This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Sydney Derby (A-Leagues) 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
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Closer's statement. I was asked on my talk page to explain this closure, so I will. This debate was open for 16 days, and generated a lot of commentary. Sadly most of the words were a dispute between two editors which shed little light and became unhelpfully acrimonious. Accusations of an "attack" against an article by supporters of another football code are a user conduct issue which does not belong here. The issue at stake was whether this event is the primary topic for "Sydney Derby". The nomination was based on the premise that after deletion of other articles, this is now the only such topic on wikipedia. Nine editors expressed an explicit preference, of whom 6 supported the move, while 3 opposed it. If all those supports were well-founded in policy, I would have judged this as a rough consensus. However, the nomination and several of the supports were based on a misunderstanding of the term "primary topic". Several editors supporting the move assumed that "topic" means "article", whereas the first paragraph of WP:DAB explicitly says that A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject. After discounting the !votes which supported the nominator's misreading of policy, there is no basis for finding a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney Derby (A-League) → Sydney Derby – Other articles which once previously occupied the desired move location no longer exist, and those that did exist had been renamed to specific 'event' titles. As such there is no need for any disambiguation page at the target location and this topic is not only the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Sydney Derby" it is now the only topic on Wiki. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Too many of these articles. And that really was a dumb interim name. So why does this article exist? Surely it's just another fake, hyped up marketing event? I take a long term view here. I have no interest in having Wikipedia assist marketing by sports leagues. Either both these events are naturally notable in the long term, or neither is. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I kindly request that no-one lump the AFL's synthetic attempts to create an AFL market in Western Sydney with the Western Sydney Wanderers & football? They are two different teams playing different sports, and the notability of related articles to one team matters nothing in regards to the notability of the other. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're answering a question that hasn't been asked. I note that the article has been to AFD twice and neither time resulted in a keep vote. Hack (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To make it 100% clear from my comments above. Just like the now deceased AFL one, this article should not even exist. It's pure marketing hype. To act as if it's the only "derby", when there are actually several equally unimportant ones, is simply not the approach a serious encyclopaedia should be taking. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's really a separate question, isn't it? If the article is going to exist, is it really preferable under the current title? --BDD (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's obvious that several sports have "Sydney derbies", and the number will probably only grow. We must look long term. Our naming of articles should allow for future additions of articles to Wikipedia. No single sport should "own" the non-disambiguated name. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. How many years should we wait until deciding "Well, those other Sydney Derbies that Hilo thought would happen never became notable" and move this article to Sydney Derby? That's not the way Wiki is meant to work. The Sydney Derby is the Sydney Derby. No other notable examples exist. This article has already gone through numerous AFDs, has been deleted, userfied, put back on the main wiki, and gone through another AFD where it was decided it would not be deleted again. This article is valid and has survived despite constant attack from members of Project AFL. A non-consensus view on the article being deleted is irrelevant to this discussion. This is the only notable event named Sydney Derby, move it to an appropriate namespace, and if in 20 years the AFL's GWS vs Sydney Swans fixture actually matters enough to be a notable rivalry we can decide then if we need any disambiguation or name changes. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bad faith post, attacking another group of editors, "Project AFL" (something you seem to do a lot) and myself. It's simple. At this point in time, two major national "football" codes each happen to have two teams in Sydney. Either they both deserve an article, or neither does. That right now one has an article and one doesn't probably says more about the quality of past discussions than about true merit. A serious Wikipedia editor would not be favouring the sport he happens to love in this discussion at the expense of another. He would be making sure that good content abounds for both. I do. How much have you contributed to AFL articles? We must not act parochially in these discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we actually have a source for that name? It seems pretty dumb to me. As for notability, I submit that it is as notable right now as the A-League event. That is, no notability. You would really have to work hard to convince me that one of these is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and the other isn't. That makes no sense at all. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Battle of the Bridge" came from the AFL itself via Kevin Sheedy, just like almost every source about that now deleted non-notable AFL fixture. And unlike the Sydney Derby, which has multiple independent sources confirming notability. I once again request you stop lumping the AFL GWS vs Sydney Swans fixture in with the Sydney Derby in an attempt to colour people against the notable Sydney Derby because a non-notable AFL fixture was deleted. Thanks. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant a real, Wikipedia style source for Battle of the Bridge (AFL). Does one exist? And you would really have to work hard to convince me that one of these is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and the other isn't. That makes no sense at all. I suspect that your views on the AFL (already on full display above) will prevent you from ever discussing this issue objectively. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney Derby and Battle of the Bridge are both used for the AFL derby but for last year the latter has gained more traction (mostly a marketing drive it would appear).
Proszenko, Adrian (3 February 2013). "Swans-Giants contest to span the city". The Sun Herald. Retrieved 7 February 2014. MATCHES between AFL rivals Sydney and Greater Western Sydney are about to be officially known as the Battle of the Bridge
Weird, but apparently true. I just checked the AFL website and found this. Pretty definitive. I shall add that source to Battle of the Bridge (AFL). So, where does this leave us here? Apparently the AFL doesn't want their match to be called a Sydney Derby. I guess the A-League can have it. 07:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Whatever. They're all still nothing more than marketing gimmicks, as your first three words highlight. Those thinking they are important are simply doing their league's marketing for them. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish all editors could step back and look at this objectively. Unfortunately, editors on these articles are too often obsessed fans with no intention of applying objectivity. They simply want to promote their favourite sport at the expense of all others. Dismissive comments rather prove my point. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as I don't think the football / soccer match is clearly the primary topic. I think it is easy to see how this term could be ambiguous. Most of the search results for "sydney derby" relate to the A-League, but there are also results for the Big Bash cricket, AFL and also roller skating (?). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The game is universally known as the "Sydney Derby" in all sporting contexts. Nowhere is it referred to as "the Wanderers-Sydney match" or any other nickname; fans, journalists and administrators ***all*** refer to it as the "Sydney Derby." That is not true for the AFL or Cricket equivalents, where the term "derby" is used very rarely, if at all. Finally, the very term "derby" is originally an association football one; if any sport is to claim ownership of the word then football is within all rights to do so. As an aside, virtually any news article that one reads about the Sydney Derby makes light of its importance to the A-League and to Australian sport generally (which is why, HiLo, this article must exist). SFCTID (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very poor post. The last sentence makes no sense. What do you really mean by "makes light of"? And to claim that "the game is universally known as..." is unhelpful arrogance, and almost certainly wrong. Have you checked all usage of the term in the Herald Sun in Melbourne? HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In all sources I have found, the match is referred to as the Sydney derby. Though the op's main point was that this article is both the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Sydney Derby" and now the only topic on Wiki.--2nyte (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have just invented a completely new meaning for "makes light of". And I ask again "Have you checked ALL usage of the term in the Herald Sun..."? That's what "universally" means. ALL usage. (It's your choice of words, not mine.) One example means nothing. I'll admit to a high degree of frustration dealing with people with poor literacy skills, but who think they're good at it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before you continue to try and belittle me, I'll point out that English is not my first language. If that's a problem for you, then you're going to have to deal with it, because I can assure you I'm doing my best to be coherent. Rather than me looking at every article in the Herald Sun that references the Sydney Derby, why don't you try and find one that talks about the match WITHOUT calling it the Sydney Derby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCTID (talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not my job. You have to prove YOUR point. And I don't apologise for the comment on language skills. You were too certain that you were right. Words are the only tool we have here. If you use them incorrectly, and arrogantly, we won't get far. HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My god, the irony of you telling people they're arrogant. You've got to be one of the most self-righteous editors I've encountered on Wikipedia. Back to the point- I'm not going to attempt to read every single Herald Sun article on the Sydney Derby. That's a ridiculous proposition. Unless you're willing to contribute to constructive debate by finding examples of the Sun *not* using the term "Sydney Derby," then this is a pretty futile discussion.SFCTID (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SFCTID and HiLo48, again, you two are getting off track. The notability of this article has no relevance to the Requested move. The op's main points was that this article is both the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Sydney Derby" and now the only topic on Wiki.--2nyte (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the notability is relevant. Most derby articles, especially those about ridiculously new setups like this one, are nothing more than the fans supporting a league's marketing program. You won't change my mind on that. But I know I won't convince you that you've all been sucked in. Why can't you just enjoy the game, without constantly trying to artificially promote it? HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo, this has absolutely nothing to do with 'artificially promoting' anything. Ask any A-League fan, commentator, player or whatever- they will tell you that the Wanderers-Sydney FC match is one of the most important (and perhaps THE most important) matches in Australian football. THAT is why this topic is notable.SFCTID (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you think that. Personally I suspect that Collingwood vs Carlton matches are the biggest rivalry in Australian football. An opinion, especially an opinion held by involved fans, is pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, when I discuss "Australian football" I mean soccer in Australia (and I think you know that, and are merely being disingenuous, but anyway...). And of course the opinions of the public (not just the fans) are relevant. That's the POINT of notability. The only measure of notability we have is public and media sentiment, and public and media sentiment would suggest that the Sydney Derby is without doubt one of the A-League's most important matches. Hence it is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCTID (talk • contribs) 06:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't mean it deserves an article of its own, IMHO, and it certainly doesn't give soccer (the non-confusing name!) the right to an undisambiguated name for the article. That would require a comparison with all other sports, and nobody has provided that here yet. All those in favour are soccer fans. Hardly an unbiased sample. To be fully fair on this, you should promote this discussion at the AFL project page, and on pages for all other sports with two teams in Sydney. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's the only article named Sydney Derby on wikipedia, and the only sporting event with the primary name of Sydney Derby is what gives this article the right to being called simply "Sydney Derby." Your views on the notability (which are against consensus) of this topic are irrelevant. You keep trying to shoehorn in non-relevant comments about a non-notable and now deleted AFL fixture. If you are worried about non-notable topics, I suggest putting up an AFD for Showdown_(AFL) which has no sources and doesn't appear notable, or QClash which only has a couple of independent sources, or the Monday_after_Mother's_Day_match which is just a random fixture that happens to involve two teams playing on the same day every year. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mack is absolutely right. Regardless of whether you think this article should exist, the unambiguous meaning of the term "Sydney Derby" for anyone living in Sydney and, indeed, all of Australia, is the Wanderers-SFC match. This is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCTID (talk • contribs) 07:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I'm impressed. Two posts completely in favour of soccer winning the day here, both from soccer fans! Do grow some perspective. How convincing do you really think that is? Show some courage and raise this matter at the AFL project page. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try to think objectively for a moment, rather than as just a soccer fan who will do anything to promote his sport. Do you really think it's ideal for Wikipedia to have only soccer fans deciding on a matter that obviously has at least some impact on other sports? This discussion should involve a wider audience than just soccer fans. HiLo48 (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should I tell people involved in WW2 historical article writing as well? Or K-Pop project users? How about ancient Rome article creators? They have as much relevance on this request move from Sydney Derby (A-League) to Sydney Derby as Project AFL does. And you know perfectly well that this RFM includes more than just football fans. Ironic that we're being told to be 'objective' yet you're trying to muddy the waters of this RFM by 1) trying to suggest that this article is invalid just because your pet project had a much weaker, unsourced article deleted and 2) That this RFM is invalid because of some sort of 'bias' because shock, people interested in the subject/topic/article are going to be interested in what happens to it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But your non-stop posts about irrelevant sports & non-consensus views on the notability of this article are a real contribution?
Oppose: This league is not one of the highest earning ones in the country. It is not one of the highest in terms of television ratings. It is not one of the highest in terms of people attending. This is reflected in attention to this derby. This is also reflected in page views to the article. El Clásico demonstrates this well: The best known league and the best known sport in the country is not disambiguated. Same case here unless the soccer people can provide some evidence regarding A-League attendance, A-League television ratings, A-League profitability and Wikipedia page views. --LauraHale (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the size or profitability of the league. Of course AFL's a bigger league than the A-League; that was never in doubt. The point is that when one says "Sydney Derby" the assumption is that they're talking about the A-League. its the primary topic. Don't try to make it a code war- this is simply a matter of naming convention.144.132.236.205 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. It's an attempt by soccer fans to own a term that should be available to any sport with two teams in Sydney. If that's not an openly declared code war, I don't know what is. HiLo48 (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the other articles named "Sydney Derby" then? They don't exist. Project AFL is trying to stop football from taking a rightful non-disambiguated name because they can't stand that it's the only real, notable Sydney Derby. Other fixtures are just fixtures with no rivalry & no notability. If you want to talk code wars here is a great example of Project AFL trying to marginalise non-AFL sports on the wiki. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your opposition, the reason & example is invalid Laura. El Clásico doesn't have disambiguation because there is El Clásico and then examples like "El Clásico (Australia)" or "El Clásico (Uruguay)". El Clásico is El Clásico. There are no other versions. The disambiguation is because there are multiple other topics with their own specific names that include "Clasico". There is no other article named "Sydney Derby" on wikipedia. As for attendance, the AFL Swans vs GWS fixture has an average of 26k and the Sydney Derby has 24.5k despite having much reduced capacity compared to the stadiums where the AFL play. Television ratings for the AFL in Sydney are abysmal and regularly beaten by SBS, a figure I found from March 2012 was that only 98,000 people watched the FTA GWS vs Swans match in Sydney, while the A-League is on Foxtel and yet to have a Sydney Derby played on FTA but still draws over 100k on Foxtel. As for profitability, are we counting the $200 million the AFL have supposedly spent on getting GWS up and running or not? AFL might rule the roost in Victoria, but outside Victoria and in NSW & QLD especially you're 6th place behind Cricket, League, Football, Union & Netball. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I'm a philistine when it comes to both of these sports, that's ok because as always our approach should be source based. This way decisions are taken out of the hands of editors. A quick googling of "sydney derby" brings up news headlines containing the term for both soccer and Aussie rules. The vast majority however appear to be about soccer's one. This makes it a likely candidate for primary topic. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'm happy to accept that the soccer version might be the most common today, but I still don't think it's appropriate to title an article as if there is only one derby in Sydney.. Competition between sports codes is a huge thing in Australia. I doubt if any other country has so many different footballing codes, and there's other sports to consider as well. Any sport with two teams in Sydney has the right to call its Sydney game a Sydney derby, and it's usually done for marketing reasons. It's not Wikipedia's job to help market any sport. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is 'helping to market' a specific sport with this article (Unlike Project AFL who took the AFL's marketing stunt for the Swans vs GWS fixture and made it the title of the article before it was deleted as marketing guff). The Sydney Derby is a notable article on it's own merits and is the primary and only topic for the name. If another sport in the future has a fixture that organically also becomes known as the "Sydney Derby" we can worry about it then. Right now however, no other topic exists, thus making it the primary topic. Not to mention that WP:TWODABS is a specific guideline that would apply in the event a second event becomes notable, the second, non-primary event article would be listed as a hatnote on top of the primary Sydney Derby article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. So, Aussie Rules' use of the term is marketing guff, and soccer's isn't? LOL. You can't even see your own bias. That's an important first step in negotiating anything. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about "Battle of the Bridge" which was happily pushed onto Wikipedia to help the AFL's marketing then deleted for being a non-notable topic. Nothing biased about pointing that out. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, just stupid gloating. I cannot comprehend how, by any fair and objective assessment, one league's match can be notable and another not. But I suspect you won't comprehend that point. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand how a fixture of a sport few in Sydney care about or play, involving one team that no-one in Sydney cares about (and have actively antagonised people in Western Sydney with xenophobic remarks), when that team have never gone into a match with any hope of victory, you don't see how that might not be a notable rivalry compared to the Wanderers & Sydney FC playing in the Sydney Derby, in a sport that is the most popular by participation in Sydney and 3rd most popular by general interest (by most media reports)... if anyone is failing to comprehend the difference between the Sydney Derby and the AFL Marketing Departments "Battle of the Bridge" it is you. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it is 'bias' to point out clear and obvious differences between the two articles, after you directly challenged that if the AFL article is non-notable then the Football Sydney Derby must be non-notable as well. You wanted reasons, you have them. If you don't want to step out of the Melbourne AFL Bubble that is your own choice and shows your bias far more than my facts will show any 'bias' on my part. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support until the other sport's derbies are notable enough for articles, then revisit the discussion. In the mean time, however, please retain the full list of sports that use the term "Sydney Derby" on the dab page, not just those notable enough to sustain a full article. And if course a hat note to the dab page will be needed on the A-League article page. The-Pope (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we successfully close and move the article now? There is a clear consensus in supporting a move, opposition is limited, with the major point of opposition being that a non-consensus view that this article should be deleted because Other Stuff Is Non-Notable. Obviously that is not what is being discussed here, and so their opposition is void. It's also been 15 days since the issue opened, and three days since any new comments. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It makes little sense for an obviously involved editor to be making that judgment. I still firmly object to what is mostly a group of passionate supporters of one sport making a decision for that sport to claim a superior position among other sports. This should be being discussed in a more independent place. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're pushing the view that only football 'supporters' are deciding here. Supporters of the move included an administrator apparently from the USA who has little involvement in Australian sporting articles, a member of Project AFL and another editor who spends their time on Rugby League articles, there was ample time for anyone who disagreed to join in the conversation and this went through all the proper channels, only one person made a truly valid piece of opposition based on the actual move issue (instead of being opposed just because this article is notable and another non-notable AFL fixture was deleted). As for making the judgment, I'm merely laying out the way I see this discussion as having gone, and requesting the move & close as per what the consensus is after a very long discussion period. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care how fair you think the random collection of editors who happened to notice this discussion have been. Wikipedia needs a much better way of deciding matters like this. The discussion needs to be in a place where is likely to have equal input from supporters all sports that could be impacted by this decision. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These is no article/sport? that could be impacted by this decision. When other sport's derbies are notable enough for articles, then we can revisit the discussion, but for now this article is the only one that uses the name Sydney Derby.--2nyte (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are a perfect example of the wrong kind of editor to be deciding on such matters. You are entitled to your biases, but must recognise that you have them and that they will impact on your views here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And there we go around in the big circle again. I can't imagine your views on whether such articles SHOULD exist being objective. They certainly differ from my views. I don't think any such article should exist for such recent developments, including the soccer one. It's ALL just marketing, which in't our job. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, that's an entirely different matter. Open up an AfD for this article if you think it warrants one, but regarding this Requested move, it is completely justified as there is no other article with the name Sydney Derby, therefor we don't need to disambiguate this one. In the future that may change but for now we should move this article.--2nyte (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's just muddying the waters in a hope to convince an admin that this article shouldn't be moved so he can keep this only and primary topic article in a disambiguated namespace against regulations to make a point against people who oppose project AFL's bias in Australian sporting articles. This RFM has been going for 2 weeks, anyone who could possibly have wanted to make an input into this discussion had ample time to do so. His insistence that because one AFL fixture is non-notable makes this article non-notable is just WP:OTHER, not to mention a non sequitur logical fallacy, and obviously it is completely and utterly irrelevant to a RFM. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite hilarious seeing allegations of bias on my part from soccer nuts. We are all biased. Some of us are more aware of our biases than others. Some of us want Wikipedia to remain an objective place. Some don't. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
_in_Australia.png)
.svg){kind=logo}
![[1]](http://m.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/GWSGiants/Images/news%20images/Countdown-100-SLIDER.jpg.jpeg){kind=link}