Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL)

Australia: Adelaide / Australian rules football Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL) 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
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Adelaide (assessed as Low-importance).
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Mid-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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This history of the two clubs as written on sites such as this is a perfect example of "Wikiality"

Biased Content Objection

There is this incorrect and falsfied attempt to discredit the PAMFC as a fake club, or not a "real" Port Adelaide Club, not entitled to sharing the history of the original PAFC. The fact is, the original PAFC underwent a reverse-merger, where two entities were 'established' (keyword) in order for one entity to play in the AFL, and another entity to continue in the SANFL. Both clubs share the history of the original PAFC from 1870-1996. The SANFL version has every right to the history of the PAFC pre-1997, including 34 flags, being able to ADD ONTO that tally, including Margery Medalists and other club statistical records pre-1997. This article was revised to reflect a more unbiased and factual account of the PAMFC. G.g. (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]