Talk:FDGB-Pokal

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to FDGB-Pokal
As the German Cup is found under DFB-Pokal, following the German name, it would only be logical to use the hyphenated form here as well. Madcynic (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Move to East German Cup - Article asserts common name in English is "East German Cup"; a quick Google demonstrates this is probably accurate. This article should be moved there, per WP:UE. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support move to FDGB-Pokal. It is simply the correct name. MTC (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Titles won by SC Lokomotive Leipzig

The titles won by SC Lokomotive Leipzig can not be attributed to 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig in my opinion. 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig does not claim those titles. Quite the countrary, the club states the following on its webpage: "It should also be mentioned that Chemie Leipzig was also given a new form of address - SC Lokomotive Leipzig." ("Nebenbei sei noch erwähnt, dass auch Chemie Leipzig eine frische Anrede zugeteilt bekam - SC Lokomotive Leipzig."). Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Champions FDGB-Pokal

@EriFr: hi, club FC Lokomotive Leipzig & club BSG Chemie Leipzig Have common roots (club SC Lokomotive Leipzig & club SC Rotation Leipzig) but But this problem is solved in the German Wikipedia (original version).

Performance by club in FDGB-Pokal:

FC Lokomotive Leipzig 4 champion & 3 Runners-up + SC Lokomotive Leipzig 1 champion & 1 Runners-up + SC Leipzig 1 Runners-up = Total 5 champion & 5 Runners-up

BSG Chemie Leipzig 1 champion & 0 Runners-up

Please correct. ✓Aali.JenabTalk 10:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Source.

@EriFr: If you are fluent in German language, see this page, which is fully discussed. (de:Portal Diskussion:Fußball/Archiv/2021/März). ✓Aali.JenabTalk 10:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@AaliJenab: Hi! Thank you! I will read it. I realize the history of these two clubs (1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig and BSG Chemie Leipzig) is complex. SC Rotation and SC Lokomotive were merged into SC Leipzig. BSG Chemie Leipzig ("the rest of Leipzig") reappeared at the same time (both sports clubs played in the DDR-Oberliga). So, SC Leipzig was probably the legal successor to both SC Rotation Leipzig and SC Lokomotive Leipzig. But it actually looks like both 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig and BSC Chemie Leipzig claim the 1957 FDGB-Pokal title. (Maybe a solution would be to list the title independently.) But again, I will read the through the discussion! Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not convinced. The discussion only concludes that SC Leipzig should be considered a legal successor to SC Lokomotive Leipzig. (However, that means that 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig could also be considered a successor to the first BSG Chemie Leipzig, as SC Lokomotive is generally considered a successor to the first BSG Chemie Leipzig.) I suggest we list the 1957 title of SC Lokomotive independently. A short discussion on German Wikipedia is not really a source. However, it is interesting that German Wikipedia do not list the seasons of SC Lokomotive Leipzig in the history of 1. FC Lokomotive Leipig, but only the seasons of SC Rotaton Leipzig:. Kindest. /EriFr (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@EriFr: I suggest,List the honors according to this page. Also checked in German Wikipedia. A valid list has been designed and a graphic image has been designed for it. In these discussions, The source of the information can be from the Wikipedia of the same country (language) where these clubs are German and the reviews have been done by them. Thanks ✓Aali.JenabTalk 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please correct the information, I will help you too ✓Aali.JenabTalk 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@EriFr: what do you think? In my opinion, these changes should be made. ✓Aali.JenabTalk 05:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@AaliJenab: I don't think we should include the 1957 title in the number of titles won by 1. FC Lokomotive Leizig. Both clubs claim the 1957 title. See 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzg and BSG Chemie Leipzig. German Wikipedia is not a source in itself. The illustration you mention is based on a book published by 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig itself. I don't know if that is really a suitable source in this particular case? The discussion you mention only concludes that SC Leipzig is a successor to SC Lokomotive Leipzig, but also notes that the resolution does not explicitly mention merger (more "united" or "combined", which probably meant that the best players were concentrated in one sports club, which became a center of excellence). Or am I missing something? RFFFS is not a reliable source in this regard. It can perhaps be a good source for simple statistics. But it is not a reliable source for organizational changes in the complex history of football in Leipzig in the 1960s. I note that 1. FC Lokomotive Leipig themselves count SC Lokomotive Leipzig together with BSG Chemie Leipzig in their statistics on derby matches: "1945 – 1963: SG Probstheida / BSG "Erich Zeigner" / BSG Unit East / SC Rotation Leipzig vs. SG Leutzsch / BSG Chemie / SC Lokomotive Leipzig 23 games (4-5-14) 25:44 goals". I found this book which attributes the 1957 title to BSG Chemie Leipzig.. I think we should be sensible and only attribute the 1957 title to SC Lokomotive Leipzig in this article. Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@EriFr: OK, we write champion 1957 and runners-up 1958 in the East Germany FDGB-Pokal article for SC Lokomotive Leipzig, also we write this champion 1957 for both BSG Chemie Leipzig and FC Lokomotive Leipzig, and in the footnote We add name SC Lokomotive Leipzig. what do you think!? This is the best way. ✓Aali.JenabTalk 20:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@AaliJenab: I think that is a great idea! Kindest regards /EriFr (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

References