Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL)

Dubious additions
On January 1 an anonymous editor added the bulk of this article's present content, which is cited dubiously to say the least, and the accounts of the club's legal situation run contrary to what I've found dredging Factiva for cites to Port Adelaide Football Club. One of his citations ("AFL 2005 page 214") seems to be untraceable, the other (PAFC annual report) unclear and certainly unobtainable online. I've put the tag on here until I can get out to the library and check out the relevant documentation. ～J.K. 07:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Whaddaya know, the anon was right, in substance if not in detail. That'll teach me to judge by appearances. ～J.K. 13:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Similar to the Lee Hotti article, people hate anons for some reason. It really is unwarranted. Rogerthat 10:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the look of the thing. Anons often don't have much of a clue about wikification and other matters of style. And this particular anon also got a lot of details flat-out wrong. ～J.K. 03:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As I read it, this article contradicts the Port Adelaide Football Club article as to the history of the club and in particular the 1870 start date. In fact it doesn't even mention the year PAFC joined the AFL and the consequences for the SANFL team. Comments? Fat Red 01:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's partially because an anonymous editor who hasn't done their research keeps rewriting the PAFC article. See this edit for a factually accurate version. As for this article here, the old version had some mistakes of detail and frankly execrable English for a topic that doesn't attract non-native speakers, much of which I deleted wholesale out of frustration; I'm trying to work out how to pad out the history section here without substantially repeating material from Port Adelaide Football Club, or at least try to find a graceful way to link to the latter. Suggestions are welcome. ～J.K. 05:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PortMagpies.gif
Image:PortMagpies.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WoodvilleDesign.png
Image:WoodvilleDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplication of content
Everything 1870-1996 is covered, better, at Port Adelaide Football Club. This page should concentrate on the PAMFC post-1996 - without ignoring 1870-1996 of course. I'm not trying to rewrite history here, I just know when two pages start covering the same ground the work of editing increases exponentially. Plus you get two different "camps", two versions of history according to the allegiences of the editors. Carn Port! 202.7.183.131 (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In actual fact, this page should not cover anything pre-1997 at all! This club was formed in 1997 to REPLACE the previous Port Adelaide side which moved to the AFL competition. The only thing this club shares with the preivious is using the same name and jumper design. For all intents and purposes, it is a completely different club. Seth Cohen (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is a different legal entity, but PAFC and PAMFC have a shared history 1870-1996. And in addition to the name and jumper, there's the club facilities, players, staff, supporters etc. PAMFC 1997 didn't just come from the clouds. 202.7.183.132 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that the Power was created in 1995/6 for the 97 AFL season, and wasn't a re-imagined version of the SANFL team, which I thought is officially the same team it was 20 years ago. Can evidence be shown here to settle this matter, as 99% of people view the Power as a different entity to the Magpies, and the Magpies of this year to be the same club as the Magpies of the 1900's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.183.131 (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This history of the two clubs as written on sites such as this is a perfect example of "Wikiality" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isfckingevil (talk • contribs) 07:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased Content Objection
There is this incorrect and falsfied attempt to discredit the PAMFC as a fake club, or newly established club. This article was revised to reflect a more unbiased and factual account of the PAMFC. G.g. (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Confusion with PAFC and PAMFC
Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club was established in 1997, after the original Port Adelaide Football Club enterd the AFL. Port Adelaide Football Club are the original Magpies but have change it to the Power since entering the AFL and were etablsihed in 1870. Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club are a revised team of the original team. - GuineaPigWarrior 11:45 30 June, 2010
 * Provide me a link and I'll happily back down Sequal1 (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Link: http://www.portmagpies.com.au/about.php
 * In the title it says "Celebrating 140 years" and "with both clubs sharing the history from 1870 to 1996". unsigned comment added by Sequal1 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club was etablished in 1997 after the original Port Adelaide Football Club who were established in 1870 went into the AFL. Their two different clubs but both Magpies so ive put both their history together with it showing PAFC and PAMFC. Port Adelaide Football Club article already has their SANFL history on it so ive put Port Adelaide Football section up to top to show the reader their past before Port Adelaide Magpies. - GuineaPigWarrior 10:05, 13 July, 2010.


 * You're twisting the words of the website. Where does it say it was established in 1997?
 * A good example of why I think your version is wrong is Holden. They were established in 1856 as J.A. Holden & Co, then in 1919 changed to Holden's Motor Body Builders Ltd, then to General Motors-Holden's Ltd in 1931, Holden Ltd in 1998 and finally GM Holden Ltd in 2005.
 * Using your method, we would have to put Holden down as established in 2005, which is clearly not true!


 * One last thing, I'm not going to change it back as I'm trying to have an open discussion with you here, but I think we should revert to the original version of the page, not yours, as that is the version of the page everyone was happy with and the version more people agree to. Sequal1 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think ive explained myself really well and that the website isn't totally right. Who knows who could have written that. And with this Holden thing, they were just "renaming" there bussiness, Port made "another" club to continue there run in the SANFL because the original Port went in the AFL. DO YOU GET IT NOW? GW!


 * Seeing as you don't seem to wan't to be WP:CIVIL about it, and don't seem to wan't to discuss it. I'm going to revert it yet again. You are wrong, it wasn't "established" in 1997. Sequal1 (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a hypocritically view, Ive tried to tell you, you won't listen. And don't tell me I'm wrong, on the link it says it was established when Port went into the AFL but share the history in the SANFL. GW!


 * I think this is a case of WP:OWNERSHIP Sequal1 (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I believe thats a personal view. I do not at all "own this article". I would love alot of people to make this article bigger. But I think you don't understand the differents between Port Adelaide Football Club (Port Adelaide Magpies 1870-1996/Port Adelaide Power 1997-) to Port Adelaide Magpies Fooball Club (Port Adelaide Magpies 1997-). GW!

I'm going to put this forward for WP:DISPUTE as even though we have a majority of editors not wanting this change, you insist on it. We're never going to agree on this. Sequal1 (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well look at the article now, I changed it to make us both happy. GW!


 * It was not founded or established in 1997, but I'll wait until User:Maggies1870 has a look before submitting a dispute. Sequal1 (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club was established in 1997. The original Port Adelaide Football Club was established in 1870. And by the way, I do not care what Maggies1870 thinks. We both know what he wants. If you had read the link I gave you. Port Adelaide Mapgies Football Club was established after Port Adelaide Football went in the AFL. Which was 1997. GW!


 * "And by the way, I do not care what Maggies1870 thinks"
 * This is why I'm going to file a dispute, you don't seem to play nice with other people.


 * Also, are you talking about this sentence from the link provided? "In 1997 the Port Adelaide Football Club Ltd (Power) joined the AFL with the Magpies continuing in the SANFL as the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club Inc. with both Clubs sharing the history from 1870 to 1996."


 * If so, could you please point me to the exact bit where it says it was established in 1997. Sequal1 (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"In 1997 the Port Adelaide Football Club Ltd (Power) joined the AFL with the Magpies continuing in the SANFL as the "Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club Inc". with "both" Clubs sharing the history from 1870 to 1996."

They say "both clubs" meaning 2 clubs. And Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club continued Port Adelaide in the SANFL when Port Adelaide went in the AFL in 1997. GW!


 * So what you are saying is that Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club ****continued**** in the SANFL. How is that a newly established club if it ****continued**** in the SANFL?? Just wondering. Sequal1 (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't undestand you. I'm not going to write this out again cause i'd just be repeating myself. GW!


 * A newly established club would ****enter**** the SANFL, an existing club would ****continue**** in the SANFL.
 * The club was established in 1870 not 1997.
 * I can't make it any clearer for you. Sequal1 (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, read this http://www.portmagpies.com.au/news.php?news_id=539 go down to view point, and it is said they spilt them into "two" clubs in 1997. The original Port Adelaide was established in 1870. This is the new Port Adelaide Magpies. For example, Viacom closed down in 2005 and started a spin-off company in 2006 with the same name. Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club, is a spin-off club of the original Port Adelaide Football Club but the original Port didn't close down. Now do you get me? GW!


 * I always got you, you , I always understood what you were trying to say, I'm just saying you are wrong.
 * I'll go back to the Holden comment earlier. Quoted from the article: "After 1917, wartime trade restrictions led the company to start full-scale production of vehicle body shells. J.A. Holden founded a new company in 1919, Holden's Motor Body Builders Ltd (HMBB) specialising in car bodies and utilising a facility on King Wiliam Street in Adelaide."
 * Why is it still listed as being founded in 1856? Because that is when it was historically started, even thought the current company is nothing to do with the original any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequal1 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm right with my original edit with this article. The original Magpies were Port Adelaide Football Club. And they already have a section on the Magpies. This article is about the new formed Magpies. Please understand this because there not the same clubs. GW!


 * It really is like talking to a brick wall. Maybe I should pick another team, it's be easier than talking to you. Sequal1 (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand your logic, I have tried to tell you the differents bewteen the two teams and your being starborn about it. GW!


 * If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I will happily back down, but you haven't provided any proof yet.
 * I will admit I am being a bit defensive, but this is due to you continuing to edit the page while we discuss it here (which I will revert as soon as you finish btw). How about we finish discussing it before we continue to edit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequal1 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I just gave you a link and explained it for 3 hours now, I have given you plenty enough proof. I don't understand why you can't see that their two different clubs. GW!


 * I've decided, Norwood it is. Sequal1 (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. GW!

Latest version
After having a proper read through this article this morning, even though I don't agree with it all, it ticks most of the boxes I used to have issues with. I can't see myself making any major changes when this gets un-protected. Sequal1 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

1870 Vs 1997
Here is the registration details for Port Adelaide Football Club. It was originally called "PORT ADELAIDE FOOTBALL CLUB (A.F.L.) LIMITED", but changed it's name to "PORT ADELAIDE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED". No date is available on the free entry for when they changed their name, but I guess (yes this is a guess with no evidence to back it up) that it was in 1997 when they entered the AFL.

And here they are for the Magpies

Unfortunately, due to the type of company the Magpies are, their registration details don't give you any info.

But, the main thing that I am getting at here is, the company that is playing as Power in the AFL was Registered on the 29/03/1995.

This implies that the company that played in the SANFL in 1996 is definitely not the same company that played in the AFL in 1997, unless obviously, the team that played in the SANFL in 1996 was "PORT ADELAIDE FOOTBALL CLUB (A.F.L.) LIMITED" (please note the "A.F.L" part of the name).

So, this is the bit when I go back to the whole founded in 1870 and not 1997 argument.

There is no definitive proof that the Magpies were founded in 1870, or if in fact it was power that was founded in 1870, but according to a government website (www.asic.gov.au), the current company that is playing in the AFL was registered in 1995.

My vote is to change the Founded date back to 1870. Sequal1 (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the original Port Adelaide was founded in 1870, now known as "the Power" you are not listning. I am sick and tired of this. This is the "new" Port Adelaide Magpies. The old one are now the "power". Port Adelaide Football Club have a section on the Magpies which goes from 1870 to 1996. Thats when they enterd the AFL. They had to make a new club to keep Port Adelaide Magpies in the SANFL. So they established Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club in 1997. GW!


 * But they weren't, I have just given you proof provided by the Australian Government that the company that is playing in the AFL was registered in 1995 and wasn't the company that played in the SANFL in 1996, so what you said above "Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club was etablished in 1997 after the original Port Adelaide Football Club who were established in 1870 went into the AFL" is just not true.


 * Going by your logic, we are going to have to change the powers wiki page says they were founded in 1995.


 * Seeing as you have provided me with absolutely no proof that the magpies were founded in 1997 (you keep on pointing me towards, but no matter how many times I read it, it still doesn't say it they were founded in 1997. It says they split in 1997, but it doesn't say which way (as in the Magpies stayed the same and Power was the other company, or the other way round).


 * In the same link it clearly states that they are celebrating 140 years.


 * Seeing as we are clearly never going to agree on this, and that there is only 2 of us arguing this, I am going to ask for a third opinion WP:3O. Sequal1 (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinion
In response to the 3O request, I'll say the following. I can't find any RS on the issue, but what little I have found tends to back User:Sequal1's understanding. The ultimate point here is that we don't have definitive sources to back either contention, and therefore our wording should reflect only what is known for certain. I think this issue can be resolved provisionally with judicious wording that is sufficiently elaborative. A statement like: "The current Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club has existed in its present structure since joining the SANFL in 1997. Prior to this event, a Port Adelaide Football club with a Magpies (Crows??) moniker had existed since its creation in 1890. The claim to the heritage from 1890 to 1997 is said to be shared between the current Magpies team and a club in the AFL usually referred to as the 'Power'." This type of statement does not definitively state whether the current club is a continuation of the former 1890 entity. This wording should suffice until a definitive source can be found -- a legal record, or something that describes the actual legal events that occurred ... whether 2 brand new teams were legally created, or whether the original club was renamed into the "Power" team, or whether the original club is the same legal entity that is in the SANFL, or whether there was an actual split of a single legal entity. I think after this is found, that the legal info added into the lead can be balanced with the information about stuff like the coincidences in uniform/team colors and pennant collection. Both are reasonable measures of "heritage," so this seems like a fair approach. BigK HeX (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I will concede to go down the route you suggest. I have done a lot or research on this subject and I can't find any proof one way or the other. From what I can see, both clubs are, in the eyes of the law anyway, new clubs. Port Adelaide FC (the AFL club) was a new club, established in 1995 and entering the AFL in 1997. Port Adelaide Magpies FC also seems to be a new club, established in 1997 and staying in the SANFL.


 * My gripe is, as their is no proof either way, and with both clubs claiming and sharing the history, why is it the PAFC have a founding date of 1870 (on wikipedia), even though legally they were created in 1995 and PAMFC have a founding date of 1997(agian on wikipedia), even though we have no proof when they were established.


 * Legally, for all we know, PAMFC was just a rename of the original PAFC. The only thing we know for certain is, PAFC is not the same club that played in the SANFL in 1996 and so didn't do the following: "Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club was etablished in 1997 after the original Port Adelaide Football Club who were established in 1870 went into the AFL"


 * Thanks for your input. Sequal1 (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Just a note ... if both of you agree, you can actually have the article updated with the agreed-upon text even before the protection is lifted.  If this is the only cause for the page protection, then an agreement could get the protection removed, I imagine. BigK HeX (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Port Adelaide Power were established in 1996 because, that is when the AFL granted them a AFL license which legally established them as an AFL team. GW!


 * Wrong, see this link, this is a Government Website that states they were formed on the 29/03/1995. This is a fact that can not be argued against. Click the link and see that the url is asic.gov.au. There is absolutely no doubt that the company that is in the AFL, trading as "PORT ADELAIDE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED" was established in 1995. Sequal1 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, you never read what I write. I wrote they were "offically established as "AFL" club when they got their license". They were formed in 1995 but got their license in 1996 that offically established them as a AFL club. GW!


 * Excellent, so what you are saying is, the club that is in the AFL is not the same club that was in the SANFL. About time you see the light. Sequal1 (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What? I never "wrote" that. I wrote, that the "Power" were established in 1996 because they couldn't use the Magpies since Collingwood were using it. GW!

I've worked for the club and trust me, it was formed in 1870, the real history wasn't really brought up too much because of the club's desire for many years to enter the AFL. Legally the AFL entity is the 'new' club but because we couldn't have the two clubs as one, this convoluted version of history sprung up. The Power claim an establishment date of 1870 because of the shared history of the PAFC up until the licence was granted. It's frustrating that people like Guinea Pig Warrior are allowed to re-write history as they please. - Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.230.245.20 (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there can't be "two" Port Adelaide clubs established in 1870. Port Adelaide Magpies are a revised club for the original Port Adelaide who are now known as the Power in the AFL. Do you inexperienced users get this now? - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This says you are wrong. Both share the history. If we should change any page it should be powers, but I'm not, as they share their history. Sequal1 (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I have looked at this link and this was for when Port Adelaide Football Club were trying to leave the SANFL and go in the AFL. And in 1996, they got their license so they were established as a AFL. In 1997, Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club were established to show hedridge to the Port Adelaide Football Club's Magpie mascot/nickname. So Port Adelaide Football Club were established in 1870 and didn't even play in a league until the late 1800's. This is for the "new" Magpies in the SANFL. Do you understand this now? - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Link please. Provide WP:RS. I bet you can't. You're just repeating all the lies that have been told over the years (Note: I'm not for a second saying you're lying, just misinformed). You are re-writing history. Sequal1 (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The only WP:RS available is this link, and it clearly states 1870. Sequal1 (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link claiming they were formed in 1997 but share history with the Port Adelaide Football Club http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/port_adel_magpies.htm - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That link clearly states formed 1870!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequal1 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Where? Your making this up. Port Adelaide Football Club were the only Port Adelaide club to be established in that year. And the Port Adelaide Football Club are the team who won 34 premierships in the SANFL and Port Adelaide Magpies won 2 since they were formed. - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Right at the top:

Affiliated: SAFA 1877-1906; SAFL 1907-1926; SANFL 1927-present

Club Address: P.O. Box 2095, Port Adelaide, South Australia 5015

Home Ground: Alberton Oval, 9 Queen Street, Alberton

Formed: 1870

Colours: Black and white

Emblem: Magpies

Sequal1 (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That is for the original Port Adelaide football Club. It writes "In [1997] the Port Adelaide Football Club joined the Australian Football League, in many ways the crowning achievement of more than 100 years of unrivalled success. It maintained its presence in the SANFL through the [formation] of the [Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club], who share the records and history from 1870 to 1996." Now it writes it was kept in the SANFL with a revised club in 1997. Do you get it? - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Again I'll point you at the link you provided


 * There's this:


 * Affiliated: SAFA 1877-1906; SAFL 1907-1926; SANFL 1927-present
 * So even though they've apparently only been going since 1997, they have been in the SANFL since 1927?


 * Then there's this little snippet:


 * Formed: 1870
 * This under the title "PORT ADELAIDE MAGPIES"


 * Then there's the official website of the team we are argueing over that states they are celebrating 140 years.

Sequal1 (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you had been reading what I have written. They "share" it but the current Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club was established in 1997. How many times do I have to tell you. How could their be "two" Port clubs established in 1870? Port Adelaide Magpies means both of the clubs. Your logic is not right. - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your logic isn't right. It clearly states in the link you provided "Formed: 1870" and yet you insist on saying 1997! You provided the link!!!
 * I've given you this and the official team website. You gave me this, and it also agrees with me!!! What more do I have to do! Sequal1 (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

They are written about the original Port Adelaide Football Club. Now can you explain why they would claim they were a established in 1997 as a revised team for the original Port Adelaide Football Club? - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If that was written about the "original" club, why is it it goes on about "Premierships: SENIORS - ,1998 & 1999 (36 total)?? Going by your logic, the "original" club is in the AFL, so can't have got the premiership in 98 + 99. So this isn't about the "original" club, this is about the club as we know it, all it's history from 1870 to present. Sequal1 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read anything I have written? I have said they share the history. And Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club were formed as a new club to continue Port Adelaide. - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Difference of opinions - breakdown of our dispute.
Discussion on when the team was founded, 1997 or 1870. Sequal1 (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to provide a breakdown of our disagreement below, but the whole argument can be found above under the titles Talk:Port_Adelaide_Magpies_Football_Club and Talk:Port_Adelaide_Magpies_Football_Club.

Brief history
There was a team founded in 1870 that played in the SANFL called "Port Adelaide Football Club". This teams nickname was Magpies.

In 1997, a team entered the AFL after the team "split". This team was also called "Port Adelaide Football Club", while a team called "Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club" continued in the SANFL.

We can't agree on the formation date for the team, 1997 or 1870.

My opinion (and 139.230.245.20 and Maggies1870) is it should be 1870 and GuineaPigWarrior's is it should be 1997.

Official Team Website
GuineaPigWarrior: ""In 1997 the Port Adelaide Football Club Ltd (Power) joined the AFL with the Magpies continuing in the SANFL as the "Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club Inc". with "both" Clubs sharing the history from 1870 to 1996." They say "both clubs" meaning 2 clubs. And Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club continued Port Adelaide in the SANFL when Port Adelaide went in the AFL in 1997. GW!"

Also: "I think ive explained myself really well and that the website isn't totally right. Who knows who could have written that. GW!"

Sequal1: "you keep on pointing me towards, but no matter how many times I read it, it still doesn't say it they were founded in 1997. It says they split in 1997, but it doesn't say which way (as in the Magpies stayed the same and Power was the other company, or the other way round). In the same link it clearly states that they are celebrating 140 years."

AFL history website
GuineaPigWarrior: "Here is the link claiming they were formed in 1997 but share history with the Port Adelaide Football Club http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/port_adel_magpies.htm"

And: "That is for the original Port Adelaide football Club. It writes "In [1997] the Port Adelaide Football Club joined the Australian Football League, in many ways the crowning achievement of more than 100 years of unrivalled success. It maintained its presence in the SANFL through the [formation] of the [Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club], who share the records and history from 1870 to 1996." Now it writes it was kept in the SANFL with a revised club in 1997. Do you get it?"

Sequal1: "That link clearly states formed 1870!!!!" (4th line down)

And: "If that was written about the "original" club, why is it it goes on about "Premierships: SENIORS - ,1998 & 1999 (36 total)?? Going by your logic, the "original" club is in the AFL, so can't have got the premiership in 98 + 99. So this isn't about the "original" club, this is about the club as we know it, all it's history from 1870 to present."

"PORT ADELAIDE FOOTBALL CLUB (A.F.L.) LIMITED"
Sequal1: "Here is the registration details for Port Adelaide Football Club . It was originally called "PORT ADELAIDE FOOTBALL CLUB (A.F.L.) LIMITED", but changed it's name to "PORT ADELAIDE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED". No date is available on the free entry for when they changed their name, but I guess (yes this is a guess with no evidence to back it up) that it was in 1997 when they entered the AFL. And here they are for the Magpies Unfortunately, due to the type of company the Magpies are, their registration details don't give you any info. But, the main thing that I am getting at here is, the company that is playing as Power in the AFL was Registered on the 29/03/1995. This implies that the company that played in the SANFL in 1996 is definitely not the same company that played in the AFL in 1997, unless obviously, the team that played in the SANFL in 1996 was "PORT ADELAIDE FOOTBALL CLUB (A.F.L.) LIMITED" (please note the "A.F.L" part of the name). So, this is the bit when I go back to the whole founded in 1870 and not 1997 argument. There is no definitive proof that the Magpies were founded in 1870, or if in fact it was power that was founded in 1870, but according to a government website (www.asic.gov.au), the current company that is playing in the AFL was registered in 1995. My vote is to change the Founded date back to 1870." (multiple edits)

GuineaPigWarrior: "Yes, the original Port Adelaide was founded in 1870, now known as "the Power" you are not listning. I am sick and tired of this. This is the "new" Port Adelaide Magpies. The old one are now the "power". Port Adelaide Football Club have a section on the Magpies which goes from 1870 to 1996. Thats when they enterd the AFL. They had to make a new club to keep Port Adelaide Magpies in the SANFL. So they established Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club in 1997."

And: "Actually, Port Adelaide Power were established in 1996 because, that is when the AFL granted them a AFL license which legally established them as an AFL team."

And: "Again, you never read what I write. I wrote they were "offically established as "AFL" club when they got their license". They were formed in 1995 but got their license in 1996 that offically established them as a AFL club. GW!"

Also mixed in we have a IP comment and a third opinion

Which is it? 1997 or 1870? Sequal1 (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll step in here.

The Port Adelaide Football Club was formed in 1870. The Port Adelaide Football Club won the second SA licence to join the AFL from the SANFL and started playing in that competition in 1997.

The Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club was formed to replace the Port Adelaide Football Club in the SANFL: http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/tabid/6038/default.aspx?newsid=70842

I do wonder why the Port Magpies site in the SANFL state that they were established in 1870. The sooner they fold the clearer it will become, but at this stage wikipedia would need to follow info according to sources so I think the "shared history" thing should be fine for now.Eathb (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input ( especially as you are obviously not a huge Magpies fan ;-) ). My whole issue with this was (and is) that the Magpies official club website indicates that they have been going for 140 years, and this article is about the Magpies, so surely we should do what the club itself indicates and have the founding date as 1870.


 * I realise that everyone (including yourself, GPW and dare I say it, me) have been led to believe your version of events, but the WP:RS clearly indicates otherwise.


 * Wikipedia is about facts that can be clearly backed up by trusted sources, and I believe that the best source for this article is the clubs website.

Here, this person has ask an Port Adelaide Football Club offical facebook page of the question and the Port offical has written that the person is correct. The "Port Adelaide Magpies Football CLub" was established in 1997. Here is the link. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 8:20, 10 September, 2010 (UTC)


 * Facebook? Really? You want to go there? You're taking the word of someone on facebook over the word of the official PAMFC website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.69.153 (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed (with the "Facebook? Really?" comment) and welcome back GPW Sequal1 (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The comment is from an Port Adelaide offical. Andrew Fuss Communications Officer and Andrew Weaver Media & Multimedia Producer from the Port Adelaide Football Club. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 23:20, 11 September, 2010 (UTC)
 * And the PAMFC official website was written by PAMFC, which is what this whole article is about. Who are we going to believe, the company itself or a different company? Also, Facebook has never been and never should be WP:RS, just because of it's nature. Sequal1 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Any chance we can get you to stop edit warring without having to once more go down the path which ends with a banning? Jevansen (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocking? What is that going to do? You are being biased. It is people like you who are making frastrated on wikipedia. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 23:30, 11 September, 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocking will hopefully make you change your ways. You make some great contributions around here, for example I like what you did recently with the VFL/AFL season articles. Problem is that you are also disruptive and get involved in edit wars. I personally think you're lucky to still be here considering the vile comments you posted on some user's talk pages with your socks but seeing as you keep getting second chances it would be a shame to waste it. Jevansen (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Change my ways? I have been suspended 3 times and I have the same mind on things as I have always had. Blocking me will not "change my ways". I want the articles not to be put with unneeded and false information and it's wikipedians like you who try to stop me. And please do not spy and be noisey on me. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 23:45, 11 September, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I feared but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Unless someone is vandalising an article you can not engage in an edit war. A difference of opinion on article content is not a valid reason. Jevansen (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But I am not vandalising it either. So where both in the right. So by you logic we should just keep undoing each other which will result in us getting blocked. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 23:55, 11 September, 2010 (UTC)


 * You are both edit warring so neither of you are in the right. Undoing someone's edit isn't the only way of managing a dispute. I'd suggest in this instance Dispute resolution. Jevansen (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Going back on topic, even though I don't agree with it, this might help a bit     http://www.onepafc.com.au/   03:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eathb (talk • contribs)

Look, both the Port Adelaide Football Club and the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club's are two different clubs. That website is to keep the PAMFC alive in the SANFL and to try and merge it to the Port Adelaide Football Club. I think this prove that the PAMFC was established in 1997. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 17:05, 12 September, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes they are different clubs but until there is actually a legit source to back this up then things will have to remain the current way it is. A facebook user is not a legit source at all... if that user did put a statement or something on the PAFC website then that would be a good source for a change in the article. Eathb (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This from a Port Adelaide media offical from the club. If you had read what I had written you would understand it's a Facebook user asking the question to an offical of the club. The facebook page is linked from their offical website. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 21:05, 12 September, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there's any question as to whether or not they are officially different clubs, as otherwise talk of a merger would be rather silly. The real question is what "shared history" means in this context - can both clubs reasonably claim the same history prior to 1997, or does only one club have the right to claim that history? According to the official site, they both share it, as they both came from the same base club. Which would suggest that it is reasonable to show that here. However, if there was a reliable source to clear this up I'd be very happy. :)
 * As far as I can tell there are three possibilities:
 * Two clubs were newly formed from the original, one which went into the AFL and one in the SANFL. Thus they both have equal claim to this history.
 * The AFL club was simply the old SANFL club, and a new SANFL club was formed. But as both came from the same base, that history is shared.
 * The AFL club was simply the old SANFL club, and a new SANFL club was formed. But only the AFL club holds a direct historical link with the old SANFL club, so it is the only one that has the right to claim that history.
 * I'm assuming GPW is going for the third option. With a lack of reliable secondary sources, though, this is difficult to figure out. As an aside, the Facebook discussion linked to above is not a reliable source, but it also isn't clear - it seems to support the second option. - Bilby (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source when it's coming from a person who works in the media appartment at the club. I would say 3 but the club want to say 2 to keep them together which is what they want. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 21:30, 12 September, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd feel better if it wasn't a general account - I know that the person represents Port Adelaide, but not who they are. Something published either way would make me feel much better. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The official view
The official view, is basically as per GPW. I have a copy of the AFL 1997 book and on page 114 under "Port Adelaide: A Brief History" by Greg Hobbs, it starts "Port Adelaide, the AFL's newest club traces its origins back to 1870 and over the decades has been South Australia's proudest football club". That is the official view, that the club formerly known as the Magpies moved into the AFL, and because the AFL/SANFL didn't want to have the AFL club lumbered with supporting (financially) a seconds team in the SANFL (which at the time, no other AFL club did in the WAFL/VFL) they created a new team in the SANFL, called the Port Adelaide Magpies.

Now, the confusing/unofficial aspect of this, is that only about 10 SANFL Magpies from 1996 ended up as Power players in 1997, most of them stayed in the SANFL with the Magpies. The Magpies jumpers didn't change. Their home ground didn't change. It was purely an administrative separation (and as ASIC wasn't around in 1870, ASIC searches are fairly meaningless). Therefore, you can imagine, that most supporters, especially those who stuck by the SANFL team, weren't at all pleased about "losing" their heritage or their premierships, so they "share" the history.

The Power claim that they have 1 AFL flag and 34 SAFA/SAFL/SANFL flags, the Magpies claim the 34 and any they've won since (have they won any?) So, the current Magpies club was officially created in 1997, but only on paper. It's essence and history was created in 1870. The Power was officially awarded the right to the next AFL licence on Dec 13, 1994, launched their name and colours in 1995, but only played from 1997, but officially were founded in 1870.

It all comes down to what is a Football Club? Is it: Depending on what your answer is to that question, you'll get a different year. Now, stick all of that into an infobox!
 * the team name,
 * the team mascot,
 * the players,
 * the administrators,
 * the colours,
 * the song,
 * the home ground/location,
 * the licence to play or
 * a piece of paper of official incorporation?

You also have to realise that there is a LOT of POV involved from the "official sources". The AFL really don't want the SANFL flags included, but the Power do. The Magpies want them too. So much about encouraging people to follow a team is about the intangibles, the culture, the history, that it would be marketing suicide not to try to milk it all for what it's worth, hence you get conflicting messages and sometimes outright mistruths. Fremantle deliberately went the other way in the early years, avoiding a strong link with the Fremantle WAFL clubs, to try to "broadened their appeal" and I guess it although it didn't work at the beginning, but as the WAFL has declined further in terms of tribalism, it's become a good point - you don't have to be an Easts/Souths supporter to follow Freo. Not sure if Port has quite got their mix/alignment right, but that's a completely separate issue. The-Pope (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So why isn't the page unpretected and put in with this information instead of false one? GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If Port Magpies were a new club then players like Ginever et al would've had to sign new contracts etc to play on for the club in 1997. It's a continuation of the same old club from 1870. What are you people going to say if the OnePAFC plan gets up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggies1870 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence of them not signing new contracts in 1997? Unfortunately, the late 90s isn't well covered online, as most newspapers haven't archived their stories from back then.  If the "OnePAFC plan gets up" - whatever that is, I'll assume it's a merger - then we'll probable have some new reliable sources on what the current situation is, and most likely they'll say that the SANFL club moved to the AFL and a merger of the two current Port teams will probably confirm that the current Magpies were officially created in 1997.  But as I've said above, official documentation means little when it comes to the intangible tribalism and the "claiming" of history.  If a club was to fold due to debts (for example), but a new club took it's place, using the same name, same colours, same location, mostly the same players etc... but a completely new admin, ABN, ASIC rego etc, then it would more than likely claim the history and the supporters would hang around and the league would probably encourage it to claim the previous club's history.  Hence, officially it would be created today, but traditionally/unofficially it would have the link to the past.The-Pope (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You just defeated your own argument. The Magpies still have the same association number (check on the ASIC website) that they've had for many years prior to even the AFL existing in the national form. Even if your view point were correct, the date would be 1996 because that's when an AFL team would have needed to have been formed. Please stop making things up and actually contact the club for confirmation. You're a Freo supporter anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggies1870 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

From the club's website (from which a link is provided in this article)

"Since playing its first game in 1870, the club has gone on to win an Australian record of 36 SANFL premierships including six in a row and achieve the honour of being Champions of Australia on four occasions.

In 1997 the Port Adelaide Football Club Ltd (Power) joined the AFL with the Magpies continuing in the SANFL as the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club Inc. with both Clubs sharing the history from 1870 to 1996."

The key word being CONTINUING. You haven't provided a verifiable link to your viewpoint. The Power may have tried to rewrite history back in 1997 by initially claming that the Magpies are a new club but it's not logical to have a continuing club with same logo colours etc being "new". This is being redressed with the One PAFC push. Stop vandalising this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggies1870 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, because the site used to say:
 * "In 1997 the Port Adelaide Football Club joined the Australian Football League, in many ways the crowning achievement of more than 100 years of unrivalled success. It maintained its presence in the SANFL through the formation of the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club, who share the records and history from 1870 to 1996."
 * As far as I can tell, the team that used to play for the SANFL was technically the team that moved into the AFL, as per The_Pope and GPW. They then formed a new team to continue in the SANFL. Thus, technically the Port Adelaide Magpies were formed in 1997. (I can also see the reasoning - it was the PAFC that joined the AFL as the most dominate side in the SANFL, thus providing a direct connection for supporters). That said, I also agree that their traditions stretch back to the start of the PAFC. Thus I rather like the compromise offered by The_Pope - acknowledge their technical date of formation, but don't then ignore the tradition and history that they inherited. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My summary of the issues
I thought that my edits were a fair overview of the situation, which could be further developed in the next sections. I'm not interested in edit warring over it though, I've put my case, sort it out yourself.The-Pope (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) stop accusing others of vandalism, it does nothing to help your argument.
 * 2) Being a Freo supporter means that I have a neutral point of view
 * 3) I have found two reliable sources, the AFL 97 book as mentioned above and The Clubs book that is/was referenced in the article, that both say that the pre-97 Magpies were awarded the cence and moved into the AFL in 1997.  (the licence was actually issued in 1995, but a spot wasn't available until Fitzroy merged).  As we also have plenty of current reliable sources that say the current Magpies and current Power are separate entities, the only possible outcome of adding these facts together is that the current Magpies were officially created in 97 in order to CONTINUE (there is that key word) the Port presence in the SANFL.
 * 4) But, as I said above, and as the PMFC website indicates, the 1870-1996 history is shared, because the official creation date of a club is pretty irrelevant, compared to the perceived, effective or traditional start date.
 * It seems, also as an outsider looking in, that this the question of whether or not the Magpies are the same club has been an issue fans have been talking about for years. I have access to newspaper articles going back to 1998, and back then, just a couple of years after this all happened, there was still a series of letters to the editor saying either that the PAMFC is not the same as the PAFC, or that it was. They're fun to read.
 * That said, after some initial debate around 1998, it seems the papers settled down to the belief that the Magpies were formed in 1996. For examle, we have:
 * "The Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club - which was formed in 1996 to fill the SANFL seat vacated by Port - last night expressed surprise and delight at the Power embracing the original prison-bar jumper of the Magpies." (Rucci, Michelangelo (8 July 2003) "Black and White Power", The Advertiser, p68)
 * More recently, in 2009, Rucci tried to be more upfront and explained why:
 * "The reality is 'Port Adelaide' has moved to the AFL. The original term of reference for the second AFL licence issued in SA was to have the winning bidder command no presence in the SANFL. This was the instant answer to establishing an eight-team league.
 * No other competition in the world has a club earn promotion to a higher league - and leave a team behind in another league. Also, no other competition would have taken issue with Port Adelaide's traditional black-and-white prison-bar jumper. But then no other league has to deal with Collingwood, which forces its opponents, even when they play at home - as North Melbourne knows - to wear an alternative stripe so the Magpies can stay in their black and white." (Rucci, Michelangelo (11 June 2009) "Our museum Magpies", The Advertiser, p79)
 * As far as I can gather from the various articles, a license was on offer for the best team in the SANFL to enter the AFL, with the original contract stating that they had to stop playing in the SANFL when they did so. But, according to Rucci, the SANFL didn't want to lose Magpies brand. Thus the new club was formed to continue a presence in the SANFL. (Rucci, Michelangelo (18 June 2009) "Smokin' gun exposed", The Advertiser, p79)
 * Where things get complex is with what The-Pope described above. This was a technical move, I gather, to manage political and business concerns. For all other intents and purposes, they're the same club, and saying that the two clubs shared the same history until 1996 seems perfectly reasonable. I have no hassle with saying that the PAMFC shared the pre-1996 record with with pre-1996 PAFC. I'd add that this is the view that the Magpie's website used to have - the club was formed in 1996, but shares the history with the old PAFC. I suspect the change in wording may have been due to the current need to merge the two clubs and to present them as the same, but I'd need to see when the change in wording occurred.
 * Which is why I generally prefer The-Pope's solution: reflect the technical date of formation and the shared history in the article, and we'll be good. - Bilby (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no "technical date of formation" apart from 1870. If this "technical date" was 1997, then the associated clubs licence they have in their possession would be feature that date. It's much earlier than that. All I've done is provided links to the clubs official stance on their own history. You people have scratched and clutched at straws to support a viewpoint and you've quoted sources without providing verifiable links to them. Maggies1870 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. So far every reliable source seems to either support the club being formed in 1996 to compete in the SANFL, with the old club moving into the AFL, or be wording in such a way as to leave it ambiguous. And that includes the official club statement on their history in their website when they first added the information about the club in (2005 until 2006 - prior to that there was no clear statement, and after that we get the current wording). I still believe that right approach is to acknowledge their official date of formation and their historical tradition, with gives us both the 1870 date and the 1996 one. - Bilby (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"since playing it's first game in 1870" isn't ambiguous at all: http://www.portmagpies.com.au/about.php So if you're saying 1996, why was everyone editing to say 1997? Maggies1870 (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the context that makes that ambiguous, given the shared history claim. That's in the section discussing the Port Adelaide Football Club - the article notes that the PAFC moved to the AFL and that the Magpies continued in the SANFL, but it leaves unsaid which was the newly created club, if either. I've been using 1996 because that's what Rucci was saying - my guess is that the club was formed late 1996, but the first season was 1997. I'm open to other sources, of course, clarifying or correcting this. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop making things up. The club was formed in 1870. 139.230.245.21 (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Last year when the Power was in financial trouble they considered transfering the AFL licence from the SANFL to the Magpies to cancel the Powers debt. This works by breaking continuity which by law, could not happen if both clubs shared the history. Around the same time Brett Duncanson stated that if the Magpies merge with the Power the Magpies club history becomes the Powers "officially". He pushed this as major reason for the merger because he also stated that without a merger the Magpies might fold and that if they did, both teams would lose the club history from 1870 to 1996. Officially the history belongs to the Magpies but the two clubs made an agreement to share it.Wayne (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A few points. At the meeting that worked out the details of the AFL licence Ross Oakley stated that the licence was going to a "traditional" club, with an established supporter base, not a new franchise which implies that the Power are the original club but Oakley then stated: Port however is to be viewed as a new entity and not allowed to be known from its establishment date of 1870, but by its AFL licence date of 1996.
 * The difficulty is that I just found a source (a journal article) stating that the Board of Directors from the PAFC became the board of directors for Port Power, and that a new board was set up for PAMFC, suggesting that PAMFC was the new club. I also have one new source that states that the PAMFC is the same club as the PAFC, and Port Power were established in 1996, but that is then countered by the sources above that put it the other way.
 * I think it is reasonable to say that the Magpies trace their history back to 1870, and that the club, in their current form, emerged in 1996/1997 with the entry of Port Power into the AFL, without stating whether or not they were founded then. There are a couple of more sources to chase up, but I'm not convinced that there is a clear answer to be found. This debate might be notable enough to be worth adding, at some point, though. - Bilby (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If the Magpies are a new club then they wouldn't have the same associated clubs registration number they've had for decades, which implies a continuation. Of course Port people went into the AFL, when you promote someone, you need more people to fill the vacant positions. Glenelg didn't suddenly become a new club formed in 1991 when the majority of their people went over to the Crows. It's a specious argument you've come up with. I'm getting sick of a 14 year old child deciding on what the history was when there were people where were not only alive at the time but involved in the process. It's this kind of thing that makes wikipedia a joke. Maggies1870 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they? If you have a source on that, it would help. But even the Magpies used to describe themselves as a new club, and Rucci is certainly in a position to have knowledge of what went on, so the reason for this being unclear is well founded. I went into this thinking that they were the same club. But having read a lot of sources now, I'd like to present both sides in the article, and perhaps leave some ambiguity in the lead. - Bilby (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?state_number=A1764&juris=5&hdtext=SA&srchsrc=1 The search is coming up as 2002 so that must've been a renewal date, but trust me, that's an old number. The Mapgies used to bend to the will of the Power, but in reality it was a "de-merger" and both clubs are reflecting that in their "re-merger" proposal. If we're using business establishment dates, then the Power are the new club but that's not what I'm arguing for. I'm arguing for people to stop saying that a club that has continued in the SANFL for decades to stop being referred to as a "new" club. It doesn't make logical sense for a club that had much of the same playing group one year with the same guernseys, home ground etc to be a labelled a "new" club the following year. Maggies1870 (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So your source to back up your argument proves nothing, and we are just meant to "trust you"? Please read WP:V and then what I wrote up in the "The Official View" section above.  There are corporations involved that have big dollars riding on "claiming the history" (both Ports) and others who want to "break the link" (the AFL).  Everyone is conflicted, biased and the truth will probably never be fully explained or consistent - as Bilby has found.  So, if you go back to see how I rewrote the intro 10 days ago, I think the first line is an obvious one.  PAMFC is a club in the SANFL.  No one can dispute that.  The second line... maybe it could go or be reworded, as it's disputed. I think most of us agree that they share/claim the history, so maybe something about the number of flags, or the high degree of success.  I think the breakaway/demerger/split etc to the Power should be mentioned, but please, everyone, stop reverting, stop accusing, stop threatening and start collaborating and start editing.  Go to bigfooty if you want to flame, abuse or not listen or be open to other opinions.The-Pope (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Providing evidence is not accusing or threatening. I think it's unfair for you to accuse others of flaming when they provide evidence to counter your viewpoint.Maggies1870 (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't aimed only at you. GPW, the mysterious IPs, everyone.  The evidence you have provided has been just as incomplete and inconsistent as what everyone else has found.  You and the IPs are pushing one way, GPW the other, everyone else seems happy to be in the middle acknowledging both sides.  My viewpoint is a compromise that acknowledges all - and that is where we should end up - unless someone can find the definitive, unbiased, reliable source that explains all.  The problem is even that will still be able to be countered in part by the inconsistent other sources that we've found to-date (ie the Rucci and Power/Magpie/AFL website stuff).The-Pope (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The establishment date was 1870. I'm not sure why a bunch of kids get to make up history and call it fact. Maggies1870 (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6038/newsid/104588/default.aspx

Even the PAFC agree that the PAMFC shares 1870 as the date, note the word HISTORY:

"The Port Adelaide situation is unique in Australian football, as since 1997 there have been two Port Adelaide Football Clubs sharing the brand, history and heritage of PAFC but running as separate - and often competing - businesses. "Maggies1870 (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd be very happy to view the site as a reliable source, but at the moment the two teams have a vested interest in presenting themselves as effectively the same club. When you look back over the last decade or so, vested interests are a common theme - the Magpies, for example, had a reason to show themselves as a separate entity not directly related to Power in 1997, as the situation in the SANFL meant they had to distance themselves as much as possible. Meanwhile, Port Power had a strong interest in arguing that they were the true "Port Adelaide", as Crows supporters were accusing them of being a made-up team, and they needed to convince the Port SANFL supporters that they were the same Port Adelaide. Then when the Magpies started getting into financial trouble, they needed supporters, so they needed to show that they were the same SANFL club as in 1870. (Which is also, I suspect, when the history on their web page was changed). Power fans have tended to want to see their team as the true Port, and Magpies fans have wanted to do the same with their team, and both groups have had to contend with people saying that the other team was the "real" Port Adelaide Football Club.
 * I gather that there was a definitive history commissioned by the club at one point, but it is being withheld presumably because it covers material which is confidential, so I don't imagine that it will be released in the foreseeable future. But I still see this as a storm in a teacup - we know that the Magpies were substantially changed in 1996/1997, (new board, structure, home ground, etc), and the shared history concept is, I think, perfectly valid. So I don't see a problem with saying that the Magpies, in their current form, stem from 1996/1997, but that historically the team traces its history back to 1870. I would, of course, say the same about Port Power. - Bilby (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection
I've reprotected the article; I think the reasons are self-evident. Clearly this is a complex and long-running dispute, both on and critically off-wiki. There certainly doesn't appear to be a 'right' or 'wrong' view that everyone, including Reliable sources can agree on, and the article needs to reflect that. You may find a request for comment helpful to try to thrash out a consensus. Ged UK  08:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

ONE PAFC proposal completed
So what happens to both Port Adelaide articles now? 202.10.91.202 (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

GPW will still argue that the Magpies were formed in 1997. Maggies1870 (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You're the only one arguing they were not formed then. You show no sources backing your claim, and you only give personal opinion which wikipedia is against. Read the guidelines. Now when it changes back, I'm going to put "actual" refrences supporting me, and putting it to 1997. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect that expressing a desire to continue to edit war after the protection is lifted may not be the wisest move. I generally agree that they were founded in 1996/97, but it is complex enough that it seems problematic to try and be definitive about this. At any rate, I'm not sure what is to be done post-merger. I guess there are four options:
 * Maintain this article as historical, accounting for the time between 1997 and 2010, while continuing the SANFL record at PAFC.
 * View this article as about the SANFL side, rather than the club, and continue to update it. That makes it a bit problematic with the PAFC, but you could either a) treat the PAFC article as about the AFL side, and continue to add AFL-only details there, or b) threat the PAFC article as being about the corporate body, and start a new AFL-specific article about the team.
 * Merge everything into PAFC and turn this into a redirect.
 * Start a new One PAFC article and put all new stuff there.
 * Did I miss anything? Are there any preferences? It will be complex whatever way we go, but we might want to have a direction before the 2011 season. - Bilby (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I may not edit anymore, but I do keep an eye on the happenings of this page and a couple of others. For what it's worth, I would vote 3) "Merge everything into PAFC and turn this into a redirect.".
 * I'm back off into my hole. Happy edit warring. Sequal1 (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The timeline should be from, 1997 to 2010. Then either make an section for SANFL Port Magpies which are now merged with PAFC. Or make another article like, Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL). I'd rather just make a new article like other AFL clubs with lower league teams have their own articles (Collingwood, Geelong). GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with voting for #3.

On the PAFC website about the merger: “Quite simply, we will now able to say:
 * 1) We are the Port Adelaide Football Club
 * 2) We were established in 1870
 * 3) We are One Club with teams in two competitions - the AFL and the SANFL
 * 4) We are the only authentic, traditional club to have entered a team into the AFL from outside of Victoria
 * 5) We have an envied history of success - with 36 SANFL premierships and 1 AFL premiership … and counting.

Obviously the AFL Port wiki would need a "1997-present: SANFL Port Adelaide Magpies" or something about One PAFC section Eathb (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Number 3 is completly false, the premierships do not merge. When Collingwood VFL team merged with Collingwood AFL team, they didn't merge the premierships. Nor did The Brisbane Lions, when they merged with Fitzroy. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No the PAFC (AFL) itself has put out a statement saying that it will count the 1998 and 1999 premierships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerstiffs (talk • contribs) 07:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Link for Eathb's comment. GPW, it's Ports words, not his, as he said in his original post. (right at the bottom of the link) 110.174.161.234 (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are the CEO, Mark Haysman claims, not Port Adelaide, please get your facts right. I believe he thinks since they merged, they also merge premierships, which isn't true, unless there is a good reliable source to prove me wrong. Because, The Brisbane Lions, do not claim to have won 11 premierships, because they merged with Fitzroy. Really, legally, this is an former different club, who have merged with another club. I do not think they have merge premierships, since they were there own club while winning 2 premierships, and now for the first time since 1996, are back together, known as Port Adelaide Football Club. Those 2 premierships are with PAMFC not PAFC. But if you can find the "best" most "reliable sources", please, I'd really like you to do this, rather than make up personal information based on a member of the clubs thoughts. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Read the article. We don't even know if it was Haysman who wrote that. And at the bottom it has portadelaidefc.com.au. Yep definitely not Port Adelaide. Eathb (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sick of you trying to be a troll. Wanting me to abuse you or something. It was published by them. Not legally stated. Stop wasting my time, and others, because you show no sources. I am sick of fighting, you just want to try and waste my time. I think you are just a troll, being sarcastic. Now if you want to discuss a "proper" agreement and resolution, I am happy to make it "2 premierships as Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club" rather than having it 36 premierships, since they were there own club between 1997 to 2010. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting of the article
Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong, Richmond and the Bulldogs all have separate pages for both the AFL teams and the Reserves teams. I can't see how this page is any different, besides the fact that the Port Adelaide SANFL Football Club is a South Australian football club. Therefore, the Port Adelaide SANFL Football Club deserves its own article. Please don't blank or redirect this page without providing valid reasons why this page should be redirected. --Alza08 (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history of the page, it looks like the bold edit was to turn this page into a redirect. It's been reverted. Per the bold-revert-delete cycle, there needs to be discussion before the bold action is redone. @Thejoebloggsblog: The burden is now on you to explain why this page should be turned into a redirect to Port Adelaide Football Club without merging the content up. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The club is one legal entity and having a separate page for the same club is unnecessary and misleading. Having a separate page for Victorian football clubs may be correct but do not impose that requirement on this South Australian club. Port Adelaide has a unique history and all necessary information is contained in much greater detail and more accurately on the Port Adelaide Football Club page .—thejoebloggsblog (thejoebloggsblog) 15:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I believe that merging the articles of a SANFL Club and an AFL Club together would be not only misleading, but also inconvenient. Regardless of the fact that the club is one legal entity, the SANFL teams and the AFL teams differ from each other in several aspects, such as the fact that they play in different competitions, they have different head coaches, they have different crests, different guernseys and they have different playing lists, namely the presence of SANFL-only players. The purpose of having separate articles on the reserves clubs and the AFL club is this: the AFL club article focuses on the AFL teams's side of things, whilst the reserves article focuses on the reserve team's side of things (i.e. history of the reserves team, performances in the reserves competition, results in the reserves competition, and lists of reserves teams' players and coaches). The SANFL and the AFL are not the same competition, and the results of one competition are not the same as the results of the other, therefore having two separate articles helps in making that distinction. Having both SANFL and AFL team articles merged together not only has the potential to confuse, but means a bigger and more difficult article to maintain. On the other hand, having two separate articles means that both articles can focus specifically on their specific competition and history in that competition, therefore eliminating confusion.


 * You raised the point that just because VFL reserves clubs have their own articles does not mean that this should be applied to SANFL clubs. If so, how come Adelaide has its own separate article?


 * You also raised the point that Port Adelaide has its unique history in the AFL. The SANFL club also has its own unique history in the competition. The fact that the clubs have their own unique histories should be grounds for the existence of two separate articles on the two separate teams.


 * For the reasons stated above, for the purposes of distinction, I believe the two articles should be separate, rather than merged.--Alza08 (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with the split is that the Port Adelaide Football Club really has four distinct phases, not two, all of which have separate histories: Port Adelaide Football Club senior team in the SANFL (1877–1996, 2011–2013); Port Adelaide Football Club senior team in the AFL (1997–pres); Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club senior team in the SANFL (1997–2010); and Port Adelaide Football Club reserves team in the SANFL seniors (2014–). I disagree with your comment that it could be misleading or inconvenient to keep all of these in the same article; rather, I argue that it is impossible to adequately explain the distinction between the four phases of the club's existence in any way other than in a single article.
 * The analogy you draw with the Adelaide SANFL team and the Victorian clubs' VFL-based reserves teams is not great. All of those other examples you have always been reserves teams, and so the articles cover their time in both the VFL/AFL reserves and the modern VFL, with a very straightforward delineation between senior and reserves. By comparison, Port Adelaide's SANFL time covers both the senior team and the AFL reserves team – making them inherently different teams (within the same club). This is not a strong fit for a single article.
 * (As an aside, I personally think it is dubious that those other reserves teams have articles anyway. If the VFL/AFL still ran its own reserves competition, there is no way the reserves teams would be considered notable enough for their own pages; so why this fact changes when they play in the de facto reserves competition is beyond me. Other stuff exists for now, but I've been considering nominating those pages for deletion). Aspirex (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)