This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles Australia: Melbourne / Australian rules football South Melbourne Football Club is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles This disambiguation page is supported by WikiProject Melbourne. This disambiguation page is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian What's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

defunct is not teh correct word.

Neither Fitroy nor South are defunct.

Agree, what is a better word or statement? Anubis1975 05:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps, since it is still the same club, this should be returned to redirect to Sydney Swans. That article definitely aims to include the SM years, so anythign here would be duplication. A simple disambiguation page for the Swans and South Melbourne FC is probably an even better idea. JPD ( talk) 17:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I am now convinced that there is no need for this article, and it should become a disambig page (or possibly a redirect and dablink at Sydney Swans). If noone objects, I will change this page and correct all the links. JPD ( talk) 11:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Still no objections... here goes. JPD ( talk) 10:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply