Jump to content

Talk:Gold Coast Suns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:GC17)

Requested move

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

Colours revisited

[edit]

Curiously, this thread is two years old, yet we need to return to it. According to the Gold Coast Suns, their official colours are Red, Gold and Blue. However, as Guinea pig warrior has been pointing out, the clash guernsey features white. My reading of this was that while white is in the guernsey, this doesn't make it an official club colour. However, I assume that GPW sees this differently. Any thoughts? - Bilby (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Bilby, the official web site states that the colours and red, gold and blue only. Just because the clash jumper is white does not mean it is one of the actual club colurs. For example, Melbourne had a clash jumper last season that was nearly all white/grey (ugh makes me shudder just thinking about it), but the club colours were still only red and blue and I think the same holds true here. Jenks24 (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - clash jumpers are not relevant as many clubs have clash jumpers with white when this is not one of their official colours. Afterwriting (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People may also wish to see here for a discussion about this issue, concerning all clubs. Jenks24 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White is also featured in the logo itself in the middle. That would make me think that white is apart of there "secondary" colours. For example, Port Adelaide have only used silver in their past clash guernseys but it's featured in the logo with there "main colours" being, Teal, white and black. And with white being the main colour of there clash guernsey would make me think that white is there colour but only "Secondary" so I would just put it at the end of the colour list to show the ranks of the colours. Also, Afterwriting, you were warned by an admin to stay away from and since you were never involved with this before the warning, I would consider you are stalking me. Please leave me alone. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 14:15, 13 September, 2010 (UTC)

I have once again removed the contentious claim that white is a GCS's colour. The club itself has already stated what its official colours are. There is a consensus that white shouldn't be included as a club colour on the basis of its use on away or clash jumpers. Unless there is a change of consensus on this matter - as established on this talk page - it is completely justified to revert any edits that include the personal opinion that white is one of the club's colours. Afterwriting (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have to admit that the club itself has created the problem by saying one thing and doing another. It's obvious from just looking that they DO use white in their colours. Saying it isn't true doesn't make it so. HiLo48 (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HiLo48 for being very understanding and not rude. The club has used the colour in their logo and clash guernsey, it may not be an main colour but just an secondary. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 02:15, 29 September, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are times when sensible editors choose to ignore sources which state patent nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it comes down to whether or not the "colours" section in the infobox refers to the official team colours, which also amounts to the colours that people identify with the team, or all the colours that they wear. My reading was that it is the official team colours, in which case it it's just the three. At any rate, this is a bigger issue than just the one club, so the discussion at the AFL Wikiproject on this topic might be worth joining. - Bilby (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Competing Bidding Consortiums?

[edit]

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]

Change name

[edit]

At 9:15pm on 22nd of July 2010 it was announced at a press conference and a live stream over the internet that the Gold Coast Football Club would be renamed the Gold Coast Suns.

A logo and three Guernseys were also reviled, this article needs to have the named changed to Gold Coast Suns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombrars (talk • contribs) 11:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Teams name is still Gold Coast Football Club, Suns is just the official nickname121.214.92.203 (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guernsey vs Jumper

[edit]

Where I live Aussie Rulles players have always worn footy jumpers. I've notice a recent trend towards guernseys. This article uses guernseys. Is this a rugby league state thing? Interestingly, we have an infobox entry called jumper, with the word guernsey in the name of the png file used. Some more consistency would make a lot of sense. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live (country Vic) jumper is probably more commonly used than guernsey, but I'm fairly sure everyone would understand, whichever of is used. Having said that it probably would be better if we could be consistent, but I don't really mind which is used. I'm sure others have stronger opinions though. Jenks24 (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely OR and POV, but as a kid growing up, I heard the word guernsey or the phrase 'get a guernsey' a lot in relation to footy. Regardless, HiLo, your assertion is quite correct- consistency should be the objective. Comes.amanuensis (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Recruited from" entry for Karmichael Hunt

[edit]

A number of editors are determined to put in the table for 2011 that Karmichael Hunt was recruited from Brisbane Broncos. It makes no sense to say in the table that he was recruited from a club that isn't an Australian football club. That column represents clubs which would have had to release him to another club affiliated with the same national organisation. We wouldn't put in the table the golf club he has stopped playing for, or the book club. His more complicated status is explained in detail elsewhere in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. IMO the Broncos should not be listed here, as per the rationale used by HiLo48. MC Rocks (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed. Jenks24 (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that looks like an admittedly small but real consensus. Trouble is, the editors who keep putting the Broncos in the table, reverting my edits, are IP editors, who probably never look at Talk pages or Edit summaries. I have already changed it twice today to what we agree it should be. I don't want to go anywhere near the three revert rule. Are you guys game to try fixing it? HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I understand you reluctance to go near 3RR and I do have this on my watchlist so if I do see any random IP changing it to Broncos I will revert it from now on :) Jenks24 (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should use whatever a reliable source says. Anyone got a VFL footy record from this year? The WAFL Budgets are online... couldn't seem to find a VFL one. For some players, like basketballers, I've seen "unallocated" if they aren't from an AFL affiliated footy club.The-Pope (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why editors keep on adding that Karmichael Hunt was recruited from the Brisbane Broncos is simple: it's because he was recruited from the Brisbane Broncos.
... and on and on. Why is this such an issue anyway? If the fact , erm, verification-ous-ness that he was recruited from the Brisbane Broncos is not wanted in the table, then change the column heading to "Australian rules football club recruited from". --Shirt58 (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But he simply wasn't recruited from the Broncos. In a formal competition with a legal structure, such as Australian football, clubs have to transfer membership of a player who moves to another club playing that same sport. That's the case with everyone else in that list. It's a formal process covered by the rules of the various leagues. Hunt's move is nothing like that. He has simply stopped playing one sport and started playing another. If he had stopped playing cricket to play AFL, nobody would even contemplate mentioning his previous cricket club in the table. Why the obsession with his Rugby League club? HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that's a very narrow definition of recruit, but I agree to use it. So now we both agree that he wasn't recruited, there was no transfer from Australian football club to another Australian rules football club. OK, it's true, Hunt was not recruited from the Broncos, and all those reliable sources have got it wrong. However, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Can you find a single source that verifies that he was not recruited?
To explain why there's the obsession with his !recruitment from the Broncos: it was yuuuuuuge news in Queensland. Imagine the reaction if Geelong was a city of 2 million people, and it was announced, out of the blue, that young Gazza was moving to the Gold Coast to play, and not to play Aussie Rules, but a strange form of ultra-violent touch-football played only in the less civilised areas of northern England and Australia Rugby league. It is currently the second-biggest thing to happen in the entire history of the GCFC, and will only be displaced to third the next time Gary Ablett Jr blows his nose. Oops, I what meant to write was, "will only be displaced to third when they win their first Premiership". And this will be the last thing I have to say on the matter, as I have a costume to pick up, and a plane to Berlin to catch.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see that perspective, but no-one has answered the question I've asked in several different forms - what if he had stopped playing top level baseball to play Aussie Rules? (This has happened.) Would anyone bother to describe it as "Recruited from xxxxxx Baseball Club? HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For newcomers to this discussion, it should be noted that Hunt's special status is described in more detail above the table under the Recruitment heading. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Club song

[edit]

That section tells us that the song is Suns of the Gold Coast Sky. Is it? Or is it really Sons of the Gold Coast Sky? The second would make more sense. We don't have multiple suns. The source points us to the words, but not a title, so that doesn't help. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.goldcoastfc.com.au/news/2010-07-23/we-are-the-gold-coast-suns has it as "SUNS", which seems to to be making the point not to confuse homophones. An obvious mundane pun actually strikes me as more likely.
It's gruesome English, but no surprise. I'll change it back and add your source. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Just a note.. it seems a number of the players have had pointless redirects created for them, so they're bluelinks but don't actually have an article yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.178.83 (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as whom? HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coach

[edit]

As at this moment in time on 28 October 2014, the club does not have a coach. Repeated edits claim it does. I don't want to go near 3RR. Hopefully future enthusiastic editors will look here first. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated

[edit]

Some of the stuff here is incredibly out-of-date. Using past-tense from 2011 event isn't good.Aneditor (talk tome) 08:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Gold Coast Football Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gold Coast Football Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 December 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Coast Football Club → Gold Coast Suns – It is the name they are commonly known by and what they market themselves as to the world; which would appear to fit with current practice at the articles Greater Western Sydney Giants, West Coast Eagles, Sydney Swans and Western Bulldogs. Would love some input. Global-Cityzen (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As my standard comment around WP:RM. I would love to see a list of reliable source, such as newspaper article. newspaper article would be self-explanatory for the common name of the club. So far i saw the official website use "Official AFL Website of the Gold Coast SUNS", but it is a primary source. Matthew hk (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per articles listed by Global-Cityzen (ABC, ESPN, news.com.au). Gold Coast Suns and Gold Coast FC are official names (trading name can be official, while some official legal name of the association football club, can be rarely known, same logic applies to other football rule), which Gold Coast Suns seems the only common name. Matthew hk (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: I was tempted to oppose or even close as no case to answer (the practical effect would have been much the same, but the oppose less likely to be challenged I guess). Nom requested comment and didn't really attempt to argue the case, rather asked the question. As Matthew hk rightly says, we need evidence that reliable secondary sources are using the name to justify this move. Andrewa (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Only 4 of the 18 teams in the AFL don't use "Football Club" in their article name. Historically, clubs were called either by their location name, or the nickname/mascot name, but rarely both together - ie Collingwood, Collingwood Football Club or The Magpies, but not Collingwood Magpies. However, with the influence of marketing departments and the American sports, this has changed over the past decade or so, especially with the newer clubs. But, their official website is still at http://www.goldcoastfc.com.au, so I see no need to change it. And it's complient with the Wikiproject Australian rules football style guide. The-Pope (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: In response to User:The-Pope's comments. True clubs in Aussie rules are uncommonly referred to by a combination of their location and nickname, but there is precedent, specifically those four of the league's 18 teams you and I refer to. I would submit that Gold Coast are one of those teams. They are frequently referred to as "the Suns" by media/online commentary and perhaps slightly less so as "the Gold Coast Suns", but rarely as "the Gold Coast Football Club". The phrase Gold Coast Suns returns 2.02 million google hits, as opposed to Gold Coast Football Club which has 38,400 hits, the top 5 being either wikipedia pages or statements from the club released in 2009, before their nickname was adopted and they began playing in the AFL. The Suns moniker is preferred over Football Club in general news articles discussing the club (such as here, here and here, whilst a quick consult of the [AFL.com.au/ladder AFL's website] indicates the phrase Gold Coast Suns is utilised or only Gold Coast or Suns in articles and on things like the league's ladder, but almost never Football Club.

WP:NAMINGCRITERIA recommends us to utilise recognisable names, and I'd submit the evidence above suggests Gold Coast Suns is more recognisable than Gold Coast Football Club, and fulfils the other four criteria mentioned. Whilst the majority of AFL clubs (usually the ones based in Victoria with close around a hundred years history) are commonly known by their official names, I don't believe Gold Coast is. In summary we should change the title and instead provide the club's official name incorporating the "Football Club" title in the full name section of the infobox, as currently occurs at the Greater Western Sydney Giants article. Global-Cityzen (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gold_Coast_Suns&oldid=1199692994"