This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fremantle Football Club article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Daily page views
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 12 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Fremantle Dockers. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Should it be mentioned that they are the only team never to win a premiership or appear in the Grand Final? More interestingly that they are the only non-victorian team not to win a premiership in the past 10 years? Squall1991 09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed these again. I do not feel that they are significant, unusual, newsworthy or important to an article about a football club.
More importantly, they are against WP:NOT#SOAP: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for ... advertising."
They is also against Wikipedia:Spam:"Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products". If this is reverted again, I will put a {{Cleanup-spam}} tag on the article.
See also: Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Advertisers.
There is a lot of opposition to this sort of thing on Wikipedia, just as there would be if it cropped up on the ABC, for example. And I have to wonder what Wikipedia would be like if we listed every single sponsorship deal, in the history of every single sports club or other article subject that has ever been sponsored by a business .
I have done the same for other articles. I will continue to do the same for other articles that have the same issue, when I become aware of them.
Good win today, although I could have done without getting soaked to the skin. Go Freo! Grant | Talk 12:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The use of "superior" in this context means that a team is inherently or by rights superior - i.e. has some natural or inherent advantage over another, rather than simply a better playing record/history/current composition. This requires a judgement to be made which is not WP:NPOV. The solution: let the facts tell the story and people come to their own (hopefully correct) conclusions. Orderinchaos 10:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Fremantle-2007-Away.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Freo 2007-Clash.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Freo 2007.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:2006 AFL Fremantle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Should the line 'Fremantle Dockers are currently the only team in the AFL not to win a major flag since commencing in the league' be included in the Wikipedia:Lead section?. Jevansen ( talk) 06:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe it should.... No offence to the Dockers they are the only team not to win a premiership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RangerEcho ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
We are not talking about the other clubs, we are talking about Fremantle Dockers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RangerEcho ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
" ...one of the most well supported clubs ...". Shouldn't there also be a note that is has fans who can't compose a sentance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.178.108 ( talk) 03:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"Shouldn't there also be a note that is has fans who can't compose a sentance". You were saying? Jevansen ( talk) 10:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The perennial "no premierships" issue has returned. Putting it in the opening paragraph is WP:UNDUE weight. In the period in which Freo has existed, the Dogs and Tigers also haven't played in a GF either. Gold Coast also obviously haven't. So I now don't think it belongs there at all - because to accurately state the qualifications/exclusions/comparisons will take up an entire paragraph or a bunch of explanatory footnotes, which to me indicates that it doesn't belong in the introduction, which should only cover the key points. Opinions? The-Pope ( talk) 04:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I have re - jigged the opening paragraph 119.11.14.161 ( talk) 04:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just corrected my spelling mistake. It is worth mentioning it on the opening paragraph. I'm now going to take a rest from this page due to my editing over the past couple of hours. 119.11.14.161 ( talk) 04:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this now be Fremantle Dockers Football Club? I believe the 'Dockers' part of the name is official since the rebranding last year. -- 121.215.0.110 ( talk) 09:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Dockers-logo-150x150.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
I'd like to remove the paragraph discussing the fact that Fremantle has never played in a draw. It's not notable. From a high-level perspective, a draw is no more special than any victory or defeat by a specific margin. Alternatively, since it's more of a statistical curiosity than a reflection of the club's ability, perhaps mention of it could go in §2.6 'Records' and cricket is bad. Aspirex ( talk) 06:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fremantle Football Club. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://wwe.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2016-03-23/richard-walley-is-new-number-oneWhen 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) 19:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Should Fremantle Oval not be reflected under stadiums, since the AFLW team plays the majority of their home matches there? SportingFlyer ( talk) 23:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
106.68.70.4, please stop edit-warring to include your preferred content when you've been reverted by three other editors. Mentioning Fremantle's premiership record in the third sentence gives it undue weight and makes the article imply Fremantle is a poor team – as the entirety of your contributions to date are aimed at accomplishing. The second disputed sentence is even poorer – who are the "some" mentioned? Unless sources are provided to support the assertion, it seems very much like "some" is being employed as a weasel word to lend the assertion undue authority.
Much as I would like Wikipedia to promote the correct WA team, it is not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia to disparage subjects without substantial sourcing. – Tera tix ₵ 09:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Who wants to help Me make some season pages for 2013 - 2023. Flipstatic Energy ( talk) 04:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. No showing has been made that the current title is impermissible; even with weak rationales in opposition, it is still necessary to show consensus to move an article from a longstanding permissible title to another. Such consensus is clearly lacking here. BD2412 T 21:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Fremantle Football Club → Fremantle Dockers – Discussing titles for the new Tasmanian team has me thinking about how our AFL clubs' articles are named – in my view, they're not up to scratch with modern titling policy. For context, of the 18 AFL clubs, Gold Coast Suns, Greater Western Sydney Giants, Sydney Swans, West Coast Eagles and Western Bulldogs currently use the "[location] [mascot]" combo, with the other 13 currently at "[location] Football Club". In my view, we should be using the "[location] [mascot]" combination more often, if not in all cases, because it is more concise, recognisable and is used more often by our sources. Past justifications for using "[location] Football Club" have tended to rest on the idea that articles should use whatever the club's official name is, which is not necessarily true.
Aside from this general rationale, some points specific to Fremantle:
And some other notes:
the mascots do changeNo, not really. The last club to change its nickname was Fitzroy back in 1957. If Fremantle ever ditched "Dockers" for whatever reason (this won't happen), we could always move the article again later on.
the legal entity is Fremantle Football Club LimitedWe don't care about the legal name, we care about the name that is commonly used. Third-party sources typically use "Fremantle Dockers", not "Fremantle Football Club".
Freo Dockers could equally hold true as the articles name.No, third-party sources tend to use "Fremantle Dockers", not "Freo Dockers".
I'm not sure other associted articles will warrant a change to Fremantle Dockers fooWhy not? It would be consistent with the new name for this article.
I do note there have been more than one Fremantle Football ClubPeople typing in "Fremantle Football Club" are overwhelmingly more likely to be looking for the modern AFL team than the obscure 19th-century clubs. Supposing we end up moving the article, the best thing to do would be to redirect "Fremantle Football Club" to "Fremantle Dockers" and add a hatnote mentioning Fremantle Football Club (disambiguation) exists, not too dissimilar to how the article currently handles the situation.
actually last change was fitzroy to Brisbane, South Melbourne to SydneyThose changes were club relocations or mergers, not changes in the club nicknames (South Melbourne had been known as the Swans long before they moved to Sydney, for example).
some clubs have recently started using an Indigenous name for gamesThese are temporary rebrandings, completely irrelevant to a discussion on what the club's typical name is.
Fremantle Football club is what it is and it has been since 1994.The legal name for a subject is often not the same as the common name. To find out what the common name is, we see what third-party sources use. If sources tend to use a different name to the legal name, we use this different name instead. Bringing up the legal name is therefore absolutely irrelevant if the common name is different. For example, our article on the international soccer federation is at " FIFA", not "Fédération Internationale de Football Association", because no-one calls it that.
A redirect can be over written at any stage with anew articleThis is just an argument against ever having redirects whatsover, for any reason – any redirect can be overwritten with a new article, not just a "Fremantle Football Club" → "Fremantle Dockers" redirect. It's unfair to selectively apply this as an argument against a move you dislike.
if the redirect is becessary then it show that changing the article landing page isnt the best ideaAgain, this is just an argument against every instance where someone moves a page and then has the previous title redirect to the new title. This isn't just common practice, it's actually the default behaviour for when you move a page – the old title will automatically redirect to the new title. Again, it's unfair to selectively apply this as an argument against a move you dislike.
it's unfair to selectively apply this as an argument against a move you dislikeconsidering you are in the minority, its unfair and unproductive to hound every comment that disagrees with you. In the interest of a fair discussion where the closing admin can follow what consensus is please stop. Theres a policy or guideline on what you are doing but I'm not wasting more time you actions arent going to change my mind again. Gnan garra 09:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
yuo were saying that its not the primary topicNo, I said the exact opposite: "People typing in "Fremantle Football Club" are overwhelmingly more likely to be looking for the modern AFL team than the obscure 19th-century clubs".
you still think its the primary topic for this page it can't be both. Either its the primary topic here, or its moved to where it is.No, it's very often the case that a topic is still the primary topic for a term not matching its title – in this case, the term redirects to the primary topic, not a disambiguation page. See WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. For example, "Einstein" redirects to Albert Einstein, not Einstein (disambiguation); "Libel" redirects to Defamation, not Libel (disambiguation) – likewise, presuming we move Fremantle's article, "Fremantle Football Club" should redirect there, not to Fremantle Football Club (disambiguation). We even have a template that generates a standard hatnote for situations like these.
the official name is well usedmeans squat if you don't have the sources to back it up. – Tera tix ₵ 03:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
the ladder is a reflection of common practice, back that up with sources, please, not just words. – Tera tix ₵ 04:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fremantle Football Club article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Daily page views
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 12 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Fremantle Dockers. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Should it be mentioned that they are the only team never to win a premiership or appear in the Grand Final? More interestingly that they are the only non-victorian team not to win a premiership in the past 10 years? Squall1991 09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed these again. I do not feel that they are significant, unusual, newsworthy or important to an article about a football club.
More importantly, they are against WP:NOT#SOAP: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for ... advertising."
They is also against Wikipedia:Spam:"Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products". If this is reverted again, I will put a {{Cleanup-spam}} tag on the article.
See also: Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Advertisers.
There is a lot of opposition to this sort of thing on Wikipedia, just as there would be if it cropped up on the ABC, for example. And I have to wonder what Wikipedia would be like if we listed every single sponsorship deal, in the history of every single sports club or other article subject that has ever been sponsored by a business .
I have done the same for other articles. I will continue to do the same for other articles that have the same issue, when I become aware of them.
Good win today, although I could have done without getting soaked to the skin. Go Freo! Grant | Talk 12:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The use of "superior" in this context means that a team is inherently or by rights superior - i.e. has some natural or inherent advantage over another, rather than simply a better playing record/history/current composition. This requires a judgement to be made which is not WP:NPOV. The solution: let the facts tell the story and people come to their own (hopefully correct) conclusions. Orderinchaos 10:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Fremantle-2007-Away.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Freo 2007-Clash.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Freo 2007.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:2006 AFL Fremantle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Should the line 'Fremantle Dockers are currently the only team in the AFL not to win a major flag since commencing in the league' be included in the Wikipedia:Lead section?. Jevansen ( talk) 06:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe it should.... No offence to the Dockers they are the only team not to win a premiership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RangerEcho ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
We are not talking about the other clubs, we are talking about Fremantle Dockers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RangerEcho ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
" ...one of the most well supported clubs ...". Shouldn't there also be a note that is has fans who can't compose a sentance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.178.108 ( talk) 03:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"Shouldn't there also be a note that is has fans who can't compose a sentance". You were saying? Jevansen ( talk) 10:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The perennial "no premierships" issue has returned. Putting it in the opening paragraph is WP:UNDUE weight. In the period in which Freo has existed, the Dogs and Tigers also haven't played in a GF either. Gold Coast also obviously haven't. So I now don't think it belongs there at all - because to accurately state the qualifications/exclusions/comparisons will take up an entire paragraph or a bunch of explanatory footnotes, which to me indicates that it doesn't belong in the introduction, which should only cover the key points. Opinions? The-Pope ( talk) 04:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I have re - jigged the opening paragraph 119.11.14.161 ( talk) 04:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just corrected my spelling mistake. It is worth mentioning it on the opening paragraph. I'm now going to take a rest from this page due to my editing over the past couple of hours. 119.11.14.161 ( talk) 04:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this now be Fremantle Dockers Football Club? I believe the 'Dockers' part of the name is official since the rebranding last year. -- 121.215.0.110 ( talk) 09:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Dockers-logo-150x150.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
I'd like to remove the paragraph discussing the fact that Fremantle has never played in a draw. It's not notable. From a high-level perspective, a draw is no more special than any victory or defeat by a specific margin. Alternatively, since it's more of a statistical curiosity than a reflection of the club's ability, perhaps mention of it could go in §2.6 'Records' and cricket is bad. Aspirex ( talk) 06:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fremantle Football Club. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://wwe.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2016-03-23/richard-walley-is-new-number-oneWhen 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) 19:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Should Fremantle Oval not be reflected under stadiums, since the AFLW team plays the majority of their home matches there? SportingFlyer ( talk) 23:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
106.68.70.4, please stop edit-warring to include your preferred content when you've been reverted by three other editors. Mentioning Fremantle's premiership record in the third sentence gives it undue weight and makes the article imply Fremantle is a poor team – as the entirety of your contributions to date are aimed at accomplishing. The second disputed sentence is even poorer – who are the "some" mentioned? Unless sources are provided to support the assertion, it seems very much like "some" is being employed as a weasel word to lend the assertion undue authority.
Much as I would like Wikipedia to promote the correct WA team, it is not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia to disparage subjects without substantial sourcing. – Tera tix ₵ 09:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Who wants to help Me make some season pages for 2013 - 2023. Flipstatic Energy ( talk) 04:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. No showing has been made that the current title is impermissible; even with weak rationales in opposition, it is still necessary to show consensus to move an article from a longstanding permissible title to another. Such consensus is clearly lacking here. BD2412 T 21:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Fremantle Football Club → Fremantle Dockers – Discussing titles for the new Tasmanian team has me thinking about how our AFL clubs' articles are named – in my view, they're not up to scratch with modern titling policy. For context, of the 18 AFL clubs, Gold Coast Suns, Greater Western Sydney Giants, Sydney Swans, West Coast Eagles and Western Bulldogs currently use the "[location] [mascot]" combo, with the other 13 currently at "[location] Football Club". In my view, we should be using the "[location] [mascot]" combination more often, if not in all cases, because it is more concise, recognisable and is used more often by our sources. Past justifications for using "[location] Football Club" have tended to rest on the idea that articles should use whatever the club's official name is, which is not necessarily true.
Aside from this general rationale, some points specific to Fremantle:
And some other notes:
the mascots do changeNo, not really. The last club to change its nickname was Fitzroy back in 1957. If Fremantle ever ditched "Dockers" for whatever reason (this won't happen), we could always move the article again later on.
the legal entity is Fremantle Football Club LimitedWe don't care about the legal name, we care about the name that is commonly used. Third-party sources typically use "Fremantle Dockers", not "Fremantle Football Club".
Freo Dockers could equally hold true as the articles name.No, third-party sources tend to use "Fremantle Dockers", not "Freo Dockers".
I'm not sure other associted articles will warrant a change to Fremantle Dockers fooWhy not? It would be consistent with the new name for this article.
I do note there have been more than one Fremantle Football ClubPeople typing in "Fremantle Football Club" are overwhelmingly more likely to be looking for the modern AFL team than the obscure 19th-century clubs. Supposing we end up moving the article, the best thing to do would be to redirect "Fremantle Football Club" to "Fremantle Dockers" and add a hatnote mentioning Fremantle Football Club (disambiguation) exists, not too dissimilar to how the article currently handles the situation.
actually last change was fitzroy to Brisbane, South Melbourne to SydneyThose changes were club relocations or mergers, not changes in the club nicknames (South Melbourne had been known as the Swans long before they moved to Sydney, for example).
some clubs have recently started using an Indigenous name for gamesThese are temporary rebrandings, completely irrelevant to a discussion on what the club's typical name is.
Fremantle Football club is what it is and it has been since 1994.The legal name for a subject is often not the same as the common name. To find out what the common name is, we see what third-party sources use. If sources tend to use a different name to the legal name, we use this different name instead. Bringing up the legal name is therefore absolutely irrelevant if the common name is different. For example, our article on the international soccer federation is at " FIFA", not "Fédération Internationale de Football Association", because no-one calls it that.
A redirect can be over written at any stage with anew articleThis is just an argument against ever having redirects whatsover, for any reason – any redirect can be overwritten with a new article, not just a "Fremantle Football Club" → "Fremantle Dockers" redirect. It's unfair to selectively apply this as an argument against a move you dislike.
if the redirect is becessary then it show that changing the article landing page isnt the best ideaAgain, this is just an argument against every instance where someone moves a page and then has the previous title redirect to the new title. This isn't just common practice, it's actually the default behaviour for when you move a page – the old title will automatically redirect to the new title. Again, it's unfair to selectively apply this as an argument against a move you dislike.
it's unfair to selectively apply this as an argument against a move you dislikeconsidering you are in the minority, its unfair and unproductive to hound every comment that disagrees with you. In the interest of a fair discussion where the closing admin can follow what consensus is please stop. Theres a policy or guideline on what you are doing but I'm not wasting more time you actions arent going to change my mind again. Gnan garra 09:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
yuo were saying that its not the primary topicNo, I said the exact opposite: "People typing in "Fremantle Football Club" are overwhelmingly more likely to be looking for the modern AFL team than the obscure 19th-century clubs".
you still think its the primary topic for this page it can't be both. Either its the primary topic here, or its moved to where it is.No, it's very often the case that a topic is still the primary topic for a term not matching its title – in this case, the term redirects to the primary topic, not a disambiguation page. See WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. For example, "Einstein" redirects to Albert Einstein, not Einstein (disambiguation); "Libel" redirects to Defamation, not Libel (disambiguation) – likewise, presuming we move Fremantle's article, "Fremantle Football Club" should redirect there, not to Fremantle Football Club (disambiguation). We even have a template that generates a standard hatnote for situations like these.
the official name is well usedmeans squat if you don't have the sources to back it up. – Tera tix ₵ 03:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
the ladder is a reflection of common practice, back that up with sources, please, not just words. – Tera tix ₵ 04:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)