Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Port Adelaide Football Club 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. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject AFL. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
|
|---|
| 1 2 |
Contents |
[edit] Port Adelaide
The power are a different entity to Port Adelaide Magpies, they should be split and start from when Port Adelaide POWER entered the league
219.90.163.7 09:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Brades
- Port Adelaide Magpies changed their name to Port Adelaide Power as their was already a Magpies in the AFL, the Port Adelaide Magpies in the SANFL were then created to fill the spot left by the power leaving the SANFL. --Dan027 09:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The Power did not leave the SANFL as it was never in it and thus there was no "spot" to fill. The PAFC continued playing after replacing the handful of players that transfered to Port power who then recruited mostly players from the other SANFL clubs for the new team. Creating the PAMFC was smoke and mirrors to give Port Power the PAFC "history". Of course now both teams claim the same history when clearly one of them has to have no prior 1996 history at all. Many Port Power players consider Power to be the new club and have voiced their opinion that the Power should distance itself from Port Adelaide to broaden it's fan base. Roger James recently said "I understand Port's background but as far as I'm concerned the Power was started from scratch, has only been in the competition for 11 years and was made up of players from every SANFL club. To me, it's heritage goes back to 1997." Wayne 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well that is your (and James's) opinion, however the ACN numbers of the old Magpies and the Power are exactly the same, and the PAMFC were newly founded according to all legal arrangements. I'm a Centrals fan with no love of Port whatsoever but to say that were not founded in 1870 is based on personal bias and not evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Wrong. Go to the ASIC website and search for yourself. The current entity trading as Port Adelaide FC was first registered in 1994, as Port Adelaide FC (AFL). It dropped the AFL from the name upon eventual admission to the AFL. This was therefore distinct from the Magpies, an incorporated body which already existed. Port Power has a new playing list, new nicknake colours and guernsey, new board (half appointed by the SANFL - has never been the case with the Magpies). It paid out the Magpies for taking over Alberton Oval: further proof that the Magpies was the old team. The whole "Port Power is the original Port" is a fairy story cooked up to placate those supporters who jumped wholeheartedly on the Power bandwagon and never looked back. Try suggesting to the Magpie diehards that their team is a new club and see what they think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.134.87 (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
The fact is that The Port Adelaide Football Club (which never had magpies in it's name) is currently the team playing in the AFL and it is the same team that was founded in 1870 - for a time it looked like Port Adelaide might cease to be represented in the SANFL, but the SANFL only agreed to support the PAFC's entry into the AFL on the condition that Port Adelaide create a new side to take it's place in the SANFL - the PAFC put this question to the club members and the decision was made to create the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club, which now plays in the SANFL - I know many who were at the meeting when this decision was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.108.56 (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Port Adelaide" or "Power", not "Port Power"
This may seem trifling or pedantic, but it is correct. Please keep this in mind when posting additions. Silversov 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Fos Williams era
The notion that other clubs, viz. Sturt, North Adelaide and Glenelg emulated the Fos Williams style is of course a nonsense. The introduction of handball, and kicking to a player in the clear was in stark contrast to the Williams style of long kicking to a contest. The great battles with Sturt from 1965 were the turning point to the modern run on game, credited to the Oatey and Barassi style.Browning ave 10:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Commentaries such as in this book [1] provide a good treatise on this topic. Murtoa 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
Would this article be a candidate for protection? Muzzamo 07:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who seems to spend a lot of time reverting vandalism, I wiould say so. --Roisterer 09:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Will need ongoing protection. There will always be anonymous douchebags with inferiority complexes, unfortunately. Silversov 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Have requested semi-protection, the amount of blatant vandalism and personal biases masquerading as good faith edits has been ridiculous in the past 24-48 hours. Silversov 08:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Whereas your personal bias isn't in bad faith, due to an inferiority complex or vandalism? The loss stats are factual and of interest, put aside your bias Ozbrettdj 12:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't be silly. Your insistance on terms like "Port Power" and removing references to the SANFL portion of Port Adelaide's history - when it is clear the PAFC claims this history as its right and indeed officially shares the 1870-1996 records with the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club shows your persistent editing to be both wrong and in bad faith. Silversov 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Now youv'e moved from hypocritical bias to falsehood - and an easily proven one at that. My only ever edit to this page was to note that the Power's record when eliminated was poor, averaging a 10 goal loss. You simply made up the stuff above re naming and history. Ozbrettdj 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
So I got you confused with Hyperintelligent Fish. Just seems strange that after scores and scores of anonymous IP edits you suddenly rock up with an existing account to make similar edits after the page was semi-protected. But whatever. Silversov 05:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
In other words you were completely wrong. whatever Ozbrettdj 09:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The 70's
Where is mention of probably the only Port player anyone, regardless of club, remembers from the 70's? I'm refering to David Granger of course. His playing style was the main talking point of the time and a large part of the reason Port became so unpopular with fans of other clubs. He personally ended Stephen Barratt's carreer and who can forget the Cornes incident. Both very notable incidents yet with no mention. To leave him out of the article is similar to forgetting to include Cahill. Is this article an encyclopaedic entry or a fansite lol. Wayne 00:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- You could write an article on Granger which could then link from the Port page. Don't forget to include his stints at St Kilda. --Roisterer 01:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Granger_%28footballer%29 ... needs a lot more detail... please add to it to ensure it stays!
[edit] Hyper Intelligent Fish edit request debate
This page is Bullsh*t. You've completely ignored the role that the SANFL had in the creation of the Power due to your own bias or misunderstanding. You refuse to accept that the stats for the magpies should not be included. Any mention or something other than your fairyland happytime "heritage" is deleted. Facts have no place in this page at all, do they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyper Intelligent Fish (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1)The Port Adelaide Magpies and the Port Adelaide Power are two seperate entities. Any discussion of the Magpies should be restricted to the Magpies page. Any Discussion of the Power should be largely restricted to this page. This will prevent misinformation and clarify the issue.
- You're absolutely wrong on the first point. It is a well known and established fact that the Port Adelaide Football Club (Power) and Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club (SANFL) share the official history from 1870-1996, whether you agree with this point or not. Therefore this page has every right to display both SANFL heritage and accolades. Silversov 05:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
2) The fact that the power and it's afl license is half owned by the SANFL while the port adelaide magpies is solely owned by the Port Adelaide Football club justifies this, and also justifies the inclusion onto the power page of the information I have added. It's verifyable on the link I provided and on the sanfl page at the bottom of the entry. Just because certain people disagree should not be a reason for removing all information regarding the true facts about the formation of the club. Now leave my edits alone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyper Intelligent Fish (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you wish to properly argue the legal semantics of the licensing agreement then by all means do, but you shot your credibility in the foot when you repeatedly wiped away the SANFL historical records that the PAFC officially claim. Silversov 05:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- While true that Port Adelaide and Magpies both claim the heritage it is not official. The AFL licence as far as I'm aware specificly required Port Adelaide to be new team with no history. Correct me if i'm wrong as I got this from an editorial in the Advertiser and have not read the licence. If true then mention should be made in the article of that fact as a qualifier to the inclusion of the history. Wayne 05:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "In 1995 Ross Oakley declared that the second AFL licence to be handed out in SA, was to be to a "traditional" club, with an established supporter base, not a new franchise. Port however is to be viewed as a new entity and not allowed to be known from its establishment date of 1870, but by its AFL licence date of 1996." This is apparently how the AFL see Port. While I feel that it is wrong for Power and Magpies to share the heritage, my view is that the Magpies are the new club as Oakley stated the new AFL licence was for an established club. Wayne 11:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
-
Year 2007. Could someone please edit the summary of the year 2007. The heritage round needs nothing other than to state which jumper they wore or could be left out all together. There is basically no mention of the round on other teams sites. I assume it was added by a Crows fan who used it as a way to have a shot at Port. Why don't these cretons spend their time improving the Crows site instead of vandalising this site. I would like all referneces to the Adelaide Crows be removed. I find it tiresome of the rubbish that is submitted about the showdowns. Anyone who doesn't know about AFL would think they are the only two teams in the competition. If they want to rant on about Port on the Crows site good luck to them but leave this site alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.149.246 (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
2007 Summary Could some please re write the 2007 summary. The heritage round is bascially of no importance to anyone othere than the Crows fan who submitted it to start with. I would like to see all references to the Adelaide Crows removed from the site. If they want to bleat on their site about the few times they beat Port good luck to them but I have no interest in reading about them at all. 203.39.149.246 03:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)15th Nov 2007
- In that spirit I have removed the following sentence:
It appears that the Power may never wear their prison-bar guernsey again, given that the Adelaide Crows unfairly, and untraditionally plays at AAMI Stadium every year in Heritage Round.
- Will they? Do they? Who cares, not I... 202.7.183.131 (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2004AFLGrandFinal.png
Image:2004AFLGrandFinal.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) 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BrisbaneLionsDesign.jpg
The image Image:BrisbaneLionsDesign.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
-
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
