Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Dubious additions

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PortMagpies.gif

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:WoodvilleDesign.png

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Duplication of content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Biased Content Objection 

message: After having a proper read through this article this morning, even though I don't agree with it all, it ticks most of the boxes I used to have issues with. I can't see myself making any major changes when this gets un-protected. Sequal1 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest version 

message: I've reprotected the article; I think the reasons are self-evident. Clearly this is a complex and long-running dispute, both on and critically off-wiki. There certainly doesn't appear to be a 'right' or 'wrong' view that everyone, including Reliable sources can agree on, and the article needs to reflect that. You may find a request for comment helpful to try to thrash out a consensus. GedUK  08:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection