Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club/Archive 2

I am sure that Port Adelaide Power was a completely new team, created in 1997, whereas the Port Adelaide Magpies was always the same team. Is there really any evidence that suggests that the Magpies was transformed into the Power and a new SANFL team also known as the Port Adelaide Magpies was then created? I would like the actual evidence to be shown here, so we can make sure that the actual Wiki pages regarding the Port teams in the AFL & SANFL are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.183.131 (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Port Adelaide

This article is a joke, a sham of fallacies and errors. The Power is a new entity separate from the PAMFC which continues on the legacy, identity, business registration, brand, and heritage of the original PAFC. All that occurred was the original PAFC changing it's trading name to PAMFC, and the creation of a new entity called the PAFC AFL as a vehicle to sub-license an AFL license owned by the SANFL itself, and serving purely as a cash-cow for the SANFL (all nine clubs). The Power then is a composite SANFL club (all nine SANFL clubs represented). If Wikipedia is to have any sort of credibility, then journalistic integrity and truth needs to be upheld in this article.

G.g. 02:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Reading the news about the current financial problems Port is having got me thinking. The article said that the SANFL could lose the Port Power licence and the AFL would then offer the licence to the Magpies to cancell their debt. If the SANFL hold the licence then the Power does not have the old clubs history. If the Power somehow do really have it then if the Magpies get the licence they wont get the club history along with it as losing it is how you avoid the transfer of debt (lack of continuity). Wayne (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely believe that some paragraph regarding this discrepancy and controversy should be included near the top of the page. I know many people are ignorant and blinded by their own need for validation, but this is a topic that has been a major part of the club since foundation in 1996. There are many resources on the net including statements from Port staff and members, and newspaper articles written. I'll give it a week for anyone to object, then I'll include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.46.69 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This article should reflect the AFL's official line on the status/history of the Port Adelaide Football Club. If the AFL sees Port Adelaide Power as a completely new club then this article needs to change. If the PAFC was granted the license then sure, it's a continuation of the Magpies, but because the SANFL holds the license that would suggest that it is a completely new club. I've added a dispute box because it's a very contentious issue that only the AFL can resolve. Alltech2009 (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a contentious issue. The SANFL awarded the sub-license to the Port Adelaide Football Club - the club established in 1870. This, published on afl.com.au acknowledges PAFC were established in 1870. This, published on AdelaideNow says the same. The only people who say the Power were established in 1996 are those who aren't aware of their pre-AFL history, or those who want to ignore it because with a different nickname and in a different comp they "feel" like a different club. But facts are facts. The dispute box is ridiculous. 219.90.228.156 (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a simple case of company trading name. The Port Adelaide Football Club Inc was established in 1870 and eventually carried the Magpies Mascot. In 1997 the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club Inc was created and the Magpies mascot and branding passed to them. The Port Adelaide Football Club Inc then became the Port Adelaide Football Club Limited thanks to AFL and company requirements and created the Power Mascot/logo etc. The company now known as Port Adelaide Football Club Limited has an establishment date of 1870 and is commonly known as the Power in the AFL. They have no direct control over the SANFL Based Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club Inc (known in the SANFL as the Magpies) established in 1997. End of discussion. This dispute is completely incorrect and should be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.73.34 (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove the dispute box now? 114.30.103.150 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. According to Brett Duncanson (Power president), the dispute over which of the two clubs owns the history will not end until the Magpies merge with the Power (probably in February) and the club history becomes the Powers by default. Duncanson considers this a major selling point for the merger. That the club president acknowledges the dispute indicates that only one club is entitled to it. Wayne (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

According to a report on the failed merger proposal in todays newspaper, the Magpies and Power are two separate entities and as the 140 year history belongs to the Magpies it will end with them when they fold next year. The article also mentions that the AFL wants Port to have no connection with the SANFL at all which supports this view. Wayne (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Got a link? I think it's probably journalistic simplicity to say if Port isn't in the SANFL, then there is 140 years of history gone. I guess it comes down to what makes up a club. Is it the players, location, name, jumper, board, ABN number or some arbitrary decision by some suits in an office? The official view is Port moved from the SANFL to the AFL in 1997 and changed their name. A new club called the same as the old club took their place in the SANFL. The apparent view is most of the same players, in the same jumpers, at the same ground played for the same named team in 1996 and 1997... but they weren't the same club.The-Pope (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pages 1, 10, 11, 91 and 96 of todays Advertiser, written by Michelangelo Rucci a well known sports writer and Port Adelaide supporter. What do you mean by official view? The official AFL view is that the Power is a new team. Brett Duncanson when promoting the merger stated that the Power would "officially" get the history if the two teams merged which at the very least indicates to me that the Magpies have more claim than the Power. Wayne (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The club's website contains a list of life members dating back to 1909. Surely this demonstrates that the club has existed for over 100 years. GK1 (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

I've semi-protected it for about 2 weeks to see if it will dissuade recurring vandals.--cj | talk 09:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Muzzamo

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)

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!

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)

See my notes recently added above regarding adding a paragraph addressing this on the page. Although Silversov doesn't seem to be able to accept an alternate point of view, there are hundreds of Port Magpies supporters justifiably outraged that a club established as a trading company in 1996 would "steal" the heritage. The fact that a new company, with a new logo, new colours, a new theme and with new players from right across the SANFL is claiming to exist from the 1800's is clearly in need of clarification. I'm aware that the colours and theme were already in place in an existing AFL club, and could not be re-used, but when you consider that the board, coaches and players of the 1996 Magpies were almost completely replaced by the 1997 Power, is is most definitely arguable that the Power is the new team, and the Magpies retain their heritage. Just because it is a "well known" fact doesn't make it correct (the world is flat, and the sun spins around it anyone?), and that this "fact" is far from established is what is causing the current controversy. Try to put your pro-power bias aside for a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.46.69 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2009 (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)

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)

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.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:2006 AFL Richmond.jpg

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)

Port Adelaide Magpies are the same club and were not "created" in 1997.

The Port Adelaide Magpies are celebrating their 140th year of existence. A club that was "created" in 1997 would not be doing so.

http://www.portmagpies.com.au/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggies1870 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

New Head Coach

Dean Laidley has not been named as Head Coach of Port Adelaide following Mark Williams' decision to resign. Edits to this page as well as pages associated with coaching this team should be made after an announcement is released and their is proof that a coach has been named. Williams is coaching tonight's game against Collingwood. Check the AFL website as well as Port Adelaide's website for details on the head coach 124.170.192.144 (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Many things

1. Caretaker coach, there's huge difference between a caretaker coach and a normal appointed coach. Should be noted that Matthew Primus is only the caretaker coach not the official senior coach of the club.

2. Warren Tredrea and Matthew Primus were not co captains in 2004. Bolded parts means that in that statistic/position they have finished top. Grand Finalists does not indicate top, it indicates 2nd.

3. Why is the Geelong grand final table included? Port lost the grand final... yes it is part of their history, hence is written in the text in the 2007 section. Why don't you add the grand final table for the Geelong article when they lost to the Hawks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eathb (talk • contribs) 07:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Answers

I don't understand your logic. First off, Primus has been contracted like any other coach but only for the rest of a season. This has happend a number of times in the past century for clubs, and they've never labeled their coach that had taken over as a "care taker" on their records.

Second, if you had read what I wrote on the history page, I wrote that Primus captained in Round 3, but injured his knee and Tredrea was appointed "full" captain.

Ive put it their cause it is "history" to show that they were runner ups of 2007. I presume you are a Port Adelaide fan, as am I, and yes, I see why you wouldn't won't it there but, it's there to show the score as it is written on the 2007 section. GuineaPigWarrior 18:10 12 July, 2010.

Primus is contracted as an assistant coach. That's why he has constantly been stating that he wants the senior coach job "full time". He himself is basically admitting that he is not the senior coach. He is not the senior coach of the club, he is only the caretaker coach. He is the senior coach if the Port board appoint him full season. Refer to the Richmond wikis for reference.

The line break table implies they were "co-captains". Add a note or something or else you confuse readers.

There is no need for a table. The score is written in there IN TEXT. Refer to other clubs articles, they do not put in a table for grand final losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.210.4 (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

According to news reports, Primus is the caretaker coach. In Port's official announcement, it was stated that "Primus, 35, formally accepted the caretaker role this afternoon."[2] Subsequent coverage seems to reflect this: "The Port Adelaide club board yesterday handed Matthew Primus the caretaker coaching role and told him to select sides for the future rather than focus on winning games now." (SMH [3]), "Former captain Matthew Primus will be Port Adelaide's caretaker coach for the next seven weeks in the wake of Mark Williams' exit at Alberton." (AdelaideNow [4]). You may well be right, and it may be an unusual wording for the role, but it seems to be the the club and press are describing it. - Bilby (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Until Primus is officially confirmed as the senior coach or actually called the senior coach, then he should have caretaker after his name. He is only the caretaker coach of the club and that is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eathb (talk • contribs) 15:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

First of, no more editing until we sort this out. In the past century, their have been coaches that have replaced the original coach for a season and not once on their records do they refer to them as a "care taker" coach. Care taker means somebody taking over for a short period of time. So if I to understand your logic, we should just go put "Senior" in front of fulltime coaches and and "care taker" in front of replacement coaches. Just leave it as "care taker" on his article and stop putting it on everything that has his name on it. GuineaPigWarrior 9:45, 13 July, 2010.

Incorrect. Examples are Ratten, Paul Roos, and Neil Craig who are well known as caretaker coaches who were able to successfuly become a full time senior coach. Jade Rawlings for example has never been known to be the "senior coach" of Richmond only caretaker. Hence Primus should have "caretaker" next to his name. He is not the senior coach of the club. He is an assistant coach trying to fill the void of the head coach resigning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eathb (talk • contribs) 06:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well of course I know what a caretaker coach is, I know the history. In 1996, Fitzroy had 2 replacements for the original but they don't put "caretaker" in the history records. GW!

yes they did: Eathb (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Riley, Jade Rawlings, Darren Crocker are examples of people on wiki who have caretaker mentioned next to their name. For accuracy and consistency, Primus should also be in the same boat unless he is appointed the full time senior coach at the end of the year. 115.131.196.50 (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the Fitzroy coaches I suggest you read about them on wiki. Alan McConnell, In 1995 he was appointed as the caretaker coach of Fitzroy when Bernie Quinlan was sacked during the season. Michael Nunan, He was senior coach of the Fitzroy Football Club in 1996. Senior/caretaker coach differential has been noted on wiki and should not be ignored for the sake of accuracy of the articles.115.131.196.50 (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

It is quite clear from my own review of the sources that Primus is a "caretaker" coach. So there is no dispute about accuracy here - merely about whether the article should note that the coach is merely a caretaker. An article should, as far as reasonably possible, contain all relevant information for a reader. In my view, a reader of this article who wants to know the identity of the current coach should also know that the coach has only been appointed on a short-term basis. At this stage, I see no good reason why the "caretaker" qualification should not be attached to Primus in this article. This article seems to me to be a good model about how "caretaker" coaches can be noted in historical lists. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you wouldn't put "senior" coach in front of a persons name, it's a very "un-professional" look. You write on his article he is caretaker coach but don't put it in templates. Instead of fighting about this. Could you just please use your time making his article bigger by putting more information on his article. It's alot better than fighting over a very silly thing. - GuineaPigWarrior (Talk) 17:40, 15 July, 2010 (UTC)

You do not put in "senior" because it is quite obvious that what it is referring to. Caretaker coach on the otherhand is a compeltely different position from senior coach and isn't as obvious hence why it should be noted, including templates. Making an article more accurate according to sources is more important to wikipedia than how it "looks". You also refused to mention caretaker anywhere in the article in the past, so at least progress has been made.115.131.212.100 (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What? Progress has been made? When you write heaps of information onto Matthew Primus article instead of this silly "caretaker" stuff. Then that is when progress is made. - GuineaPigWarrior (Talk) 15:05, 16 July, 2010 (UTC)

Resolution

It seems clear to anyone here that the Consensus is in support of the arguments presented by User:Eathb and there is yet to be a single editor that agrees with User:Guinea pig warrior.

GW - Your recent edit summary which (in response to a revert by Eathb stating that others agree with his version of the page) read "Well I don't, and until we reach agreement, it stays like this". In other words, until everyone agrees with you? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and although you may not agree with an action, sometimes you just have to accept you can't always have it your way. Any chance this edit war could stop or will it keep going until both parties are blocked for WP:3RR? Jevansen (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I was called a "retard" by Eathb in this fight. How would that make you feel? If I swore back I would probably be blocked off wikipedia. It is frastrating being abused on wikipedia. Is he going to be blocked or warned? The answer no, isn't? - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's off topic, but yes, Eathb was warned a while back. - Bilby (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out above he received a warning on his talk page but if you think he should be blocked then you're welcome to file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (although you may have left it too late).

Could you please explain why, despite everyone involved telling you to do otherwise, you continue to revert to your version of this article? Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. You have also violated WP:3RR on about four articles and meet at least three qualifiers at Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing. The only reason you're not currently blocked, perhaps for good, is because I couldn't be bothered filling out another report. I've wasted enough time on this petty dispute. Jevansen (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and so have I, so why don't we stop this dispute. You better look up every caretaker coach in VFL/AFL, and put "caretaker" in their templates. And while your at it, put "senior" in the templates of senior coaches. There, the problem is solved. So with this "report" thing, what have I done wrong? I haven't abused people like others who you are biased to. I just haven't agreed with this "caretaker" in the templates because you wouldn't put "senior" in them. I think you might be "abusing" you powers by reporting me with others doing the same thing as me and not discussing it. - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Most if not all coaches who have been caretaker at a different club have had "caretaker" added on their template. If you want I can go through each past coach one by one to make sure caretaker has been added but I'm quite certain that its already there.Eathb (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh no, for an example, Syd Barker, Sr. was caretaker coach in 1922 when Sam Gravenall quit as coach. I have seen others so you better get to work. - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Or just leave it because it say "coach" which means any "form" of "head coach". And I think people will know Matthew Primus is a caretaker coach on his article when it's written on top of his page. - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You may also notice that the Barker article also doesn't have the relevant template, so "caretaker" couldn't have been added anywhere. This isn't something we have made up, possibly all caretaker coaches with such a template are listed as such. See Mark Riley, Jade Rawlings, Darren Crocker, Ben Allan and Donald McDonald just to name a few. You will notice something similar in all of their templates. We can't just "leave it" because we need some consistency in how our article are presented. If you however were to leave it, that would be much appreciated and demonstrate that you indeed are interested in collaboration.

In reply to your earlier post, I am not abusing my powers because I don't have any. The disruptive editing points I was referring to are -

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time ::despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive ::deletions as well.
• Does not engage in consensus building:
• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

Jevansen (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

General consensus to edit page

{{editprotected}}

As shown by the discussion so far, I have general consensus to go ahead with the edit to my revision of the PAFC article which is shown in the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Adelaide_Football_Club&oldid=373187019

Eathb (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I still do not agree with that. I'll let you put caretaker in the templates but I will not agree to this revision. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 19:20, 18 July, 2010 (UTC)

 Not done In the case of articles protected due to edit warring, admins generally only make minor, cosmetic changes so as not to risk carrying on an edit war by proxy. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll revert it, once the protection date is over. Eathb (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you will only put caretaker after Matthew Primus. Thats is all. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 22:20, 20 July, 2010 (UTC)

You can't tell me what to do, if the general concensus like my edit then so be it. Eathb (talk • contribs) 04:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We were blocked because of this. Have you learnt anything? Don't start edit wars. I have compromised with you and you wanna push your luck. Why haven't you written more information on Matthew Primus article? You just wanna start an edit war for silly little thing and not do "real" work on his article. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 16:25, 21 July, 2010 (UTC)

I have been adding real work to this article but you keep reverting them Eathb (talk • contribs) 04:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.207.161 (talk)

So the article got protected again meaning they want us to discuss this. Basically I have general concensus for my edits. There is nothing factually incorrect about my edits and they're also consistent with other AFL clubs wikipedia page. If I have incorrectly edited something, then go ahead and change/fix it. If you disagree with me and think my edits are wrong then discuss it on this article or change it and put why I was wrong in the "summary" edit area. Something like "I told you to only do this and that" is not good enough otherwise. At least read what I edit and change certain parts only rather than undo all the edits I make. Cheers. Eathb (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your writting "End of a Era" when the season hasn't even finished, Mark Williams could came back and so can Warren Tredrea, we don't know but of course that won't happen but you get the idea. Leave it as "current" til Port's season end then change the name. I don't want you taking down our 2007 grand final template, it will show people what the scores and crowd were that day when you read down. Port are the only team to have a template with a losing grand final. Other teams do to. I don't want the pre season grand finals on there since they are not "proper" season games. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am okay with leaving current until seasons end. The 07 grand final score is already written in the article. And no other AFL clubs has a "losing Grand Final" template added. Following consistency Port does not require a template for it as well. The crowd number can also be added in the text if need be. Other clubs also have a preseason grand final victory templates in their articles including the ADelaide Crows and Geelong Cats.Eathb (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

West Coast Eagles and Sydney Swans have templates with losing grand finals. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's 2 of 16 clubs and they didn't have it before. Eathb (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

They did, I just modified it. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You added it in. Their losing GF should be removed as well if the PAFC gets the go-ahead. 202.10.89.54 (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand? GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They didn't have a template before. You added a losing GF template into both their wikis. Like I said if there's general concensus to only have winning grand finals as a scoring template in the wiki, then the Sydney/West Coast template should have their losing grand finals removed. If it's the other way around, then the Geelong and Saints losing grand final templates should be added to their wiki. Eathb (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuing Edit War

This page has been placed in full protection again due to the immediate resumption of edit warring once the previous protection was lifted. The parties involved need to try to work with each other and reach a compromise, otherwise both editors are likely to receive increasingly lengthy blocks and that is not helpful for anyone. Personal attacks on talk pages will not be tolerated, so please try to keep calm and reasonable.

The current full protection lasts two weeks, if there is reasonable discussion towards a solution here then it may be lifted sooner. Camw (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not extend that protection permanently, this page will continue to be vandalised by bitter camry crows supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.228.217 (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style on headings

I have been editing the article - especially the headings - according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Part of this is that ( apart from the first word in the heading ) only words that are part of a proper name or a proper noun are capitalised. I would appreciate it if a certain editor ceased persistently editing this and other AFL articles in contradiction to this established style policy. Afterwriting (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is based on Wikipedia:MOS#Section_headings, which I'd suggest Guinea Pig Warrior reads. Jevansen (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger and historical record

Hi! I've just reverted some changes that sought to add the two Magpies SANFL premierships to the list here as I felt it warranted discussion first. I think it is fairly much established that the Port Adelaide Magpies were a separate club from their inception in 1996 until the end of the 2010 season. Thus until now adding the two SANFL premierships to this article seemed incorrect, as they were not the same entity. However, now that they have merged, should they be added here? Historically, my view is that there was one club until the 1997 season, then two clubs for 13 years that shared that history, then obviously one club again. So does that one club share the history of the Magpies between 1997 and 2010? And is the new club effectively a fourth entity, a continuation of the Power, or what? :) - Bilby (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That is technically correct as they served as different clubs in 1997-2010. But with the latest merger the official Port website itself (AFL) is claiming ownership of those 2 premierships won so it's difficult to gauge what to write in the wiki. Should we count it and note that they were won by the pre-merged PAMFC? And what do we do now with future PAMFC success? Do we add them to this wiki? Eathb (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

Other notable players

No inclusion rationale is included for the list of notable players towards the bottom of the article. Without some sort of criteria, this should include every notable person ever associated with the club. Hack (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say premiership players, best and fairest winners, All-Australians and/or senior coaches 202.10.95.93 (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC).