Talk:RB Leipzig

Naming

What opposition does the DFB have about clubs named after corporate entities? What about the likes of FC Carl Zeiss Jena and Bayer Leverkusen? After unification, a lot of East German teams were in financial trouble and had to be bailed out by corporate owners and got named after them. It doesn't appear DFB made the ruling (please provide a source if such a ruling was made) until later.Avman89 (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is so. Please look at the Satzung of the DFB http://www.dfb.de/uploads/media/02_Satzung_01.pdf, § 15 "Änderungen, Ergänzungen oder Neugebungen von Vereinsnamen und Vereinszeichen zum Zwecke der Werbung sind unzulässig." But older clubs like Carl Zeiss or Bayer Leverkusen may stay at their corporate names. Greetings --Enst38 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by user Nikebrand (section Criticism)

I think these edits a very problematical. First of all, they are unsourced, which is quite critical as some of the statements can be seen as controversial. Second, some of the information seems misplaced. However, I think some of the the information is important, because it describes the history of RB Leipzig and gives a clue about its club culture and the philosophy of Red Bull, but I definitely think it needs fixing. What do you think about these edits? EriFr (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"The town made history during the "Die Wende". It is an formerly known East German town. The VFB Leipzig (re-established as 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig) was being dismissed as non socialist soccer club. They did not want to go to West Germany, because there have so many clubs and bars in their towns. Beside Dresden is not far away as Eurasians first town with the soccer club named after the first soccer record- champion Dresden English Football Club."

"Eurasia"?... Who did not want to go to West Germany because there were too many bars there?... Sorry, but I do not understand what this part of the section says. Can anyone, who understand what it says, make it clearer? EriFr (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Wiggy! for improving the section! It now looks very good. EriFr (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. A shout out also to Koppapa for his contributions. Looking much better now. Well done gentlemen. Wiggy! (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems like Nikebrand is back and reverting his edits. How can I do multiple reverts in one time? MbahGondrong (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Compare the versions in question, then revert. German sources don't talk about an attempted murder in any way. That beating isn't relevant to the club article. -Koppapa (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:MbahGondrong is permanently disturbing as paid militia

He is proclaiming wrong. He is anything adding. He deletes only or clicks on "undo". He deleted the links, cuts the texts. He is wasting the time for editors. --Nikebrand (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I swear that I never vandalized his contributions or disturbed other editors when they have edited. I only use sourced references without my own statements including nonsense.

The matter is only one about soccer in lists or short simple sentences. --Nikebrand (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is paying me as paid militia and I even dont know what it means. I am just correcting the sentences that you add without changing any meaning. Please use proper English and not directly translating from German.

Criticism, history and organization and finance

1. I think some parts of the section "Criticism" should be transferred to the section "History", especially those parts about the other clubs that Red Bull considered before deciding for Markranstädt.

2. I just made an edit (anonymous, I forgot to log in). I changed the sentence "The club is owned by energy drink-maker Red Bull" to "The club was founded by initiative of energy drink-maker Red Bull". I am not sure what is actually meant by "club" from an organizational perspective, but anyhow: Red Bull does not own the club, as it does not own the association RasenBallsport Leipzig e.V (This is simply not possible from a legal point of view, although we all know that Red Bull effectively controls the club).

3. Does anyone know if the professional football is run by a a spin-off organization, as it the case with many other clubs? I would be very surprised if it was not, but I can not find any detailed information about the organizational structure on the internet. These spin-off organizations are normally companies, and this is where the the 50 + 1-rule applies.

4. The organizational structure has to be further explained. This should be on the to-do list.

5. The association (RasenBallsport Leipzig e.V) has been heavily criticized for lack of independence towards the company Red Bull. Various articles has pointed out that its members are employees of the company and that the association has set up rules that prevent new members, as an example, extremely high membership fees. I can not see any information about the membership fees, I intend to add this information.

EriFr (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that there is not spin-off organization. I can not find any information that says otherwise, and according to the article it is a requirement for a club to be organized as an association in order to obtain a license for a lower league in Saxony. I therefor assume that RB Leipzig has kept this of organization since its founding. I intent to expand the section about the organizational structure tomorrow. EriFr (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have started to work on a section about the organization, and I will soon add information about membership and the current board members and directors. Please correct the information that is wrong and add further information! I would like to expand the information about the current organization, who elects who etc., but it is difficult to find information. The club in not very open about this. The information on the official webpage is sparse, to say the least. EriFr (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

History

"Unlike previous clubs, the regulations of the German Football Association (DFB) did not permit the corporate name Red Bull to be part of the team name.[1] In order to comply with these regulations, the club instead adopted the unusual name RasenBallsport Leipzig, literary meaning "Leipzig lawn ball sports". Through the use of the initials "RB" and key elements of the Red Bull corporate logo, the corporate identity was preserved in the team logo.

In addition, majority control of a club by a single entity (physical person, or company) is not permitted by the league[2] and the German law for clubs. The law suggests that a registered club should have a minimum of 7 members. The league further requires that either an association, or a limited company which is controlled by an association with 50% + 1 vote can get a license to participate in the German first or second division. In lower leagues like the one of Saxony, it is required to be an association[3][4] RB Leipzig has 9 members, all employees of the sponsor.[5][6]"

I suggest that these paragraphs are modified. They are a complete mess. First of all. The section describes the founding of the club and its early years. Therefore I think that we should only describe early club conditions. Second. Are the regulations correctly described? We describe regulations of the DFB and DFL. Were they really applying during these early years? I do not think so, especially not the regulations of the DFL. The German article describes the regulations of the Saxon Football Association (SFV). I think they were relevant. EriFr (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much the rules and regulations of the SFV apply to the club as it never played in a league of this association, only in leagues above. Calistemon (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for answering! I am not an expert on German football, but you seem to be right. The club started in the Oberliga, which, as far as I can see, is regulated by the DFB.EriFr (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

But it is possible that the Saxon regulations were applying because the second team played in lower leagues? EriFr (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyhow. I will remove the second paragraph. By the time of its founding, the club was founded as an association. A limited company was not added to the organization until 2014. I am interested in what the German law says about associations. It is written that the German law requires that such associations must have a minimum of seven members, but there are no references for this statement. EriFr (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Reserve team

I'm thinking of creating a new page about RB Leipzig's reserve team. What do you think ? shoud I go for it ? Jallouljalloul (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I dont think that a new article is needed now. If maybe they got promoted to the 3. Liga, then it will make sense in my opinion. MbahGondrong (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MbahGondrong, but I think that your recent edits are very good. EriFr (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay I think that you both are right. and thanks for your support I appreciate it. Jallouljalloul (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jallouljalloul: I am interested in what happened to the reserve team in 2010. As far as I understand, RB Leipzig adopted the first team of ESV Delitzsch as its reserve team in 2010. RB Leipzig probably bought the playing license for the Bezirksliga from ESV Delizsch and adopted its first team as reserve team... but I do not find much information about this. Do you know anything more? I am especially interested in news articles. Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearing up references

Hello

I have slowly started to clear up our references. We need to start adding references in a proper way. I have added many references with only a web link, but that is absolutely not sufficient.

Here you will find the parameters you need:

• Template:Cite web

• Template:Cite news

Any help will be appreciated!

Best regards /EriFr (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Lokomotiv Leipzig

It is not clear from the article how this team was connected or how it dissociated from the historically famous "Lokomotiv" team. Anyone cares to explain it, especially now that it's a good article nominee? PoshteMorriKuq (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Both are from Leipzig. That's the only thing they share. There is and was no connection in the past. -19:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:RB Leipzig/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Koppapa (talk · contribs) 08:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Things to do

Well, just a few comments to get this started. 1. Check for typos (like makranstädt or manager, guess there are more). 2. Expand history section. No words they missed two promotions in the 4th tier. 3. No inclusion criteria for notable players. 4. Expand bare-url links. -Koppapa (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Very good list. I really think we need to expand history section. I have put great emphasis on to describe how the club emerged and its organization (since this is what interests me the most), but I have not written anything about the sporting development, and here I think we could follow the example of the German article ("Oberliga", "Regionalliga", and so on). Best regards /EriFr (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Koppapa and EriFr: What's the status here? C679 16:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not much progress made. -Koppapa (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It strikes me as a very bad sign that the bare URLs still remain in the reference section after two and a half months, since that's such an easy fix. Koppapa, perhaps you should put this on hold for a clear period of time—one week is typical—and if there is not significant progress on the four issues you have mentioned so far, then the nomination should be closed. EriFr, this review has been open much longer than most reviews are held open; please give this nomination your priority if you wish it to proceed. Many thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:I am sorry for not having given any sign for a long time. I will do the following:

- Fix bare links. I will do this today.

- Expand history section. I will do this during the coming weekend (25-25 October).

I think the review can put on hold. However, I still intend to work with the issues that have been mentioned and I will stick to my plan as mentioned above.

Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

EriFr, what remains for you to do after the recent edits? It's important for you to communicate your progress here on a regular basis; it's been three weeks. Koppapa, what else do you believe needs to be done to the article to bring it in line with the GA criteria? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Here is my list of things to do:

• Expand section on 2. Bundesliga. A lot of things has happened since the entry to the 2. Bundesliga. I think this needs to be covered in order to meet the third good article criteria relating to broadness. I will begin expanding this section tomorrow evening.
• Update section on organization. I believe that a very large share of RB Leipzig GmbH has been sold to Red Bull GmbH and I think this needs to be covered. It is important to explain how the organization works. RB Leipzig is a quite unique and controversial organization in German football. I will begin with this during to coming week.
• Add a section on the RB Academy and information on the new training center. This is not urgent, but I will do this during the coming weekend.
• Expand section on criticism, with positive criticism. I have come across positive criticism, such as interviewees stating that "RB invests where others have failed". I think this needs to be covered in order to meet the fourth good article criteria relating to neutrality.
• Add an inclusion criteria for notable players. I get this in theory, but I have honestly no clue about how this works on Wikipedia. I think this needs to be done in order to meet the second good article criteria.
• Check typos, and make sure that the use of certain terms is consistent. Examples: "manager"/"trainer", "club"/"team" and "reserve team"/"second team". I think this needs to be done in order to meet the first good article criteria.
• Check overall language. I think this needs to be done in order to meet the first good article criteria. I am not a native English speaker myself, so this is the most difficult task for me, but I have noticed that User:Mr Stephen has made some very good efforts here, hopefully he is willing to continue checking the language.

Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have completed the expansion of the section on 2. Bundesliga, but there are much more to do. I suggest we close this review. It seems that I am the only one working on this article at the moment, and I have spent the last entire weekends working on it (it has honestly been quite a lot of work). I will continue with my list, be sure of that, but I do not think I can do all the work needed in the period required. Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Koppapa, at this point it's up to you to close the review, or to respond if you would prefer not to close it for any reason. Thanks. EriFr, we appreciate your continuing work on the article, and can understand why you want to take your time with the many tasks that remain to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, then let's close for now. I don't know how to do it, never done it. Probably should not ave been reviewer in the fist palce. I just wanted to make a small comment. The article though has been improved nicely, good work. -Koppapa (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Koppapa, I've just taken care of closing the review. Next time, if you want to make a general comment, it's probably best just to comment on the article's talk page; if you open a GA review, you're responsible for finishing said review according to the GA criteria, which is a significant responsibility. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of history section

@Koppapa, Wiggy!, MbahGondrong, Jallouljalloul, Tridek Sep, and DrunkenGerman: I have sent you a ping because I see that you have made contributions to this article earlier. We really need to expand the history section. I have made subheads, in order to facilitate the expansion (I do not mind if any of you would like to change the subheads). I will start the expansion by using information and sources in the German article, and then I will slowly go on with new information that I can find on (mostly) German websites, such as newspapers, Faszination Fankurve (http://www.faszination-fankurve.de), Kicker (http://www.kicker.de) and so on. If you would like to help, that would be very much appreciated! Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Terminology

Hello

One of the steps in making this a good article is to make it well written. For that, we need to be consistent in how we use certain terms. I have some concerns that I would like to have your opinion on:

1. 1. "Manager", "coach" or "trainer"? Which one is the correct term to use in German associational football?
2. 2. "Second team", "U23 team" or "reserve team"? Which one do you suggest we use for RB Lepzig II? I have used both "second team" and "reserve team". As far as I understand, the RB Leipzig II is both a second team, an U23 team and an amateur team. I also functions as a reserve team. I would like to suggest that we use "second team", but as far as I understand, "reserve team" is the established term on Wikipedia.
3. 3. "Club" or "team"? I generally use "club", but I use "team" when I talk about the squad or about the performance in certain matches, since those are performances of the squad. What do you think?

Best regards /EriFr (talk)

As to #1, as far as I understand the manager in, lets say, UK football, has much more power then a German "trainer". I think head coach is probably the most correct translation for the role of football coaches in Germany. As to #2, I doupt that RB Leipzig II is a real amateur team, that is why the term "Amateure" was dropped from the reserve team names in Germany a few years back and replaced with II. Reserve team sounds fine, amateur team I wouldn't use. That would be in line with Category:Reserve team football and the parent article Reserve team. #3 I use both club and team on club articles to prevent to much repetition. Hope this helps, Calistemon (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Calistemon: Thank you!

Inclusion criteria for notable players

We need inclusion criteria for notable players, what criteria would you suggest? I do not really know how this works, I fully understand that we need objective and transparent criteria in order to decide who to include and who to not include, but besides that, can we choose any criteria considered and which we think are relevant? What do you guys from the German football task force suggest? Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

An inclusion criteria could be having made 50 apperances for the club which is the one used for List of Gillingham F.C. players, a featured list. Whether or not those should be apperances at professional level (3. Liga, 2. Bundesliga) only I'm not so sure about. The important bid is that any notable players section has an inclusion criteria and is referenced. Regards, Calistemon (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Calistemon: Thank you! I was going to suggest the same inclusion criteria. I think it is the only reasonable criteria for a club with such a short history. I suggest we also include appearances at non-professional level. Otherwise, we would exclude players that have made important contributions to the club's advance through divisions. I will search for a good source. I tried to find a source a few weeks back, but it wasn't easy. If you got one, please let me know! Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

How would Transfermarkt.com do for a source? Is it considered unreliable also for this kind of uncontroversial statistics? Neither Soccerway.com nor Worldfootball.net provides statistics on appearances in the Oberliga. Maybe it would be easier if we only included appearances at professional football... /EriFr (talk)

It might be an idea to scan through the 2009–10 squad on transfermarkt and see if any player from back than actually qualifies by having made 50 apperances for the club.Given the clubs ambition, even back than, the squad might have been pretty quickly upgraded and the Oberliga players discarded. Calistemon (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah transfermarkt gives a rough idea. -Koppapa (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You are right, the club made major changes to the squad after each of the initial seasons. According to Transfermarkt, around ten players from the Oberliga team remained in the team for the 2010-11 Regionalliga Nord season (of these, only three remained in the team for the 2011-12 Regionalliga season). Of course, not all of these players are important here, but at least Ingo Hertzsch, Lars Müller, Sven Neuhaus and Daniel Rosin remained long enough in the team to make 50 appearances. Without counting their appearances in the Oberliga, they would not meet the 50 appearances criterion. /EriFr (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

At present I suggest we use the following criteria: 50 appearances. I suggest we make it league appearances and include the Oberliga as well as qualifiers. Or what do you think about the Sachsenpokal and the DFB-Pokal? My second question is: what do you think about Transfermarkt as a source for appearances in the Oberliga? I really can not find any other source. (I know that the reliability of Transfermarkt has been questioned earlier, but last time I saw it happened, it concerned completely different data, such as transfer fees.) Btw. I found this on the German Wikipedia: Liste der Spieler von RB Leipzig The list shows how many players would meet the criteria, but I have no idea how all those statistics were gathered from the two sources given... /EriFr (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

A common problem with the German Wikipedia, at least when it comes to football articles. Sources are rarely provided there. I tried fussball.de but no luck there either before the 2012–13 season. It provides goal scorers but not team squads or apperances.

Maybe Oberliga players aren't notable players for the team then. Public interest in the team only grew, when they were promoted to at least the 3rd liga. -Koppapa (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking time to discuss this. I think you got a very good point Koppapa, but on the other hand, media showed interest in the club right from its founding (not least, its ambition to quickly rise through divisions; the Oberliga was just meant to be a simple stop, and it was). There are not many players from the Oberliga team that would meet a 50 appearances criterium, but Ingo Hertzsch is one of them. I think it would be unfair to exclude him. Articles were written about him when he joined the team, and articles were written about him when he left the team. Hm. This is complicated. I would normally exclude the Oberliga, without discussing. /EriFr (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Allright. First I made a list with league appearances at all levels. But the only source I used was Transfermarkt, so the list was partially reverted (all references reverted) by user Sir Sputnik. Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source, and I should have known that before I made the list. Sir Sputnik explained that to me almost a year ago. Most content is used generated. I have now made a new list, and this time I only included appearances at professional level. I can only find reliable sources for appearances from the Regionalliga and above, but excluding the Oberliga and including the Regionalliga made not much sence to me (except maybe that the club spent three seasons in the Regonalliga), so I kept it simple. /EriFr (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. The Regionalliga is a bit of a grey zone. kicker.de lists it separately from the league's below which are listed as Amateure. Regionalliga players don't meet notability requirements so your current solution probably works the best. Calistemon (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Article disposition (sections, subsections)

Hello

I will soon begin writing about junior football and women's football, but I think the current disposition will become to complicated if I add more sections. What do you think about the disposition used in the German article, where three sections have been created for 1. The professional team 2. The Reserve team and 3. Junior teams? Under these sections, there are subsections for players, staff etc. I actually think it is logical and clear, although I understand that is not commonly used on English Wikipedia, see FC Bayern Munich. Maybe it puts too much wheight on Reserve and Junior teams? /EriFr (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I've decided to stick to this Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. /EriFr (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Red Bull considered investing in SG Dynamo Dresden?

In the criticism section we write following:

"Before investing in Leipzig, Red Bull also considered SG Dynamo Dresden, but this club was a dismal Bundesliga performer and was further tainted by fan violence mixed with a Cold War fanaticism marked by the use of slogans of the era and Warsaw Pact symbols, mismanagement, too many years spent playing in the lower leagues, and too small a stadium."

I intend to move these parts of the criticism section to the history section, as they relate to the club's founding, but I can not find any sources for that Red Bull considered investing in SG Dynamo Dresden. Do you have any information on this? /EriFr (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really neutral. Can't find a source either. Probably should be deleted. -Koppapa (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think so too. I will delete it. I have read that Red Bull considered a location in West Germany and that Dietrich Mateschitz was recommended by Franz Beckenbauer to invest in Saxony, and I know that the club made an attempt for FC Sachsen Leipzig, but I have never heard of this story about SG Dynamo Dresden... /EriFr (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Koppapa: I am doing some research to expand the section on the club's founding. I found this: "Red Bull wollte den FC St. Pauli kaufen". Quite a funny story. Luckily it didn't went further. /EriFr (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Best debutant ever

I see that we've had a small edit war. I agree that "Best debutant ever" do not belong under "honours". Normally the information could have been placed in a section on records and statistics, or in a separate article on records as statistics, but I do not think that such section should be created (it is rather unnecessary at this point) and since no such article exists, maybe we could simply place the information in the history section? I still think it is worth mentioning, given that there are sources to support the claim. /EriFr (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's explained under the Bundesliga section in this article. Best debutant ever could mean anything, e.g. most wins after first x games, most points after x games, best league position after day x, etc... What's meant for Leipzig is longest undefeated streak. -Koppapa (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Perfect! Yeah, it needs to be explained. As you mentioned, it could mean anything. Normally I would think it meant the best debutant season. /EriFr (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Koppapa: Thanks for the recent edit. I don't know either why the press is messing this up. First, they talked about 1. FC Kaiserslautern (1997-98 season), then about about MSV Duisburg (1993-94 season). However, neither Kaiserslautern nor Duisburg were true debutants during their respective seasons. They had both played in the Bundesliga before. Do we know what the record is for a true debutant? With that I mean a team that has never played in the Bundesliga before. /EriFr (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That must be seven games then. But a really strange view, and now bettered anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

long article

The length of the sections is not well balanced. The Bundesliga section is three lines. And that's basically the section for which everyone knows this article. On the other hand, the women's section (playing in the 4th tier) is huge and has 4 sections allone (and they even only started this year too). That section is not really notable right now, I doubt I've seen a nation wide press-article about them. I think it really should be trimmed. Like get rid of players (not 1 blue link) and staff, just mention the head coach in prose. Also get rid of the past seasons tabkle which is huge. Why not a smaller floating box on the right of prose with just place and division? -Koppapa (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess you are right. Some sections probably need to be trimmed (while the secion on 2. Bundesliga needs to be finished and the section on Bundesliga needs considerable expansion). If anyone wish to do some trimming, please do me just one favor and be careful with the references. I have spent an enormous time doing research for this article. I admit the section on women's football is probably not notable right now (although there has been one lengthy article about the the women's football team in Die Zeit). I wrote the entire section on women's football, and if we decide that it should be cut out, I could just save it it for later in my Sandbox or my computer. That is fine with with me, and I feel quite confident that this women's football team will be notable in two years or so. Kindest /EriFr (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, they most likely will promote every year now. I applied the change. Have a look. -Koppapa (talk)

Great solution, it looks very good! /EriFr (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is still nearly double the maximum recommended size of 10,000 words (WP:LENGTH) and may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting-off one or more of the longer sections into a separate article (e.g. one for History, and maybe another for the supporting reserve, women's and youth teams). There is already a separate article for the stadium (Red Bull Arena (Leipzig)) so that section could be summarized more concisely. Best regards, Reidgreg (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the article is incredibly long. I have moved several sections to a new article, RB Leipzig affiliated teams. Several other sections could be moved to other articles and briefly summarized in the main article. CUA 27 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"New states of Germany" / "former East Germany"?

@Taxabuse: I just changed "Eastern German football club" to "football club from the new states of Germany". From what I have understood, supporters of football clubs that were actually founded in the DDR (such as SG Dynamo Dresden), react strongly against labeling RB Leipzig as an "Eastern German football club". I understand them. RB Leipzig was founded in reunified Germany. I believe "a football club from the the new states of Germany" is correct, but I fear that most people outside Germany are not familiar with the term "New states of Germany". I would rather write "a football club from former East Germany". But I am Swedish and in respect of German history, I do not think I can decide if that would be correct. Do we have any Germans here who could give their view? Kindest regards /EriFr (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC))

• • • @EriFr: Former area of East Germany is better, because the term New States comes from Western Germany, but Eastern Germans say that they are Germans a longer time, beginning with the Holy Roman Empire. New states is for me new. It sounds like a protectorate. RB Leipzig is an Eastern German club but not from East Germany. East Germany is the term for the German Democratic Republic. The Eastern German broadcaster Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk is meaning that the region Saxony and other few states from former GDR is Middle Germany. Middle German would be right, if you would have other lost provinces of the German Empire in the East of Germany. But everybody does understand "from the area of the former East Germany". The failure East Germany and Eastern Germany has been caused by the English speaking countries. For a German in the meaning of the word means Eastern Germany and East Germany the same. Taxabuse (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Here is a source with the Saxony Coat of Arms at the left wing (black and yellow striped) of the Quarter Eagle Taxabuse (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Taxabuse: Thank you! I understand the term "New states of Germany". It is very logical to me, as the DDR joined the BRD, and formed new federal states. But I do not think the term is commonly known, and I think you are right about how it sounds. It does sound like some kind of protectorate. I think that "area of former East Germany" sounds better. We somehow have to mention East Germany. RB Leipzig is not a club from former East Germany, but this issue still very much relates to East Germany. /EriFr (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@EriFr: Ok. Please. Regards. --Taxabuse (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article does not really reflect how controversial and contrary to established German football culture and principles the club is. The criticism section has disappeared. The fans section make out as if they are some kind of powerhouse whereas truth is they have no fans that would classed as ultras by other groups (self-determination is irrelevant) and Chemie and Lok dominate the local fan-scene despite being something like 3-4 divisions below them. Never mind the bending of the 50+1 rule, the advertising rules are being stretched too and the fact the club has not really earnt it's place in the pyramid initially. All those key points are hidden in fragments of paragraphs of text. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I agreee that there are problems with the fan section. It is unbalanced and needs to be summarized. But there is a criticism section, which describes the criticism against the club, as well as other views (and the criticism from the DFL for lack of independence is described in both the history section and the organization section). I don't agree with your decision to add a POV-template to the entire article. It is quite unclear why you think the article as a whole doesn't reflect "how controversial and contrary to established German football culture and principles the club is". How did you come to that conclusion? Did you consider that this article actually has something that is very unusual for a German football club on Wikipedia: a criticism section? And why it is so important that also all other parts of this article reflect "how controversial and contrary to established German football culture and principles the club is"? It is after all a football club. I don't think your explanation is satisfactory. However, I think you have raised clear issues with the fan secton. But the fan section already has a POV-template. /EriFr (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

50+1 'clarification'

OK. So here goes In this Wikipedia article

Wikipedia 50+1 rule

(JIC - Your link option inclusion needs 'fixing' for use with wiki pages)

The club exceptions are duly noted and no mention of RB Leipzig. Can some content/context of this be provided on this page and before I am spammed with 'show proof/documentation' I would prefer someone 'in the know' to expound on this. Or put succinctly : Provide content to Quell the rhetoric that claims that RB Leipzig is not adhering to this rule.

Thanks

So a second review shows

This effectively contradicted fundamental principles of the 50+1 rule, as interpreted by the DFL,[82] and which aims to forbid the influence of third parties on the sporting decisions of a club.[79] As a part of a compromise with the DFL, the club made a binding declaration to ensure that the management board was to be occupied by a majority of persons independent of Red Bull.[94]

And this references a german article. Still obfuscated IMO.

Machindra

Machindra FC 202.51.89.13 (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

2009–2016: Rise through the divisions: a too-long section

This section should divided into subsections to enable easier navigation.They may be named according to the league (ex: Oberliga, etc.)--Quisqualis (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)