Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL)

Dubious additions

On January 1 an anonymous editor added the bulk of this article's present content, which is cited dubiously to say the least, and the accounts of the club's legal situation run contrary to what I've found dredging Factiva for cites to Port Adelaide Football Club. One of his citations ("AFL 2005 page 214") seems to be untraceable, the other (PAFC annual report) unclear and certainly unobtainable online. I've put the {{disputed}} tag on here until I can get out to the library and check out the relevant documentation. ～J.K. 07:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Whaddaya know, the anon was right, in substance if not in detail. That'll teach me to judge by appearances. ～J.K. 13:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Similar to the Lee Hotti article, people hate anons for some reason. It really is unwarranted. Rogerthat 10:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the look of the thing. Anons often don't have much of a clue about wikification and other matters of style. And this particular anon also got a lot of details flat-out wrong. ～J.K. 03:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As I read it, this article contradicts the Port Adelaide Football Club article as to the history of the club and in particular the 1870 start date. In fact it doesn't even mention the year PAFC joined the AFL and the consequences for the SANFL team. Comments? Fat Red 01:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's partially because an anonymous editor who hasn't done their research keeps rewriting the PAFC article. See this edit for a factually accurate version. As for this article here, the old version had some mistakes of detail and frankly execrable English for a topic that doesn't attract non-native speakers, much of which I deleted wholesale out of frustration; I'm trying to work out how to pad out the history section here without substantially repeating material from Port Adelaide Football Club, or at least try to find a graceful way to link to the latter. Suggestions are welcome. ～J.K. 05:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PortMagpies.gif

Image:PortMagpies.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WoodvilleDesign.png

Image:WoodvilleDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplication of content

Everything 1870-1996 is covered, better, at Port Adelaide Football Club. This page should concentrate on the PAMFC post-1996 - without ignoring 1870-1996 of course. I'm not trying to rewrite history here, I just know when two pages start covering the same ground the work of editing increases exponentially. Plus you get two different "camps", two versions of history according to the allegiences of the editors. Carn Port! 202.7.183.131 (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In actual fact, this page should not cover anything pre-1997 at all! This club was formed in 1997 to REPLACE the previous Port Adelaide side which moved to the AFL competition. The only thing this club shares with the preivious is using the same name and jumper design. For all intents and purposes, it is a completely different club. Seth Cohen (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a different legal entity, but PAFC and PAMFC have a shared history 1870-1996. And in addition to the name and jumper, there's the club facilities, players, staff, supporters etc. PAMFC 1997 didn't just come from the clouds. 202.7.183.132 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that the Power was created in 1995/6 for the 97 AFL season, and wasn't a re-imagined version of the SANFL team, which I thought is officially the same team it was 20 years ago. Can evidence be shown here to settle this matter, as 99% of people view the Power as a different entity to the Magpies, and the Magpies of this year to be the same club as the Magpies of the 1900's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.183.131 (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This history of the two clubs as written on sites such as this is a perfect example of "Wikiality" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isfckingevil (talk • contribs) 07:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased Content Objection

There is this incorrect and falsfied attempt to discredit the PAMFC as a fake club, or newly established club. This article was revised to reflect a more unbiased and factual account of the PAMFC. G.g. (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Confusion with PAFC and PAMFC

Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club was established in 1997, after the original Port Adelaide Football Club enterd the AFL. Port Adelaide Football Club are the original Magpies but have change it to the Power since entering the AFL and were etablsihed in 1870. Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club are a revised team of the original team. - GuineaPigWarrior 11:45 30 June, 2010

Provide me a link and I'll happily back down Sequal1 (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Link: http://www.portmagpies.com.au/about.php

In the title it says "Celebrating 140 years" and "with both clubs sharing the history from 1870 to 1996". unsigned comment added by Sequal1 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club was etablished in 1997 after the original Port Adelaide Football Club who were established in 1870 went into the AFL. Their two different clubs but both Magpies so ive put both their history together with it showing PAFC and PAMFC. Port Adelaide Football Club article already has their SANFL history on it so ive put Port Adelaide Football section up to top to show the reader their past before Port Adelaide Magpies. - GuineaPigWarrior 10:05, 13 July, 2010.

You're twisting the words of the website. Where does it say it was established in 1997?

A good example of why I think your version is wrong is Holden. They were established in 1856 as J.A. Holden & Co, then in 1919 changed to Holden's Motor Body Builders Ltd, then to General Motors-Holden's Ltd in 1931, Holden Ltd in 1998 and finally GM Holden Ltd in 2005.

Using your method, we would have to put Holden down as established in 2005, which is clearly not true!

One last thing, I'm not going to change it back as I'm trying to have an open discussion with you here, but I think we should revert to the original version of the page, not yours, as that is the version of the page everyone was happy with and the version more people agree to. Sequal1 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think ive explained myself really well and that the website isn't totally right. Who knows who could have written that. GW!