Jump to content

Talk:Melbourne Football Club

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


Unnamed section

[edit]

Can someone find a home for Allen Jakovich in this article? It's an orphan at the moment, and while I remember the guy, I don't know enough to be able to fit him in here. Ambi 09:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think he was an important enough player to merit a mention in the text. I suppose he could be a "related article". Adam 12:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some of the dates in the club's history are anachronistic. (2003 and 1997). Can somebody find the actual dates and correct it? --134.173.166.158 22:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article was subtly vandalised in July (dates and names changed etc), and no-one has spotted it until now. I have reverted to the last pre-vandalism version. This has erased some subsequent legitimate edits, but that can't be helped. The vandal User:143.238.221.167 has also vandalised other AFL club articles. I don't know if these have been fixed. Why are the member numbers and the approximate for 2005 different? 

User contributions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For 143.238.221.167 (Talk)
Namespace:
(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

   * 08:16, 3 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Melbourne Football Club (→Origins)
   * 08:08, 3 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Adelaide Crows (→Club history)
   * 08:03, 3 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Carlton Football Club (→Records)
   * 07:46, 3 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Brisbane Bears (→History)

(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

Adam 02:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club Jumpers

[edit]

I've removed the image of the jumpers because both of them have been changed for the 2008 season. The home one has a 150 years logo added below the red yoke, and the clash has been changed completely. Can anyone find an image, or separate images, of the 2008 uniforms? Morstar (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Melbourne80s.png

[edit]

Image:Melbourne80s.png 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club Song

[edit]

One of you redlegs should go add a section on the tune of the club song and whatnot, keeping in line with the other pages...or at least two of the other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comradeash (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The demons have a special logo for their 150 year celebrations. This should be uploaded into this article. --Rulesfan 01:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Melbourne-2007-Clash.gif

[edit]

Image:Melbourne-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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Melbourne-2007.gif

[edit]

Image:Melbourne-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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Melbourne80s.png

[edit]

Image:Melbourne80s.png 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 ensure 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) 14:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent fans

[edit]

Does anyone else think that the "Prominent fans" section is a little long? Perhaps a rethink of how prominent someone should be in order to make the list could be in order, and not simply listing everyone who has ever mentioned they support the Dees and who has a wikipedia page of their own.... Jason A. Recliner (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think remove it all together or have only 10-12 names, there already is an article about prominent fans of all the clubs on here I think. - JM

Found year - 1858 or 1859

[edit]

Whether or not someone individually believes that MFC was founded in 1859, the club itself recognises that it was founded in 1858. Therefore, I think that the year 1858 should be used as the actual founding year, unless a proper citation can be produced. Morstar (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The Herald issue of Monday 16 May 1859 carries a news item about a meeting [on Saturday 14 May 1859] "held to form a football club." The committee is listed and includes JB Thompson as Secretary. In advertisements published the next Saturday [21 May] he is identified as Secretary of the Melbourne Football Club. The club's first annual meeting was held on 27 April 1860, ads and reports on it being published in The Herald and The Argus issues of 27 & 28 April 1860.

RossRSmith (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't want to argue about when the club was actually formed and whatever. I want to mention that the text in the article introduction says "In 2008 the club celebrated the 150th anniversary of the first meeting of its founding members". There is proof that this meeting occured in August 1858. Therefore, even if the club was founded in 1859, that is not relevant to the context. Morstar (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the issue I think. How can a club hold a meeting of founding members months prior to it actually being founded ?
There may have been a meeting of another organization in August 1858, but that relates to that body, not the MFC.
RossRSmith (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do so many Demons supporters still believe that it is the oldest club in the world when it isnt? What is so painful about admitting that many of footballs founders played older versions of football in England? American football, Aussie Rules, Association Football and Rugby all have an ancient pedigree going back many centuries in Europe.
Firstly, the existence of older versions of football doesn't necessarily mean organised sporting clubs. Secondly, if they're that much older, how would 1858 vs 1859 change anything about being the oldest football club?


Need the early 90's demons shield logo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee533 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I understand the argument between whether the club was established/founded in 1858 or 1859, however, considering there was a court case that ruled in favour of the club being established/founded in 1858 (in STOP DELETING NEW LOGO! section) then the article should represent that. I would say a legal case outcome would take precedence over an opinion. Flickerd (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you listed - Wills 1858 letter and the MFC history book by Lynda Carroll cite no evidence whatsoever in favour of 1858, and The Footballer 1875 publication is many years after the foundation date and is in error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RossRSmith (talk • contribs) 10:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These were the sources used by the AFL and Melbourne which won the case to rule in favour of the club being established in 1858... I'm sorry, but you need to accept that this court case is above opinion and your research, a lot of people would have done research about this and you have actually lost a court case regarding this fact. The case rules out any ambiguity as to when the club was established, all the logos and everything related to Melbourne says the club was established in 1858 and this page needs to reflect that. I am also going to include the court case as a reference, because as previously stated, it should be and is the deciding factor. Flickerd (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also accept that the club didn't play until 1859, which I have stated in the history section, however, the actual establishment of the club was 1858, and I will keep referring back to the court case as the deciding factor. It appears you have a differing opinion of what establishment means, which was evident in the case, but this court case is a 3rd party intervention with no bias and has decided on an outcome. I am hoping you can now accept this, even though we disagree, there is a 3rd opinion without bias which has clarified the situation. (I also haven't added any new or different evidence to the case so the fact the case was 2 years ago doesn't make it irrelevant). Flickerd (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

150 Heroes

[edit]

the link for "bob Corbett" links to a canadian politician that the real bob corbett.


I do not know how to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.194.83 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Melbourne released a new logo today, making the logo currently on the page obselete. Could someone who knows something about free images (or whatever they are) please get an image of the new logo and put in on the page? Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - the new emblem will be "officially" launched some time in November, so I guess it's not really necessary until then, but it would be useful for someone to have the logo by then. Jenks24 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STOP DELETING NEW LOGO!

[edit]

It's legit, stop deleting it! The new Melbourne logo has been deleted like three times in a row now! Please, stop deleting it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombrars (talk • contribs) 12:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is not legit ! It has not yet been approved by the trademark authorities. All legal processes it has to go through will not be completed for some months yet. RossRSmith (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is! It is on the AFL site and the Melbourne site, look for yourself! http://i749.photobucket.com/albums/xx134/Jay4P/wdd.jpg?t=1290062338 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombrars (talk • contribs) 06:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is on the AFL and Melbourne websites, but as Ross says, it is not fully legal yet. Anyway, what's the rush? Jenks24 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this has gone on long enough! There is no denying that it is their official logo, it is on their website, it is on their guernsey, it is behind the coach during post-game conferences, this is their logo, stop deleting it! This article is not reliable if it has an outdated logo on it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombrars (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still reliable, whatever logo is used. But to get to your main point, the logo has not been approved by the trademark authorities so Wikipedia shouldn't be using it. The AFL and Melbourne shouldn't be using it either, but just because they are doing something incorrect that does not make it ok for Wikipedia to do the same. I don't why you are in such a rush about this. Just wait a little while (Ross says it will all be approved soonish and I believe him) and then we can put the new logo in the article. It's great that you are so passionate about improving Wikipedia, but perhaps your enthusiasm could be better directed? Also, two quick notes: the logo is not being deleted, simply removed from the article (this is a difference) and please remember to sign your posts using the four tildes. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty funny this still hasn't been changed, it's been their logo for over a year now, it's on the Australian national trademark website too. --58.175.43.116 (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The application to register the new logo was more or less completed a few weeks ago. I'm disappointed that the decision went against me, especially given the evidence I lodged in favour of 1859 as against 1858. However, you can read the outcome here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/ATMO/2012/20.html
RossRSmith (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly were you against the logo, and what were you trying to achieve by making it a court case? (Bombrars (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

File:Melbourne FC Logo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Melbourne FC Logo.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) 19:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The article doesn't mention that it is now the football section of the MCC. Is this a matter of debate? Hack (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky issue. No doubt the article should mention the relationship, but my understanding is that it's not quite as simple as just being a section of the MCC – especially considering that the current relationship is in no way analogous to the other sporting sections of the MCC. That said, if you can find any RSs discussing it (shouldn't be too hard to find in The Age archives), then I would certainly encourage you to add the info to the article, which, to be honest, is in very poor shape and can use all the referenced info it can get. Jenks24 (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the MCC site: "In 2009, the Melbourne Football Club once again became a Sporting Section of the Melbourne Cricket Club."[1]. From the MFC site: "The Melbourne Football Club (MFC) is an official Sporting Section of the Melbourne Cricket Club (MCC)"[2]. I'll try and find some media coverage but that seems pretty clearcut. Hack (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Melbourne 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

[edit]

🔴🔵🔴🔵 Cavalryman (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melbourne_Football_Club&oldid=1212946783"