Talk:Fremantle Football Club

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Premierships[edit]

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)[reply]

Do you mean "it should be mentioned" or "should it be mentioned?", as the only club without a premiership is mentioned in the 2nd last paragraph of the history section. The second part of your question is not that interesting to me. They are one of 9 teams to have not won a premiership in the past 10 years (Carl, Coll, Gee, Hawks, Melb, Rich, Saints, Dogs). Location of them doesn't mean much. The article should be more about what they have done, not what they haven't. And Gee, Hawks, Rich and Dogs haven't been in a grand final either, since we've been in the competition, which is all Freo should be measured against. The-Pope 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpers: names of sponsors/manufacturers[edit]

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)[reply]

I won't make any changes until we get some more consensus or comparisons with other teams (both AFL and international). But my view, again, is that it is a valid encylopedic part of the history of the football club. It is in no way a "soapbox", nor "personal promition of products", it is a factual listing of the significant on-field sponsors that the club has had. It assists in dating photographs, it will, especially over time, provide a snapshot of some significant, and not so significant, companies that were the public face of the club, and like I've said before, as the club is only ever interested in their current sponsors, it will never be covered in any official documentation.
I have read each of the wiki guidelines that you quoted and I see NOTHING there that is against this sort of thing. It is all about preventing promotion of products as the prime reason - the prime reason here is a historical account of the major visable sponsors.
I understand that 2 wrongs don't make a right, but the AFL page has a listing of the naming rights sponsors, a search of Shirt sponsors finds a section on the Premier League sponsor changes, a whole section on current Man U sponsors (not just shirts - which I feel is closer to the advertising for advertising's sake - as opposed to a valid historical list) and for many other premier league teams ie Arsenal,Bolton or Newcastle. Sports in the US don't generally have shirt sponsors, so no precedents there.
If you were to be picky, you could claim it was unsourced, and at the moment I'd probably struggle to find much other than maybe a press release or photos to back it up, but I guess you'd need to accept that it was encylopedic first before you'd try to reference it. Other opinions? The-Pope 03:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Superior"[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fremantle-2007-Away.gif[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Freo 2007-Clash.gif[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Freo 2007.gif[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:2006 AFL Fremantle.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

Lack of a premiership[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Very true. But they are only in their 15th season. When Gold Coast enter the comp in a couple of years will we have a sentence saying they're the only club never to make it to September? Geelong, North Melbourne, Hawthorn, St Kilda and Footscray all took over 20 years to win their first flag. If Fremantle are still without a premiership in 10-15 years then I'd look more seriously about having it in the lead. That's the issue here, the fact is already in the article and has been for some time, it's just very debatable whether it is notable enough to be at the top of the article. You don't help your case by emphasising the sentence with boldface and capital letters. Please read WP:NPOV. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that line shouldn't be included - not with that awfully awkward wording. I assume that you mean that they've won a minor flag? Looking at the other clubs, Sydney, Geelong and St Kilda mention their long droughts, Richmond and Bulldogs mention their lack of success. But Melbourne doesn't mention that they have the current longest drought & North Melbourne has no mention of their inception to the 70s drought? The current line in the Freo aricle of "Despite enduring some tough times..." is a bit weasily and could easily be improved, but your suggestion isn't anywhere near the best option. The-Pope (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

" ...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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

The perennial "no premierships" issue[edit]

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)[reply]

I have re - jigged the opening paragraph 119.11.14.161 (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm assuming that you are back under a slightly different IP. Any chance of registering so that we can have a proper discussion? "Fremantle are one of three clubs yet to win a 'premiership' since inception since 1995." is simply an incorrect statement. Since 1995 Melbourne, Bulldogs, Richmond, St Kilda, Fremantle, Gold Coast, and GWS (and you could chuck in Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy too) haven't won a flag. If you try to explain all of the details, periods in the league etc it becomes overly complicated so simply saying we haven't won a flag in the results or history section is adequate. The-Pope (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply state "Fremantle has not won a premiership, nor played in a Grand Final, during its time in the AFL". No references to other clubs at all. That is concise, to the point, a valid summary of the history of the club, and does not get bogged down in the issues of undue weight and clarifications when comparing against other clubs. (At the risk of being accused of taking the debate to an unnecessary tangent, I'd argue that the fact that Freo has no premierships is a much more important piece of information for the lead than the fact that Clive Waterhouse played for them.) Aspirex (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst including Clive may be a reason why we haven't won a flag yet, ignoring our first major forward, 3rd leading goalkicker (was leading for most of the first decade) would be a bit of recentism. I've given in and added the comment on finals in the opening section.The-Pope (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name[edit]

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)[reply]

No, the tradong/marketing name may have changed to Fremantle Dockers (not FD Football Club) but the WP:commonname is still Fremantle Football Club.The-Pope (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to keep it as Fremantle Football Club, never really liked the Dockers name anyhow. Must get myself a tra-dong name, sounds like it would come in handy. --121.215.0.110 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dockers-logo-150x150.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

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
What should I do?
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)[reply]

Never played in a draw[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stadiums[edit]

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)[reply]

Edit-warring[edit]

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. – Teratix ₵ 09:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Season Pages[edit]

Who wants to help Me make some season pages for 2013 - 2023. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 March 2024[edit]

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:

  • Clubs that have acquired their current name after the 1980s – Sydney (relocated 1982), West Coast (entered 1987), Western Bulldogs (rebranded 1996), Gold Coast (entered 2011) and GWS (entered 2012) – all use "[location] [mascot]". The exception is Adelaide (entered 1991, title is "Adelaide Football Club") but their article also probably needs to be moved. Because Fremantle entered in 1995, using "[location] [mascot]" is especially consistent with the more recent clubs tending to use this format.
  • Many third-party sources use "Fremantle Dockers": PerthNow, Fox, The West, ZeroHanger, Nine, Seven, The Roar Sydney Morning Herald, ABC. I'm not exactly going to say "Fremantle Dockers" is the WP:COMMONNAME, because the actual COMMONNAME is probably just "Fremantle" or "the Dockers", but those names aren't suitable options.
  • Fremantle consistently use "Dockers" over "Football Club" in their own branding. It's on their logo, their social media accounts, their official app and so on.
  • "Dockers" is consistent across time. During their time in the AFL, Fremantle have never been known by a name other than the Dockers.
  • "Dockers" is consistent across teams. There's no reserves or AFLW team using a different name.

And some other notes:

  • This move request is intended as a warm-up to gauge community sentiment and avoid changing too much at once, not to suggest Fremantle is the only club that needs their article moved.
  • If this move request succeeds, associated articles with "Fremantle Football Club" in their title (e.g. List of Fremantle Football Club players) should be moved to the equivalent title with "Fremantle Dockers". – Teratix ₵ 08:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not agree with your general rationale; there is not a single un-renamed traditional club better known by [location] [mascot] than [location] Football Club, and the project's style guide actively discourages use of the former in those cases for that reason. In my view, there are only two clubs where such a move is worth discussing, and those are Fremantle and Adelaide. Right now, I'm about 50/50 on the subject of Fremantle, I'll need a few days to consider further before forming a view. Aspirex (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With no disrespect to past and long-time contributors to the project, whose work is very much appreciated – the style guide hasn't been touched for over seven years. It's worth a proper investigation to see if its principles still hold. I agree for older clubs the mascot/nickname is often less salient compared to the newer clubs, but let's cross that bridge if/when we come to it. – Teratix ₵ 11:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose Reviewing the titling policy, I'm comfortable that both Fremantle Dockers (FD) and Fremantle Football Club (FFC) would be valid choices, but upon review I find FFC to be marginally better. My view of the five goals:
    • Recognisability: You have valid self-styling examples of the use of FD for the club, while there are also many examples when it uses FFC ([1] [2], which particularly arise when described as a club rather than as a team (which is the primary topic of the article). This is a point of difference when compared with GWS [3] which is always referred to with its mascot. It's certainly not universal for FFC to be used in corporate context [4], so overall I think FD is marginally better for recognisability but both meet the criterion.
    • Naturalness: FD is definitely one of the location-mascot combinations which meets the naturalness criterion (in a way that, say, St Kilda Saints and the other seldom-spoken-together combos do not). So both options meet naturalness, probably about evenly.
    • Precision: FFC is slightly better since it makes clear that it's article about the club and not about one team within the club. But it's a fine distinction, again I think both meet this.
    • Concision: FD is shorter but both are equally concise in that neither FD nor FFC is wordier than it needs to be, hence I'd describe them as equally concise. WP:CONCISE is pretty clear that it's goal is not to find the shortest possible name, it's to avoid extraneous words where clarity is already achieved - i.e. it's an argument for Fremantle Football Club over Fremantle Football Club Limited, not for FD over FFC.
    • Consistency: I have three perspectives here. 1) Neither FD nor FFC is inconsistent with the two extant naming conventions for AFL clubs. 2) The [Location] [Football Club] convention is by far the predominant convention across Australian football articles as a whole when considering all levels and leagues of the game, and so a consistency argument right now would favour using that format whenever possible. 3) It don't believe its possible to bring all clubs to a position of true consistency, since for some clubs like GWS the [Location] [Football Club] would fail precision, others like St Kilda the [Location] [Mascot] would fail naturalness, and if we extended the discussion to all levels, something like Keilor Bulldogs for example probably fails recognizability. So I'd simply say that in Fremantle's case, neither option fails consistency; and that the promise of eventual consistency in a different format is not a strong argument for change.
    On balance of everything, I feel the specific case of Fremantle is still pretty even and for me the precision argument is what tips me to a weak oppose. But I would be more strongly opposed to almost any other similar move request.
    Aspirex (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, thank you very much for actually making an argument that acknowledges and is grounded in our article titling policy.
    • Recognisability: I agree how the club styles itself is of some relevance, and I agree that Fremantle itself uses "[location] Football Club" more often than some AFL clubs. However, the most important factor in recognisability is how the club is named in third-party sources – and in these it's clearly typical to use "Fremantle Dockers".
    • Naturalness: "Fremantle Football Club" isn't unnatural, exactly, but I would say it's oddly formal. Like if someone said to me in conversation with a straight face "Hooray, we finally beat the Fremantle Football Club after five consecutive defeats", or wrote in a match report "The Fremantle Football Club defeated such-and-such in this afternoon's match", I would think that was a bit odd. Like someone saying "I went to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the summer". I'm not saying "Fremantle Dockers" is the most natural title – "Freo", "Fremantle" or "the Dockers" are more natural to me, but unsuitable – but it is more natural than "Fremantle Football Club".
    • Precision: You might have an argument here if the club's teams had different names (e.g. Port Adelaide Power/Magpies), but in the Dockers' case this doesn't arise. I'd say the proposed names can't be split on precision.
    • Concision: the section describes its purpose as balancing "brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic". I read that as saying "once you've adequately identified the topic, there's no need for a longer title". We both agree the proposed names tell you what the articles are about – but "Fremantle Dockers" does it in 17 characters, two words; "Fremantle Football Club" does it in 23 characters, three words. I don't think concision is a knockdown argument for using "Fremantle Dockers", but it does favour the title.
    • Consistency – I agree that as it stands there is no consistent naming convention across AFL clubs to appeal to. But I'm not sure the correct response is to open up the reference class to all Australian rules football clubs at every level – that seems too wide to me. By analogy, I'm not sure it would make sense to take observations about naming conventions for articles on Premier League clubs and apply them to justify moving articles on Major League Soccer teams, even though they are both soccer leagues. For me, in the absence of a league-wide convention, the more appropriate reference class is (roughly) "AFL-era relocations, rebrandings or expansion teams", where the [location] [mascot] format is clearly dominant.
    – Teratix ₵ 09:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm amused that we've been able to look at the same criterion of consistency and independently decide the frame of reference is either eight clubs or several thousand. In any case, I think your points have merit and the discussion was worth having, but I'm unlikely to change from my view that either name would be valid and therefore the case for change is not strong. Aspirex (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose - Absolutely not. We are not a marketing arm of the AFL. The-Pope (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you're going to have to elaborate on that one. How does using "Fremantle Dockers" make us the marketing arm of the AFL? Are all those third-party sources I linked just marketing arms of the AFL? – Teratix ₵ 12:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Website is still Fremantlefc.com.au, they still refer to themselves as the Fremantle Football Club whenever they are talking seriously about themselves, see the sponsors lists (FFC) and acknowledgment of country on the homepage. Their Twitter and Instagram accounts are @FreoDockers, not Fremantle Dockers. Geelong is actually the traditional club that has embraced the "location nickname" more than any other club, as they don't want to be associated with the GFC acronym post the Global financial crisis. The-Pope (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The tagline for the website is "the official website of the Fremantle Dockers", "Fremantle Dockers" is on the logo, their app is "Fremantle Dockers Official App", their team store is "Fremantle Dockers Official Team Store". The Twitter and Instagram accounts are "Fremantle Dockers" (freodockers is the @ handle, not the name). But I'm not willing to quibble over exactly what Fremantle call themselves – plainly they sometimes use "Fremantle Football Club" and sometimes "Fremantle Dockers" – because what's relevant when determining COMMONNAME is the name third-party sources use most often. I've presented a variety of sources that favour "Fremantle Dockers" and to this point I have not seen any counter-analyses demonstrating independent outlets prefer "Fremantle Football Club" instead. – Teratix ₵ 14:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Far more Australians know Collingwood as a football team than as a suburb of Melbourne. The nicknames are marketing tools. They are not the primary names of the clubs. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, cool, and you have third-party sources to back this up, right? – Teratix ₵ 02:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the policy of WP:BLUE. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's really as "obvious as the sky is blue" then I'm sure you will have no absolutely no trouble finding sources to this effect. – Teratix ₵ 02:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um HiLo48, this move is regarding Fremantle, not Collingwood. Steelkamp (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the first paragraph above - "we should be using the "[location] [mascot]" combination more often, if not in all cases". HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, this particular move request only relates to Fremantle. – Teratix ₵ 13:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I will Oppose on the basis of keeping the structure of all club names consistent. HiLo48 (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The club names are already inconsistent: some use [location] [mascot], some use [location] Football Club. If consistency is your highest concern, you should support [location] [mascot] for every club, because some clubs don't go by [location] Football Club at all, even on a legal basis. I personally think consistency is but one factor that has to be weighed against other aspects of titling policy, including concision, recognisability and use by sources. – Teratix ₵ 00:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not going to make them consistent by making bad changes to the names of the older clubs. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If or when there's a move request for Collingwood, feel free to oppose with a policy-based argument. But this move request concerns Fremantle. Arguing over whether we should move Collingwood (or any non-Fremantle club) is at best premature and at worst pointless. – Teratix ₵ 09:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your very first post here implied that you would like to see this done for all clubs. If your goal is now different, we now have an ill-formed proposal, and you should probably start again. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to engage any further here, it's obvious to any closer your arguments don't address the immediate question at hand, which is whether to move our article on Fremantle. – Teratix ₵ 09:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Steelkamp (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong oppose on the face of it it makes sense, but the mascots do change and the legal entity is Fremantle Football Club LimitedASIC records thats held since its inception in 1994, Freo Dockers could equally hold true as the articles name. I'm not sure other associted articles will warrant a change to Fremantle Dockers foo or even be a likely usage of those terms. I do note there have been more than one Fremantle Football Club so if a move was considered on point then the Disambiguation page must be Fremantle Football Club to explain where it is rather than being replaced by another itteration from more than one code that will cause confusion. Gnangarra 07:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • the mascots do change No, 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 Limited We 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 foo Why not? It would be consistent with the new name for this article.
    • I do note there have been more than one Fremantle Football Club People 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.
    – Teratix ₵ 14:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    actually last change was fitzroy to Brisbane, South Melbourne to Sydney, also some clubs have recently started using an Indigenous name for games. We do care about the Clubs name thats why we are discussing it, and Fremantle Football club is what it is and it has been since 1994. The way other articles read they dont all translate to Freo Dockers. A redirect can be over written at any stage with anew article, if the redirect is becessary then it show that changing the article landing page isnt the best idea. Thanks for replying I now more strongly opposed I think the change is a bad move. Gnangarra 06:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • actually last change was fitzroy to Brisbane, South Melbourne to Sydney Those 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 games These 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 article This 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 idea Again, 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.
    – Teratix ₵ 08:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • it's unfair to selectively apply this as an argument against a move you dislike considering 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. Gnangarra 09:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When you make unreasonable arguments on a move request, you should expect to be called out for that – it's not hounding. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      my arguements werent unreasonable, I was weak oppose, ie open to other possabilities if they were put up mostly I wasnt convince on how it will impact other articles and what would replace it if moved. Disambiguation should be at the primary titke, unless there is clear primary topic. In this case yuo were saying that its not the primary topic, so that would make it the disambuguation page yet you wanted a redirect indicating 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. Gnangarra 13:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • yuo were saying that its not the primary topic No, 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.
      • Your last comment was difficult to understand because you used "it" without a clear referent, meaning it was often ambiguous whether you were talking about a topic or a term, and which particular topics/terms you were meaning to refer to. You also used the terms "primary topic" and "primary title" in nonstandard ways which again made it more difficult to parse. Please don't do this.
      – Teratix ₵ 14:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the arguments of The Pope and HiLo JarrahTree 11:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above - the official name is common and fine. SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't go to all the trouble of collating all those third-party sources showing "Fremantle Dockers" so people could leave drive-by comments claiming the legal name is "common" without a shred of evidence, you know. If you're going to provide an alternative assessment, at least have the decency to link the sources you're basing this assessment on. Otherwise I'm not sure why a closer would give this comment any weight. – Teratix ₵ 11:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As others have noted, the official name is well used and understood. For these things, I think a good guide is the AFL website's ladder, which lists it as just "Fremantle". Some clubs list their nicknames there but that's clearly the choice of the club.: [5]. Superegz (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ladder is indeed evidence for "Fremantle" as a common name, but that title is unworkable on Wikipedia because there's the small matter of Fremantle, the place, having its own article. It tells us nothing about whether "Fremantle Football Club" or "Fremantle Dockers" would be a better alternative. And for the umpteenth time, claiming the official name is well used means squat if you don't have the sources to back it up. – Teratix ₵ 03:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think you are twisting somewhat, what I am saying. The clubs commonly referred to by their nicknames in the ladder are those that are most commonly called that in the media and by fans, while most of the other clubs simply listed by their name are those that people are most used to calling "NAME" Football Club. The ladder is a reflection of common practice. Superegz (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I think I understand, you're saying if a club is listed as [location] on the ladder we should use [location] Football Club and only use [location] [mascot] if it is listed as [location] [mascot]. In that case, I don't accept that as a valid inference. If it's true that the ladder is a reflection of common practice, back that up with sources, please, not just words. – Teratix ₵ 04:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, all formal and official correspondence from the club, is always addressed as being from the Fremantle Football Club. As previously stated the official name is well used and understood and as such there is no need to change. Dan arndt (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - based on @HiLo48hilo48 and @Gnangarra arguments Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per the cogent arguments from those above. Storm machine (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - there's a lot of opposition to the proposal given above, but the substance of that opposition is very weak at present. The support provided a volume of sources that use the proposed name, giving a strong suggestion that it is more commonly used than the present, and that wasn't really rebuffed. Instead, a lot of the oppose !votes seem to be little more than I don't like it arguments... But then again, with such a volume it's tricky to just close directly against the numbers. Hoping with another week, we can reach a more clear conclusion.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Just wondering why this is still open. Superegz (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to close RMs when the side with the numerical majority makes bad arguments. The closer can favour the raw numbers, but this makes it difficult to write a coherent closing statement with reference to policy. But it's just as difficult to say a minority position can really represent a consensus, even if it's the better argument. – Teratix ₵ 04:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My opposition to this proposal is clear. Just to add to the discussion after its been dead for a while, I just noticed that a new coin issued by the Royal Australian Mint has gone with "Fremantle Football Club". [6]. Superegz (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fremantle_Football_Club&oldid=1220015459"