Talk:Berliner FC Dynamo

message: I'd suggest that this page be moved to Berliner FC Dynamo - obviously keeping the redirect from the current name. The name BFC Dynamo Berlin is tautologous - the B stands for Berliner. ArtVandelay13 20:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Thank you for your suggestion. I am not a jelly donut and all that ... Wiggy! 20:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Nadia, please stop making inappropriate edits to this page.
* I took the time to review each of the links you added to the page and in general they are the  type of link to be avoided in that they do not reference significant new information or tend to be only peripherally related to the club. You've included links to a search engine page, shopping pages, pages that link to each other, and some that are dead or seriously out-of-date. And I'm afraid just don't understand what a page about a group of three women showing off their tattoos has to do with BFC. While there may be merit in sometimes linking to foreign language sites that include useful material, appending German language news reports to an English language page is marginal at best. The links you are adding are simply not making the page any better. Your interest in the Ultras/hooligan side of fan culture would be better served by leaving those links on the Ultras page you put together - and even then I'd comb through your links to keep just the best.
* Repeatedly removing the link to the English language site that provides a useful overview of the club, including some history, standings, logos, a table full of basic club info, etc. is inappropriate. There is probably more information about that club on that one page than there is in all the links you keep appending - and its offered up in a concise easy-to-read format. It is a useful resource, please leave it be.
* Dynamo was at the forefront of the controversy over championship stars. Including it is appropriate and in context and provides links to other aspects of German football. I don't understand why it is repeatedly being removed.
* Marking up Dynamo's titles as a "German record" without explaining what kind of record it is rather vague and misleading. A record of what? It's a DDR-Oberliga record for number of titles won. Ten consecutive titles in German first division play is a record. But it's not an overall national record as Bayern hold more titles. This was was noted in the qualifying preamble to the honours section - which was repeatedly edited out, and is now orphaned as some sort of afterthought. That preamble should have resolved the issue cleanly and simply.
* During its dominant period Dynamo was a Stasi club, plain and simple. Editing out the title of the history section describing it as such is just a whitewash. There's no reason not to leave it be.
* When an article is heavily edited and material removed its considered good form to provide some justification for deleting the material. That's not been done. I've tried to provide explanations for my edits, I'd appreciate your doing the same as its one of the most basic courtesies here. It might help me understand why stuff is getting tossed.
* Your cut and paste of famous players has left a German language header in place that needs to be fixed. It's an English page and edits and links should reflect that.
* Some useful material has been added through your edits, and I've seen you've done some good work on other pages, but this is just turning into a mess that needs sorting out. Let's do that. Wiggy! 21:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor edits

message: Nadia,
It is inappropriate and goes against established Wikipedia policy to remove relevant references and repeatedly place spam links on a page. It's clear you are a Dynamo fan, but you can't keep erasing relevant parts of the club's history and useful reference material. Please stop and put some effort into managing your POV. Wiggy! 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated vandalism

message: Look Nadia, I'm sorry but formatting lists column-wise as you've done at Berliner FC Dynamo makes it real tough to add to items to a list and is just not as readable as a simple list. There's a place for the use of tables like that, but this isn't it. Have a look at how the English club pages are formatted by way of example. Simple rows, clear links, etc. A similar approach is used on other club pages. Column formatting just doesn't work for some header categories. I've reverted the page to using standard row formatting. Thanks. Wiggy! 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-standard formatting

message: Nadia please stop making inappropriate edits. You've done some good things with the various tables you've added, but a number of your current edits are inappropriate:
* Please don't insert your personal versions of the club logos in the articles. They are quite simply incorrect and should not be used where there are clearly better alternatives available. The logo displaying a single star and the number 10 is in use on the club website and follows the DFB guidelines set for the use of championship stars. The version you keep posting is clearly an un-sourced homemade thing. I have not seen any source that shows Dynamo's use of the East German national crest - if you have one, put it forward. I have asked you this repeatedly and you are ignoring me. Show me. Make me believe.
* The image of Mielke has been tagged as improperly sourced. You need to respect that. The caption attached to the image isn't even close to proper English.
* Replacing accurate image files with your own personalized and incorrect versions is not a particularly welcome tactic. Its unnecessarily aggressive.
* Please don't revert copy edits that are intended to clean up the English of an article. They are not some kind of personal attack, but are simply intended to make the article clear and readable. Properly translated, well written articles carry more authority and better serve users.
* Please put some effort into verifying the accuracy of your edits and managing your POV. I can't argue with stuff that's NPOV, correct, and well presented, but you're not taking that approach and it shows.
* Your talk page is knee-deep in complaints about your general conduct. Given that you often quickly edit out additions to your talk page I would guess that it is embarrassing for you to face up to on some level. This would be more fun for you and everyone else if you showed some respect for other editors and for the quality of your own work.
Wiggy! 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific concerns

message: Nadia, you're quite capable of making useful contibutions, so why don't you stop wasting my time and yours (and that of other editors) by posting material that is incorrect, unlicensed or POV. You added some decent stuff with the various tables you've put in place, put persist in making petty edits. Give it up and stick to the valuble stuff. It looks likes you're able to add good material but can't bring yourself to rise above this other nonsense. I think everyone would appreciate it if you would just play nice. Wiggy! 15:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Get it right

message: You know Kay, there is a very clear reference in the Vereinslexikon as to the history of the name of this team and it doesn't include Spielvereinigung Dynamo. While the club was part of the larger sports association it was never simply SV Dynamo. Do you plan to apply this approach to every single club that played under the SV banner? This is perfect example of the stupidly single-minded approach to editing that repeatedly gets you blocked. Get a life. Wiggy! 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clear reference

message: FYI: The official Logo: :de:Datei:Logo BFC Dynamo e.V. 2009.png reached WP by OTRS. --ST ○ 07:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Thank you. Wiggy! (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 2009 

message: I think the section on predecessor sides is slightly confused, but I could be wrong. The section states that SG Dynamo Berlin was renamed SC Dynamo Berlin in 1954. I am not sure that was the case. I thought that SG Dynamo Berlin and SC Dynamo Berlin were to separate clubs, that SG Dyamamo Berlin was formed in 1952 and renamed SG Dynamo Berlin-Mitte when SC Dynamo Berlin appeared in 1954. I also thought that SG Dynamo-Berlin Mitte was later merged with the reserve team of SC Dynamo Berlin to form the SG Dynamo Hohenschönhausen, and that SG Dynamo Hohenschönhausen was later merged with the football section of SC Dynamo Berlin to form the BFC Dynamo. Does anyone know what is correct? Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessor sides: SG Dynamo Berlin and SC Dynamo Berlin. 

message: I doubt that this is balanced:
"The Dynamo fans are well known to be in the large majority skinheads, with right-wing and far-right political views. Since the 1970s and '80s, they have been known to have the strongest hooligan element in the country."
"Large majority"? And what exactly does "fans" mean here? Well. I haven't done any research, and I know that also in my country, BFC Dynamo is rumored to be a "right wing-club" and notorious for having violent fans with far-right political views, but the above sentence is quite categorical. I think it needs to be checked. The only source provided is: "To My Kibice, Winter 2014 No.4(46) p.38-39". What is "To My Kibice", a Polish football supporter magazine? Is "To My Kibice" a reliable source? If I read the above sentence in a magazine, I would honestly suspect that I was reading a magazine that is fascinated by hooliganism and far-right politics in football. /EriFr (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Large majority skinheads, with right-wing and far-right political views" 

message: The periods chosen for the history seem a bit arbitrary, is there some reason why said dates were chosen, and not say one general history article created? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! The article had a general history section, but I expanded it so much that it had to be moved to separate articles. The time periods represents different eras in the history of BFC Dynamo: The time period 1978-1989 represents the "Golden era" (including the 1988-89 season), the time period 1989-2004 represents the era from the fall of Berlin wall until the insolvency (this is clearly a separate era in the history of BFC Dynamo) and the time period 2004-today represent the era from the end of the insolvency until today (this is also cleary a separate era in the history of BFC Dynamo as the club had to rebuild itself from the ground up after the insolvency). I am focusing on the 1978-1989 period at the moment, but intend to write a short general history section before summer. Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I see that your recent change added a giant history section to this article. That section seems redundant to the individual articles that were previously linked -- in fact, it seems like much of the content is copied from those articles. The article after your change is simply too large; it can't be comfortably read. It also doesn't render correctly, because it exceeds some of the template limits that WikiMedia has. In particular, footnotes and references aren't appearing in the article. Is there a strong reason your change shouldn't be reveted? It seems like there was concensus for having separate history articles here in the past, and in that state the history could be freely expanded and the article rendered correctly and was reasonably readable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: HI! I've been working on this history section for months and everything (except maybe a sentence or two) is written specifically for this history section. I tried to summarize the three history articles, but it obviously got completely out of hand.... One problem I experience is that there is a lack of English-speaking sources that summarize the full history of the club. The German-speaking sources I have used are often very detailed. That has driven a high level of detail. Plus, my inability to sift of course.... Something I've been thinking about is moving the sections on support and rivalries to a separate article and then writing a shorter section on support (and just link the section on rivalries to the new article for now - see seasons section). The rivalries section is currently more of a subsection of the history section, as the rivalries are currently not active (but very important parts of the club's history). That would remove enough text from the article for the references to reappear. But I know the history section is still way too big. (However, I believe that the division of the history section into four subsections, for different eras, is broadly correct. It is the content under each subsection that needs to be summarized.). Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. The current state of the article is untenable: it's fundamentally broken, because the article won't render correctly. What is your plan for addressing that? After your explanation, I'm also wondering why you didn't rewrite the referenced articles instead of writing so much mostly new material. Is there a reason the new content wouldn't be immediately merged with the existing sectional articles? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no new information in the new history material (the new history section), compared to the section articles. All information in the history section is also available in the section articles. My idea was that the new history section would be a summary of the sectional articles. (If I find new information, I always start by adding it to the section articles.) I see two solutions: 1) move the sections on supporters and rivalries to a separate article and write a summary of the supporters sections, or 2) start a massive summary of the history section (perhaps using the history section of the German article as a model?). I probably think option 2) is better. The history section can't be this big. It has to be shortened sooner or later. Kindes. /EriFr (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History years? 

message: I've boldly split the history section to History of Berliner FC Dynamo, and the Supporters and Rivalries sections to Supporters and rivals of Berliner FC Dynamo. This article is still bursting at the seems, but it at least functions correctly now.
I'm in the process of correcting the issues caused by the splits, first here, then the history article, and then finally I'll do the Supporters and Rivals article. Once that's done I'll get round to trying to fix the pre-existing no target and multi-target errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Having split the article, and fixed the resulting issue and re-existing errors (big thanks to ), it's apparent that the part of the issue is a very bad case of WP:OVERCITE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split