Talk:Gold Coast Suns

Australia: Australian rules football Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Gold Coast Suns is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Top-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Requested move

The official team name was announced tonight as Gold Coast Football Club but that page is a redirect with two items of history. GC17 was just a working title for the bid process. The-Pope (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support renaming.Paul Foxworthy (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support renaming. Dr Faustus AU (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Although generally changes to official names don't immediately catch on to the point of satisfying Wikipedia:naming conventions, I agree this one will. It would still be good to have some evidence that it actually has been adopted by the general public, but I guess if there's no opposition to the move, evidence won't really be required. Andrewa (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rewrite the opening bit. Two options. Name it GC17 and say that "GC17 is the bid for the 17th AFL club in the Gold Coast..... The club will be named Gold Coast Football Club blabla bla" or name it Gold Coast Football Club and the intro "GCFC is a proposed 17th entry to the AFL blablabla. The bidding body is known as GC17". Obviously with better english and wiki-styling than that but we need to make it clear the difference between GC17 and GCFC. GC17 is the body (or project) bidding for a 17th team in Gold Coast. GCFC is the proposed identity put forward to the AFL by GC17.

With the naming of the club GC17 still exists. It's inevitable but GCFC isn't officially the 17th club yet. GC17 still exists and has some work to do. Jabso (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the opening para talks past tense about a future date "required a commitment [..] by mid-October 2008." Does this mean they've already secured the criteria, or it's still to be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.196.222 (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Club colours

The team colours presented in the Wikipedia article are wrong. Why? - Because I have recently read an article on the GC17 website explaining that the official club colours are in fact red, gold & blue. -

http://gc17.com.au/index.php?id=12&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=64&tx_ttnews[backPid]=11&cHash=0954871b07

(Please copy & paste the whole link shown above into the address bar. For some reason whenever I post the link it breaks in two. I tried TinyUrl, but Wikipedia does not allow it. Sorry!)

I request that someone correct this, as I believe GC17 is a reliable enough source. If not, I will gladly do it myself unless someone brings up a reason as to why I should not. Jas315 (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to The Age has white listed in its second paragraph, so I really don't think it really matters at the moment if white is really a club colour or just the base colour. Given the way the AFL is moving with clash jumpers, one would assume that they would have a white based jumper as a clash jumper. As for the link problem, it's because the URL has a [ or ] in it, you need to replace them with the %## codes, which I can't recall at the moment.The-Pope (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This season just past (2009) they've been playing in the TAC Cup (the Victorian under-age competition) in mainly red guernseys, with yellow and blue appearing only on the logo on the front (ergo, the design in the infobox is WRONG but I can't be bothered changing it), though they will have an alternative guernsey, which I suspect will be yellow, which is a good enough contrast with Sydney and Brisbane with which the red guernsey would clash. Of course they may yet alter the guernsey(s) a bit before they start in the AFL proper, but since they'll play in the VFL next year (2010) we might have a better idea then. Graham (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance you can give me the link?... I would most likely focus on the date between both references. If in fact, The Age commented on the official colours before the GC17 website, then would it be safe to assume they jumped to conclusions?

I'm also wondering, for how long has "The Age" been reliable in the first place? - IMO, sometimes the correct source does matter when the official club colours are taken into consideration, because it is a big part of what represents the club itself, right? - anyway, I'll leave it in the air for now. Jas315 (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Competing Bidding Consortiums?

The article says that the licence was awarded to this particular bidding consortium. That implies there were other bidding consortiums which missed out on the license. If there were others, can there be some mention of the unsuccessful ones somewhere? It there were no others, can this be stated in the article? 130.194.78.161 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because were no competitive bids ! The AFL instigated the preferred consortium from scratch and has a stake in the club. Noone else was interested because it is such a risky market ! --Rulesfan (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]