Daily page views Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Melbourne / Sports / Australian rules football Low‑importance Melbourne University Football Club is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Top-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

URL fixed for VAFA website, it is vafa.asn.au before it was returning a 404 error.- _FabioDrn

There are alleged to have been 112 players during University's VFL stint (refer article). I've been able to include the names of 109 of the 112. Hopefully, someone else is able to include the missing three names.

Albert Isaacs 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually believe that the list detracts from the article. A table with such limited information should not dominate the article. I'm sure if you must have this information in here (a top 10 games played list should suffice) then it should be tabulated to multiple columns to allow for 2 or 3 columns of names and set to a much smaller font.

How about moving the section to List of University Football Club players? The aim eventually is to make all the articles located at Template:AFL club players into bluelinks, this is one of them. Jevansen (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is presumably some restriction on club members moving from being a Blues player to a Blacks player, and vice versa. I'd like to see it explained in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are two separate football entities, just like any others. Their representing the same thing makes no real difference. No explanation is necessary. Sellyminime^Talk 02:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I may not be as smart as you, but it's not obvious to me. The article is about the Melbourne University Football Club - one entity, not two. If I was to join that club, what would define whether I was a Blues player or a Blacks player? Can it change? Who decides? If I can't work it out, maybe it should be in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HiLo48. Read the article, and can't work it out either. An explanation - appropriately referenced, of course - would improve the article.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footy season cometh. Maybe someone with better manners and skill in explaining will notice and respond helpfully and politely to the question here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone edited the article today. Maybe someone will look here and help with the question. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A repeat of the above statement. This is a club of allegedly smart people at a university. Can anyone provide a polite and helpful answer yet? HiLo48 (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bump HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bump HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody just updated the article, so... Bump! HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your best bet now would be to email/call the club/university directly - no on here seems to know. The-Pope (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totallynotarandomalt69 - As someone with obvious knowledge of this club, are you able to answer the question in this section? HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m gonna be really honest I don’t know - I just simply gathered a few sources for my latest edits on the club (see VAFA and VWFL pages to find out where I got it from) Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One day I might find out. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melbourne University 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160329044109/http://www.bomberblitz.com/mero/university.htm to http://bomberblitz.com/mero/university.htm

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) 05:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are not enough sources to justify a separate article. – Teratix ₵ 10:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have updated, expanded, restored and renamed Melbourne University W.F.C.. I understand why it was merged but there is now more than enough sources to justify separate articles. I also note that the women's club has it own website and social media presence independent of the men's club. For these reasons I believe the women's and men's clubs should have separate articles. Djln Djln (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Djln: Thanks for expanding the article but most of those sources you added are not independent of the club. The point about the club having its own website is not relevant to the question of whether it should have a standalone article. The club can easily be covered as part of this article; indeed, almost all (current and former) VFLW teams are covered in the articles of their AFL or VFL affiliate. – Teratix ₵ 23:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I don't see how continually linking to the club's website counts as having "more than enough sources". Djln, additionally, "F.C."/"W.F.C." aren't used in Australian rules football club article titles, and you need to stop replacing the newly-created templates with links to this article. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 04:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Against Merger Seriously cannot believe 4TheWynne has reverted my edits and has started an edit war over this. The women's club more than meets the notability guidelines required to have separate page. Article has also been in existence since 2007, unlike AFLW teams who are four or five years old at most. It is totally inappropriate just to relegate article on women's sport to a badly written footnote of the men's team. Djln] Djln (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Djln, that's where you're wrong though: it's part of the one club, not a separate women's club. What is it about the team itself that makes it notable enough for its own article? Sure, the existing content at the Melbourne University article can absolutely be copyedited/expanded, but you haven't found enough third-party sources to indicate notability justifying a separate article. You're the one who's reverting without explanation, and it's as if you've completely overlooked or ignored my previous comment and edit summaries. Once again, "F.C."/"W.F.C." aren't used in Australian rules football club article titles; it isn't a separate club anyway, but if it was, you'd either spell it out fully and use "Melbourne University Women's Football Club" or something like "Melbourne University Football Club (VFL Women's)", given that's the league that it competed in until recently. I also don't think you understand what the VFLW ___ templates are for; they are just supposed to give the name of the team (hence why Template:VFLW MU simply says "Melbourne University", not "Melbourne University Football Club" or "Melbourne University W.F.C.") – same goes for the templates for AFL, AFLW, VFL, etc. Despite this, you're still going to player articles and replacing the template with something else, which not only completely goes against why the templates are there in the first place, but defeats the purpose of you changing the target of the template – all of which I've asked you again and again not to do. Perhaps most important is Teratix's point that almost all current and former VFLW teams are covered in the articles of their AFL or VFL clubs, and there isn't enough to suggest that an exception needs to be made here. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4TheWynne. Your behaviour is totally inappropriate. Can you explain why you deleted my request for a comment from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's sport. Djln Djln (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Comment So from the history, the article was originally unsourced or barely sourced, Teratrix put a tag on it and merged it after no discussion for 8 months or so, Djln restored and improved, but too many of the sources are to the club's own website, and there aren't enough independent reliable secondary sources out there for an article. I wouldn't have accepted Djln's version at AfC because of the references - I think it's close to clearing notability grounds with the available references, the only question's really if there's a couple additional independent sources which have covered the club. SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Apologies for repeating myself but Melbourne University W.F.C., while affiliated to Melbourne University Football Club, has it's own website, own social media presences, more than enough potential links. It easily passes notability tests. The former is actually better sourced than the latter. The original version has been on Wiki since 2007. The club is much older than most AFLW women's teams. The decision to merge articles is inappropriate and was taken with little or no discussion. Djln Djln (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of a website, the age of the article and the relative age of the club are all irrelevant to whether the article should be merged or not. The reason the articles were merged with little discussion was because there had been merge tags on the articles for eight months, so any interested parties had more than enough time to voice their opinions. The quality of the sourcing is not high enough to warrant a separate article. – Teratix ₵ 23:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge- Neither article is so long that spinning content out into a new article is necessary. Given that both the men's and the women's teams exist under the umbrella of the same organisation, it makes sense to cover them in the same article-- and I don't agree that this "relegates the women's team to a footnote". If they were still independent, as they were until 2016, I might agree with the idea of a standalone article. Reyk _YO! 18:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than the mention on Wikipedia article, I found no evidence that the men's and women's clubs merged in 2016. In fact websites and social media suggest they are still separate and independent. Plus the women's team is literally a footnote. Djln Djln (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The women's team is not "literally a footnote"; in fact it makes up a sizeable portion of the article considering the quality of its sourcing. – Teratix ₵ 23:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a total footnote. My version is better sourced than the main article. Can you at least be honest enough to admit that? Djln Djln (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The main article cites three books and four newspaper articles while the split article mostly cites the club and league websites. Granted, at least there are two sources that are actually independent, but no, the split article definitely does not have the same standard of sourcing. Additionally, it's not really a fair comparison because the bulk of the men's team's notability stems from the pre-internet era when they played in the VFL, whereas the women's team began in the 2000s. – Teratix ₵ 00:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • That last bit would actually be a good argument for two separate articles, if enough sourcing existed for the women's to make it standalone (not at the current moment.) @Djln: Is there any way you could incorporate the changes you've made in the standalone women's article into the current article? We can always fork it when more, better sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The main article is very badly sourced. It has just six sources, only three of which are online. One of them makes no mention of the men's team at all. So any criticism of my version based on sources is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The fact that the men's team enjoyed their best years in the pre-internet age is a poor excuse. There are thousands of sports history websites available. In fact the whole article needs improving. The section of the women's team is particularly bad. (Personal attack removed). I was planning to improve the main article but I am loathe to get involved now after the negative response I have found here. The behaviour of 4TheWynne is especially disgraceful. I am loathe to even follow SportingFlyers suggestion, even though I am sure it was intended to be helpful. If WikiProject Australian rules football is happy to have substandard articles, that is fine by me. Djln Djln (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As outlined above, I firmly disagree with this assessment of the article's sourcing, but we're straying into whataboutism. Also, dislike of another editor's changes is no excuse for personal attacks. – Teratix ₵ 23:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Djln, I know you feel aggrieved, but updating the Mugars text on this article is currently the best way forward, and the path of least resistance to getting another standalone article. I hope you at least consider it. SportingFlyer T·C 01:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • SportingFlyer, I appreciate your efforts to try and come up with a solution. However on further reading, I have discovered that this page is effectively four clubs – The pre-First World War club, University Blacks, University Blues and the Mugars – all badly squashed into a single article. In my opinion they should be separated out into four articles, partnering the four player categories. I am adamant that the Mugars should definitely be a separate article despite the reasons 4TheWynne and Teratix have stated. Therefore I will not be updating the Mugars section. Djln Djln (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]