Jump to content

Talk:Melbourne Knights FC

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

Untitled

[edit]

The version by 61.69.12.15 is direct from the Melbourne Knights official website (see [1] [2] and [3]). It's not the right tone for wikipedia even if there was copyright permission (the following two edits were relatively minor). Suggest reverting to Tancred's version. Cursive 00:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bullshit you've got a 45000 capacity. Where do you fit them? In the quarry?

Cleanup

[edit]

Narrative tone needs to go and be replaced with a factual, encyclopedic tone. Wiki formatting standards need to be followed and internal links added. If anyone wants a stab at it, go for it. --Scottie theNerd 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree... there is somewhat of a political tone to this and some what 'bitter' to the whole restructuring and there is this notion of "us against them" feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.35.110 (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honours cleanup

[edit]

I cleaned up the honours section because i thought it was a little unwieldly, and also to list the more major, and in my opinion, most relevant achievements rather than every little thing, which if done for every side would go on forever. If however, anyone disagrees with this, they can go and add whatever they feel is important enough to be there. Blackmissionary 01:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights Stadium (Australia)

[edit]

As the topic title suggests, i've created an artcile for Knights Stadium (Australia). Take a little caution with linking to it because there is already an article on a stadium with the same name in the US. So add pics, details if you have them, you know the drill. Blackmissionary 23:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

“don't know whether the logo contains references to the Ustasha, but it is the actual logo of the club, and therefore it has a place in the article . Why don´t you have a look at the Croatian ore the French side? There is another logo, because references to the Ustasha are forbidden in Croatia. What would you think about a German soccer club containing references to Nazi Germany like for instance the flag of Nazi Germany.--Speidelj (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit clearer about what you are talking about please? I don't understand. Camw (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that he thinks that the Melbourne Knights logo contains references to the Ustasha. My point is that regardless of whether it does or not, it is the club's logo, and therefore is appropriate to place in this article. Wikipedia is not the place for political discussion - if he finds the logo offensive, he should take it up outside this domain. Blackmissionary (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion the the Croatian coat of arms are a Nazi symbol is absurd. The Croatian coat of arms have been a national symbol for over a thousand years, sometimes with the first square white and other times red. Both variations have been used throughout Croatia's history, so to connect it to the Ustasa movement is just plain silly and has zero foundation.

Four times now Speidelj has removed the logo, it really is verging on vandalism now (MelbCro (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

To user MelbCro. What do you want us to believe? These are only clours, red and white? I think you are not a Croatian, otherwise you would know the difference between Croatia from today and the Ustasha before 1945. This [[4]] is the flag of Croatia, starting with a red square and ending with a red square. And this [[5]] is the sign of Ustasha, starting with a white square and ending with a white square. There is no doubt, that this logo contains references to the Ustasha and to nazism. MelbCro! remove the club logo again and you will be reported for vandalism and for spreading nazi symbols. Once again! There are other logos at the French side and at the Croatian side.--Speidelj (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there isn't support for your position here. Please stop removing the logo as it is becoming disruptive. The logo in the article is the official logo of the club, and keeping it in the article will not be considered vandalism. Camw (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the other logo in the Croatian article? Doesn´t it ring a bell?--Speidelj (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it did, it probably wouldn't make a difference. Please see, Wikipedia is not censored - "some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." Camw (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Talk 09:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donas&Licia (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melbourne Knights 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: 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) 06:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Melbourne Knights FC

[edit]

Drawing the attention of anyone interested in this club to the above article. It's a mess. It needs massive amounts of work to bring it up to a suitable Wikipedia standard. Can anyone with the time and skills please apply themselves to help improve the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to improve this section with well-referenced information, in particular the important aspect of the involvement of the Ustase in Australia in the development of this club, but probably unsurprisingly it keeps getting vandalised. For a club that seems to be proud of its Ustase links and with a politics section present on its page, it appears highly relevant that this information should be present. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]
First of all, I am the person who wrote most of what is here and on the history page, work which I did now well over a decade ago. So it is a bit amusing for you to say I am vandalising the page. You could have gone here into the discussion page first to discuss changes, but instead of making that kind of basic courtesy you have now multiple times kept making these changes, as though your amendments deserve priority over the original work that has stood here for years. In regards to the main Knights page, the History here section is meant to be a very brief summary of the club that is why there is a separate History page. The kind of information you added is first irrelevant to what is meant to be a summary. Secondly the information provided is incorrect, the individuals of Srećko Rover, Ivica Kokić, Slavo Tomljanović and Josip Lončar were not founding members. The founding members were Perica Filipovic, Ivica Matosevic, Tonika Durakovic, Drago Jukic and Hinko Durakovic. Most of the sources you provide here and on the History page are from Mark Aarons, a political writers from Sydney who is not a sports historian let alone any kind of expert on the Melbourne Knights. Nevermind the fact that he has a long history of targeting the Croatian community in his writings, hardly a neutral source. TLM2023 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in over a decade you have provided a background and history section that has only two references and you have now deleted your own subsections on the social and political aspects of the club, so I guess verifiable information is not a priority on this article. Most of the info I placed was from the NAA, National Library and stuff put out by the Melbourne Knights club themselves (including Rover etc being co-founders). I don't have to put Aarons in as a reference to achieve the same result. Ustase is the backbone of the history of this club and many supporters and officials at the club are proud of it and openly display these loyalties. It's weird that you want to cover it up when it's such an overt part of the club's identity and such an interesting history, maybe in the next decade you'll change your mind. You guys had a good win on the weekend btw. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melbourne_Knights_FC&oldid=1206547502"