not much to say about the "title" anyway and all the information presented in the article is also presented in List of German football champions I suppose we can be consistent here and just merge the top scorers into German football champions. Opposition or suggestions? OdinFK (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the German football champions list used to include top scorers, but was taken out when it was FLC. Argument was that it diluted the list by adding unnecessary information. Madcynic (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the top scorers are still in and that seems to be a customary praxis with all comparable FLs, too. (see List of English football champions or List of Italian football champions) OdinFK (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Second Bundesliga or 2. Bundesliga?
The article about the 2. Bundesliga is at "2. Fußball-Bundesliga" whereas all the seasonal articles are at "Second Fußball-Bundesliga season 200x–200y". Redirects are in place, but it's inconsistent anyway and thus should be changed. Also there is still the possibility of using "2nd Bundesliga" instead; although currently not used it is the form I would expect in an English publication. Personally I prefer the "2nd Bundesliga" style, but I thought it me be better to get a few opinions before shoving 30+ articles around. OdinFK (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would go for the 2nd Bundesliga style, too. Seems to be more obvious for non-Germans. Its also then in line with articles like 2nd Oberliga West. EA210269 (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I just think about it: There is also that petition at our mother project to change the naming convention to automatically put the year of the season in front of the competition's name. "2009–10 2nd Fußball-Bundesliga" would not be particularly appealing to the eye, but probably still the best title. Regardless of your opinion I propose not to start moving articles before that petition has been accepted or rejected. OdinFK (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It should obviously not remain at 2. bundesliga, if this is not the Common Name. However, I personally believe that using 2nd Bundesliga in conjunction with the proposed naming convention is an argument against said naming convention. I also believe that this whole discussion is a load of horse hockey. Madcynic (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Eimsbütteler TV
Nothing really important, but has anybody ever heared of a clubs reserve team finishing above its first team? Well, Eimsbütteler TV has just done that! EA210269 (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

List of requested club articles...
...has been updated for the 2009-10 season. Have fun! --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was needed! We might remove the relegated teams from the northern Oberligas as well, they are mostly not high-importance articles. EA210269 (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a bit more of a clean-up. We require now 11 articles to fill the club list for the traditional Oberligas, and another 58 for the new northern Oberligas. Looking a lot better then last year that time! EA210269 (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fußball-Bundesliga 2000–01
I have just given Fußball-Bundesliga 2000–01 a complete overhaul, but now I could use some help. Your mission, should you be willing to accept it, is to provide the "Title race" section with reliable sources. Any takers? :-) --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

2009–10 in German football
I'd like to take your attention to 2009–10 in German football and the corresponding template. Once the season is done, the article is intended to look roughly similar like 2008–09 in English football. We have not had this kind of articles before, but nevertheless, there is a category called Category:Seasons in German football. A far-time goal is filling this category with articles for every German championship season since 1902–03. As this is a pretty huge task to complete, I could use some help, pending you are willing to assist, of course. ;-) Comments, opinions, requests? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 00:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thorhauer page request
Hi there, does anyone here own Leske' Enzyklopädie des DDR-Fußballs and could look up a page number for me so that I can properly reference Günter Thorhauer's career end being due to injury? Madcynic (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation
As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delegierung
As you might know, football in East Germany worked in different ways than in the West. One such example would be the Delegierung of a talented player from small clubs to larger ones. (Basically a non-player-initiated transfer and at times not necessarily sanctioned by the club the player left) Does anyone have an idea where one might explain that concept on wikipedia, as it is somewhat tedious to just say "player x transferred to club c from his home club h" when in reality neither x nor h had much to say in the matter. Madcynic (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * German football is full of little historical goodies like that one (banning of worker's and faith-based clubs under the Nazis, establishment of the Gauliga system, dissolution and reestablishment of clubs after WWII, the formation of combined wartime sides) that similarly affected many clubs across the country. I tend to use stock phrases (or a variation on them) that simply introduce a concept to someone not familiar with the history of the game in Germany. You might try something like this;


 * "Within the state-controlled East German football system it was common, after 1961(?), for talented players to be unilaterally transferred from their home clubs to one of the 16 (?) clubs designated as player development centres. The practice was called Delegierung and was intended to develop talent for the East German national team. The players home club did not receive any form of compensation"


 * (off the top of my head I'm not sure of the date(s) and numbers of designated or focus clubs)


 * From there it might be possible down the road to either write a more detailed and separate article on the practice or incorporate it as a section within a more comprehensive article on the history of East German football and then wikilink the German language term back to those player articles it applies to. In the meantime you've got a simple mechanism to at least get the idea across. Wiggy! (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

New Vereinslexikon bei Grüne
New Vereinslexikon should be out by now. On the German WP someon's already bought it, amazon looks slow. Madcynic (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Re-assessment
I recently was recently going through Bundesliga player articles, and was surprised to find that a large number of them were not listed as within the scope of this project which they clearly are. I also discovered that there was a considerable discrepancy from article to article on what was a stub-, a start-, and a C-class article. Some were quite clearly wrong (Hannover 96 player Vinícius as a start-class being the best example). Normally, I would just do a reassessment myself, but assessing 500+ articles is no small task. Help would be very much appreciated, and a consensus as to what each of the classes is in practical terms would be helpful. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)