Wikipedia

Talk:Adelaide United FC/Archive 2

< Talk:Adelaide United FC
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Skyring in topic Is it soccer?

Restructuring

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all. I've restructured this article, according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Please help expand the sections that are empty or lacking in content. Also, please discuss the proposal to merge the article on former players into the 'Noted players' section. Normally, this would only include players who have had a significant impact (e.g. played over 100 games), but with only one season under their belt, most/all former players can be included. Fedgin 14:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think another restructure is needed as the History section looks very patchy at the moment, with certain sections with little to no information and others (more recent seasons) with enough information for its own article. Please voice your opinions here. -- RedsUnited (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It's possible that the sections may need a bit of a cleanup, however, I disagree with you in that the newer seasons have enough information to merit their own article. It's natural that the more recent seasons should have more information, with the club's more recent success in Asia. --timsdad (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrospectively, I take back my comment about splitting each section into its own article. RedsUnited (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AdelaideUnited07Kit.png

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:AdelaideUnited07Kit.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

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 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Current Squads template

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm here to say the current squad templates really stand out from the rest of the other football squads. And it sucks too, please change the template and make the other a-league team templates follow suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.238.74 (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It stands out and it should. It is useful information that all Australian A-league pages provide. If you don't like it then stick to some other league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.85.125 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Supporters

I have edited this to make it factual, being an encyclopedia. This is not a place to air personal grievances or advertise squabbles. Drowner1979

Badge comment, and general quality query

This page needs some better quality organisation and comment in general, and I am not yet about to do it.

Nonetheless, I raise at this point that this line I thinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adelaide_United_FC&action=edit&section=4 Editing Talk:Adelaide United FC (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediak needs either more neutrality, or otherwise removal:

The Adelaide United badge is a far cry from some other teams, such as Queensland Roar, by taking the form of a traditional football badge

Congratulations to all who have made this page what it is so far, let's raise the standard somewhat. I think for instance Romario does not merit headline status in this article.

Disclosure: I am a Reds supporter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderer (talk • contribs) 02:11, 23 July 2007

The Gate / Red Army edit - 2 August 2007

To my recollection the Gate and the Red Army merged - formerly they were at opposite ends of the ground, then they merged last season to sit at the northern end of the ground. I don't mind leaving the edit as is but if someone edits to remove Red Army, so be it. You'll know why.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderer (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 August 2007

Merge from List of Adelaide United F.C. players

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Old merge proposal that doesn't appear to have been tagged here or discussed. No opinion. Pairadox 00:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Julian Torresan

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is no need to add Julian Torresan to the squad list or template as he was only on a 1-week temporary contract for Robbie Bajic. FifaEditor 10:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed content from top of page re 07/08

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

to my mind this was not relevant for the summary section it sat in:

After Adelaide's 3-2 loss to Perth in the second to last round, a frustrated Vidmar announced that the club needed better defenders.[citation needed]

Wanderer (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideas/Ramblings

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could just be talking to myself...but.

Just how important/notable are sections such as International Representatives or Medical Staff? Seems trivial sections at best. Also with Notable former players, considering how young the league is and how little 'notable players' we have should this section have nothing in it and just link to, the very much work in progress, List of Adelaide United FC players...?

Ohh and while im at it the Records/Statistics/Goals et al I feel we should split it from the main section much akin to the Melbourne_victory_records_and_statistics

Thoughts, comments, hate? Lirm200 (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Article move

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I considered putting the idea for moving the article to Adelaide United FC instead of F.C. with the periods, but I noticed many other football club articles had the periods and many didn't. So I instead decided to go around changing everything that linked to the current name to the previous article name Adelaide United F.C., but all my changes must now be reverted (eventually). Was it even worth changing the name? timsdad (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I think this came up before and the reason for the 'dots' in F.C. was because is was visible on the Adelaide badge. Not that I think it matters symantecs tbh Lirm200 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2008-09 Transfers

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've just gone to AEK Athens' page, and Nathan Burns was bought for 600,000 Euros but on this page it says that AEK Athens paid 290,000 Euros. So 1 of them must be wrong so can someone check sources and find out how much it was. Riggy1990 (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And on the page for list of Greek transfers, It is stated that he was free. Riggy1990 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Presumably it is based on appearances, goals, national calls the usual raft of clauses. I would think it's best if anything on the Adelaide page references figures from a 'local' source unless a clear value can be obtained Lirm200 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

W-League/Youth

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

What's peoples thoughts about creating a seperate page for these? The W-League team is deffenetly significant enough to warrent one and it would start to clean up the page what has way to much crap currently. Speaking of still voting to remove most of the records and statistics would just do it but I know it will get reverted for 'vandalism' if I don't get some consensus. Lirm200 (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently, all of the teams in the W-League (save Canberra United) do not have their own articles but have team lists in their men's A-League counterparts' articles (some do not even get a mention at all). Unless you are willing to dig up enough information to start seven new articles, I don't think it is worth it until the W-League becomes more prominent. Same goes for the Youth Squads.
As for the records and statistics, which is it you are speaking of? timsdad (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any plans of creating everyones W-League wiki but I do feel that it shouldn't been on this page either it should have it's own page what people can put in information about it's differnet badge, history and so on or just removed. The youth league I agree doesn't need one at the moment.
As for the records and stats I can't find too many football clubs that list all records and stats on the main page (such as Top Goal Scorers, All-time Win/Loss etc etc.) I said it previously putting these on it's own page and leaving the basic stats like Record Victory and All-time Leading Goal Scorer.
Just a few things to tidy up the page and make it look like a normal football wiki. Lirm200 (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Well if you want to create Adelaide's W-League article then you should probably go about creating the others as well. I totally agree that there should be an article for Adelaide's women's team, and as I said before, if you are willing to go to the trouble to find enough information to start some articles not just full of statistics and records, then by all means I'll be able to help you.
Regarding the records, I don't think Adelaide is an old enough club to have its own records and statistics article (eg. Manchester United F.C. records and statistics), yet if you can find more records and things to add then we can see how it goes and if it's worth keeping. timsdad (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A-League clubs: FC to F.C.

Latest comment: 15 years ago26 comments5 people in discussion

This issue has been brought up several times before, one of those instances here. It has been general consensus that the names of the A-League clubs use "FC" in their articles. Yes, the crest on each team (except Newcastle Jets) uses "F.C." but the webistes and official match reports and statistics do not.

In addition, Template:Move should have been used on Adelaide United F.C. to request the move of this article to that name, rather than Template:Db-move which requests the deletion of that page and the content moved here. --timsdad (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the A-League articles, someone decided that "FC" should be added to every club in the A-League, regardless of whether it is used anywhere by the team in the club's logo, the history section of the website, or anything. Gold Coast United are just Gold Coast United. There's no "FC," their name is not "Gold Coast United Football Club" or any of that. Secondly, if a club's name ends in "FC" (note: without the fullstops/periods) like Sydney FC, for instance, then the club's full name is just "Sydney FC." Look at other articles like AFC Wimbledon, FC Dallas, etc. If the club's name really is something like "Melbourne Victory Football Club," then the club's article should be at "Melbourne Victory F.C." and the club should be piped as "Melbourne Victory." See Arsenal F.C., Manchester United F.C. etc.
As for the templates, clubs with "F.C." should have it left out of the piped link, and clubs with "FC" should have it included. These are the names of the clubs, and the A-League should follow the same rules as everyone else. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You make some good points (and I won't reply to your message on my talk page as it is exactly the same as the above), yet consensus has been reached already and the decision has been that all clubs will have "FC" on the end. However, if you're that passionate about it and would like to take it futher, I suggest starting up a new discussion at the Wikiproject and reach another consensus before changing templates and moving articles. Thanks, timsdad (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Consensus can change. It is incorrect for every team in the league to have "FC" tacked on to their name simply because somebody decided it would make the articles more uniform. There is simply no reason to do such a thing. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't revert my changes until we reach a consensus. It appears we have a COI on our hands here. The reason I am reverting your changes yet again is because we must keep everything how it was until consensus is reached. Wait for more users to provide their input to this discussion, a good way of doing that would be to take this to the Wikiproject to get more traffic. Just please do not change it all back until we reach a consensus. Sorry to repeat myself, but it must be understood. --timsdad (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not for the A-League community to unilaterally circumvent established policy with regard to article names. Since I don't want an edit war, I'll leave it for now, but you should understand that the A-League is not fundamentally different from every other league. We don't go to MLS and tack "FC" onto "Los Angeles Galaxy", do we? Why should the A-League. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I never said I didn't agree with you, I would just rather everyone reach a consensus about what we should do, and then we can go about doing it. I admit, you do have a point, it's either F.C. or it's nothing; but there are other points to consider, such as having a sentence ending with a team name: "last game will be played against Perth Glory F.C.." is a bit awkward. However, I am all for changing all the clubs' articles to have F.C. on the end, but the templates (Template:ALeague AU, Template:ALeague NUJ) should stay piped as [[Adelaide United F.C.|Adelaide United]] and [[Newcastle United Jets F.C.|Newcastle Jets]]. --timsdad (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Perth Glory F.C. is just like Manchester United F.C. You can sub Manchester United into that sentence and it works just fine. The last game will be played against Manchester United/Perth Glory. Obviously the "F.C." is piped out from links. That is only done with "F.C.," however, as "F.C." is an abbreviation. "FC" like Toronto FC or FC Dallas or Seattle Sounders FC should be left in the name, as that is the full name of the club. We only remove the abbreviations. Another example is AFC Wimbledon, which is always referred to as "AFC Wimbledon," not as "Wimbledon," as would be done if the club's name were "A.F.C. Wimbledon." I know it seems like a nitpick, but we have to treat everything the same. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
And from reading your above posts, it appears it was you who did this unilaterally. You can't just tack things onto team names. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hold on, you just said you would leave things as they are for now! Why would you go and change it all back again before a consensus is reached? Also, it was never my decision to add 'FC' on to the end of the articles... --timsdad (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted all of the stuff within the articles, and I've reverted the template links that still work. I'm willing to wait on the ones that still need to be moved, as I see your point, but there's no reason to makeup new names for these clubs or to link to their articles differently than with every other major article on the encyclopedia. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Also, please note, that I don't want to add F.C. to every club's name. I want the article titles to reflect the actual names of the clubs. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Futhermore, as I outlined above, the A-League season articles (eg. A-League 2008-09) are much easier to read when the templates (most notably Template:ALeague NUJ) read simply the team name. --timsdad (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree to wait until we have reached consensus about the F.C. stuff, however, you have reverted all of my edits piping the links on the aforementioned templates. As I said, the season articles flow much nicer with the templates piped. --timsdad (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The articles should list either the full team name as in "XYZ" or "XYZ FC" or the full name with the abbreviation removed as in "XYZ F.C." becomes "XYZ". This is the format followed everywhere else. "Chelsea F.C." becomes "Chelsea," but "Toronto FC" stays "Toronto FC". We only omit abbreviations, and "FC" is not an abbreviation. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's definitely "FC", not "F.C." - CC, AU, the table etc. Daniel (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, right there on the crest... -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if I can be much clearer. I am not worried about the F.C. stuff at the moment, I am simply asking why Grant un-piped the links in the team templates (i.e. Template:ALeague NUJ) if we have not sorted out if the "FC" (no periods) should be included in the names of the clubs. Besides, it appears that it has only been WP, QR and NUJ that have been changed. I will revert them until we have sorted this out. --timsdad (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A-League club names

Okay, let's start from scratch here. First thing we should do is try to determine the actual full name of every A-League club. Simple enough, I would think, so here goes:

Simply either put okay for each name or suggest an alternate name. Remember that we're talking about the complete, official name of the club (minus any corporate abbreviations I think we can agree not to include like PLC, etc.), not the name to pipe for the templates, etc.

  • Sydney FC should be at Sydney FC and be unpiped

Can we at least agree on that? Until we can agree on that, then we can't even have any conversation about how they should be piped. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you've gone and yet again reverted all of my changes (my only intention was to keep things as they were until we've sorted this out). All of the above looks fine to me (the logos are all we really have to go on as the websites are hardly accurate - they all have FC, save just Gold Coast, and some are shortened, such as Newcastle Jets FC).
My view on the piping is that, because these teams don't have consistent naming (not all have FC, not all have Football Club), all the links should be piped to the names used on the A-League website in reports and summaries (i.e. Adelaide United, Newcastle Jets, Queensland Roar) exactly as they were before. --timsdad (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well that is not necessary. I'm more concerned that from league to league, article to article that the standards be consistent. Unless there is other evidence suggesting that the names above are incorrect, then the above article locations and pipings should be used, based on what is done in MLS and other leagues around the world. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This will bring the articles into consistent naming with other football articles, but not with each other in the A-League. I understand that because we see an 'FC' in the logo, we must include that as part of the club's name, but maybe it's simply an error in the creation of the clubs and we should be keeping all of the articles consistent (either all with 'F.C.' or all with 'FC' - I would prefer the former as 'FC' is obviously meant to represent 'Football Club' in a shortened form, for some reason not with periods). I am happy to change the article names to the above, but still feel that the names should all be piped without any FCs or F.C.s. --timsdad (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is simple - use the most basic of Wikipedia naming conventions: "use the simplest, non-ambiguous name" - and as a result, none of the articles should have FC - except for maybe Sydney as it is needed for disambiguation. People talk about "Melbourne Victory" and "Central Coast Mariners" and there is NO confusion as to what is being discussed. -- Chuq (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The templates

I understand the F.C - FC discussion is ongoing at the Wikiproject, but I would like some more input on the pipings of the links at the templates. The point of the templates is to display each club's name in a similar fashion so when used in season articles, everything is consistent. Every time I reverted Grant's changes on the templates begging him to let us reach a consensus first, he simply reverted with an edit summary s of something like "rv - full name of club". Please give me your input on how to display the names (using the templates, I don't want to drag the F.C. - FC discussion into this. Thanks, timsdad (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing as nobody has voiced their opinion on this, and we haven't reached a consensus, I have no choice but to revert the templates to how they were before. If anyone strongly feels that the names should be unpiped if they have an 'FC', please voice your opinion here. Thanks, timsdad (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The templates are there for consistency's sake and I agree with keeping them as they are for now. --124.171.133.9 (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Transfers Section in Squad Information

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Personally, I don't think this section (Transfers) is required. All end of season transfers are listed in their respective season articles. - RedsUnited (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FIFA nationality of Sergio van Dijk

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A player is first listed under their country of birth, if they have not participated in an A-Level FIFA sanctioned international match. Once called up, and said player has participated in such a match (being capped), then they can be listed under their new FIFA nationality. - RedsUnited (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Return of Iain Fyfe

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Now Iain Fyfe has returned to Adelaide, should be be listed under both current players and notable former players? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.108.199 (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes from "Socceroos" to "Australia national association football team"

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In this and several other articles Macktheknifeau has unilaterally changed the word "Socceroos" to "Australia national association football team". (Sometimes with the word "player" tacked on for sanity, but hardly for clarity and simplicity.) I see these changes as pointy, confrontational, and not in line with the agreed naming of Soccer in Australia There is a centralised discussion on this matter underway at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Macktheknifeau doing sweeping, pointy changes again. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adelaide United FC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to visit the club in september of next month to see the club and its players. Milton Goodridge (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I also want to contact my best player on the club Teeboy Kamara by contact number before coming. Milton Goodridge (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Adelaide United FC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adelaide United FC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Adelaide United FC. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adelaide United FC. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Adelaide United FC. 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) 18:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it soccer?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Clearly there is some dissatisfaction with the way Wikipedia deals with the name of the sport. I have commenced discussion at Naming_conventions (Football in Australia) and I invite contributions. --Pete (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adelaide_United_FC/Archive_2&oldid=1143696875"