Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club

SANFL presence post AFL entry
Ping User:Thejoebloggsblog and User:TripleRoryFan. Joe, you seem very averse to including a short overview of club's on-field form in the SANFL after 97. Can I ask why? Furthermore, you Got rid of the infoxboxes saying other reserves teams don't have such a feature. Collingwood Football Club, Gold Coast Suns, Essendon Football Club, and others, all have tables of scores detailing their results in Grand Finals and/or statistical overviews of each season. Why not something similar here which matches the format used for GF scores everywhere else in the article? Jono52795 (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Without putting words into his mouth I think the issue he had was that it was only a reserves grand final and they didn't win. The only reason I reverted the edit was because I thought it was odd for content to be deleted without any explanation as to why. I do think that it should be included but I am quite new to Wikipedia and don't necessarily want to go against a decision someone else had made. That said I am unsure why the AFL team I support has anything to do with editing this article, most of the articles I've been working on recently have nothing to do with the Crows. TripleRoryFan (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert again because I've already done it several times. Can you please explain why you're opposed to the inclusion of that sourced prose. I'm still not sure why you actually object to it being there. TripleRoryFan (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

SANFL club: separate article or here?
There has been an article titled Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL), and there is discussion ongoing at its talk page about whether content on that club needs to be in its own article or combined in here with the AFL club. It looks some material is in both places, so I'd encourage readers here to look at that page, so there's enough participation to determine consensus on where the SANFL material should go. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Article length
This article is incredibly long and should probably be split per WP:TOOBIG. The most obvious split for me is the history section; I know the Collingwood Football Club page has been split and the majority of the history section is in History of the Collingwood Football Club and the history section on the main page is 1-2 sentences per decade (bar 2000 onward, but still isn't massively long).

There are also parts in this article that probably shouldn't be here, i.e
 * Club creed could probably go in history page if/when it's created.
 * Is listing the SANFL squad notable for an AFL club page? Same with the SANFL honour roll post-AFL entry and individual awards post AFL entry (such as Magarey Medal winners, Jack Oatey Medal...)
 * AFL squad changes for 2015 should be in the 2015 Port Adelaide Football Club season page when it's created.
 * Military service section, unsure whether that's overly needed in the article, but can probably be swayed if there is good enough reason.

I know it's difficult because there is so much history with the SANFL and the current SANFL Port Adelaide team is a big part of the club, and I seem to remember there being a discussion about it not being noteworthy enough for it's own page. At the end of the day though, it's still a reserves side and a lot of the information probably isn't necessary on the main page as it can be found elsewhere on the internet and this page probably shouldn't be the base of everything Port Adelaide. I'm not going to do any mass culls because it should probably be discussed first, but I find this page very hard to look at because of length (see also Article size). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The length of this article has been an issue for more than six weeks now (see GA Review section above), I don't know enough about the club history and what is deemed "important", so I don't think I can cull and split effectively, however, I think the first step to fixing the length is to split the history section into another article. I'm going to tag the page as nothing is being done at the moment to fix the issue and even more content has been added since the issue has been raised. Flickerd (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Choppidy, chop-chop.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, the article as it stands now is a much more manageable 37kb prose, while the History subarticle stands at 42 kb, meaning both can have a little more material and be ok. Anyway, they might need some more massaging. The Hisotory article can be itself subdivided in future as those of many other clubs have been Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reviving this thread as it has now become relevant a second time - the article's length is currently an approximate 61kb, which means we should highly consider cutting the article's size in some meaningful manner. The two sections I believe we should consider cutting back would be the Club History (as was done the first time), specifically the two sections spanning 1974-1998 and 1999-2012, and the section on the Club's Identity. Likewise, as was previously mentioned in 2015, some section should be reconsider as to their necessity (i.e. The Military Service Section). Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Logo
The AFL and SANFL logo with the black background and Port Adelaide Football Club is not the "official" logo of the club. Having the two separate logos side by side is exactly the same as what the club has done in official reports and even on Facebook too.

Examples of yearbook 2016, 2015, 2014

Facebook ,

Annual report

There is no evidence anywhere that the two logos in front of a plain black background with Port Adelaide Football Club is the "official" logo of the club, and the example of is different to what is on this page anyhow (note the background graphic is different). A one time usage on Facebook is not reliable enough to say it is the "official" logo, especially when all official reports use the AFL and SANFL logo side by side which is what has been done here. Flickerd (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Current official logo when representing the Port Adelaide Football Club is the two logos side by side with a black background.


 * Logo used on Google+ https://plus.google.com/photos/100712128014142780218/albums/profile/6119190849744627714
 * Logo used on Facebook (Currently indigenous round) https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/993455_10151796234668882_1572845077_n.jpg?oh=22f4f6431de6ed9aa58df7fa41bdfdd6&oe=59E89CB8
 * Logos with black background on Yearbook http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2015-02-06/yearbook-available-at-port-store
 * You do realise that the ones for the yearbook are completely different to the one portrayed on this page? In addition, one time usages on social media is not reliable enough, when the contrary is used on official reports. Flickerd (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth in regards to the edit in question I initially did the proposed edit over a year ago but decided on the current logo as it is what was being used by the club on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter at the time. The two logos were clumsy and as they lacked a black background differed from the format used in all the PAFC's media.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it looks clumsy at all, and Wikipedia should be what is accurate to the club. I didn't see the edit that you did over a year ago and have only seen this one, and to be honest I haven't felt comfortable with it for a long time as I have never seen it used apart from here. Deciding that the two separate logos separated looks clumsy and better with a black background falls a bit into WP:OR as the black background has never been used as an "official" logo. Clubs do this all the time on social media where they have photos with variations of their official logo, it does not mean it is ultimately their official logo. What is used in official reports is what should be used as a reliable source, which is the AFL and SANFL logo side by side and that is what should be reflected on Wikipedia. Flickerd (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The AFL team and the SANFL team use separate logos, which is not dissimilar to how they use separate names (Power and Magpies). The club uses both logos side by side in places where there is not reference to a specific team. There is no 'official' combination of the two logos. This is clear from the examples Flickerd has linked to above. More recently, the club has placed the two logos together over black backgrounds or dark patterns in line with their current branding (another example here where both a black background and a completely different dark pattern background are used in the same document), but the annual report linked above is an example of where it is used on a white background.
 * Nevertheless, two separate logos being used on a black background consistently does not mean that this is an official logo. Nor does a clubs social media presence indicate what the official logo is. By that argument you could say that Essendon's logo should be presented on a black and red patterned background, in line with its current Facebook image. A club's branding/livery is not its logo.
 * For the sake of completeness, I'll point out that in the pdf examples above, some use a raster image for one team's logo with the adjacent logo being a vector, and in other place vice versa. This alone shows that even the club's own graphics department is simply putting the two logos side by side. There is no combined logo.
 * Given the two teams – the AFL team and the SANFL team – do in fact have distinct logos, and given there is nothing to suggest there is an official combined logo, the best way to display the two logos is as separate logos. As well as being more accurate, the separate images with associated caption is more informative for readers as it shows that the two logos belong to the two different teams, and explains which is which – something the previous graphic failed to do. Kb.au (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit I was talking about was done in early 2015. In regards to KB I strongly am against having a caption that insinuates division. The reason the club uses the monikers side by side is to suggest a linear history, not that there are two clubs or teams. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But shouldn't Wikipedia be what is the most accurate to the club and informative to the reader? A lot of people view this page and even though you may know what the two separate logos are, a lot of people may not who view the page and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't reason enough to have it one way or the other. The fact of the matter is there are two teams and it is on par with the usage of magpies and power, having the caption isn't separating, it's informative and both logos are still present. Flickerd (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The explanation of the two logos is covered in the infobox sufficiently. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the point is, the combined image with black background and text is not an official logo; the two separate team logos representing the two separate teams are. Kb.au (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I will walk around the block to the Alberton Oval office and ask the club for their preference for the logo used on the page. Thoughts? Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can if you like but you'll likely be in breach of WP:NOR. Kb.au (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Chokoe" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chokoe. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sporting Life Magazine Teams Content Dispute
The following has been copied to the Article talk page from Joe's talk page for public discussion on the topic.

Hi !

As in my edit summary, I've come over here so we can figure out some sort of compromise in regards to this issue. I've reverted the page to the state before the dispute, and would appreciate if you could refrain from further reverts in regards to this until we discuss the issue. My position is as follows:
 * The name was actually listed incorrectly - I was misled into beliving the teams were called the "Team of the Year". However, as the references use the latter title they must be titled appropriately. Text within the wiki should be changed however, to reflect the correct title.
 * The Modern All Australian side and the Sporting Life teams should be listed seperately as, despite being the same concept, they are recognised independently from one another - hence why the Carnivals and Modern AFL teams are recognised by the AFL, whilst the Sporting life teams are not. The Team selection undeniably happened, hence why it's listed in the first place, but they're seperate honours and should be represented as such.
 * Additionally, the Carnivals and Sporting Life teams overlap in years due to their nature as seperate entities.

'''Thus, I propose the following: During in-text mentions of the team we change the text to accurately reflect the actual title of selected team by Sporting Life. We leave the section seperate under the Individual Honours section. We make the addition of that photo you added to this section for much-needed media coverage in the latter part of the article.'''

'''If you have any disagreements, please feel free to counter-propose. I'm all ears if that's the case.'''


 * A lesser side point to end off - the nicknames listed were actually sourced in the main body of the article, so I've re-added them to the infobox. They're recognised by the club on its own website.

Looking forward to your response, and thanks! Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate if you could actually partake in discussion over this, rather than removing the content. I reverted the page to the state before the dispute - hence my request to not perform edits on the related sections until we come to a resolution. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Adding prose does not necessarily make you correct. The difference between the Sporting Life and official All Australian team is their association with the Governing Australian Football body. Sporting Life has no affilition with the body - simply providing their own 'experts' to come with their best of team. The Carnivals, and later, the AFL's all Australian teams have direct connection to the governing bodies of the organisations - the Carnival Team being selected by the State Body representatives, and the AFL being the governing body of the sport in the modern era. That's where this distinction between the two lies, and why representing them together is incorrect - they are not considered the same entity, hence why one is unofficial and the other is official.


 * I once again request you leave the page alone while we come to a compromise. The following is proposed display, with references removed to prevent clutter on your talk page. My proposed references would be the already pre-listed ones for the listed All Australian members, Sporting Life information supported by researh performed by Peter Argent, and then your linked AFL references for additional clarity.

Sporting Life's All Australian
Sporting Life Magazine first pioneered the concept of a 'team of the year' in 1947, and would run each year until 1955. The AFL does not recognise the teams selected by Sporting Life.
 * Bob Quinn – 1947 (captain)
 * Dick Russell – 1950
 * Fos Williams – 1950, 1951
 * Harold McDonald – 1951, 1955

All-Australian
The All-Australian team is considered a 'best-of' selection of players for each calender year, with each player represented in their team position. The team is selected by a panel of experts.

Interstate carnivals
 * John Abley – 1956, 1958, 1961
 * John Cahill – 1969
 * Greg Phillips – 1980
 * Mark Williams – 1980
 * Craig Bradley – 1983, 1985
 * Tony Giles – 1983
 * Stephen Curtis – 1983
 * Greg Anderson – 1987
 * Martin Leslie – 1988

Australian Football League
 * Adam Heuskes – 1997
 * Gavin Wanganeen – 2001, 2003
 * Matthew Primus – 2001, 2002
 * Warren Tredrea – 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
 * Brett Montgomery – 2002
 * Josh Francou – 2002
 * Chad Cornes – 2004, 2007
 * Mark Williams – 2004 (coach)
 * Kane Cornes – 2005, 2007
 * Brendon Lade – 2006, 2007
 * Shaun Burgoyne – 2006
 * Chad Wingard – 2013, 2015
 * Travis Boak – 2013, 2014, 2020 (VC)
 * Robbie Gray – 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018
 * Paddy Ryder – 2017
 * Darcy Byrne-Jones – 2020
 * Charlie Dixon – 2020


 * I'm only reverting the page to its prior state until we come to a consensus on display. Please continue this conversation here, Joe, this is my fourth attempt at contact.


 * Addressing what your edit summary said, yes, I have read those sources. I've even suggested their use above. However, Primary sources are no more important than Secondary - both have their advantages and weaknesses. Primary =/= good/bad, Secondary =/= good/bad. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've finalised a compromise display on my sandbox. I would appreciate if anyone willing to mediate, or Joe themself, would be able to review it for implementation.


 * I think it's fine to call it an "All-Australian" team if that's what Sporting Life called it. Saying "The AFL does not recognise the teams selected by Sporting Life" suffices to explain these teams are different from modern selections. If the team has since been called "Team of the Year", then something like "Sporting Life Magazine first pioneered the concept of an All-Australian 'team of the year' in 1947 that they would select each year until 1955." would be fine. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank-you for stepping in to help. I'm quite grateful. Secondly, I've changed that section of the sandbox to better reflect this approach. Thoughts?

Covid top-up list
I think this should be included in our players list section. It's likely to be something that's going to extend beyond the 2022 season. Other club pages have them. Maybe the list formatting could be better. Don't forget, West Coast have already had to dip into their Covid player pool. Hopefully it won't happen to Port, but in the event there is an outbreak at the club, people might want to know who our top-up players are.

Port Adelaide Football Club
It should be noted that the Club has 2 entities, the Magpies which are the highly successful SANFL side and the 25year old Power, the AFL Club it field's in that league, which makes it the youngest Club in the AFL and not the 5th oldest as stated in some articles 58.96.14.51 (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Nickname - Mudholians
Mudholians is missing fron the list of nicknames - "During the 19th century, the club had nicknames including the Cockledivers, the Seaside Men, the Seasiders and the Magentas" Various newspaper articles from the 1880s and 1890s refer to the nickname - Mudholians example https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/208515435 It was still being used in 1897 - https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/148074682 Also there are references to Portonians. 124.169.231.94 (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)