Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Germany task force

Placings tables

I have removed the outdated (and only those) placings tables from the German league articles to my sandbox for overhaul. I'm wondering what the general view on them is, to keep or not to keep. These are the three options, as I see it, and I was wondering what other project members think:

• A: Leave them out altogether.
• B: Update them and return them to the articles.
• C: Create a separate article for them, like I did for the Fußball-Bayernliga, in the form of List of clubs in the Fußball-Bayernliga.

What would be the preferred option? Calistemon (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If being retained in some form, it would definitely be useful if the columns were sortable. But with that being said... I think the league articles are better off without them. These tables are just too huge to be handled properly, in both informational and visual aspects. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 01:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made the club column sortable on the later versions, even so it will only sort by prefix (1. FC, etc) rather then by city, unless one uses the sortname template. To make the individual season columns sortable means to widen the table and make it hard to read on small screens like my laptop. Calistemon (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A link for regulations to possible licensing-related restructurations...

...can be found here, since it is more than likely that at least the 2011–12 3rd Liga season will be affected by such events so that we will have the need to quote something along these lines... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Müller

Thomas Müller still resides at Thomas Müller (footballer). A move to 'Thomas Müller' is long overdue as 99% of the traffic goes to the footballer (according to the page view statistics). The actual content of 'Thomas Müller' should thus be moved to 'Thomas Müller (disambiguation)'. What I don't know is, what is the right way to do it? Request on the Move Request page?

Yep, I would take it to WP:RM in case the move is contested. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

New category: Sports clubs banned by the Nazis

I've started a new category for all the clubs banned by the Nazis during the Third Reich, its under Category:Sports clubs banned by the Nazis. Calistemon (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of Template:Fußball-Bundesliga?

I just stumbled over the Template:Fußball-Bundesliga, which is actually not used (excepte for one article, which I removed it from) and is a combination of Template:Fußball-Bundesliga seasons and Template:Bundesliga teamlist. Has anybody got any idea what the thought behind this template is/was? It seems rather a waste of the most straight forward template name for Fußball-Bundesliga-related stuff to leave it "laying" around like that. Calistemon (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea behind it probably was to save time. "If your adding two templates to the end of a large group of articles, why not make them a single template?" being the rationale. Some leagues have gone so far as to combine the season and teamlist templates into one. That being said, I agree entirely that this template doesn't serve much purpose. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done a crude rework on the template, losely modeled on the Template:Premier League, and added it to a few articles. Further improvements are welcome. Calistemon (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A riddle

Here is a little riddle for the German football experts: Klaus Augenthaler spend his entire senior career with FC Bayern Munich, never played for another club in that time. Yet, he made his debut in a senior competition against Bayern! How is that possible? Can anybody guess? Calistemon (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Against Bayern Hof? Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he played for the reserves against the seniors in the cup? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What about Bayern Alzenau? -Lemmy- (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

ArtVandelay won first price (not sure what that is), Augenthaler played in the reserve team in a 1976-77 quarter final cup tie! Rather unusual, I thought.Calistemon (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

New Eintracht Frankfurt kit 2011/12

Hi, fellows. I have requested on several threads if anyone could create the two new Eintracht Frankfurt shirts as a shirt kit but I couldn't get any help. Unfortunately, I'm not able to create by myself. Could one of you guys advise me how to get help? It would be very appreciated! Pictures: http://www.eintracht.de/aktuell/bilder/368/ :-) Cheers! -Lemmy- (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

German football championship season articles

A user has created the long-overdue articles on the individual seasons of the German football championship. However, he has named them, as an example, 1931–32 German football championship rather then leaving them on the previously used title 1932 German football championship. I think, this is not quite correct, as the championships as such were not played over both years. A similar example for such a case would be the Stanley Cup playoffs, which only carry the year they were played in (example: 2011 Stanley Cup playoffs) in their name, with the league season (2010–11 NHL season) being a separate article. Should the articles be moved? Calistemon (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also see here where I've asked the same question. Also notified the user... Madcynic (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You won't get very far with the user, his workmanship is pretty poor, just take a look at the templates he has created, like Template:1902–03 in European football (UEFA), which claims that there was a 1902–03 FDGB-Pokal! As to the above subject, I had a quick look at the DFB website under Deutsche Meister, and it uses the 19xx/xx format. There may not be enough support from reliable sources for a move. Calistemon (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the templates – just fix them as soon as we have agreed on a naming format for the respective articles. And while we're at it... Hardy Grüne also includes the national championship round into the chapter of its respective season (xxxx–xy). If we should not agree to having two separate articles for the regional qualification and national championship rounds, expansion of the current articles would do as well. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Definetly separation, even if only for the sake of keeping articles at a resonable size. Calistemon (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Eszett

Is there a consensus on whether this should be used in the names of German players? I recently created an article for Alfred Preißler, but this has since been moved to Alfred Preissler, with the user citing naming conventions. However, the first well known example I can think of – Uli Hoeneß – retains the letter. Is this just a never ending debate, or is this there a definitive rule we should follow? J Mo 101 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked this question half a year ago at WT:FOOTY: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 50#Uli Hoeneß vs. Uli Hoeness. --Jaellee (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a never-ending debate and there is no definitive rule. Madcynic (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:2. Bundesliga

Seemingly unnoticed by everybody, the Template:2. Bundesliga was stripped of all its former clubs a little while ago. I've reverted the edit as it left a template with just the current clubs in articles on clubs who haven't played in the 2nd Bundesliga for decades. It seems to be common practice to have former clubs in this kind of league templates, for a similar example see Template:Football League Championship. Calistemon (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also split the former teams into three distinguished groups just to make the template less bulky. They could, alternativly, also be split by decades. Calistemon (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Good eye. Wiggy! (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Project to task force

Since a few hours ago, our four year old ad quite active project has become a task force only. Unfortunatly, this project was not consulted on the move, it was impossed on us by higher authorities. Calistemon (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you think being a task force is a bad thing. In effect, all it means is that some of the more central stuff, such as article assessment, is carried out by a parent project. You can still set the importance of individual articles, thanks to the functionality of Template:WikiProject Football, and you were already using WP:FOOTY's quality assessment scale, so nothing has changed there. In all honesty, the only thing that has really changed is the title of this group, which now reflects solidarity with WP:FOOTY. If we could have the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Football task force as well, we would, but we'll just have to make do with a redirect. That said, you could just revert the move and we can have a long, drawn out discussion about it, but instead, why don't we discuss whether or not it's worth moving it back? – PeeJay 00:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It would have been good if a choice was offered before the fact rather then after. Personally, I would like to remain a project rather then a task force, for two resons:

A We are associated with both WikiProject Football as well as WikiProject Germany and shouldn't just be a task force of either or both.

B We are large and active enough to be a project. We were a project, after all and the decision on our future should be ours, not that of another project, however closely related. Calistemon (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me interject my opinion here as well. No project should be telling another project they are going to be a task force or subproject if they don't want too. You are free to create a separate task force to cover these articles in addition but you can't go around gobbling up the other projects without their consent. --Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a further discussion on the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Calistemon (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I have a speedy category rename request waiting based on the outcome of this discussion, so can we please come to a resolution soon? We can't keep the CfR-speedy waiting forever! – PeeJay 00:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As unfortunatley no further input has been provided by the other project members, I would say go with the WikiProject Football‎ decision. It is obviously not a subject that generates a lot of interest. Resonable amount of time was provided to object to the move and as I'm the only project member objecting it is proberbly not a sufficent majority to overturn the WikiProject Football‎ decision. Calistemon (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject German football to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject German football/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

List of association football clubs with multiple consecutive promotions or relegations

I don't know if anybody is interested in a list like that but I've started a List of association football clubs with multiple consecutive promotions or relegations under User:Calistemon/List of association football clubs with multiple consecutive promotions or relegations for my personal record-keeping. Not sure if it ever gets off its feet to become an article, but if anybody stumbles over a club that qualifies, feel free to add it! Calistemon (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I'll certainly help expand it, when I have some time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've set the inclusion parameter for promotions to three, which I think is a resonable figure. For the other two sub-sections, I'm not so sure. Calistemon (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Fussball-Bundesliga clubs eliminated from the DFB-Pokal by amateur sides

Can anybody think of a sorter name for this new article, List of Fussball-Bundesliga clubs eliminated from the DFB-Pokal by amateur sides? Calistemon (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Move request

I placed a move request discussion on the Oberliga (football)‎, Bezirksoberliga‎, Landesliga‎, Bezirksklasse‎, Kreisklasse‎, Kreisliga‎ and Verbandsliga‎ articles with the objective to move them all to an article name with Fußball- as its prefix, like Fußball-Oberliga. This would bring them in line with articles like Fußball-Bundesliga and provide the necessary disambiguation currently missing as all this leagues exit in other German sports as well. Any ojections to this proposal? Calistemon (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

German tv sport journalists

On english wikipedia many german famous tv sportjournalists are missing, for example Waldemar Hartmann, Ernst Huberty, Heribert Faßbender, Gaby Papenburg, Marcel Reif, Gerd Rubenbauer or Matthias Opdenhövel. Maybe someone has time to translate them and now i will hope, that Germany national football team wins UEFA Euro 2012. 178.3.16.111 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

2012-13 season articles are pretty lacking

A whole slew of 2012-13 season articles were recently created for German football teams. A lot of these articles don't have a single word of prose and just list game results.[1][2] I know that season articles are basically lists, but even lists require some sort of lead to explain the context of the list. Most "beginning of the season" articles at least say how many seasons the team has had ("The 2012 New York Yankees season will be the 112th season for the New York Yankees franchise.") and what the result of the season opener was. They may also discuss team acquisitions, line-up changes, management changes, etc. Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your assessment is quite correct. The creator, User:EdvonSchleck, has already been warned about the possibility of this articles being deleted by User:Kingjeff about a month ago. If no improvement is forthcoming I suggest you nominate them for deletion. But please give the creator another warning that this could happen to give him a chance of fixing the issues first, out of courtesy. Calistemon (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Club names in the season articles?

Does there exist any manual of style for the length of club names in the season articles? I am not sure what to take.

Example:

TSG 1899 Hoffenheim v Bayer 04 Leverkusen

25 November 2012 (2012-11-25) 13	TSG 1899 Hoffenheim	1–2	Bayer 04 Leverkusen	Sinsheim
17:30	Delpierre  9' Johnson 59'	Report Template:De icon	Bender 15' Carvajal 38' Toprak  40' Reinartz  78'	Stadium: Rhein-Neckar Arena Attendance: 22,100 Referee: Christian Dingert

1899 Hoffenheim v Bayer Leverkusen

25 November 2012 (2012-11-25) 13	1899 Hoffenheim	1–2	Bayer Leverkusen	Sinsheim
17:30	Delpierre  9' Johnson 59'	Report Template:De icon	Bender 15' Carvajal 38' Toprak  40' Reinartz  78'	Stadium: Rhein-Neckar Arena Attendance: 22,100 Referee: Christian Dingert

Hoffenheim v Leverkusen

25 November 2012 (2012-11-25) 13	Hoffenheim	1–2	Leverkusen	Sinsheim
17:30	Delpierre  9' Johnson 59'	Report Template:De icon	Bender 15' Carvajal 38' Toprak  40' Reinartz  78'	Stadium: Rhein-Neckar Arena Attendance: 22,100 Referee: Christian Dingert

Zahnfee (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

For Germany, yes. WP:KARLSRUHER. Broadly speaking it should be the same as you put in a player's infobox. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. But it seems like it does not cover all cases. Following the advice, it would lead to "FC Schalke" and "TSG Hoffenheim" instead the more common terms "FC Schalke 04" and "1899 Hoffenheim" which are used in the real world (kicker.de, spox.de, sport1.de, bild.de) and more or less in the player profiles. The player profiles are using btw both, full names or a the shorter version. I tend to use the name which is used by kicker in ambiguous cases. What do you think? Zahnfee (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'd suggest: follow Kicker as your example. You're right "Schalke 04", is correct, "FC Schalke" is never used, "FC Schalke 04" is too much, and "Schalke" is not enough. I should probably make the article clearer. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ola Kamara

I want to expand the article about Norway freshest expatriate footballer, Ola Kamara for DYK, and have used the last couple of days searching for information about him, but the info about his transfer to Germany is somewhat unclear. Norwegian media reports that he have signed a six-month contract with 1860 München, with an option to sign for further years. His article on Norwegian Wikipedia claims that he is loaned out from Strømsgodset, and that 1860 München got an option to buy him after six months. The German Wikipedia however, claims that SV Ried have bought him, and loaned him out to 1860 München with option to buy. I've also found this info in an unreliable Norwegian source, which says they've gotten the information from the newspaper "Österreich". As I don't speak German, I would like to ask for some assistant from a German-speaker to expand his article about the transfer to Germany, with a citation from a reliable source, and I'll expand the article about his time in Norway and hopefully nominate it for DYK. Mentoz86 (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

1860 Munich's official website says he's been signed on loan from Strømsgodset, so that's what I'd go with in the article. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. There is only one problem, his contract with Strømsgodset expired 31 December 2012, and I can't find any evidence that he signed a new contract with the club - he can't be loaned out from Strømsgodset then? Mentoz86 (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading the official site again I'm not so sure. It just says he's on loan, but not from who. The loan from SV Ried is mentioned here though I'm not sure hown reliable it is. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What about this? Mentoz86 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Google translate tells me that Weltfusball confirms the transfer to Ried, but can we call it a reliable source? But I guess that since we have a number of unreliable sources confirming the transfer to Ried, and the official club's website saying that they signed Kamara on loan, we would state in the article that he is on loan from Ried? Mentoz86 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's looks as if that is the most likely situation. Ideally we'd add a source confirming his departure from Strømsgodset as well. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Summer transfers

July 1 may be the offical date, but with the season over these players have effectively moved, and most will be playing in friendlies for their new clubs until then. I say we make these changes already, otherwise there'll be too much work to catch up on on July 1 and we'll end up out of date. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

German interational footballers

According to the category, there are now less than 50 players who have played for Germany without an article on the English Wikipedia. Most of the missing articles can be found in this list, so any help reducing that number further would be much appreciated! J Mo 101 (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey guys. I just noticed an act of vandalism regarding shirt numbers in articles of VfL Wolfsburg players. Take a look here: Special:Contributions/79.107.235.144. Do you perhaps know an easy way to undo all that? Kind regards. DrunkenGerman (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way I know is to select Special:Contributions/79.107.235.144, select the diffs and then undo the edit. Calistemon (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Updating all teams season matches.

( request you to comment @Wiggy!:, @Secret Agent Julio:, @Sir Sputnik:, @Fischer47392: )

Hi,

I have a raw proposal which can be useful to update all the bundesliga and pokal matches in team's season pages effectively. Now each match need to be updated in multiple articles and some teams season matches were not updated.

My propasl is to create a template for football macth with Id, and use template in other pages where it is required.

In short, if a Pokal/leguage match is played between BVB and Bayern, we just update a match template with ID (lets use BL1, BL2... or PK1, PK2......). We can just use this template {{BL1}} in both team season pages and pokal page.

Advantage is No need to update(or copy paste) same match in different pages.

Idea is some what similar to Bundeliga table. Update table in template and use team id to show its table in page.

--Rasulnrasul (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You would have a hell of a lot of templates that would only be used three times each, at club a, club b and the competition article. I think you will have these templates pretty quickley deleted and outlawed on the grounds that they can very easily be substituted with the information in the articles. Calistemon (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Its not multiple templates, single template for Leguage where all matches will be updated and with match ID, just show match info where ever required. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea. Personally, I have been working on adding all missing matches, and am currently only four articles away. This would be an easy way to fix mistakes instead of having to fix it on both articles. And I know that the style used to not be very uniform until I started adding it. This would not work for the Bayern, Hertha, and Schalke articles though, as they use tables, despite the fact the the template Football box collapsible is pretty widely accepted. This would also help with the fact that the code can differ on some articles (i.e. parameters in different orders). And you would need to add a way to be able to place the correct color on each page if it is not a draw, which could be fairly simple. This would help, as when I looked at articles from previous years, they are missing many matches, and it looks horrible. But at least for now (since MD 24) I have kept everything right up to date. SAJ (T) 21:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi SAJ, thanks for comment, the main problem to be solved is updating not leaving any club match in season page. Only few famous club pages are getting update regulary, many pages are updated late or not updated at all. And yes bayern , schalke has lot of editor to have their own tables. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

2014/15 3. Liga error in table - matchday 36 completed.

167.0.234.181 (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Matchday 36: Chemnitzer FC did NOT draw the game at Regensburg. They WON 0-1 (won in the last minute)! I did the modification in the crossed table, but the league table needs to be modified accordingly. See the German language version of the Article "2014/15 3. Liga". Thanks. REF: http://www.dfb.de/3-liga/spieltagtabelle/

Questions

Hello. I had a few questions I was hoping to get answered. First of all, does anyone know what German women football leagues are fully professional? I have not been able to find it. Is it the Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga? Also, does anyone know if the 2007–08 Regionalliga Nord was fully professional? Because someone made the article 2007–08 Dynamo Dresden season, which probably should not exist if the league was not fully professional, similar to the decision made in this discussion. Also, is it appropriate to make club season articles for women's teams? I saw that there were three season articles for 1. FFC Turbine Potsdam, and just wanted to make sure that was okay. Thanks for the help! SAJ (T) 04:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Before the introduction of the 3. Liga in 2008–09 only the Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga were professional leagues [3] [4]. Therefore, Regionalliga Nord was not fully professional in the 2007–08 season and the 2007–08 Dynamo Dresden season should be deleted.

I could not find concrete sources about the German women's leagues, only links that said that the only professional women's league exists in the USA, so I'm afraid that the German leagues are not professional. --Jaellee (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the response. So, I was hoping to understand correctly professional leagues. Is the following statement correct? "Up until the 1962–63 season, there was never a fully professional league. From the 1963–64 season until the 1973–74 season, the Bundesliga was then the only professional league. From the 1974–75 season to the 2007–08 season, the Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga were the only professional leagues. From the 2008–09 onwards the only professional leagues are the Bundesliga, 2. Bundesliga, and 3. Liga." Also, was there ever a fully professional East German league? Thank you for your help. SAJ (T) 07:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement is mostly correct but not fully. It is a bit difficult to explain. This part is correct: "From the 1974–75 season to the 2007–08 season, the Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga were the only professional leagues. From the 2008–09 onwards the only professional leagues are the Bundesliga, 2. Bundesliga, and 3. Liga."

Up to the 1962–63 season there was no national league in Germany. Historically, the DFB was strongly defending the idea of the amateur player. Nevertheless in 1932, the legalization of professional football was decided. But with the upcoming Nazi regime and the Second World War these plans never came true. After the war, there were several regional top leagues in Germany which had some kind of "Vertragsspieler" (contract player) who had to have a job outside football and the money they could earn with football was limited (at least officially). The DFB was still fighting tooth and nail against the creation of a national league because they were afraid that this would ultimately lead to professional players. The clubs threatened to create their own football association if the DFB would not budge and so the Bundesliga was introduced in 1963, but the players were not official professionals. There were called "Lizenzspieler" (license player) and were not required to have a job outside football anymore. A salary cap was still in effect, but it was quite often violated. With the Bundesliga scandal in 1971 the pressure on the DFB increased again to allow professional players because one reason for the manipulation of the matches seemed to be the low pay of the players. So in 1972, the salary cap was revoked and since that time the Bundesliga was officially a professional league (there is a nice history about professional football in Germany explaining all this in detail [5], but it is only available in German).

I cannot say that if Wikipedia considers the Bundesliga from the 1962–63 season to 1971–72 season as fully professional (with regard to season articles for example), you should ask this at WT:FOOTY. I would personally say yes, because the Bundesliga was effectively a professional league, but officially it was not until 1972.

I cannot really answer your question about professional leagues in East Germany, because as a former West German, I've never bothered much with the football in East Germany. As far as I know, all the players in East Germany were officially amateurs, but effectively they were professionals because they officially had jobs (mostly working for the government/military) but they did not have to work and could concentrate fully on football [6]. --Jaellee (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. It was very helpful. So now, I was wondering what are the guidelines for notability of club season articles. I am not sure if there are set guidelines on it yet. Here is what I thought. All the professional leagues club seasons can have an article (from the 1972–73 season to present). Before then, only the teams at the top level may have a club season article (i.e. Bundesliga before the 1972–73 season (it has always been the top flight, correct?), and before then, the Oberligas). But this leaves the question, what about East German clubs? Can they have season articles? For only the top flight, or lower levels too? A few already exist, and I am wondering if this is okay. Also, what about women's clubs? Can they have season articles? For only the top flight, or lower levels too? A few of theses exist as well. Did East Germany have women's football leagues? Also, on a side note, what if a club's name changes? Should the season article's name be correct for the time period? I am not sure how many clubs this applies to. The only one I know of is VfB Leipzig, or now 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig. And a random question, since you seem very knowledgeable about German football: why did the 3. Liga not become part of the DFL? Thanks! SAJ (T) 20:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:GNG in regards to the club seasons. Even if not fully professional a club season may still meet notability requirements when a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. I would think that Dynamo Dresden received enough coverage in print amd omline media, even in the Regionalliga, to meet that requirement. It would however be up to the creator of such an article to prove it did. Calistemon (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You can create season articles for clubs that played in a league that was fully pro. However, as I've understood it, top flight leagues do not automatically confer notability on a player, so in that sense, the DDR-Oberliga would not automatically make a player notable. (I think.) Hence you can only create season articles on seasons played after reunification in what were then pro leagues, i.e. Bundesliga, 2. Bundesliga and 3. Liga.

Nevertheless, if you can show WP:GNG is fulfilled, it is quite possible in my mind to create season articles for at least the top flight seasons of any East German club - but of course these articles have to include prose, not only tables, and must be sourced as well.

As for the 3. Liga not coming under the roof of the DFL, I believe that was never really an option, as the 3. Liga was supposed to be the new "premium product" of the DFB in terms of league football. Madcynic (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Some answers:

Since its foundation, the Bundesliga always was the top flight in (West) Germany.

As far as I know, there were women's leagues in the DDR, since 1979 there were regional leagues and in 1987–88 the DDR Oberliga started. [7]

I'm not sure why the 3. Liga is organzied by the DFB and not by the DFL, the only sources I've found agree with User:Madcynic. --Jaellee (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

2016–17 Bundesliga

Hello. Is it really necessary to have an article for the 2016–17 Bundesliga seeing that the 2015–16 season still has yet to start? It seems extremely premature. It should be created when there is enough information on the topic (like the clubs that will be participating), but until then, it seems rather foolish. Thoughts? SAJ (T) 02:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to parent article Bundesliga, as is common practice with other future season articles with now reliable information as yet. Calistemon (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

FC Sachsen Leipzig

Hello

I know that at least a few of you have already noticed this, but the article on FC Sachsen Leipzig is currently quite a mess. The article covers the old BSG Chemie Leipzig, FC Sachsen Leipzig, the new BSG Chemie Leipzig and SG Sachsen Leipzig. Despite the name of the article, the infobox describes the new BSG Chemie Leipzig. I think the article needs to be split into two or three articles. I do not have time to engage in this article right now, I just want to mention the problem, if anyone would be interested.

Best regards

/EriFr (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@EriFr: BSG Chemie Leipzig just won promotion to the Oberliga. It may soon be time to sort this mess out, I fear. A quick look at the German Wikipedia reveals that the article on the current clubs is BSG Chemie Leipzig (1997) to reflect that it is a new entity. Time permitting I will try to create a new article on this club. Calistemon (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Calistemon: Oh, they did! Damn, I am so happy for them! I forgot to check the latest results. Thank you for the notification! I have followed Chemie this season. Things were looking promising for them until maybe the 21st match day. It was sad to see how they slowly lost the opportunity to win promotion (I think they really deserve it after all these years in the Sachsenliga), but there was still hope. And now this last match day. Chemie had to win and Einheit Kamenz had to either draw or loose... I never thought they would make it. This has been quite a season for Leipzig football: RB Leipzig won promotion to the Bundesliga, 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig won promotion to the Regionalliga and BSG Chemie Leipzig won promotion to the Oberliga. Oh well. I am sorry for being of topic, back to the subject. The article named FC Sachsen Leipzig needs to be sorted out. Perhaps it should be splitted into three articles, I don't know, but either way, we can't do all at once. I am sure no one has the time for that. But as you point out, given the latest events, a very reasonable start would be to break out the new Chemie into a separate article. I will support you if you go on an do that. I think we could begin with a very simple article, including the most basic facts that you need to know, such as an infobox, a very brief history, squad details and information on the latest seasons. We could list the things that need to be done and distribute them. Kindest regards /EriFr (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I revamped the whole mess into FC Sachsen Leipzig, BSG Chemie Leipzig (disambiguation), BSG Chemie Leipzig (1950) and BSG Chemie Leipzig (1997). I didn't actually really add anything, just separated it into the correct sections. The Sachsen on BSG '97 articles mention briefly the other (attempted?) successor clubs a bit, all of them explain the mergers and name changes and have headings at the top to clarify. The disambiguation page also has a very brief explanation to guide people as to which of the three they are actually after. Everyone happy? Abcmaxx (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Abcmaxx & EriFr, great work, it was well overdue to see this mess sorted out! And yes, it has been an amazing year for football in Leipzig this year to have three clubs promoted. Football is a funny thing, seeing the clubs in Stuttgart having such a bad year with three teams relegated while Leipzig made such arise. I wonder if their is a reliable source out there that has picked up on the football success for the city of Leipzig this year? Calistemon (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I will take a look at that! I am really happy for Leipzig. It is a city with a rich history in football. When RB Leipzig was founded, some people feared that it would be the end of traditional football culture in Leipzig, but today the situation for football in Leipzig is probably better than in a very long time. The old names has not only survived, but actually advanced. Leipzig now has both Bundesliga, and a very interesting variety of clubs. Other clubs that should be mentioned are FC Inter Leipzig and LVF Sachsen Lepzig. FC Inter Lepzig actually finished the NOFV-Oberliga Süd on second place this season. If it had not been for 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig, the club would probably have played next season in the Regionalliga Nordost. LFV Sachsen Leipzig was founded in 2014 and has just finished its inaugural season in the 3. Kreisklasse. LFV Sachsen Leipzig claims the the legacy of FC Sachsen Leipzig (http://www.lfv-sachsen-leipzig.de/verein/geschichte/). That could well be discussed, but the club could probably be considered a successor to SG Sachsen Leipzig, and at least, the name "Sachsen Leipzig" is still kicking. Also LFV Sachsen Leipzig won promotion this season. Kindest /EriFr (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

There's a big section on successor clubs in FC Sachsen Leipzig, LFV is mention and so is SG Sachsen, so feel free to add infor that section if you know anything.

As for the rest - I wouldn't class "Dead Bull Drinks FC" as a Leipziger club but having Lok and Chemie is certainly positive, 1st hopefully the derby will be played again soon and b) will show that those poor fans who've stuck by their team that it was worth it. Hopefully they will be both at least in he 3.liga soon and hopefully one de-saddle RB as the top club football-wise in the city and get some much needed support. I think it's fair to say that Chemie got promoted despite the several successor clubs because there is a lot of squabbling between them, and quite frankly, it's ridiculous having 3-4 clubs all claiming to be successors rather than establishing one strong one (one of them folded though I think).Abcmaxx (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Translation from German to English. Vorwärtsverteidigend? Schnelles umschaltspiel?

Hello

I am writing a section about the youth academy of RB Leipzig, and I would like to describe the style of play teached at the academy. The style of play has been described in several interviews in German, but I can not find the right words to describe it in English.

• "Achim Beierlorzer verfolgt die gleiche Spielphilosophie wie wir: ballorientiert, vorwärtsverteidigend, laufintensiv und aggressiv. Das hat uns beeindruckt." [8]

• "Für alle unsere Mannschaften gibt es eine einheitliche Spiel- und Ausbildungsphilosophie, die auf die jeweilige Mannschaft altersgemäß angepasst und vermittelt wird. Aggressive, ballorientierte Vorwärtsverteidigung mit schnellem Umschaltspiel wird bei uns in allen Teams intensiv trainiert und gespielt." [9]

• "Achim Beierlorzer lebt und lehrt die Philosophie, die unseren Fußball ausmacht“, sagt RB-Nachwuchskoordinator Frieder Schrof. Heißt: ballorientiertes Spiel, aggressives Gegenpressing, schnelles Umschaltspiel." [10]

The terms for which I can not find the right words are:

• "Vorwärtsverteidigend"
• "Laufintensiv" (I can translate this perfectly well into Swedish, because we use basicly the same words, but that is not particularly helpful...)
• "Schnellem Umschaltspiel"

Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you in advance!

Best regards /EriFr (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Some tricky translations there!

• "Vorwärtsverteidigend" = Forward defending
• "Laufintensiv" = Run intensiv
• "Schnellem Umschaltspiel" Quick-shift game or Quick-shift play

I used google translate and adjusted it to what seemed to make sense to me. You might want to run it by a native English speaker to have another look at the terms however. Calistemon (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Defending from the front" would be a good translation for "Vorwärtsverteidigend", I think. Even Jürgen Klopp struggled to translate Umschaltspiel! I would probably say "transition play" or "transition from defence to attack" (or vice versa). J Mo 101 (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I had to read a few articles on "Gegenpressing" in English newspapers to find words that could possibly be used, because I get the impression that some of these expressions describe something similar to Gegenpressing.

• "Laufintensiv" = "Run intensive". I made the same translation as you Calistemon, because that is what is basically means. "Run intensive" may sound a little bit odd, but at least it should not be possible to misunderstand.
• "Vorwärtsverteidigend" = "Forward defending", "Defending from the front". "Vorwärtsverteidigend" sounds quite opposite to "fall back and defend".
• "Schnellem Umschaltspiel" = "Quick-shift game", "Quick-shift play", "Transition play". I think I will describe this as a style of play with fast transitions.

I think I might have what I need, big thanks for helping me out! I will try to describe the style of play with these words, and I will quote the original describtions in German in the references. Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what I think I will write: "The style of play teached at the youth academy is ball oriented, aggressive and run intensive, with forward defending and fast transitions". /EriFr (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Far from being any good at English spelling I do think it is "taught", not "teached". Calistemon (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Embarrassing. You are completely right. I actually wondered by that word always had a red underline... ;-) /EriFr (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 FC Bayern Munich season

In the fixtures table on 2016–17 FC Bayern Munich season, Kingjeff insists on using the forced "English style" of just including the city name for nine of the Bundesliga clubs, which sounds very strange. This also seems to go against WP:KARLSRUHER, which I thought was the general consensus for German club names. He claims there is a lack of space in these tables, which really does not seem to be the case, as there are already wider club names in the column. It seems odd to go against the common style which is used on numerous German football articles, so I was hoping to get additional input. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You're analysis spot on here. Kingjeff is applying a British standard to a part of the world that does not follow it. Outside of prose, a German football club's name should not be piped to a single word unless lack of space is an issue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Kingjeff seems to have reverted as he claims that the names have already been "established". If you read WP:KARLSRUHER, it states "obviously in article prose, a shortened name can be used, once the proper name has been established, to make the text flow more easily". This does not refer to tables, but rather only written prose where repeating the full club name becomes awkward. Not everyone is going to read the prose before looking at the fixture tables, therefore the names should abide by WP:KARLSRUHER. It seems to be a flimsy excuse to force this British style upon the article. Kingjeff, before reverting against general consensus based on your opinion, why not discuss? Multiple editors disagree, so continuing to revert is unhelpful. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not applying a "British standard". If you further read WP:KARLSRUHER, it clearly states "Equally in tables where there is a lack of space, abbreviations can be used, but this is rare on Wikipedia." This is clearly a table that lacks space. WP:KARLSRUHER is only an essay and not policy or a guideline. Kingjeff (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, WP:KARLSRUHER represents a general consensus which is accepted by many and is used on numerous articles. Also, WP:KARLSRUHER mentions that the lack of space is "rare on Wikipedia". The table you are referring to does not seem extremely short on space. It already has the font size reduced, three columns with a reduced width, and has long names like Borussia Mönchengladbach in it. Even with the expanded club names, they all still were shorter than the width of the column on my monitor. These are just a few pixels of space we are talking about. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What does rare mean? They are short on space. This is why I piped the full names out. Kingjeff (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously seems a bit vague, but as I mentioned, this table does not seem to be short on space, especially since the column already contains longer club names. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The shortening of football clubs to a single word is very much British thing. It's origin is the fact that almost every football club in the British Isles is either an "FC" or an "AFC", which means leaving the extension in is kind of redundant. This reasoning does not apply to rest of the world, and can actually be counter productive when piping out, for example, the FC part of a club nicknamed "the FC". Add to that the space argument doesn't really hold up. When piping the shortest club names as opposed to the longest one (which shouldn't be piped either), no space is actually being saved here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So, are you saying I should be inconsistent? Secret Agent Julio, It is short on space and will definitely affect the goalscoring and discipline section. Let me ask you again, what does rare mean? Does it mean it doesn't happen at all or does it mean something else? Kingjeff (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

How is he saying you should be inconsistent? You are the one not following the common style for German club names. And once again, as we both have mentioned, there does not seem to be a lack of space in this table. You chose to not pipe the longest name, Borussia Mönchengladbach, but only shorter ones. Sure, the term "rare" is a bit vague, but that's beside the point. The table clearly does not seem to lack space. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik is saying that Köln is the smallest there and doesn't make a difference. But Why stop there if the others are piped out? At this point, it would be inconsistent not to include Köln. Why would I pipe Borussia Mönchengladbach when they have nothing to do with WP:KARLSRUHER. I can't put it simply as "Borussia" because there are two Borussias in the Bundesliga. Kingjeff (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite what I'm saying. I was using a Köln as an example because the nickname easily demonstrates the problem with excessive piping. For all of the clubs whose names are currently piped contrary to WP:KARLSRUHER, the amount of text piped out is too small as to make a difference. If space were in fact so limited to not be able to handle the addition of 3 or 4 extra characters to a few lines, it would seriously call into question why we're using the format in the first place. This is precisely why cases where piping down to a single word would be appropriate are so rare (which means the exact same thing here as it does anywhere else in the English language). Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. The "limited space" argument is a poor excuse to force this British naming style upon the German clubs. It sounds very strange, especially when you simplify the name of a club like 1. FC Köln to just "Köln". Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Then you are in disagreement with WP:KARLSRUHER. It clearly says, when space is limited in a table then "British naming style" is okay. Sir Sputnik, it being "contrary" is dependent on how much space is a "lack of space". It's not just letters being piped out. It's also the space inbetween letters that is being piped out too. Kingjeff (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the "lack of space" explanation simply does not hold up. As Sir Sputnik said, if space were in fact so limited to not be able to handle the addition of 3 or 4 extra characters to a few lines, it would seriously call into question why we're using the format in the first place. These are only a few pixels on a screen, it is not nearly as much as you make it out to be. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it does. You completely want to disregard the fact that it is even allowed at all. You keep treating the word "rare" like it means that it doesn't happen at all. Kingjeff (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As we both have mentioned, in this specific instance there does not seem to be a lack of space. "Borussia Mönchengladbach" already fits into the column, yet adding a few characters to these other club names is just too much? If we seriously could not add a few characters to a row in a table, why would we use it at all? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a bad format for English Wikipedia. They can do this at German Wikipedia all they want. Kingjeff (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on what? Your opinion? This is not a German language issue, but rather a German football naming format. The real "bad format" is forcing the British style upon the article. As SuperJew said, don't you think it makes more sense that you comply with the majority than that the majority comply with you? The majority of articles follow WP:KARLSRUHER, based on past discussions and a mutually understood consensus, but you think you know best? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't act like you have been free of opinion. Why would you use German grammer rules for English Wikipedia? I am in full compliance. You on the other hand seem to be blind of certain points within the opinion and wrong definition of words. You still haven't defined the word "rare" yet. Kingjeff (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is based on the fact that WP:KARLSRUHER is widely used and accepted across many German football articles. What I fail to understand is why you think that "the majority should comply with you". These are not grammar rules, but rather naming rules. And once again, there does not seem to be a lack of space in this table. I would like some additional input on this since you seem hell-bent on this issue, maybe ‎Kante4, another frequent German football editor? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't even realize why we are here. We're are disagreeing whether I am in compliance or not. Kingjeff (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you clearly are not complying with the naming style used by the majority of German football articles. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Secret Agent Julio:, WP:KARLSRUHER allows for the "British standard" when tables have a "lack of space". You like to use the word "rare" when I bring up this point. I am going back to my question for you. What is the definition "rare"? Does it mean it doesn't happen at all or does it mean some else? Kingjeff (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This kind of thing is determined by discussion, and both Sir Sputnik and I believe there is no extreme lack of space which prevents the addition of 3 or 4 characters to the lines. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If there is room enough to put Borussia Mönchengladbach in full, then there is no lack of space. Madcynic (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This is where the disagreeement is. WP:KARLSRUHER also allows for people who insist on using the "British standard" to use the "British standard". Kingjeff (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the point of WP:KARLSRUHER is to use the correct club names. You do not own the article or get to decide what naming style to use just because you "insist" on it. That is what the discussion is meant for, and three editors have agreed there is no lack of space. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Madcynic:, there isn't enough room to show Borussia Mönchengladbach in full. @Secret Agent Julio:, where did I claim to own the article? Me correcting your interpretation of something is not owning the article.

WP:KARLSRUHER allows for the "British standard" in the following situation:

In the prose after the full name has been established,

In tables when there is a lack of space,

editors that insist on using it. Kingjeff (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

But Borussia Mönchengladbach is the widest and is already being displayed, so why can't a few characters be added to other lines? Three editors agree there is no lack of space. And saying that you insist on using the British style does not hold up. This discussion will decide, not one individual editor. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Borussia Mönchengladbach is also not on a single line. Neither is Borussia Dortmund for that matter. This proves I'm right about the limited space in the table. Kingjeff (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously this is based on your monitor, but if Borussia Mönchengladbach and Borussia Dortmund can go onto another line, why can't another club? This does not prove you right, the three editors who say there is no lack of space proves you wrong. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you approving of me using Dortmund and M'gladbach? Kingjeff (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

All I am saying is that if Borussia Dortmund can go onto another line, what is wrong with some other club doing that? It is really not saving space if other names are doing the same. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Startrecht/lizenz: any difference?

Do you know if there is any difference between a "lizenz" and a "startrecht"/"spielrecht" in the German football league system? It seems to me that German news websites often uses the term "lizenz" when talking about federal leagues (3. Liga and above, organized by the DFB or the DFL) and the term "startrecht" when talking about regional or state level leagues (Regionalliga and below, organized by regional or state associations). I wonder because I do not want to make any mistake in translation. Can they all be translated to "licence"? Thanks in advance! /EriFr (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Technically, there is only a "lizenz" if there is also a "Lizenzierungsverfahren" (licensing process) for the league. This is only the case in the top 3 tiers. Below that, there is often only a nominal check whether the clubs fulfill the conditions forthe admission to the league, hence the Startrecht (starting right).

There is also the term "Lizenzverein" which exclusively refers to the Bundesliga and 2nd Bundesliga sides. Here the term has nothing to do with licensing for a certain league, but with the license under which the German Football League (DFL) operate the top two tiers on behalf of the DFB. HTH Madcynic (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Koppapa:Great! Thank you very much, interesting to know! /EriFr (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)