Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Australia / Adelaide / Australian rules football / South Australia (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconPort Adelaide 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of South Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.


1 2

SANFL presence post AFL entry[edit]

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

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

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

SANFL club: separate article or here?[edit]

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

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, I'll take a look at this - will copyedit as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

.. it has won 36 SANFL premierships, including six in a row. - I'd put the years of these in the lead.
make sure all references are formatted, not just bare urls, there is template:cite web format which may be helpful.
the only player to score a major. - were they called majors at this time? Or is this just colloquial here...
The last two sentences of the 1870–76: Early years should go in the following section...?
Norwood is linked twice and should have the explanation of what it is ("recently established Norwood Football Club") at first mention.
In 1896, with the club in crisis, the club committee met with the aim of revitalising the club. - leaves me
Port Adelaide's champion players from this era include Harold Phillips, Ken and John McKenzie, Archibald Hosie, Charlie Fry and Stan Malin. - maybe a word on what positions or something to make it less listy...and a ref or refs.
.. after the game between the club and South Adelaide was abandoned after a dispute. - err, what was it?
Champion players introduced in this era include John Cahill, Peter Woite, Dave Boyd, Geof Motley and Russell Ebert. - any attributes or anecdotes or anything to make this less listy

Overall I think this is within striking distance. Will double check for more stuff to do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

To me this article does not read like a Good Article. The wording is not particularly encyclopedic and it reads more like a fan page at the moment with some history that was in the article last year now missing. For example, David Granger was Port's most prominent player in the 1970s and early 1980s and was the first footballer in the SANFL to be suspended on video evidence. Mention of this is not only now gone, but there is no mention of Granger at all despite his career with Port Adelaide being listed at number seven in a television show on "South Australia's 20 greatest sporting controversies". By way of contrast there seems to be too much player and match detail. Do we really need to know how many marks or goals a player got in the 2004 final if it was not in any way exceptional? Length also seems excessive with this article running to 20,000 words while the articles on the other AFL teams (who have been in the AFL up to a 100 years longer than Port) vary from 6,000 to 10,000. Wayne (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It would've been hard for Port Adelaide to have been in the AFL for 100 years considering the fact that the AFL name was adopted in 1990. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The prosesize tool say the article does run to 55 kB (9699 words) - generally 50 kb is the upper limit of article size. Being a Sydneysider and predominantly NRL supporter, I am not familiar with SANFL history so hard for me to know the most important bits. All input appreciated (NB: I think WLRoss (talk · contribs) comment can be taken to assume VFL/AFL. However this has both SANFL and AFL so agree alot of history to process. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thx for putting me onto the prosesize tool. I was just copy/pasting text to word. Wayne (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Most people in South Australia consider the AFL and VFL as the same entity as it is basically the VFL with a name change and a few extra teams. The SANFL in contrast is not closely related to the AFL. I agree that a split is required. There are far too many statistics throughout that break up the history. For example, I am not particularly interested in statistics as history is my main interest so find the article overly complicated. This was a problem with an article I frequently edited so I split a section off into it's own article. The new article achieved Good Article status. And as a bonus, the edit wars that plagued the original ceased. Wayne (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: - jury still out on this one. I do think alot of it is an engaging veer on passably 'yes'.
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: - there are still alot of references that are bare urls
Citations to reliable sources, where required: - there are still alot of sentences that need sourcing
No original research: - I don't think' so from what I know of the history, but difficult if material lacks sources. this automatically becomes a 'no' if article all referenced

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused: - length is a problem - I think we have a look at daughter articles. See (my team for instance) - Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and History of the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: - unclear due to comments above. Probably only very mild though

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): - I think we need to split as above example

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: (however there are alot of non-free images, which some editors might feel uncomfortable with, but I agree they are appropriately tagged.
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Pass or Fail: - sorry, this has been open a month and I think we need a major split. I'm happy to help with this however and help improve it. I have a soft spot for the club and can help getting to GA/FA standard, as I have done it a few times before. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Article length[edit]

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

There are also parts in this article that probably shouldn't be here, i.e

  • Club creed could probably go in history page if/when it's created.
  • Is listing the SANFL squad notable for an AFL club page? Same with the SANFL honour roll post-AFL entry and individual awards post AFL entry (such as Magarey Medal winners, Jack Oatey Medal...)
  • AFL squad changes for 2015 should be in the 2015 Port Adelaide Football Club season page when it's created.
  • Military service section, unsure whether that's overly needed in the article, but can probably be swayed if there is good enough reason.

I know it's difficult because there is so much history with the SANFL and the current SANFL Port Adelaide team is a big part of the club, and I seem to remember there being a discussion about it not being noteworthy enough for it's own page. At the end of the day though, it's still a reserves side and a lot of the information probably isn't necessary on the main page as it can be found elsewhere on the internet and this page probably shouldn't be the base of everything Port Adelaide. I'm not going to do any mass culls because it should probably be discussed first, but I find this page very hard to look at because of length (see also Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The length of this article has been an issue for more than six weeks now (see GA Review section above), I don't know enough about the club history and what is deemed "important", so I don't think I can cull and split effectively, however, I think the first step to fixing the length is to split the history section into another article. I'm going to tag the page as nothing is being done at the moment to fix the issue and even more content has been added since the issue has been raised. Flickerd (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll have a go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Choppidy, chop-chop.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, the article as it stands now is a much more manageable 37kb prose, while the History subarticle stands at 42 kb, meaning both can have a little more material and be ok. Anyway, they might need some more massaging. The Hisotory article can be itself subdivided in future as those of many other clubs have been Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


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

Examples of yearbook 2016, 2015, 2014

Facebook [1], [2]

Annual report [3]

There is no evidence anywhere that the two logos in front of a plain black background with Port Adelaide Football Club is the "official" logo of the club, and the example of [4] is different to what is on this page anyhow (note the background graphic is different). A one time usage on Facebook is not reliable enough to say it is the "official" logo, especially when all official reports use the AFL and SANFL logo side by side which is what has been done here. Flickerd (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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