Premierships

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

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

Stadiums

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

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

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

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:

  • 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]
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]
Oppose - based on @HiLo48hilo48 and @Gnangarra arguments Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories