Jump to content

Talk:FC Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City F.C. (1993)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleFC Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City F.C. (1993) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2007Articles for deletionKept
May 17, 2020Good article nomineeListed
June 22, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Rename

[edit]

Per discussion at the AfD, where several contributors were uncomfortable with the current article name, I propose to rename the article Bayern Munich v Norwich City (1993). This is not a vote, or even a !vote, but an attempt to find some consensus by debate. Please contribute in this section. --Dweller 11:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why we need to disambiguate with 1993 in the title since this is the only Bayern Munich v Norwich City game ever played? The title should be as short as it unambiguously can be. My suggestion is a simple Bayern Munich v Norwich City. TerriersFan 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was coming here to asking a rename, but I see there's already an ongoing discussion about the issue. I support Dweller's proposal, that is consistent with several other somewhat similar articles, such as England v Hungary (1953). --Angelo 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd err on the side of TerriersFan. I think that unless it needs to be disambiguated from another match, it doesn't need the year. The Rambling Man 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Angelo, there have been other England v Hungary encounters hence the need to disambiguate. TerriersFan 16:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else? I'm inclined to go with the arguments that there's no need to disambiguate, until, erm, there's a need to disambiguate <grins> If no-one strongly objects in the interim, I'll move this page to Bayern Munich v Norwich City in a few hours. If this debate develops, I'll wait. If anyone posts "too late", there's no reason why it couldn't be moved again. --Dweller 09:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to worry, I can't see another BM v NCFC matchup in our lifetimes...! The Rambling Man 10:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheeky binman! --Dweller 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: I don't think you ever renamed the article as you were planning to do 13 years ago. I would also support the move :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: On 10 September 2007, Dweller moved "Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City" to "Bayern Munich v Norwich City". On 28 September 2019, KingSkyLord moved "Bayern Munich v Norwich City" to "Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City (1993)", the current title. Harrias talk 07:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that move. It seems an unnecessary disambiguation, but a) there's a slim chance the sides will meet again and b) it seems to be consistent with other notable matches. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic stadium

[edit]

An editor changed one use of Olympic stadium to Olympiastadion. My view is that we should stick with the Anglicised version as in its WP article. Whichever form we use we should use the same form in each occurrence. I have also fixed the link to Olympic Stadium (Munich). TerriersFan (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This page is kind of like a fanboy page. Yeah Ok it was a good game for Norwich, but most clubs have had spectacular results of a kind during their history, and who will really benefit from an entire page devoted to a game that happened all those years ago. Possibly only serves as a happy trip down memory lane for Norwich fans surely. Should be considered for deletion imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunsnroses15 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion

[edit]

Please do not take this as being anti-English or anti-Norwich, but an article about a UEFA Cup second round tie involving any team does not justify a separate article. We have a 1993–94 UEFA Cup article as well as a Norwich City article, that should be more that sufficient to document it.

Further more, as the article stands, it is written from the viewpoint of someone describing a famous victory, not of someone writing a detached account of a match. Hence why I've proposed deletion.

Wannabe rockstar (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your prod was inappropriate and I have removed it. Prod is "for cases where articles are uncontestably deletable". This cannot fall within prod, as it has already been "kept" at AfD. In terms of your argument about "viewpoint", the notability of the match is because of its place in one of the club's histories. That it is not notable for both is neither here nor there. Finally, the article is not here to present an "account of a match". Wikipedia is not a repository of match reports. It's an encyclopaedic account of a notable incident in football history and that's how it's been written. --Dweller (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, this is very far from encyclopedic. No encyclopedia entry about a match between two clubs focuses solely on one of the two clubs, and would not solely describe the match, its buildup and its aftermath from the point of view of only one of the participants. This reads like the Norwich City website's account of the match, nothing close to what one would expect in what claims to be an encyclopedia. This ties in somewhat with the comment I made in the Project Football talk section about bias; the majority of editors on the English Wikipedia are, naturally, fans of English teams, and thus there are few fans of other European clubs to help keep things neutral.
And as has been said, this is not sufficiently notable. One could just as well start an article about, for example, Legia Warsaw's shock defeat of Blackburn Rovers in the 1996 Champions League. Such an article would have just as much merit as this one, but would no doubt be immediately deleted because unlike in this article's case, few people are likely to lobby for its continued existence. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article easily meets the general notability guideline with the significant coverage from reliable sources. Furthermore, WP:EVENT can be considered:
  • "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content"
  • Recentism is obviously not a concern and coverage is not trivial. There has been continued coverage. It appears to be historically signifigant.
  • Coverage is not local to Norwich
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayern Munich 1 - 2 Norwich City was to keep. If you want to revisit it nominate it in the appropriate fashion/request a merge. Furthermore, if Warsaw v Blackburn meets the above mentioned guidelines, is historically significant, and will improve Wikipedia: Go for it.Cptnono (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Layout review

[edit]

Per the mention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, here are some thoughts on layout:

  • "'An exotic day out with a football match attached'" as a subsection header needs to go. This certainly jumps out as fluffy writing better suited for a news story or essay than an encyclopedia
  • I did not see any FA match articles from a quick look but there are a handful of GAs that you can use for a base. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Showcase
  • I would probably remove put the information in "Tactics" in other subsections ("Match summary" for game stuff and "Background" for prematch stuff)
  • A better lay out might be
  • Lead (summarize the article per the guidelines. This will mention why the game is notable so the first subsection does not need to.
  • Background - All of the info you have in "An exotic day ..." basically
  • Match
  • Summary - Prose
  • Match details/ Match facts - Standard team info and all of that you have in Match facts right now (This subsection might be better at the end of the article. Poke around the GAs and double check what the most common is)
  • Post match Reaction - Probably a good bulk of the notability will be asserted in this section. Make sure it is not overly complimentary. What was the reaction in Munich? A couple lines with how Norwich did in the remainder of the tournament will be needed somewhere. Remainder of tournament.

Cptnono (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's exceedingly helpful and thorough. I'll take a careful look at your suggestions. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's it looking now? --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't get too cocky. I saw that screw up with the lost ref (but nice work by the way). In the first sections:
  • "The match is notable for several reasons:" Falls dangerously close to noting what is noted and trying to hard to assert nobility. Re wording might be in order
  • ""great success in the early Nineties"." Leaves me wanting too much. Who said it and why.
  • "clearly nobody had alerted Walker to the doomed nature of his mission ... the day before the game he was telling anybody who would listen that he fancied it."" Is similar. The quote is used bot so randomly that it loses its encyclopedic feel. I obviously get it but who is saying it and why? A couple words connecting the prose to the quote is needed.
  • In The Times, columnist Martin Samuel... The Times should be in italics
  • "Walker had focused his attention on an unlikely weak link in Munich's team: Lothar Matthäus was the captain of Germany, a player with a distinguished pedigree in European football." Grammar is a little off. "...link in Munich's team: Lothar Matthäus. He was..." or another reworking is required.
  • The Independent also needs italics
  • Does that whole line need a modifying sentence? ie: "Before the match it was expected that...."
  • Should Walker's image be uprighted (not sure on the guideline here)?

Exceedingly biased

[edit]

As noted above, this article reads not like a report of a match, but as a rather fanboy-ish account of what the match was like from a Norwich fan's point of view, and takes several shots at Bayern Munich, which I don't think belong here. 99.234.182.107 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...And this is the biggest problem with Wikipedia. There are 'article guardians' who, for weeks, months, or years, revert unfavourable edits to their favourite articles so they continue to suit their points of view.

99.234.182.107 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, do us all a favour and contribute to the Bayern side of things. Just whinging about it won't actually make it any better, will it? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a bunch of German media coverage to add to the article - just not had time yet. Incidentally, it mostly tends to chime with the British media's point of view. --Dweller (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goss charity ride

[edit]

([1]) --Dweller (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bayern Munich v Norwich City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bayern Munich v Norwich City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bayern Munich v Norwich City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some resources

[edit]

Timing of Bowen goal

[edit]

The two UEFA sites both say 26 minutes. We say 30. What does the match video show? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only videos I can find don't have the time showing when the goals were scored, but all the contemporary newspaper reports say around 30 minutes: The Times says 30 minutes, The Guardian says 30 minutes, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung says 31 minutes. Harrias talk 15:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Might be worth a note? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newcastle Journal says 31 minutes, as does the Dublin Evening Herald and the Aberdeen Evening Express. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just watched a video on YouTube. Sky's timer had it just after 29 mins. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. Perhaps pick the most common one (31) and make a general footnote that other media outlets (UEFA, Sky etc) had slightly different timings...? Someone is bound to ask. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the timer showed 29:xx, then that is the 30th minute, as 0:xx is the first minute. Given that aligns with some of the major sources, I'd be inclined to use/stick with 30. Harrias talk 18:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I wonder where all the 31's come from. Perhaps it was the stun factor, everyone was in shock and failed to look at the clock until later... Ho hum. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The goal came after 29 minutes and 44 seconds, so the WorldFootball.net reference supports the use of 30'. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium name again (minor point)

[edit]

I note we vary the style, both in italics or not italics. Suggest we come to a consensus on the best approach and make it consistent. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LANG says that "Non-English words or phrases should be encased in {{lang}}", which is the method I followed in the match summary. Given that it is frequently referred to as the "Olympic Stadium" in press reports, I thought it useful to provide that translation in brackets, though this should be moved to the first mention if the final edit mentions the ground earlier. Harrias talk 09:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to see how that template can be used with a link to a different target... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, think we're done on this point. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the only time a British side beat Bayern in a game played in the Olympiastadion"

[edit]

Without context, this claim is difficult for a reader to assess. Is there a way to find any stats on just how many matches against British opposition they were previously unbeaten in, or how many in total tried and failed? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about specific numbers. Bayern Memories: Why Norwich City’s success at the Olympic Stadium was such a special achievement does expand a little: "No English team had ever beaten Bayern on their own soil before, with Liverpool, Everton, Tottenham, Leeds and Coventry all trying and failing before Norwich. That record remained through until Munich leaving their traditional home for the modern Allianz Arena in 2005, which was built for the 2006 World Cup in Germany. Nottingham Forest, Manchester United and Arsenal all had attempts at replicating the Canaries’ success before the stadium switch but failed." Harrias talk 09:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered FC Bayern Munich in international football competitions which has everything we could possibly need. Question is, is it all suitably referenced? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. This might help. The Guardian (thanks TRM) on 20/10/1993, page 16, tells us this was Bayern's 185th European match. (And Norwich's third). Headline "Norwich bedazzle Bayern". Journo Stephen Bierley. Obvs not all at home, obvs not all against British clubs, but gives some context. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That factoid is already in the article (I added it yesterday I think). But it doesn't give adequate context to the British clubs at the Olympic Stadium issue. I think that needs to be worked out from the Bayern in Europe article I added above? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On a manual count, it looks like it was Bayern's 14th match against British opposition. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kicker references

[edit]

The references to Kicker, #27 "Kicker, issue 84" and #39, "Kicker, issue 85", need expanded to include all the citation details before GA. Harrias talk 08:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I've added in a page needed request for the FourFourTwo reference (#38), and an unreliable source query for greatestever.com (#49). Harrias talk 09:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the latter. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No idea where we'd find the former. I don't have back issues, any clues? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look back on eBay. It looks like "The 100 Greatest Matches Ever Played" was actually a supplement to the magazine. It was added by Dweller with this edit so hopefully it's still hanging around? Harrias talk 09:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might have thrown it out, sadly. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's any help, I don't think it had page numbers. It was a 4 or 8 page supplement I think. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man and Dweller: I've reworked it a little, what do you reckon? Harrias talk 09:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine for me. We'll have to see what an independent reviewer would think. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy, too. You've both done great work here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City (1993)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 14:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shall take on this review as part of the GAN Backlog Drive of April to May 2020. MWright96 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead

[edit]

Background

[edit]

Pre-match

[edit]

First half

[edit]

Second half

[edit]

Reactions

[edit]

Second leg

[edit]

Legacy

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Am going to put the review on hold to allow the nominators to address/query the points raised above. MWright96 (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FC_Bayern_Munich_1–2_Norwich_City_F.C._(1993)&oldid=1197969692"