![]() | AFL siren controversy was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 20, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 1 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Sirengate. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Perhaps the word "Sirengate" does not really inform the reader what the situation is and is not in any way an "official" title. Perhaps renaming it to York Park siren controversy 2006? Or even AFL siren controversy 2006? All suggestions welcome. R o gerthat Talk 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's not dilly-dally on the title. We've got three footy fans here - let's make a decision.
York Park siren controversy 2006
pippu and roger have stated their support for AFL siren controversy 2006 above, so that gives this option sufficient support. I'm going to make the move. It can always be moved again if lots of people come out of the woodwork for vote for some other title. Snottygobble 05:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems a little long-winded, should we move the rules to a new article and then simply link to the relevant clauses? R o gerthat Talk 09:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Good coverage, nice well-rounded article. :) -- pfctdayelise ( translate?) 11:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether public reaction could/should be added to the article to detail how important the result was to the Fremantle fans in WA. Before the AFL made their decision to overturn the result, some Freo fans had graffiti'd the actual result on Fremantle Oval's scoreboard to say "Fremantle 14.10.94 St. Kilda 13.15.93" in white paint. The club left it up there as the Dockers trained on the ground for the day, and was mentioned in the news. Also, the suspected reaction if the result had've happened at Subiaco instead of Launceston would've been nothing short of a stadium riot. I can type up a proper paragraph for this unless anyone has any objections. Orichalcon 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a good idea for a parody of the incident: A hotel near Aurora Stadium called the Sirengate hotel. A list of features: Scott Gall 10:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding the rule on exceeding the allowable number of players on the field. This never had anything to do with it. Why is it being added? Hesperian 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The Teams section lists Luke Ball as the St Kilda Captain, while later in the article (where the confrontation between Chris Connolly and Lenny Hayes is mentioned), Hayes is stated to be the captain. Could somebody who knows which is correct make the necessary adjustments. Aspirex 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In an edit summary, His Holiness The Pope questions
Since it is kinda hard to reply with an edit summary of my own, I'll bring this here.
I think that the defining character of this incident is the occurrence of a breach of the rules and/or playing regulations that places the legitimacy of the match result in doubt. As such, I think the 19th man incident is quite similar. In particular, I think it more similar than the NTFL and NRL examples.
But I have no particular attachment to my edit, or indeed the entire Similar incidents section, so by all mean revert away if you think it unsuitable.
Hesperian 13:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Once and for all - this note stays. The incident is notable because it was a grand final (it is irrelevant that it was a junior grand final) and because it represented the first - and only -time since Sirengate that such an incident has occurred. Here are a couple of sources that probably aren't passable under WP:RS but they are worth a look at least.
These came from a Google search while trying to locate the Mercury article which I know I saw back then. AFL-Cool 12:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you're in a position to be making demands AFL-Cool. Take it easy, no one is attacking you or your contributions. Just because you have made edits to this article doesn't give you the final say on what remains or is removed from it. You're not an administrator and even if you were there are procedures to follow. Adding comments like "Swallow it" on the talk page of User:Hesperian, who actually is an admin, probably isn't helping your cause. I'll repeat what I said on your usertalk (for the benefit of a third party), until the references are provided, the note shouldn't be included on the article. If you want to go to the state library and get these reliable sources that you say exist, please do so. However, while the best reference remains an amateur video on some little known website, this incident has no place on wikipedia. Jevansen ( talk) 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Here we go. I was going to add something here, but it has already been discussed it seems. The incident is notable and the sources verified. 121.220.23.33 ( talk) 08:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Why was this incident removed and why is the page not allowing edits by IP's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.226.132 ( talk) 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I repeat the question. It hasn't been answered for months. 203.15.226.132 ( talk) 00:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on AFL siren controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on AFL siren controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to the section "Similar incidents";
This incident is notable because it was on the front page of a major Australian daily newspaper. The fact that it was a junior game is irrelevant. It passes WP:N and should be included. 2001:8003:591D:2400:6DE1:3F80:5072:B36D ( talk) 07:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
A most interesting episode of the umpire not hearing the bell occurred in the SANFL first semi-final in 1945. As a child, I remember asking my father if an umpiring mistake ever changed the result of a grand final. He said that in the 1945 1st semi-final, the umpire didn't hear the bell and West Torrens kicked a goal after the siren, winning the game. West Torrens then won the preliminary & grand finals and thus the premiership. Years later I found out that Torrens actually won by 6 points so I concluded that my father's recollection wasn't entirely accurate. Nonetheless, now that newspapers are online, it can be confirmed that Torrens were able to kick a goal after the siren and win a game that otherwise would have been drawn because the umpire did not hear the bell. I think it's a sufficiently interesting story that it deserves its own special entry. I'll write it tomorrow if no one objects. Graemem56 ( talk) 12:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC) [3]
References
{{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Steelkamp ( talk · contribs) 15:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Review to come soon. Steelkamp ( talk) 15:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to quickfail this review due to many sections not having citations, thus meaning the article falls significantly short of criterion 2. I recommend against nominating articles that you didn't do much of the writing for. Next time, it you want to nominate an article that was mostly written by others, ask the other authors on the talk page first. They might have ideas of where the article needs improvement. It is very rare that a GA quality article is just sitting around waiting to be nominated and most articles require significant effort from the nominator to bring them up to snuff. Other, more minor issues I noticed were that:
I notice you have not yet had a successful good article nomination. My tip to you is to make sure all the references work (that there are no dead links or links that go to the wrong place) and that all paragraphs have citations.
Steelkamp ( talk) 15:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the suggestions. Hopefully future editors can take on your useful feedback for future tweaking. Electricmaster ( talk) 19:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 19:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
AFL siren controversy → Sirengate – We're seventeen years on, and Sirengate is without doubt the WP:COMMONNAME for this incident; it's unambiguous and clearly understood within football circles. The AFL siren controversy name, by comparison, really only exists here on Wikipedia; and the talk history indicates that this name was chosen as a neutral-sounding compromise name on the third day after the game was played, at which point the 'sirengate' nickname was newly coined and not yet in widespread use, leading the editors at the time to feel rightly uneasy about its use - but I think we're well past that being a valid concern. Sirengate is better name in any case, as the AFL siren controversy name does a poorer job of indicating that this is a description of a specific incident/game than a general controversy about sirens. Aspirex ( talk) 21:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | AFL siren controversy was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 20, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 1 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Sirengate. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Perhaps the word "Sirengate" does not really inform the reader what the situation is and is not in any way an "official" title. Perhaps renaming it to York Park siren controversy 2006? Or even AFL siren controversy 2006? All suggestions welcome. R o gerthat Talk 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's not dilly-dally on the title. We've got three footy fans here - let's make a decision.
York Park siren controversy 2006
pippu and roger have stated their support for AFL siren controversy 2006 above, so that gives this option sufficient support. I'm going to make the move. It can always be moved again if lots of people come out of the woodwork for vote for some other title. Snottygobble 05:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems a little long-winded, should we move the rules to a new article and then simply link to the relevant clauses? R o gerthat Talk 09:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Good coverage, nice well-rounded article. :) -- pfctdayelise ( translate?) 11:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether public reaction could/should be added to the article to detail how important the result was to the Fremantle fans in WA. Before the AFL made their decision to overturn the result, some Freo fans had graffiti'd the actual result on Fremantle Oval's scoreboard to say "Fremantle 14.10.94 St. Kilda 13.15.93" in white paint. The club left it up there as the Dockers trained on the ground for the day, and was mentioned in the news. Also, the suspected reaction if the result had've happened at Subiaco instead of Launceston would've been nothing short of a stadium riot. I can type up a proper paragraph for this unless anyone has any objections. Orichalcon 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a good idea for a parody of the incident: A hotel near Aurora Stadium called the Sirengate hotel. A list of features: Scott Gall 10:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding the rule on exceeding the allowable number of players on the field. This never had anything to do with it. Why is it being added? Hesperian 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The Teams section lists Luke Ball as the St Kilda Captain, while later in the article (where the confrontation between Chris Connolly and Lenny Hayes is mentioned), Hayes is stated to be the captain. Could somebody who knows which is correct make the necessary adjustments. Aspirex 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In an edit summary, His Holiness The Pope questions
Since it is kinda hard to reply with an edit summary of my own, I'll bring this here.
I think that the defining character of this incident is the occurrence of a breach of the rules and/or playing regulations that places the legitimacy of the match result in doubt. As such, I think the 19th man incident is quite similar. In particular, I think it more similar than the NTFL and NRL examples.
But I have no particular attachment to my edit, or indeed the entire Similar incidents section, so by all mean revert away if you think it unsuitable.
Hesperian 13:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Once and for all - this note stays. The incident is notable because it was a grand final (it is irrelevant that it was a junior grand final) and because it represented the first - and only -time since Sirengate that such an incident has occurred. Here are a couple of sources that probably aren't passable under WP:RS but they are worth a look at least.
These came from a Google search while trying to locate the Mercury article which I know I saw back then. AFL-Cool 12:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you're in a position to be making demands AFL-Cool. Take it easy, no one is attacking you or your contributions. Just because you have made edits to this article doesn't give you the final say on what remains or is removed from it. You're not an administrator and even if you were there are procedures to follow. Adding comments like "Swallow it" on the talk page of User:Hesperian, who actually is an admin, probably isn't helping your cause. I'll repeat what I said on your usertalk (for the benefit of a third party), until the references are provided, the note shouldn't be included on the article. If you want to go to the state library and get these reliable sources that you say exist, please do so. However, while the best reference remains an amateur video on some little known website, this incident has no place on wikipedia. Jevansen ( talk) 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Here we go. I was going to add something here, but it has already been discussed it seems. The incident is notable and the sources verified. 121.220.23.33 ( talk) 08:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Why was this incident removed and why is the page not allowing edits by IP's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.226.132 ( talk) 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I repeat the question. It hasn't been answered for months. 203.15.226.132 ( talk) 00:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on AFL siren controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on AFL siren controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to the section "Similar incidents";
This incident is notable because it was on the front page of a major Australian daily newspaper. The fact that it was a junior game is irrelevant. It passes WP:N and should be included. 2001:8003:591D:2400:6DE1:3F80:5072:B36D ( talk) 07:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
A most interesting episode of the umpire not hearing the bell occurred in the SANFL first semi-final in 1945. As a child, I remember asking my father if an umpiring mistake ever changed the result of a grand final. He said that in the 1945 1st semi-final, the umpire didn't hear the bell and West Torrens kicked a goal after the siren, winning the game. West Torrens then won the preliminary & grand finals and thus the premiership. Years later I found out that Torrens actually won by 6 points so I concluded that my father's recollection wasn't entirely accurate. Nonetheless, now that newspapers are online, it can be confirmed that Torrens were able to kick a goal after the siren and win a game that otherwise would have been drawn because the umpire did not hear the bell. I think it's a sufficiently interesting story that it deserves its own special entry. I'll write it tomorrow if no one objects. Graemem56 ( talk) 12:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC) [3]
References
{{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Steelkamp ( talk · contribs) 15:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Review to come soon. Steelkamp ( talk) 15:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to quickfail this review due to many sections not having citations, thus meaning the article falls significantly short of criterion 2. I recommend against nominating articles that you didn't do much of the writing for. Next time, it you want to nominate an article that was mostly written by others, ask the other authors on the talk page first. They might have ideas of where the article needs improvement. It is very rare that a GA quality article is just sitting around waiting to be nominated and most articles require significant effort from the nominator to bring them up to snuff. Other, more minor issues I noticed were that:
I notice you have not yet had a successful good article nomination. My tip to you is to make sure all the references work (that there are no dead links or links that go to the wrong place) and that all paragraphs have citations.
Steelkamp ( talk) 15:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the suggestions. Hopefully future editors can take on your useful feedback for future tweaking. Electricmaster ( talk) 19:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 19:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
AFL siren controversy → Sirengate – We're seventeen years on, and Sirengate is without doubt the WP:COMMONNAME for this incident; it's unambiguous and clearly understood within football circles. The AFL siren controversy name, by comparison, really only exists here on Wikipedia; and the talk history indicates that this name was chosen as a neutral-sounding compromise name on the third day after the game was played, at which point the 'sirengate' nickname was newly coined and not yet in widespread use, leading the editors at the time to feel rightly uneasy about its use - but I think we're well past that being a valid concern. Sirengate is better name in any case, as the AFL siren controversy name does a poorer job of indicating that this is a description of a specific incident/game than a general controversy about sirens. Aspirex ( talk) 21:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)