Talk:Melbourne Derby (A-League Men)

Own goal?

Can it be clarified if the third goal to Melbourne Victory in the second derby (Derby II) was Leijer's or an Own Goal? Sources always cite one or the other. Can this be cleared up? 124.168.110.23 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC) James

Is there an "official" authority on these matters? Or do we just depend on what commentators say? HiLo48 (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably a match report on the FFA website. Hack (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Some kind of cup?

Anyone think (or know if there is one already) there should some kind of cup contested in these derbies over the course of a season? I'm not sure if one exists already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyguysimjakob (talk • contribs) 04:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. Let's stick to that please. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Harry Kewell has not (yet) played for both clubs...

...but IP editor ‎203.13.128.104, having been the fourth editor in the past few days to say that he has, despite clear Edit summaries explaining the obvious problem, is now trying to make his claim correct by changing the heading of the relevant section from the straightforward "Players who have played for both clubs" to the rather convoluted (I could say stupid) "Players who have had involvement with both clubs (played for, or otherwise)".

This is obviously silly, and is a pointed attempt by this editor, whose work on other topics I have had to revert,, to his annoyance, to score points against me. He is also writing pointless comments on my Talk page. I won't edit war over it, but this editor's behaviour really needs outside attention.

Can someone else please do the necessary reverts so I don't hit 3RR. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the article has been addressed. Thanks Hack. The troublesome IP editor seems to have gone away. For now. Hope that's the end of the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A really stupid change

No derbies have ever been played between Victory and City, yet the lead now says that's what this article is about. Will the fans please stop getting so excited about turning the club into something foreign? Or at least describe the name change in the lead so it makes some sense? Just slow down! Wikipedia is NOT a news site. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems incoherent to refer to this as a derby between "Melbourne Heart" and Victory when Heart is now City. If/when a sportsperson changes their name, the change is made to reflect this despite what has happened in the past. The last edit (which was reverted) seemed to do a decent job of reflecting the current state of affairs whilst also acknowledging the past (although "Heart" should certainly remain for matches played under that name). Macosal (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Do not try to change history

I have no problem with the fact that Melbourne Heart has become Melbourne City. Future derbies will involve Melbourne City. I have a major concern with the article saying that Melbourne City has played in any derbies in the past. It hasn't. The name change occurred on 5 June 2014. (Not 2013, as the repeated bad edits suggest.) All matches up until then involved Heart, not City. It's simply wrong to say that any games up until now have involved Melbourne City. I will change this once again, and once again politely ask the editor involved to come to the Talk page. If he doesn't, and reverts again, I believe it is reasonable to treat his actions as vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don’t like changing history but I find it increasingly strange to refer to them as “Heart” in that part of the info box. It’s now approaching four years since the change of name, meaning the club has (or will soon be) known as “City” longer than “Heart”. Why not simply change it to City in the infoxbox and include a note saying they were known as Heart at the time? The intro, history and matches section already make it clear what they were known as from 2010-14. The longer it goes on the more out of date “Heart” will look like Jono52795 (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

But saying games were played by Heart is the truth. Suggesting it was City that played the games would simply be false. History does matter. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"Suggesting it was City that played the games would simply be false". They are the same club. CFG did not buy out Melbourne Heart and create a new club, they bought out the old owners and changed the existing club. New colours, new name, upgraded facilities, but still the same club. As things stand, the "Heart" moniker has some relevance, but if the club continues on for decades then in time all the references to "Heart" in this article will be as anachronistic as Redlegs, Fuchsias are for the present-day Melbourne Football Club, who have been known as the "Demons" since 1933. Only the passage of time will likely make people acknowledge this and hopefully then the article will reflect not just history, but also context. Jono52795 (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I also point out, with respect to the infobox, "City" is used for every other value, and only bizarrely not the first meeting one. Jono52795 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What's bizarre to me is how presumably loyal Australians fall in love with a foreign club taking over a local one. "City" cannot have played in matches before it existed. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually “City” can, if it’s the same club. There aren’t two articles on Wikipedia, that’s because they are the same club. What is it specifically about the first match you object to? The biggest derby win was when they were Heart, but you don’t seem to be kicking up a fuss about that. I made the reasonable suggestion earlier; what is wrong with a simple note attached saying “at the time the club was known as Heart”. Nobody owns articles and saying “bugger that” and reverting to a WP:CONSENSUS that never was does not a constructive edit make. Jono52795 (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the club should be referred as Heart for every match before the big foreign money arrived (I still don't know why you think that is such a good thing). You have actually presented no argument for obliterating the Heart history. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m not “obliterating” the Heart history. In fact the entire “History” section and even the results list refer to them as Heart. It would be quite wrong to infer they were “City” before the CFG takeover, and both the history section (and the info box with the note addition) do exactly that. I’m the only one offering improvements to this article, your claiming a consensus that never was. Jono52795 (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Players who have played for both clubs

I think we should consider removing players who have not made any league appearances at one of the clubs from the list. When you think about players who have played for two rival teams it would typically cause controversy and when you have players on the list such as Christan Cavallo who played 1 match for City and 0 for Victory it discredits the list. Thoughts? GenuineEdits (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)