Article name[edit]

@4TheWynne: Hi there, "Unnamed Tasmanian football club" is entirely inappropriate for this article. This relates to a future football club which does not exist yet, and will have a name. What is known is that it will be an AFL club, and not some other football league like soccer or rugby. Do you have a better name? Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Onetwothreeip, AFL isn't the name of the sport and the club isn't going to compete solely in the AFL, so a more appropriate term would be "Australian football club" rather than "AFL club"; a compromise could be "Future Tasmanian Australian football club". 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it would have to be Future Tasmanian Australian rules football club. StAnselm (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFL is the league that the club will be playing in. It's irrelevant that AFL isn't the name of the sport. We can't call it a future Tasmanian Australian football club, because there will be many football clubs on the island of Tasmania that will come into existence. This article is specifically for the one which will be competing in the AFL. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unnamed Tasmanian football club → Tasmanian AFL team – With the concurrent existence of both Tasmanian A-League bid and History of the Tasmanian AFL bid, the current title is not WP:PRECISE enough, especially for a team based in Australia, where "football" can mean at minimum three different sports. An argument was made on more than one occasion that this is not exclusively an "AFL team" because the franchise will also field teams in the AFLW and VFL. However, this is a moot point as both are owned and operated by the AFL, and so it's accurate to label the club an "AFL" franchise. Titles such as "San Diego MLS team", "Los Angeles NWSL team", and "Seattle NHL team" worked as placeholders because they made unambiguous the location and league the franchise belonged to.

Pinging 4TheWynne, Onetwothreeip, and StAnselm as participants in the above discussion. Also pinging Chuq and Rulesfan as major contributors to the article. — AFC Vixen 🦊 03:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom's very well reasoned proposal. oknazevad (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Australia has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per AFC Vixen. The cited precedents make this even easier. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "football club" is too imprecise when there are bids in Australian football and soccer. However, I'd instead favour "Future Tasmanian Australian football club" as the title, because the club will participate in more leagues than just the AFL. I don't agree that the AFL's association with these leagues makes the point moot – they are separate competitions with different names, clubs and locations. I see Onetwothreeip has said "Tasmanian Australian football club" is too imprecise because there may be many future clubs founded in Tasmania. However, the term "Tasmanian" here refers to "representing Tasmania", not "located in Tasmania". Although there may be future clubs located in Tasmania, only this bid is intended to represent Tasmania as a whole rather than a location or region. – Teratix ₵ 07:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The semantics I’m trying to convey here is that the AFLW and VFL are not leagues with an “association” with the AFL, they are AFL leagues. — AFC Vixen 🦊 10:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you call them "associated with", "operated by" or simply "AFL leagues", I don't see how those semantics relate to my point that these leagues are distinct competitions with different clubs, locations, standards of play, genders and so on, and thus terming the Tasmanian entry an "Australian football club" is more accurate than just an "AFL team". Do you have any objection to "Future Tasmanian Australian football club" as a title? – Teratix ₵ 10:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is that it’s more predictive than not to say that the AFL franchise will be the only “Future Tasmanian Australian football club” in the near-term, with AFL Tasmania’s impending restructure of its numerous competitions. I believe that “Tasmanian” would be interpreted as “located in Tasmania” by more readers than “representing Tasmania”, regardless of whether it’s conjugated as “Tasmania” or “Tasmanian”. — AFC Vixen 🦊 14:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think "Tasmanian" would be construed as location rather than representation? Wouldn't this be an oddly imprecise way of referring to any given future AFL Tasmania club, which will surely be located in specific places or regions within Tasmania, not just a genericised "Tasmania"? – Teratix ₵ 22:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Australian football club" is less specific than "AFL club", and that is the only way that it is more accurate. The notability of this new club is that it will be playing in the leagues known as AFL, and whether it plays in the VFL for a year or two is irrelevant. The 18 current AFL clubs are all known primarily as AFL clubs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Titles are meant to accurately convey an article's entire scope, not merely its most notable aspects. There's no point using a more specific term if it understates the scope. – Teratix ₵ 12:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it clear that it is the football rather than the club which is Australian? South Hobart FC could be termed an "Australian football club". Certes (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certes, Australian football is the shortform of Australian rules football, not association football/soccer in Australia; I don't see why we would refer to South Hobart FC as anything other than an association football/soccer club, like it is currently. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about Australia (and North America, where "football" also has a different default) but the rest of the world might be confused. Certes (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who initially takes the "Australian football" in "future Tasmanian Australian football club" to refer to an Australian team of some other football code would naturally notice that it makes no sense to talk of a "Tasmanian Australian football club" (why specify the football club as Tasmanian and then Australian?) and correctly conclude "Australian football" does not refer to the club's nationality but the code it plays. It's not ambiguous. – Teratix ₵ 21:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the reader thinks about it logically and trusts us not to use tautology in titles then they can deduce which adjective must belong with which noun. Certes (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. "Australian football" is not "the shortform" for "Australian rules football". It can refer to association football of Australia, for example. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anything like "future football club", pretty much anything other than referring to it as a future AFL club, would be far too imprecise. There would be many football clubs that will come into existence in future in Tasmania that do not yet exist, such as various local clubs. The problem with "football club" is not only the ambiguity as to the type of sport being played, but also that this article is specifically about one particular future club, the one which will be playing in the AFL, and not some other future football club. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wouldn't be too against to something mentioning "future" but with the name set to be announced next month anyway... Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Informal RM[edit]

The club now has a name, so it's time for a move. Tasmania Devils Football Club is a disambiguation page listing former clubs of this name. What's the best new title for this article? Certes (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no official word on the name. The Herald Sun appears to be reporting on a rumour, perhaps a well-founded rumour, but not something that justifies a page move yet. However, an official announcement is due this month, and I would not be surprised if it did confirm the Herald Sun's report. Supposing this were the case, the new club would immediately become the primary topic and I would favour a simple move to Tasmania Devils (currently a redirect to that disambiguation page), with a hatnote clarifying how to find Tasmanian devil and other football clubs by the same name. – Teratix ₵ 07:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what you say there, I would also add surely Tasmanian Devils (senior team) should be renamed to Tasmanian Devils (2001–2008) if the name is indeed (and I have no doubt it will be) confirmed? Similar to Moorabbin Football Club (1979–1987) Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with Tasmania Devils if that name is indeed locked in, and that any action we take should wait until the name, logo, colours, etc. are officially unveiled. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Tasmanian Devils (2001–2008) is a logical destination for the other team. – Teratix ₵ 13:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. I based my suggestion on the recent change in article text, but it looks as if that may have been premature. Certes (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point of clarification @Certes: @Teratix: @Totallynotarandomalt69: @4TheWynne:: I still see disagreement on whether to use 'Tasmania' or 'Tasmanian' in the titles. I'm also unsure on this matter, and I don't completely trust that the references I'm looking are precise enough on this minor distinction; but the weight of references I'm seeing does seem to favour Tasmania over Tasmanian in club names. On that basis, I'd be using Tasmania Devils (2001–2008) and Tasmania Devils (under-18s team) as the article titles for those two teams.
Exactly what the AFL club's page will end up being titled won't be known for a while. If possible it should end with the words 'Football Club', but as we went through with Gold Coast and GWS, that wouldn't necessarily be correct. I'd probably still use Tasmania Devils Football Club as the placeholder name if the haven't confirmed the legal name, acknowledging that it may need to change again in future.
We probably end up redirecting all variations of Tasmania/n Devil/s to the AFL club, leaving all variations of Tasmania/n devil/s redirecting to the marsupial. The dab pages could do with some merging and tidying up. Aspirex (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tasmanian still works for the 2001-08 club since that's what the logo seems to have
The new club, according to the Herald Sun, will be "Tasmania Devils" in line with the U18 team
So I think
Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose titles including "Football Club" because it's unlikely to be part of the club's WP:COMMONNAME. The legal name is unimportant; it's all about the name our sources actually use. – Teratix ₵ 04:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep agree with you Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with that assessment of commonname. This conversation alone suggests it's likely that 'Football Club' will figure in the the common name for a significant proportion of people. Aspirex (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, why does the conversation suggest many people will use "Football Club" in the name? – Teratix ₵ 05:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because 3/5 people involved in the conversation suggested using Football Club at some point of the discussion. I was more making a point that we don't have the sample size to conclude a common name, rather than favouring one over to t'other. Aspirex (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, if Tasmania/n Devils ends up being the name, I don't think we should use "Football Club" either – I don't see why we should treat it any differently to Gold Coast, GWS, West Coast, etc. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 08:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the exact common name, "Football Club" may be useful as natural disambiguation from the animal or other topics. I doubt that anyone says "My team's playing Adelaide Football Club next week", but it's the next best title when the common name has another meaning. Certes (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguating element here would be either the precise spelling ("Tasmania" vs. "Tasmanian") or, if the name ends up as "Tasmanian Devils", the capitalisation. Further disambiguation is unnecessary. – Teratix ₵ 10:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DIFFCAPS ought to be helpful here, but essentially it seems to say that the previous comment is right except when it's not. Capital D and plural s, taken together, are probably enough to make the club primary for its CONCISE name. Certes (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the short form? If the name ends up being Tasmania Devils, would make sense to just have "Tasmania", but if it's Tasmanian Devils, does that then change things – would that then eliminate the need for a short form? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a crystal ball at this point. But I would be surprised if they were always called Tasmanian Devils to the exclusion of Tasmania (i.e. I doubt they'll be like the Western Bulldogs or Northern Bullants) and would be betting on Tasmania being the short form. Aspirex (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 March 2024[edit]

Tasmania Football Club → Tasmania Devils – OK, it's official! Looks like media are going with "Tasmania Devils": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] – Teratix ₵ 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The media going with something NEVER makes it official. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say this. Those were two separate sentences, as in "OK, the club has officially announced their nickname as the Devils. And also, media are using the name "Tasmania Devils". – Teratix ₵ 03:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just an addition to this, it looks like the media have started to pick up on the clubs use of "Tasmania Football Club" too. For example the headline "60,000 members already signed up to AFL team Tasmania FC" here: [6]. Superegz (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The launch last night had someone say something along the lines of "we are the Tasmania Football Club...the Devils"
Unless there's an official trademark with a different name (ie Tasmania Devils Football Club) no move Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think until there is an official deal between warner bros and the TasGov and the premier/afl ceo has officially stated the name than it should stay as this. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I need to point out to other editors that User:Teratix has opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#HiLo48 violating his civility restriction to try to silence me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true I have opened this thread. I'm not out to silence you. I'm happy to withdraw it if you'll withdraw the comment about my "obsession with nicknames". Other editors can have a look if they're interested, I suppose, but it's really a conduct dispute that doesn't pertain to the issues at hand in the RM. Instead, why not give me some feedback on my proposed methodology for better determining the COMMONNAME? – Teratix ₵ 06:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to respond to EVERYTHING I wrote in that comment, including the fact that you want to change the names of many other clubs, " if not in all cases". (I'm using your own words there.) You certainly want to change a lot of club article names (if not all of them) to use the nicknames. Can you suggest a better word for me to use to describe that? HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(responded on user talk) – Teratix ₵ 07:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha ha ha. All that does is make communcation more disjointed and scattered. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've looked on my user page, and you can't or won't suggest a better word. Oh dear. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the wording above. Is it OK? HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge: no further move requests on AFL clubs for at least twelve months

The general question of whether I favour moving our other articles to AFL clubs is becoming an unfortunate distraction that is detracting from the specific question of whether to move our article on the Tasmanian club. As a show of good faith, I pledge – regardless of the outcome of any discussions in progress – I will submit no further move requests for AFL clubs for at least twelve months. If I decide after this twelve-month period that a certain move is warranted, I will only submit move requests on a carefully considered, case-by-case basis. I will not seek to move more than one AFL club's article at once, unless a community consensus prefers the contrary. – Teratix ₵ 07:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just wondering why this is still open. Superegz (talk) 02:17, 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 I don't agree that your argument is necessarily better than the consensus. It's not wrong, but neither is the counterargument. In essence, the article titles at the official names aren't the true commonly used name. But the common name is equally split between three choices, of which the most identifying one is also the least "correct". For the lineball cases of Adelaide, Fremantle and now Tasmania, it has been demonstrated that the policy arguments for the current titles are just as substantial as the alternatives. Keep up the good work, though. 60.225.201.24 (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories