Talk:FC Bayern Munich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFC Bayern Munich has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 2, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 12, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 10, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 9, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
August 28, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 27, 2015, February 27, 2018, and February 27, 2020.
Current status: Good article

Crest[edit]

The newest club magazine details the evolution of the FC Bayern club logo, which prompted me to compare to the corresponding section on this site. It turns out that the logo evolution given here does not seem to be correct. I don't know where the attributed dates come from, but the source given is not it. If I remember correctly I started the crest section of the article and gave Die Bayern by Schulze-Marmeling as a reference. At that point it was more of a general outline of the logo evolution without pictures. 'Die Bayern' does not provide such a detailed overview anyway so the source given is not a source for the logos displayed.

Specifically the logo given for 1906-19 seems to have been in use from 1920 to 1924 and the various logo for 1954 to 1970 have never been official club logos. Maybe I should take another picture, but on the cut-off site from the club magazine there is a club magazine from 1954 on display that they describe as being the first to feature the then new logo. On the next page there are also two pictures of Bayern crests that players for the club would earn if they played a lot for the club. These crests would then be applied to their jerseys. The thing is, these crests look almost exactly like the club logos attributed to 1961-65 and 1965-70, so this is probably just wrong here.

I have no clue where the 1954-61 logo comes from, but it does not seem to have been an official logo at any point either.

Edit: The logo with the golden tone doesn't seem to have been official at any point either.

The golden version was put in 1969, after their first win of the double on comemorative beer glasses, etc., but was not official logo. Oalexander (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OdinFK (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In History_of_FC_Bayern_Munich there is also a picture from 1966 where you can see the logo on a player's breast. It already pretty much looks like the modern logo and the Bavarian colors are aligned slightly tilted not just horizontally, which is also in contrast to the logos as displayed currently on the page. OdinFK (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Posting a photo of the magazine here is a copyright violation. Please take it down and do not post any additional photos of the work.
Are you asking something specific about the 1954–61 logo or would you like to see something else happen? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I thought using pictures of excerpts was okay, but anyway thanks for telling me. I've contacted them to have it taken down.
I don't have specific questions, but naturally I wonder if we could have the correct logo online. OdinFK (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that Bayern did not use a logo, in this case the flag one, before 1901. In 1966 Bayern used as shirt badge an "honorary sign" from before 1925 (back then used for pins). Shirt badges can be different from logos, as can be seen prominently with the German national side, which does not carry the association logo on their chests. The green Logo was introduced when Bayern joined up with Jahn in 1919.

This Logo (http://www.dfs-wappen.de/media/verein/ger/bayern/muenchen/dfs_wl_d_muenchen_bayern[1901_1906].gif) has a strong enough resemblance to the one used from ca. 1902-06, and that one (http://www.dfs-wappen.de/media/verein/ger/bayern/muenchen/dfs_wl_d_muenchen_bayern_msc_fa[1906_1909].gif) was used during their union with Münchner SC (ca 1906-19), therefore the "S" in it. (Links have to be copied and pasted, because they hav square brackets in them)

What Marmeling is concerned, as much as I remember, he co-operates with the guys from DWS-Wappen; they however, as is apparent, can only draw, but have not much clue about history. They even carried for a long time the 1925-54 logo in blue (!!! - see version history here). Most Bayern logos have apparently been uploaded from DWS and have their generally misleading names. BTW, I proposed changes along these lines already around 22 December 2017. Oalexander (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Kits[edit]

At a cursory glance the kits as presented per today were incorrect for 1968/69 and 1972/73. The standard home-kit for 1968/69 can be seen here (scroll down). Easily recognizable the old stadium and players like Mucki Brenninger (left) and Werner Olk Between Bulle Roth (with the trophy) and Schwarzenbeck (to his right Gerd Müller). In the cup final Bayern played in all-red (as can be gleaned from here). The standard home-kit from 1972/73 can be seen here. I personally do not have the skills to make the appropriate changes. Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 February 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - No Consensus Current name and proposed names are clearly covered in the article and dealt with ample redirects so readers are not being shorted here. Additionally, the current title is consistent with sports naming conventions and there are almost another dozen collateral articles using the current title convention re: FC Bayern Munich. Mike Cline (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FC Bayern Munich → Bayern Munich – "FC Bayern Munich" is neither the WP:COMMONNAME, which is "Bayern Munich", nor the official English name which is "FC Bayern München". As such, I propose moving this article to "Bayern Munich" as it best meets WP:CRITERIA and WP:NCST does not apply as there is ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, although if there is a consensus against that I would support "FC Bayern München" as an improvement over the current title. BilledMammal (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I think in general it makes sense to have sports teams at their full official names (the common name for the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox is arguably just Yankees and Red Sox, for example). But in this case, as the nomination notes, we are already not using the official name of the subject. And from the cited stats, and from a scan of multiple prominent English language publications, the proposed title does seem to meet our WP:COMMONNAME requirements.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing from weak support to support. Discussions below seem to indicate that both FC Bayern Munich and FC Bayern München are used in official English-language contexts, but neither the oppose nor support !votes seem to disagree that the proposed title is the common name in English language use. And my Yankees and Red Sox comparison doesn't really work here -- while coverage of those teams commonly at least introduces them with the city included, English language coverage here most commonly just uses Bayern Munich without putting FC first.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not the naming format for football clubs. Also, the official English name of the club in the English-language is either FC Bayern Munich or without the FC: https://fcbayern.com/us/ https://us.soccerway.com/teams/germany/fc-bayern-munchen/961/ and many other English-language media sites such as BBC, ESPN, etc. Requesting WP:SNOWCLOSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The official English name of the club depends on whether the language is US English or English. I didn't realize that it has a different name for each, but the fact it does supports WP:NCST not applying as there is ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • EN is not the British English version of the site, it is an automated translation of it, just as Bayern München is not the Spanish, Mandarin, etc. name of it in those languages, yet that is what it shows when selecting the "language" from the dropdown. The US site has different assets. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe they are using automated translation; it is both very unlikely that a wealthy football club would risk the mistranslations that automated translation would introduce, and it doesn't match the site which shows significant differences between the German and English versions. I would also note that it isn't British English, it is just English; the specific variant is not specified. BilledMammal (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Compare the content between the different language sites. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did, and found significant differences between the German and English versions. However, your argument seems to be that Bayern München is wrong about their official English name for use outside of the United States, and I don't find that to be particularly convincing. BilledMammal (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, my argument is that club name in English is Bayern Munich. Let's look at some of the articles you claim call it Bayern München, rather than a heading, which I argue is nothing more than a coding issue. Bayern Munich and no others from the first set of panels list the full name except for the heading. As for HTML coding issues, how's your German: Alle News, on an English site. I think I've made my point. Walter Görlitz (talk)
              • And even if the webmaster wasn't at fault, they are only a single source. These show Bayern Munich is the WP:COMMONNAME: BBC, ESPN, Associated Press, Reuters, Canadian Press via CBC, Huff Post, The Score, and TSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • First, I agree with you that "Bayern Munich" is the common name, and said that in the move request. Second, regarding your edit summary snow close and topic ban?, if you believe this warrants a topic ban please take it to ANI - it is inappropriate to raise it here. BilledMammal (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This whole thing feels like a weirdly aggressive back and forth considering there doesn't actually appear to be disagreement on the main question at play here, if "Bayern Munich" is the common name of the subject in English language reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Most sources don’t use the full name all the time because it would be ridiculous, but they do use it sparingly, which is enough. – PeeJay 22:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not our naming policy though -- we use the common name in reliable English language sources, not the longest one used sparingly. It would be one thing if articles overwhelmingly introduced the club with a long name and then used a short one after, but that doesn't appear to be the case. I'm not sure I buy the idea that, say the New York Times or the BBC feel they need to use "Bayern Munich" because adding two letters would make it ridiculous.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, as we have Inter Milan, not F.C. Inter Milan or F.C. Internazionale Milano. Same logic for Athletic Bilbao (not Athletic Club Bilbao). The article should be located at either "Bayern Munich" (common) or "FC Bayern München" (official), not a mix. Nehme1499 00:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nominator claims the club’s official name in English is FC Bayern München, but even their official website says “FC Bayern Munich” (see here. – PeeJay 03:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That page uses "FC Bayern Munich" twice and "FC Bayern München" twice. I believe that supports the claim that there is ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not realty, since there is context to the use of each, and München is quite clearly a German word. – PeeJay 04:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see any context that explains the use in a way that does not contribute to ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, and München (Munich), like Bayern (Bavaria), is a German name, not a German word. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is clearly and endonym and since there is an existing, English exonym—one that the club clearly uses—your point that it is ambiguous is a false flag. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. You can't have it both ways, it is either "FC Bayern München", which is the club's official name, or "Bayern Munich", which is the English common name. The current title is a mash-up between the two, which doesn't tick either the WP:NCST box (as evidenced by the ambiguity on the club website mentioned above) or the WP:COMMONNAME / WP:CONCISE box, which would favour simple "Bayern Munich". We currently have a non-official name which hardly anyone uses. Additionally, from the Inter Milan case, which is now a stable title going back 10 years, and which has survived several attempts to move it elsewhere, we can deduce that the community does not regard it as necessary to adhere to NCST in all cases or to include "FC" in the title of all football clubs, and that applies particularly to foreign clubs where the "FC" usage is only rarely applied in the English media. (For evidence of this, compare Google searches for FCBM (no results for Bayern Munich), FCIM (no results for Inter Milan) to those for FCB (obviously refers to Barcelona) and MUFC (obviously refers to Manchester United)). That being the case, we should examine the criteria at WP:AT, as we normally would. It seems clear that WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME favour "Bayern Munich". It also seems clear that "FC Bayern Munich" does not satisfy any of the five criteria other than WP:PRECISE and WP:NATURAL, but those are also satisfied by the shorter name. Even WP:CONSISTENCY is not a win for the current title, given that the name is not consistent with others, as mentioned above.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • FC Bayern München is the club's official German name: an endonym. FC Bayern Munich is the club's official English endonym. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't anything of the sort, as shown above. The English page is inconsistent in that it mostly uses the actual official name of "FC Bayern München", but has one instance of "FC Bayern Munich" in the page title, probably an error.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL, you can't just dismiss it as "probably an error" when they use that name fairly frequently throughout the site. – PeeJay 09:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah well, fair enough and good point. They do seem slightly conflicted on the matter though, as to whether they want English people to use Munich or München. Anyway, it's not really that relevant to this issue anyway, as WP:AT is clear that we favour the common name (and also the concise name), rather than using the WP:OFFICIALNAME, as B2C mentions below. With that strong sitewide policy recommendation, other considerations such as WP:NCST are overridden. In fact, WP:NCST should be rewritten so that it complies with overall policy, rather than the other way around.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Considering Bayern is a multisport club (and there is no significant difference between the usage of "Bayern Munich" and just "Bayern" in reliable sources, hence there is no predominant common name), how does the removal of the "FC" actually benefit anyone? – PeeJay 12:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Given that they precede their name with FC for their other sports, it doesn't seem like the FC helps distinguish between their football team and their chess team. BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not sure that really answers the question of how this benefits anyone. – PeeJay 15:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Also, show me where they call themselves by their endonym in prose rather than the heading of the website. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Given your previous comments about topic bans, I am not willing to engage with you on this discussion unless you retract them or take them to ANI, so all I will do is refer you to PeeJay's link which shows such use in one of the three uses. BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 18:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PeeJay and others. Either keep it where it is, or move to FC Bayern München. Just 'Bayern Munich' is lazy video game name, like Sporting Lisbon or similar. GiantSnowman 18:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: they do appear to use the name on their official site, and its consistent with the 45849584958 other football team articles.Muur (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose FC Bayern Munich is pretty much the club's official name. It even says so on their website. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the self-contradicting Oppose positions above which are bereft of any policy basis and essentially admit the proposed title is the name most commonly used to refer to this team and that the current title is the official name, all neglecting that community consensus has, with few exceptions, always preferred a common name for a title over an official name, as explained at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. —В²C ☎ 09:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PeeJay and their website. Kante4 (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bayern" on its own is just as common. – PeeJay 16:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is obviously a redirect to Bavaria! It would only be unambiguous in a discussion about football. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many people also simply refer to the club as "FC Bayern" *shrug* – PeeJay 21:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • But far more people, especially those not especially into football, refer to it as Bayern Munich. That's easily its common name in the English-speaking world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has always been a frustration to me that there are sports-specific criteria that create Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS for otherwise common rules. Many sports ignore MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, for instance, although this is getting better. The fact that most commenters are referencing WP:COMMONNAME when Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) overrides that is another clear example. Its second bullet point is key here. There is also key discussion about including FC in the title even when not used in the article itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - common name in English-language reliable sources, following Inter Milan. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inter Milan is not a good example to follow, since most active members of WP:FOOTY disagree with that title and it was moved from its original title in a spurious RM. – PeeJay 09:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • since most active members of WP:FOOTY disagree with that title why does this matter? All that matters is whether the broader community agrees or disagrees with a title, per Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because sometimes applying global policies to a niche category of articles creates issues, particularly in the way of consistency between this and other similar articles. – PeeJay 10:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Major world football clubs are not "niche". They're known even by non-fans. And an RM is not "spurious" just because some self-styled experts did not agree with its result. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Football clubs are a niche category compared to the sum total of all articles on here, and I'm sure you know that's what I meant. And yes, the original RM was spurious; it was based on bad evidence and conveniently closed just as people were starting to !vote against the move. – PeeJay 15:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • By that standard, every category on Wikipedia is niche. I would also note that 7% of the articles on Wikipedia are covered by WP:FOOTBALL. Finally, the original RFC was open for eight days, had thirteen editors in favour compared to two against, and had no replies for over a day before it was closed. It was not spurious. BilledMammal (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, my point is that blanket policies don't always apply well to articles on a specific subject. Yes, WP:COMMONNAME is great for things like people's names because they are typically referred to in the same way throughout media, but it's not so great for football clubs. But all of that is moot because no one struggles to identify this club by the current article title. Changing the title benefits no one and creates consistency issues with the rest of the articles on German football clubs. – PeeJay 13:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This would reverse
 09:04, 23 June 2006‎ SndrAndrss talk contribs block‎  30 bytes +30‎  moved Bayern Munich to FC Bayern Munich

which was followed by a series of apparently bold moves. Hopefully this RM will lead to stability whichever way it goes. Andrewa (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good article reassessment[edit]

Hello page watchers. I'm going through the good article cleanup listing to reassess old GAs. This article is in need of a lick of paint to maintain its GA status,

  • See the various tags in the main article.
  • Much of the 'other departments' is in tiny sections and unsourced.
  • There is disproportionate attention to later years in the history.

Anybody here wants to pick it up? If not, I'll likely nominate for a WP:good article reassessment in a couple of weeks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas tuchal[edit]

he was sacked 110.142.185.173 (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FC_Bayern_Munich&oldid=1218291215"