Talk:Melbourne City FC/Archive 1

Club name
Lets just hope that "Heart" is just a working title! 58.170.21.205 (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I daresay I agree, however, Wikipedia is not a forum so please keep these sorts of comments to yourself, or share them on a blog or something. And in future, if you feel you want to start a useful discussion, please do so using the "new section" or "+" button at the top of a talk page. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really care whether it's Heart or not, but I would really like to see evidence that it will have the tag "Football Club". Neither of the references actually says that. It simply says Melbourne Heart. Because the word "football" has such an absolute connection with Australian Football in Melbourne, as it does everywhere in Australia except NSW and Qld, it would be a big surprise to me if the soccer club (as it will inevitably be known locally) is officially called a football club. Melbourne Victory is not described as a football club locally. It's a soccer club. Unfortunately, the article seems to have been written according the official style guide of the Sydney based FFA. I suspect it will require moving very soon. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just been checking. The "official" website reference in the article does not call it a football club at all. It's simply Melbourne Heart, just like Melbourne Victory. This arrogance of soccer fans trying to call their game football in a city where it has to be known as soccer is just silly, and is screwing up Wikipedia with garbage. Of all things, the article mentions the Carlton Football Club. To pretend that is a soccer club's name in Melbourne is just plain stupid. Carlton Football Club is the precise name of one of the most successful Australian football clubs. What do these stupid soccer fans think they are doing?


 * In about a days time, if there is no sensible explanation of what is effectively vandalism to Wikipedia, I plan to move this article to one with the correct title and remove all other references to football in it.


 * And to explain, I have nothing against soccer. I have a lot against brainwashed, unthinking fans. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The team name hasn't been finalised yet. Some sources call it Melbourne Heart FC but lots leave the FC off. As far as I can tell, the public poll run by the club included the FC, but the poll has been taken down now as it is over. I don't object to the article being moved, but it may need to be moved again once the name is final (expected any time now). I don't at all understand the problem with the mention of Carlton Football Club and I disagree that any mention of football in a soccer article constitutes vandalism as defined by our guidelines. Considering the amount of real problems these team articles have with referencing, length, npov commentary, original research and such I feel the terminology used to describe the sport is a fair way down on the list of priorities of things that need to be "fixed". Camw (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct nomenclature is important in an encyclopaedia. The name of the round ball code is a difficult one in Australia. In Melbourne, just as everywhere else in Australia except NSW and Qld, the name of the round ball code can only sensibly be soccer. To call it football is madness. The media doesn't and the bulk of the population doesn't. The only locals who do are those who are actually trying to force usage to alter by following what is effectively a directive from the Sydney based headquarters of the Football Federation of Australia. I can excuse people from NSW and Qld using the name football for the game in Melbourne because they cannot be expected to know (until now) ;-)


 * When speaking of Melbourne Victory, nobody calls it a football club, including the major Melbourne media. The name is almost always just presented as Victory, or Melbourne Victory.


 * I want the Melbourne based parts of the A-League to succeed, but trying to force a name change to football won't help. It actually creates conflict (and obviously confusion) where none need exist. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If the name of the club ends up being Melbourne Heart FC then it seems reasonable to stick with that here, if it's something else then we should use that. Debating at length what to call it before the name is final seems like a fairly poor use of time. Just be bold and move it for now if you want to. Whether it is actually good idea or not to include football in the name of the Victorian governing body or various clubs is best kept to discussion elsewhere. Camw (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In a place where words really matter, I have tried to highlight what is effectively a campaign by some to change the way a particular word is used. I think it matters. I am certain that some editors are using the word football in soccer articles about Melbourne with quite deliberate intent to not reflect actual local usage but what they would prefer it to be. I agree that my opinion of what should happen is of very minor importance (if any), but it is important to recognise what others are doing with the language. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The nature of a project like this almost certainly means the people with the most interest in a subject are the ones that will spend most of the time editing articles on that subject. People, even in Melbourne, with a serious interest in the sport may call it football, especially if they or their family has come from a country where that is the primary name of the sport - when editing people will most likely use what is familiar to them, I personally don't think there is any malice in the majority of cases. This wider naming issue on Australian articles has been discussed time and time again without a clear decision being made, there is strong resistance either way so we are stuck in this position (and we are talking not just about clubs, but thousands of articles on current and previous players, coaches and other areas of the game). It isn't ideal but I tried and failed in a fight for consistency and I just don't have the inclination to subject myself to all the bad faith accusations that come with any such attempt again in the near future. Again, if the club decides to call itself "x FC" or just "x" then that will likely be the appropriate name to use in my opinion. Camw (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not immigrants who are trying to call the game football. I don't know anyone in Melbourne who calls the game football, unless they're playing the FFA game of word manipulation. I grew up in an area with a vast majority of immigrants and where soccer was very strong (local team was state league champions, etc.), and soccer is the only thing it was ever called. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Delinking the club that the bidder came from is hardly helpful. Is there even a soccer side called Carlton FC that makes a bracketed note necessary? Second A-League club is considerably more accurate than second soccer club (as there are many more than two soccer clubs in Melbourne) and there is no mention of the word football in the changes you reverted. Camw (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about Second A-League club. That is definitely better than what I wrote. But the Sydney based businessmen who now run soccer, in seeming ignorance of how the English language has worked in half of Australia for the past 150 years, have created a problem for encyclopaedia creators. Yes, there was a Carlton Soccer Club, not that long ago. So to use the name Carlton Football Club without further clarification, in an article where the word football usually means soccer, is not ideal. Sure, people can click on the link, but most won't. (I saw some stats from a Wikipedia survey on that behaviour the other day. It was a very low percentage. Did you check the Carlton Soccer Club link?) So most will read Carlton Football Club incorrectly as a soccer club. The article also refers to South Melbourne Football Club, meaning a soccer club, although to most Victorians that name means the Australian Football Club that became the Sydney Swans. It must all be further explained. HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I check links if I want to know more (and have the Wikipedia popups extension installed for pretty much this purpose). If there isn't another Carlton FC then I think the link suffices as there is no other club with the same name to be confused with. We wouldn't (and shouldn't) go through any articles that mention Carlton SC and append a note that says "(the National Soccer League club, not the AFL team)". Camw (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything, work a note that it's the AFL club into the prose somewhere, you don't have to say that it isn't a soccer club if you say it is an AFL team and it will look less clumsy that appending it on the end in some brackets. Camw (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course we wouldn't go through any articles that mention Carlton SC to explain that it's soccer. The S says that. There's no ambiguity about word soccer. But because of the FFA trying to change the language, there is now a lot of ambiguity about the word football in half of Australia, especially in articles like this one. HiLo48 (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When it comes down to it, this is a brief mention in a section that probably won't survive once the club is actually up an running and there is interesting stuff to document - it's talking about a bid that was around for 4 months and then dropped out of the running. If you want to disambiguate it then I suggest working it into the prose, but don't lose too much sleep over it. Camw (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Something interesting I found on the Australian Trade Mark On-line Search System is that the name "Melbourne Heart FC" has been opposed, and a decision is pending. The name was opposed by the Lord Mayor's Charitable Fund and currently by the AFL. I understand why the mayor's fund opposed it — their fund is called "Heart of Melbourne" — but I cannot understand why the AFL are opposed to it. --124.180.53.46 (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see two issues. Firstly, the FC is obviously meant to be read as Football Club, and there is already a Melbourne Football Club. It uses the abbreviation MFC. It has existed for over 150 years. It plays Australia Rules Football, an opposition code. Secondly, say football in Melbourne without any particular context and virtually everybody will assume you are talking about Australian Rules Football. The existing A League club, Melbourne Victory, never publicly uses the FC or Football Club part of its name. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I live and work in Melbourne and if someone said "football" without any context, I — and many others — would assume they were talking about Australian football. Melbourne Victory has registered their name firstly as "Melbourne Victory" (TM Nos 983585 & 1050496) and secondly as "Melbourne Victory F.C." (TM Nos 1050497 & 1255164), using stops, though I'm not sure why they did that, shying away from the Australian standard of not using stops these days. --124.180.53.46 (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Club Kit
Club kit has not been chosen yet. Red and White stripes have not been confirmed, so it can't go up. reverting edit. NimChief (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Club kits have now officially been released as per website. Home Kit is Red and White verticle stripes, red shorts with a thin white horizontal line down the left leg, red socks. Away kit is white shirt with a red sash (like River Plate), white shorts with a thin red horizontal line down the left leg and white socks. I do not know how to update this. I will try but if anyone can do this in the Info Box then that would be great. Away Kit http://www.mhfcsupporters.com/drake-international-pledges-its-heart-to-melbourne-as-away-strip-is-unveiled/ User: RobbaC007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbaC007 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

RobbaC007 Not sure how to add this to the page, or how to add the little red horizontal line on the left leg as per the link

Name, Colours and Badge
This whole section is questionable. Only two of the five references directly support the text. One actually contradicts it. Another is a closed online poll with no results displayed. Another is way off the mark.

I suggest that for now it should be removed or dramatically reduced in size to simply say that the club's Name, Colours and Badge are not yet finalised. It won't be long before they are. Right now it's all a bit of a mess, and so is that section. How about leaving it out for a couple of weeks until the dust has settled, then creating something final, simple and accurate?

HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just added a reference to the challenge by the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundations protest to IP Australia. They've challenged the Melbourne Heart name out of concern it will effect their annual Heart of Melbourne appeal. The club and the FFA have now registered Sporting Melbourne. Would be good to add more to this as things develop. LMCF have indicated they will follow through with this if a name change doesn't occur before April 22nd 2010. Paul Roberton (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The line on the objection by the foundation is good, but the FFA submitted a trademark for Sporting Melbourne in November last year, not after the challenge by the foundation. See here. Camw (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, my mistake... I had a few dates running through my mind when I made that comment. Paul Roberton (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Player Signings
Something needs to be done about the players section. Players are being added without sources, and other players are being removed when legititmate sources have been provided.

According to this report:: http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20080811/mike-tullberg-signs_2241384_1363500 Mike Tullberg has signed with Heart of Midlothian FC, not Melbourne Heart.

And according to this report: http://issuu.com/neosimio/docs/river_plate_mag_7_-_octubre_2009 Richard Porta is confirmed as being on loan to Melbourne Heart, so until anything to the contrary is mentioned, his name should be left on the pageNimChief (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you indicate which page in that magazine indicates he is going on loan to Heart please? Camw (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't who keeps removing the Ibrahim and Babajli signings from the football squad. I have updated the squad with the articles that confirm their signings with the club thus far, so there is no reason for them to keep getting removed. I have also created articles for the two players aswell.NimChief (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems unlikely that either player will meet the notability criteria in order to have their own articles right now, especially since neither meet WP:ATHLETE. Camw (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Supporters
Information is inaccurate. The 'Melbourne Heart Supporters Association' convened on 10th Feb not the Forum. The Forum is run by the MHFCSA. On 1st March 2010 MHFCSA announced their existance on the forum and across other social media. On the same day the MHFCSA announced ownership of the forum. Believe me it may sound a little bit irrelevant now but as things pan out all this information will become highly relevant.--Melbheartfc (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Rivalry
How can this team have a rivalry with the Melbourne Victory when they haven't played a game yet? This presumption be removed until a rivalry indeed develops between these two teams. Comes.amanuensis (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. That bit of the article has bothered me for some time. One cannot create a rivalry before a team even exists. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What is tifo?
...and what are tribunes?

Well?

See the Yarra-side section of the article.

This whole addition to the article seems a bit doubtful to me. Full of insider talk. Too much enthusiasm. Not enough reality. HiLo48 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tifo is easy and a fairly common term in football support. Tribune is another word for grandstand or stand. The supporter sections of many (most?) sport team articles are in a terrible state and this is going the same way. Camw (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. To improve that sloppy editing, I've Wikilinked tifo in the article. I still don't think much of that addition. HiLo48 (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. If the supporter group information isn't mentioned in reliable sources I don't see how it can meet WP:V. Though, personally I'm at the point where the amount of time I'm willing to spend fighting these things is rapidly diminishing. Camw (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, somebody has removed tribunes, which is helpful, but I still have my doubts. Apparently, the group "were formed after attending the club's first game..." Apart from the poor grammar, that actually doesn't make sense. Did the group attend the game and then come into existence? Not sure how to fix it. I have a lot of trouble with the language of soccer fans. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How can you change it to a terrace? it is not a terrace, a terrace is football stand without seats. It is a tribune. The group were formed at the club's first game, when they got together and decided to start a crew for the club. What is difficult to understand about that statement?122.111.169.162 (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion is verifiability not "truth". We cannot verify the content if it has zero coverage in reliable sources separate from the subject. The easy way to fix this section is to remove it until it has some way of meeting policy. Camw (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 15:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne Heart F.C. → —
 * I propose to move this article back to its original name. The club website consistently refers to Melbourne Heart FC, not Melbourne Heart F.C. Imposing a name on the club that it does not use itself amounts to WP:OR. Regards, Mattinbgn\talk 04:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. Couldn't understand the earlier move. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What the club uses on its own website isn't strictly relevant, what should be used is the WP:COMMONNAME. See Red Star Belgrade - the club does not use this name itself, but this is how the club is commonly known in the Anglosphere. I originally requested the move to the F.C. version, as this is the common way of contracting "Football Club" in English-speaking countries. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ilikeeatingwaffles - I suspect you're not a Melbourne local. The problem with your view is that in Melbourne "football club" commonly means a club that plays Australian football. There is a club known as the Melbourne Football Club that plays that game and is over 160 years old. I believe that the Australian Football League (which plays Australian football) still has legal action in place against Melbourne Heart over the name. So it's dangerous making assumptions about the name "really" being "Melbourne Heart Football Club". It's not. In fact, I've noticed that the single word "Heart" seems to be evolving as the common name for this club. HiLo48 (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is zero evidence (but plenty of assumption) that FC stands for "football club". Like it or not most of the A-league clubs, including this one, are franchises and their names are designed around marketing not around tradition. There has never been an organisation known as Melbourne Heart Football Club, just as there is not an organisation called Sydney Football Club that FC in Sydney FC refers to. The "FC" does not actually stand for anything - much like the United in Gold Coast United is meaningless (and Real Salt Lake has no ties to royalty, Spanish or otherwise). The "FC" stands for "FC" and is marketing gimmick, nothing more. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a bit of a search, and I see what you mean about FC not actually standing for anything, interesting and daft - though there is a similar case in English football, AFC Wimbledon. I was surprised that an A-League team would use FC, given the dominance of local rules, but now this makes sense. I agree that the page should be moved back.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The relevant guidance is at Naming conventions (sports), and is pretty clear: In cases where there is no ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the official name should be used. No ambiguity means that: The name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website; The name has been adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media and it is recognizable; The name is not easily confused with other clubs' names.  In cases where there is some ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the name most commonly used by the English-language media should be used.  Skinsmoke (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Association football or football (soccer)
I was under the impression that Australian soccer editors had agreed upon using "football (soccer)" when talking about the sport in the first instance, then just using "football" for the rest of the article unless there is confusion with other football codes so then the use of "football (soccer)" would be preferred. Please can anyone help clear this up, before an edit war erupts, something we  do not  need. --121.219.78.104 (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The main article on the sport in the country is titled Association football in Australia. Because pipelinks can be used in Wikipedia the brackets are totally unnecessary. In an Australian context it should either be association football or soccer. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course pipelinks can be used, but that does not mean brackets cannot be used, your logic is faulty. The brackets indicate that the sport of association football in Australia is either called football (by some Australians) or soccer (by most Australians) and that hardly anyone calls the sport association football. The reason why the sport uses the title Association football in Australia is because it was considered a better title than the original title Football (soccer) in Australia, where the brackets were considered undesirable for use in a title, but that doesn't mean it's undesirable for use in an article about the sport. --121.219.78.104 (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yarraside
There are some fans here who are desperate to add information on this supporters group, despite there having been NO references until now. We finally have a tiny mention in a reliable source, but it in no way reflects the content in the article. I will cut back the mention in the article to the basics until we can achieve more here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The rivalry thing
Let's be honest here. It's garbage! It's purely a marketing ploy. We should not be assisting commercial promotions.

If someone can give me a nice formal definition of a rivalry that fits this situation, I might change my mind, but right now it doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling other contributors "immature" and "obsessed" and their views "garbage" is not the way to kick off a friendly discussion. Given relative posting habits on this article and talk page, I would suggest the term "obsessed" might have more application to someone in this discussion other than me. A desire to ignore reliable sources about the name of the sport seems reasonably immature to me as well. But all that is beside the point.


 * Defining a "rivalry" is easy - are there independent, reliable sources describing it as such? The answer is surely "yes" here. You might feel that it is artificial (most of the A-League is artificial) and mere "commercial promotion" but that is a just a value judgement on your behalf. Regardless of how the rivalry was created, through grass-roots fan activities or through top-down promotional work, it certainly exists. I would argue it is no more artificial than "rivalry round" in the AFL.


 * Rather than attempting to air-brush it out of existence in the article, you could perhaps add to the section something along the lines of "The A-League and the two clubs have strongly promoted this "rivalry" in an attempt to market the game." - if you find a source stating such (using your own opinion would be OR) I don't think it is necessary but if it satisfies your concerns, knock yourself out. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The source for "rivalry" in the article is Fox Sports, clearly NOT an independent source. Their exclusive goal is marketing their coverage of the game. (Have you actually looked that that source? Pure hype.) Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. The AFL no longer has a Rivalry Round. Comments about the name of the sport are irrelevant here, and are really aimed at attacking my credibility among soccer fans. So, we have no independent source, no valid comparison with a neighbouring sport, and I deflected the personal attack. Can I delete it now? HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Plenty of independent sources available with a quick search mention a rivalry - Herald Sun, The Age, SMH + plenty more. The existing text can be improved for sure, but it's pretty clear that reliable sources are reporting it as a rivalry. A rivalry can be interpreted in many ways, being in the same town and contending in the same competition seems enough for reliable sources to describe it as one, we should expand on why and how the rivalry develops further or drops away as the sources cover it.Camw (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Use a better source. I'm pleased they exist. But please recognise that many of the ongoing problems with articles like this are the choices that fans make for sources. Rather than choosing the best source, they choose sources which are as excited as they are about the subject. And I still have major doubts about Wikipedia assisting to promote a rivalry that is being "created" entirely for marketing purposes. The fans have not yet spoken. Only the media, ALL of which has a vested interest in promoting the events it wants to cover. Why should Wikipedia be helping? HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * People will probably use the source that they get their information from or the first result on a Google search or something like that - a source of some sort is much better than no source and if there are better sources then they can be easily added in by someone that is interested in doing so - it is a collaborative project and you won't ever see every editor doing exactly the right thing. All our information is based off what reliable sources say, for our purposes what the media says is entirely what we have to go off for now, even if that isn't especially ideal. I have no doubt that if the rivalry fizzles out the media will jump on that as well, it goes both ways. Camw (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree that Wikipedia isn't a marketing vehicle, but a line or paragraph toward the end of the article that reports on what the reliable sources are saying with reasonably neutral wording doesn't seem to be out of proportion to the current importance of the topic to me. Camw (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit rich complaining about personal attacks given your edit summary here don't you think. I am not a big football fan, or even a Heart fan and I am not a big editor of football articles as a look at my edit history would confirm. I am just tired of your continual vexatious editing. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem was one of editors saying silly things in Edit summaries and ignoring everything I said. For example, in your immediately preceding Edit summary you asked "How many games do you want to see before it is "officially" a rivalry?" Well, I'm sorry, but since the number of games played at that stage was zero, I considered that a pretty dumb question. Hence my reference to fixing logic. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Heart vs Victory claimed to be a sellout. But 4,000 empty seats? Problems with sources?
The article claims the match was a sellout, with a source that tells us all all 30,000 tickets were sold. But the "record" attendance claimed for the game is only 25,897. What's going on? Sounds a bit dodgy to me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe it is correct that there were no more tickets available for sale. The shortfall could well come from stadium members who didn't attend but have guaranteed seats, corporate seats that weren't used (sponsors etc get an substantial allocation for each game that may not get used), Heart members with reserved seats who were away for school holidays or couldn't attend and so on. There is a gap there, but I think both can be correct, with all available tickets/seats sold/allocated but not all of them used. Camw (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Serious question, HiLo48, what is your problem with Melbourne Heart? It is one thing to be sceptical but to continue to take this confrontational, aggressive tone every time some one adds something positive in the article is vexatious editing. Your obvious bias is what "[s]ounds a bit dodgy to me" and quite frankly, I am getting tired of it. Camw is right - a sellout does not mean every seat is filled, it just means every ticket has been sold. Anyone with an open mind would see this as obvious. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy with Camw's explanation, although it does seem that a quite high proportion of sold seats weren't used. I just think there's still a bit of a puzzle there. It would be in the Heart's interest to actually get those bums on seats. Much better for the atmosphere. As for my editing of this article, a lot of edits made to articles like this (most sporting clubs) are made by enthusiastic fans, rather than knowledgable editors. (A lot of IP editors.) It means a lot of sloppy and unsourced work that needs to be cleaned up. I do this on a lot of sporting sites. Not picking on Heart in particular, but this site has been pretty bad so far. My goal is simply better, non-POV articles. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your approach to creating better articles is counter productive and having a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with you is not constructive editing. Your overly aggressive, bullying and insulting tone doesn't actually encourage new and IP editors to modify their approach to editing, it makes them push back even harder. Alternatively, it drives them away from Wikipedia. I have been an editor on Wikipedia for quite some time now and I find your attitude quite confrontational - what would a newbie editor think? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. See the comment I just added to the section above. I will admit to getting a little impatient with you, NOT an IP editor, for implying that there had already been enough games to establish a rivalry when, in fact, there had been no games at all. It wasn't our first exchange on the matter. You seemed determined to add the rivalry when it clearly existed nowhere but in the minds of marketeers and excited fans. Oh, and by the way, using the name football for the round ball game in Melbourne is also just plain silly, or deliberately confrontational. These will be my last words here on this particular issue tonight. Do have a think about them. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree that Heart would have preferred to sell the seats if it were possible, which leads me to believe that there were no seats available left to be sold out of the shortfall rather than anything dodgy. Agree that a lot of IP editors approach the site from a fan perspective, but I hope we can be patient with them and try our best to work with them so that some of them become knowledgeable editors. There are so many guidelines here that I've been editing for years and don't know them all without having to look them up, so we can't expect new editors to be perfect right away. It's tough to strike a balance between striving for articles to be perfect while scaring away casual editors and letting new editors work on the content and feel like they want to continue to contribute and find out more about how the site works, but we need to try for that balance. Camw (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My biggest frustration with IP editors (and some others) is when I do a revert for very good reasons, put a huge effort into putting as good an explanation as possible plus a request to discuss the matter in an Edit summary, and then my revert just gets reverted straight back with no Edit summary at all, or a quite illogical one. It is so easy to breach WP:3RR, I would always prefer to take the whole thing to discussion and just leave the article for a while, but it doesn't happen. One of our biggest challenges seems to be getting new editors to read Edit summaries, and discover that the Talk pages exist. I reckon one of the first things editors need to learn is to read Edit summaries and use Discussion pages, but it doesn't seem to work that way. HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Competitive football - a bit messy now
There's been an addition to this section that makes it very difficult to understand. Seems to be written by someone with less than perfect English skills. Maybe an insider to the game and to Heart's history, with better command of Australian English, might want to tidy it up a bit please. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Those names in other languages at the end of the article - some are wrong
In my current state of knowledge of Wikipedia, I don't know what it's called, but there's a section at the end with what looks like foreign names for the article. Maybe it's the name of this article translated to that version of WIkipedia? Oh, and they're not visible in the article.

Whatever, a robot has just changed fr:Melbourne Heart FC to fr:Melbourne Heart Football Club. Now, there are already two others like that, but they're wrong. The FC does not stand for Football Club. It doesn't stand for anything. It's just part of the name. The same is true for several other A-League clubs. I suspect the reason is to avoid legal problems with other Football Clubs in Australia which play different sports - Aussie Rules or Rugby League.

Anyway, can and should these wrong names be fixed?

HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are the Interwiki links to the articles in other versions of Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia sets its own policies for article naming and it is not for us here on English Wikipedia to impose article names on them. You can, if you wish, raise the topic on the article talk page in that version of Wikipedia (i.e. on French Wikipedia fr:Melbourne Heart Football Club) and see what they think. Note that they may expect to you to use French on their site. Good luck. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought it would be something like that. And no, there's no way I'm going to try to tell the French anything. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fred to stay in DC through July 20
Then to Melbourne. http://www.dcunited.com/news/2011/07/training-notes-dallas-arrival JohnInDC (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is of course a small thing but until Fred departs Washington and joins Melbourne - which is the day after his last scheduled DC appearance on July 20 - then he's not on the Melbourne roster. Read the article above!  What I'm reporting is true, and is sourced, and the insistence on adding premature (and unsourced) information to this article is exasperating.  How about the editors just wait the 48 hours until Fred actually joins the team?  JohnInDC (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been watching these changes back-and-forth and I am puzzled as to why the player's pending arrival can't be included in prose and then added to the roster on the date he arrives. It seems silly pretending he hasn't signed with Heart just because he still has a game or two left in the US. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It should - just like Fred's article - and I'm embarrassed not to have done that. I can do it in half an hour or so if no one else wants to. JohnInDC (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Supporters section was effectively unsourced, so I removed it
It was obvious to me that some parts of the Supporters section was unacceptably sourced to YouTube videos, so I deleted them. Further investigations showed that rest of the section depended on primary sources and others which didn't mention what was claimed in the text. I ended up deleting the lot, in several steps with detailed Edit summaries. User:8ten10 just reverted my deletion with no Edit summary at all. I have now repeated my deletion with a reference to this page. I hope (possibly vainly based on past experience with soccer pages) that User:8ten10 will now look at either or both my Edit summaries and here. I'm happy to discuss, but not happy with major Edits with no explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said to you a couple of days ago, I work for the club, sources are not very readily available so we make do with what we can. I spent approx. 3 hours doing a mass updating on the page and to our knowledge all information was 100% factual at that time. Everything was sourced to the best of our ability, and with the most accurate information we could find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8ten10 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure your additions were made in good faith, and I appreciate the effort. The problem is that, for obvious reasons, Wikipedia has quite strict standards for sourcing content. Sources such as YouTube are unacceptable. Some of your other links were to primary sources and sources whose content changes too frequently for them to remain useful. I would have thought that major media outlets would have covered at least some of your new content. I suggest that you keep hunting for reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the sources in there are reliable and relevant. No need for the whole sub section to be removed. Whot sources specificly do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8ten10 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It may help if you look at the History of the article, especially my changes on 29 October. As I removed each bit I tried to write a meaningful Edit summary explaining why. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Kit and third kit competition
Please note that the images for a team's kit should be kept in the infobox. They have been removed a couple of times, so I've been putting them back there. Additionally, recent edits have included a whole sub-section on a competition to design a third kit for the team. This merely appears to be a marketing venture, as the kit will only be used in a single game apparently, and hence warrants nothing more than a passing mention, in my opinion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes from "Socceroos" to "Australia national association football team"
In this and several other articles Macktheknifeau has unilaterally changed the word "Socceroos" to "Australia national association football team" (Sometimes with the word "player" tacked on for sanity, but hardly for clarity and simplicity.) I see these changes as pointy, confrontational, and not in line with the agreed naming of Soccer in Australia There is a centralised discussion on this matter underway at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Premature move
Per WP:COMMONNAME:

"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change. ... Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used."

The official change of the club's name from Melbourne Heart FC to Melbourne City FC was mere hours ago. It is premature to move the page as a knee-jerk reaction to an official announcement. (As another example, see Jay-Z where a proposed change to remove the hyphen was rejected.) This page should be moved back to Melbourne Heart FC unless and until the new name becomes commonly accepted in wider media. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 04:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is pure pedantry and wiki-lawyering. From today, reliable sources (and the public in general) will almost certainly all use the name "Melbourne City", the official name of the club and that is clearly the name that should be used. Your suggestion is that in the name of (mistaken) policy purity, Wikipedia should use an incorrect and obsolete name that will not be used anywhere else. Why would anyone suggest that this is a good idea?


 * COMMONNAME doesn't even apply in this case. That guideline is designed to differentiate between an official name and a more commonly used "nickname" for the same topic, not when an official name is changed to another official name. Still, if you are determined to argue the point take it to WP:RM. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits made in ignorance or in bad faith
Without any discussion at all at any of the articles involved, User:Footwiks has attempted to claim the name "Melbourne City Football Club" for this club, in a string of edits beginning with the renaming of Melbourne City Football Club (1912–13) and ending with claiming this club's full name is "Melbourne City Football Club". It's not. None of the names registered at ASIC include the "Football Club" suffix. As with most other clubs in the A-League, it's simply FC. These changes should be reverted. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, As you see new crest, A League Melbourne City FC's full name is definatley Melbourn Ciy Football Club. Also 'Melbourne City Football Club' is mentioned in club website.
 * Refer to notice of club name change.
 * http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/melbourneheart/news-display/City-Football-Group-Confirms-Name-Change-To-Melbourne-City-FC/90757]
 * Aussie football club Melbourne City Football Club (1912–13) don't have national and global notability and just lived 2 years before 100 years ago. So Article name Melbourn Ciy Football Club' have to be redirected to current A-League Club Melbourne City FC.
 * Refer to North American Soccer League and North American Soccer League (1968–84)
 * In case of same article name. Current League or club has article name.
 * Footwiks (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What's with the clumsy indenting? A new crest proves nothing. A club cannot simply call itself whatever it likes. Did you read my comment about the registered name at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission? I very much doubt that the name "Melbourne City Football Club" would be allowed to be registered. There's no evidence that it has been. And similar names have been rejected in the past. You appear to not be from Melbourne. Are you aware of the 155 year old Melbourne Football Club? That name tends to take legal precedence, and similar club names are carefully scrutinised. And I cannot for the life of me see the relevance of some American Soccer Leagues to the full name of a soccer club in Melbourne, Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I note that User:Footwiks has reverted my edit to the club's full name without resolution of this discussion. I won't Edit war. He regards what a brand new crest invented by an enthusiast at a club as taking precedence over a formal club name registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. I don't, and I don't think Wikipedia should. I doubt if that crest will last long for legal reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Registered name in Australian Securities and Investments Commission is just commercial trademark. Melbourne City FC is registered in Australian Securities and Investments Commission. That's true. But That's all. Do you think that FC is not acronym of football club? FC is acronym of football club and also displayd on new crest and website. Regardless of registered name, Melbourne City FC's full name is definatley Melbourne City Football Club. That's common sense.Footwiks (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, in a city where the word "football" almost exclusively means Australian Football, played with an oval ball on ovals, it doesn't make sense. It's why there have been massive discussions and a recent consensus to call the game Soccer in Australia. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and its archives for tens of thousands of words on the subject. Other A-League clubs attempted to claim the suffix "Football Club", and failed, for both legal and practical reasons. This same debate has been had for several clubs. None (that I am aware of) have full names containing those words. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There are two soccer clubs in Melbourne called Melbourne City. Melbourne City né Melbourne Heart are officially MHFC HOLDINGS PTY LTD who have registered a business name of "Melbourne City FC" and have a pending trademark application for the use of "Melbourne City Football Club". There is another team of the same name who are an incorporated association who are officially "Melbourne City Football Club Inc.". They also have a pending trademark application for the name "Melbourne City Football Club". Hack (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand what you mean. I think this is an unusual case occured only in Austrailia.
 * Generally, Full name space on football club infobox in Wikipedia is not a space that write the business name.
 * In many country, Business names of football clubs are full name or shortened name or specific name. It depends on club administrator.
 * In conclusion, Full name and Business name are different concept.
 * But, In Australia, I think full name means only business name registered on ASIC. So I have a questions.
 * 1. Can Sydey FC and Perth Glory FC only use Sydey Football Club and Perth Glory Football Club because they included word 'football club' on registration name?
 * https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchTab=search&searchType=OrgAndBusNm&searchText=Sydney&_adf.ctrl-state=ftdzshulz_4
 * https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchType=Bn&searchNumber=&searchName=Perth+Glory&searchTab=bnsearch&_adf.ctrl-state=lr8poppgu_22
 * 2. Is NEWCASTE JET FC's full name NEWCASTLE UNITED SOCCER TEAM?
 * https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchType=Bn&searchNumber=&searchName=Newcastle+United&searchTab=bnsearch&_adf.ctrl-state=lr8poppgu_4
 * 3. What do you think of new crest including word "Melbourne City Football Club"? Do you want to correct them like you did on Wikipedia. In your logic, New crest have a serious error that cause counfusion and violate the trademark registration law.
 * Footwiks (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The trading name of the business is Melbourne City FC. Clubs don't always have their legal or trading names in their crests. Hack (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Footwiks, Australia has four different professional sports called "football" by at least some of their fans. Some very old clubs do have the words "Football Club" as part of their names. They got in first. None of them are soccer clubs. It's unlikely that legal permission will be granted to Melbourne City FC to use the suffix "Football Club" because it's too close a name to an existing Australian Rules Football club. It may not be the same as in other countries, but not many other countries have so many sports called football, and in no other cases did Australian Rules Football clubs get in first. A crest that magically appeared yesterday might be evidence of how someone inside the club, or perhaps even in the UK, would like things to be, and they may not even realise the problems they face, but I don't think that crest will last long in that form. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry HiLo48, but what you are saying is complete fiction. Saying Australian rules football clubs were called "Football Club" first, so they are the only ones that can use that is completely false. The term "Football Club" is not restricted to any one sport in Australia. Various rugby league, Australian rules football and association football clubs all use the term in their name and own that name under ASIC. Additionally, the trading name "Melbourne City Football Club" is licenced under ASIC by an association football club who competes in the lower division Victorian state league, and the newly renamed A-League club is attempting to obtain that trading licence.--2nyte (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You have misrepresented me, again. Do you do this deliberately, or...? We're obviously talking about major clubs in Melbourne. The Melbourne Football Club is 155 years old. It got in first. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and what do you mean by association football? The Victorian Football Association? Can you actually write the word "soccer"? HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, Thanks for answering. But please reply question 1 and question 2.
 * Newcastel Jets FC's full name is Newcastel United Soccer team and Only 2 clubs - Sydey FC and Perth Glory FC can use term 'football club'. Is it right?
 * I want to know definition of full name in Austrailia. Does full name in Austrailia only means business name registred in ASIC.?
 * Some football clubs have very long name but fans and league called them shortened name for convenience. Especially, South American football clubs, for example, Therefore, association football club info box require full name space in wikipedia. I don't think that full name means only registered business name globally. This logic is only possible in only Australia. I definitely admit that Melbourne city FC is registered name. But as you see crest, We can use 'Melbourne City Football Club' as a full name. If A League Melbourne City FC use 'Melbourne City Football Club' on crest, their website and fanbook, What happened next? Does somebody sue for violation the trademark registration law?Footwiks (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Footwiks (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You know, I've been trying for months to find out the real name of the Newcastle Jets. If you think you know, please go to Talk:Newcastle Jets FC, join the existing conversation there, and tell us all. HiLo48 (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know the full name definition in Austrailia. But In your logic, They registered Newcastel United Soccer team in ACIC. So full name is Newcastel United Soccer Team. So I want to confirm it from you.
 * Refer to Newcastel United Soccer Team ACIC
 * https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchType=Bn&searchNumber=&searchName=Newcastle+United&searchTab=bnsearch&_adf.ctrl-state=lr8poppgu_412:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So, where are the Jets, and why does the website frequently leave out United and include the Jets? It reinforces my view that these websites are often amateurish efforts that really don't help us all that much. Does that new Melbourne City logo appear anywhere but the website. And on that front, do we actually have a right to use it here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As I say, I think that full name space on infobox in Wikipedia is not a space to write business name. Business name in ACIC is not a reliable reference for full name space on info Box.
 * Business name is just depends on club administrator's preference. Sydney FC and Perth Glory FC's business name is including term 'football club'. Newcastle Jets's business name is incudling term 'soccer team'.
 * Besides, the term "football Club" is open to various sports including association football club in Austrailia.
 * That Only Australian football clubs can use term 'football club' is not true.
 * New crest and notice on website conclusively shows that Business name has nothting to do with a club's full name.
 * Therfore, Melbourne City FC's full name in A-League is Melbourn City Football Club and I want to to correct them.
 * But the dispute is unlikely to be settled for a long time to come.
 * I have a suggestion.
 * If call or e-mail the Melbourne City FC front office, then receive the reply that full name is Melbourn City FC.
 * I'll definitely agree and support HiLo48's opinion.
 * The other way, Front office saied full name is Melbourne City Football Club, then correct full name to Melbourn City Football Club.
 * Let's contact the Melbourne City FC and receive a official reply and stance about full name.Footwiks (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As a lawyer based in Melbourne specialising in trade mark law and business name registrations, perhaps I can help. Business names and trade marks are distinctly different things, although they are often confused. Registering a business name with ASIC is actually a legal requirement under the Business Names Registration Act 2011 to trade under a name other than your own personal name or full corporate name. Registering a trade mark with IP Australia under the Trade Marks Act 1995 is not a legal requirement but is generally prudent to do because it confers an exclusive right to use the trade mark (which can be a word, phrase, logo, colour, etc.) in relation to designated goods and services. Often someone will use the same business name and trade mark, but they can be different and they don't need to be at all related to their full corporate name.

ASIC will not allow you to register a business name that is "identical or nearly identical" to an existing business name or company/organisation name. The Business Names Registration (Availability of Names) Determination 2012 sets out the rules for what qualifies: for example, "the", "a", "an", "www", "com", "Pty", "Ltd", "Incorporated", singular/plural, spaces, punctuation marks, capiialisation and the order of words are all disregarded, so "MELBOURNE CITY FC" would be regarded as identical to "www.FCCityMelbourneIncorporated.com". Some words are also taken to be the same (e.g., cuts, cutz, hair, hair boutique, hair centre, hair cut, hair design, hairdresser, hairdressing, hairdressing salon, hair fashions, hair salon, hair studio, hair stylist, salon), so "Melbourne City Cuts" and "Salon City Melbourne" would be treated as identical; there is no such provision for "football club" and "FC". "Melbourne City Football Club" would not necessarily be too similar to "Melbourne Football Club" for registration as a business name, however, it would not be allowed in this case because of the existing registration of another association in Victoria, "Melbourne City Football Club Inc." This can be verified by conducting a business name availability search on ASIC's website.

MHFC Holdings Pty Limited filed an application on 16 January 2014 to register "Melbourne City Football Club" as a trade mark. It may struggle to register the trade mark for three reasons:


 * The expression is insufficiently distinctive, the words being purely descriptive of a football club operating in the city of Melbourne, which could easily apply to any number of football clubs.
 * The prior registration of "Melbourne Football Club" (and "North Melbourne Football Club" by the AFL.
 * The prior use and reputation of Melbourne City Football Club Inc., which was registered with Consumer Affairs Victoria on 3 November 2005 and applied to register three trade marks for "Melbourne City Football Club" on 23 January 2014, 29 January 2014 and 30 January 2014.

Indeed, the status "Under Examination" indicates that an examiner from IP Australia has raised one or more objections against the application. Despite this, they may still be able to secure registration if they can provide evidence to the satisfaction of the trade marks examiner to show that they have (or will have) used their trade mark so extensively that it has become distinctive of them and that they are unlikely to be confused with any other similarly-named clubs.

In any event, it is not for us to conjecture or speculate on the legal rights of the club to register any particular business name or trade mark, which are legal issues none of us are qualified to answer on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. What is important for our purposes is what Wikipedia policy indicates should be used. Article titles states: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. ... Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." So, which name do reliable sources prefer? —sroc &#x1F4AC; 01:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I think that it is fair to say that the club's "full name" is Melbourne City Football Club. This is the name on their crest and in the official media release, although also abbreviated to "Melbourne City FC" where appropriate. It is clear that "FC" stands for "Football Club" in the full name. This is unlike Harry S. Truman for whom the "S" does not stand for anything! That said, the "full name" in the infobox for A-League clubs is quite inconsistent between using "Football Club" for some clubs and "FC" or "F.C." for others. It would be nice if there was some uniformity either way. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 01:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

In saying this, I note that Template:Infobox football club states that the  parameter should be "The club's complete name", not its registered legal name. It's an interesting discussion, but not worth arguing over. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 02:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I want to say, fullname parameter should be "The club's complete name", not its registered legal name. Only A-League club's full name is registered legal business name. Footwiks (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And where, precisely, do you find a club's complete name? You cannot just make one up. You cannot assume things, such as FC must mean Football Club. You cannot willy-nilly change multiple articles without further discussion, as you have done today. That is very bad faith editing.


 * We can easily assume "FC" means "football club" in the name of a football club, not least when it is in the club's emblem and in press releases about the club's new name. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 11:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not a great answer, especially when, in my previous post, I said "You cannot assume things". All the A-League clubs have FC on the end of their public names. They don't have "Football Club". There's a logic to this, in that in around half of Australia "football" means a different sport. FC sounds "cool" to some, like some foreign clubs, so it doesn't demand expansion. So, that's a doubt about your assumption. It's also original research, which is prohibited. We need reliable, independent sources, so I ask again, where, precisely, do you find a club's complete name? HiLo48 (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, Melbourne City FC has evidence such as crest and press releases. But Currently, Wellington Phoenix FC ‎and Newcastle Jets FC ‎don't have evidence that we can find easily Chances are slim, Full name might be Wellington Phoenix Futbal club and Newcastle United Jets Fußball-Club. So I have a suggestion. Let's contact wellington and Newcastle front office and enquire "What is your club's full name"? I think that reply from front office is most accurate. We can save trouble and times. If I'm an Australian or native speaker, I'll call the front office directly. What do you think of my suggestion?Footwiks (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * A comment from whoever happens to answer the phone at a random time would be the worst kind of primary sourcing, something we avoid here when we can. Club websites aren't much better. I'm still not clear what the formal definition of the "full name" of a club is, if it's not the legally registered name. I don't think we're getting far with this conversation at all. HiLo48 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Not a great answer, especially when, in my previous post, I said "You cannot assume things".' Since I was directly responding to your comment "You cannot assume" with evidence pointing to evidence showing precisely why we can assume this (i.e., evidence that the club unequivocally calls itself "Melbourne City Football Club"), your counterpoint "Not a great answer" has no logic.
 * On what basis do you seemingly regard the "full name" of an A-League club as only a registered business name registered by its holding company? Why is a business name registration with ASIC more definitive than a trade mark application with IP Australia or the club's official logo/emblem or an official media release issued by the club or by the FFA?
 * If a club does not register a business name at all (for example, neither "Melbourne Victory" nor "Melbourne Victory FC" nor "Melbourne Victory Football Club" is currently registered, nor are "Sydney FC" or "Sydney Football Club"), by your logic, does it not have a "full name" at all?
 * Many organisations register multiple business names, so if this arises, choosing one arbitrarily could be considered original research.
 * 'I don't think we're getting far with this conversation at all.' It certainly doesn't help if one refuses to acknowledge the arguments put by others and pushes their own argument relentlessly.
 * 'A comment from whoever happens to answer the phone at a random time would be the worst kind of primary sourcing, something we avoid here when we can.' I agree; we should not use this as an arbiter.  'Club websites aren't much better.'  I disagree.  In the case of club logos/emblems, they would be the result of great effort and approved at the highest levels of the organisation before being released to the public.  In the case of a media release specifically regarding the name change which would have been carefully crafted.  They are no more likely to be hastily pushed out to the public than an administrator filing a business name application on behalf of the club (which any employee could easily do).  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 23:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still not clear what Wikipedia's formal definition of the "full name" of a club is. Up above there's an awful lot of original research going on even about the definition. I suggest that without a clear definition it's not a very good Infobox parameter at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Can you help?' I'm trying.  Can't you tell?
 * The vague definition of the  parameter is unhelpful, I agree.  There has actually been significant discussion on the   (short name) and   parameters: a lot of discussion about whether "FC" should be included in the   but no suggestion that the   should be a legal name as far as I can see.[//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_football_club/Archive_4#Opinion_poll_for_the_clubname_infobox_parameter][//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_football_club/Archive_5#Choosing_the_Infobox_clubname_parameter_rule]  You may wish to propose revising the description or lobbying for the removal of either parameter, but that would be a discussion for Template talk:Infobox football club.  In the meantime, I have linked to this discussion from there to gather further input.
 * In any event, I think it is clear that the full name of this club is Melbourne City Football Club. This is evident from:
 * The official media release from the FFA/Melbourne City website uses it before reverting to the abbreviated form: "About Melbourne City Football Club Melbourne City Football Club is a professional football club that competes in the major Australian domestic competition, the Hyundai A-League. The Club was formerly known as Melbourne Heart FC. Melbourne City FC is owned by a consortium involving the City Football Group (80%), which also owns English Premier League club Manchester City FC and Major League Soccer club New York City FC, and the ownership group of Australian National Rugby League side the Melbourne Storm (20%). Based at La Trobe University, Melbourne City FC’s home ground is AAMI Park in Melbourne, Australia."
 * Its official emblem as seen on its website features the words "Melbourne City Football Club".
 * It has applied to register the trade mark "Melbourne City Football Club".
 * Although its business name registration is for "Melbourne City FC", as you have pointed out, it would not be able to register the full name "Melbourne City Football Club", although this appears to be primarily due to a conflict with an incorporate association named Melbourne City Football Club Inc. and the clubs have reportedly "been in constant dialogue" over the dispute, so this may be resolved in due course. It is not for us to speculate over how that will turn out.  However, this does not affect how the club actually refers to itself (even if it might not technically be doing things by the book by using a name that it has not registered).  It makes no more sense to ignore all the other evidence and insist that the club's full name is "Melbourne City FC" and that "FC" doesn't stand for anything because of the business name registration than it does to insist that the club's full name is "MHFC Holdings Pty Ltd" because that is the full legal name of the company that has registered the business name.  MHFC Holdings Pty Ltd is, in fact and in law, the name of the entity; Melbourne City FC is merely a business name and is not the name of any legal entity.
 * I hope this has been of some help. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 01:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is of SOME help, but does not fully address the issue. The naming of soccer clubs in Australia, and especially in Melbourne, is a very complex and sensitive area. Until editors are aware of all that was said at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), and its preceding threads, and perhaps also familiar with the Barassi Line, they are really not well enough equipped to comment effectively on this matter. Only 400 metres from this soccer club's home ground is the Melbourne Cricket Ground, where 100,000 people turn up each September to watch a game of what they all call football. And it's not soccer. That's at the core of both the practical and legal naming problems. And I still say that while Wikipedia has no clear definition of "full name", anyone who presents a certain claim as to what one is is in danger of treading deeply into the area of original research, along with just plain guesswork. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If you had intended to rely on prior discussions to support your argument, you really should have led with them from your original post. In any event, however, discussions about whether to refer to the sport as "football", "soccer", "association football", or any other name is irrelevant to the name of a club. Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not act as some Orwellian Newspeak that allows (or forces) us to re-write history and artificially change the actual names of clubs to our liking: it's "Melbourne City Football Club", not "Melbourne City Soccer Club", and to insist on using "soccer" in the name without reliable sources to support this being the actual name would amount to original research. Referring to actual evidence of the way the club officially refers to its name is not original research. You still have not answered my question: "Why [do you think] a business name registration with ASIC [should be] more definitive than a trade mark application with IP Australia or the club's official logo/emblem or an official media release issued by the club or by the FFA?"

I have expended more than enough energy providing my opinions and advice (with the benefit of both my legal expertise and my following of the world game) on what amounts to a petty issue. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 08:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that the FC stands for Football Club and that that is the clubs name in proper. That "soccer" is more popular in usage is irrelevant - it makes sense to name a club after the official name of the sport they play. There can be little more official source than the club crest - a clear symbolic indication of what the club is. Wikipedia respects the name clubs officially have (or give themselves). Barbarian Football Club, for example, retains that official name despite playing what is more commonly called "rugby" in Britain. Macosal (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm no longer debating this matter, but feel the need to point out that:
 * 1. For many Australian clubs, the FC formally stands for nothing, generally for legal reasons because other geographically overlapping sports claimed the "football club" title first. FC still works for the soccer clubs, because the fans think it sounds like some successful foreign clubs.
 * 2. The "official name of the sport they play" is not "Football". It's Association Football. (It's what the FA in FIFA stands for, in French.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Re 1. Many does not mean all. Melbourne City FC explicitly does stand for football club as stated by the club and on its crest. Do you have a source for the proposition that "fans think it sounds like some successful foreign clubs"?
 * Re 2. In Australia, the official title of "football" is far more pervasive than the longer name (see Football Federation Australia not Association Football Federation Australia). Macosal (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with the latter argument is that the existence of the Western Australian Football League, the Victorian Football League, the Australian Football League, and many others, says that "football" is also the official name of Australian Rules Football. "Football" is simply too ambiguous to be the single, official name of any sport in Australia.


 * Sure it's not ideal, but ambiguous or not I don't think we have any say in what is or isn't "official". Macosal (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I try to avoid describing things as "official". I think it's an unhelpful word. Yes, we can say what a league or governing body calls itself, but nobody owns or even attempts to control the English language, so, from my perspective, there is really no such thing as an official name for anything in English.


 * Sure, but I would have to say that such a concept would definitely be useful in, for example, working out the official name of an organistation. Macosal (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion began as one about a full name. Now you're discussing an official name. Despite those terms seeming simple on the surface, none of this is. There is no 100% agreed definition of either term. Wikipedia cares a lot about common names. After much agony, there is now clear consensus that Wikipedia's accepted common name for the game in Australian articles in Wikipedia is "soccer". (That's one of the few certainties we have here.) Despite claims here about full names and common names, this club will very rarely be called a football club in its home town. Every weekend, just 400 metres from its home ground, far bigger crowds will attend what they ALL call a football game, but is not the same sport. This club will just be known as Melbourne City (or perhaps just City - that remains to be seen). In Australia, the world surrounding the word "football" is not simple. HiLo48 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight. You begin your argument by pointing out that this is supposed to be a discussion on the full name of the club, not the official name of it. Then you completely change focus and start arguing that we shouldn't use the term "football" because it's not what most Australians understand to be football. I'm not sure why your argument is of any relevance to a club's full name, just like you aren't sure why some of the previous arguments are relevant. Who cares what Australians understand football to mean? If the club had actually been named Melbourne City Fencing Club, or Melbourne City Firefighting Committee, but the club still existed solely to play football, would it still be somehow against Wikipedia rules for the full name of the club to be used here just because it was potentially confusing? Is there somehow a law which makes it illegal to have a company name which could in any way possibly cause a tiny amount of confusion? Your arguments just don't make sense to me. To me they have the ring of someone who keeps labouring a point in spite of any amount of contrary evidence because they want their argument to be right, regardless of whether it actually is or not. I guess you could call it irony that that exact claim - aimed at somebody else - is how you began this debate.  Falastur2  Talk 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not arguing. Just discussing. Thank you for your thoughts. I'm still wondering how we define a club's full name. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The "fullname" parameter in the Infobox.
I have begun a thread at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) to discuss how we should use the "fullname" parameter in the Infobox template. Unfortunately it seems to be being used by some to continue to now sneakily press the claim that their game is called football. Please join the discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)