Talk:Tasmania Football Club

Article name

@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)

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)

In that case it would have to be Future Tasmanian Australian rules football club. StAnselm (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 10 January 2024

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)

Support per nom's very well reasoned proposal. oknazevad (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Australia has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Support per AFC Vixen. The cited precedents make this even easier. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose current proposal, support "Future Tasmanian Australian football club" per Teratix's/my earlier comments. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Use "Future Tasmanian AFL club" per most of the above reasoning + WP:CONCISE, or "Future Tasmanian Australian football club" as second choice. Either will be more accurate (WP:PRECISE) than implying (as the current title does) an already-extant team that doesn't have a formal name (as with "the Washington football team" for quite some time). Also because the OP's proposed move target looks like a naturally disambiguated proper name, and is thus even more confusing than the current title to move away from (fails WP:RECOGNIZABILITY). The nom's proposal also swaps "team" in for "club" without a clear reason (both terms seem to be in wide use in the AFL context). There would need to be a compelling reason per MOS:STYLERET and WP:TITLECHANGES. More importantly, doing that change would make this fail WP:CONSISTENT; see Category:Australian Football League clubs and everything in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

• Relist note: see no agreement yet in the above survey, so please continue garnering consensus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree Tasmanian Devils (2001–2008) is a logical destination for the other team. – Teratix ₵ 13:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

• Tasmania Devils Football Club - new club
• Tasmania Devils (under-18s team) - under-18s
• Tasmanian Devils (2001–2008) - former club

Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Yep agree with you Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, why does the conversation suggest many people will use "Football Club" in the name? – Teratix ₵ 05:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move 18 March 2024

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is evidence both names are being used, but not enough evidence the proposed name has become the WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

---

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)

The media going with something NEVER makes it official. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

• Comment Sounds reasonable if that becomes the COMMONNAME, but let's calm down and not move anything else for the customary seven days. This article has already been moved once today, and I've just fixed a bunch of links to redirects which had been nominated for speedy deletion while still in use. Certes (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose All the club's social media pages and website are all "Tasmania Football Club". They repeatedly called it that during the unvealing ceremony last night. Its clearly the proper name. Superegz (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• Comment — I concur with Certes in saying that it's way too soon for there to be any WP:COMMONNAME or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC arguments, as the branding was launched just yesterday as of writing. At this early stage, more consideration should instead be paid to whether or not "Tasmania Football Club" could possibly be confused with any other Tasmanian "football" club of any code, especially the former VFL team and the current Talent League team. The points made in the discussion above should be considered as well. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  A future AFL team undoubtedly beats out VFL and Talent League teams as primary topic for "Tasmanian Football Club", I don't have any concerns there, and at a first glance I don't see any clubs from other codes that risk confusion. I agree it is quite soon after the branding has been launched to be talking about common names. Unfortunately, I don't see an alternative given the previous title was "Unnamed Tasmanian football club", which is obviously unviable. Like it or not, we will need to make at least a preliminary call between "Tasmanian Football Club" and "Tasmania Devils". There is always the option of making a tentative decision on the limited evidence we have and revisiting in six months or a year. – Teratix ₵ 03:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, I meant a primary topic for the "Tasmania Devils" name, if it were to ever be moved to that name – which at this stage seems unlikely anyways. — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, in that case then the club would certainly be the primary topic for that name, no question – no risk of confusion with other codes. I have confidence that a closer will reject arguments not in accordance with Wikipedia's article titling policy. Unfortunately we haven't had many people weigh in who are familiar with this policy, so this is probably heading for a no consensus close. – Teratix ₵ 05:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd stick with TFC, based on a consistency argument regarding styling of football clubs across the project, coupled with the clear messaging by the club that it will be going by that name in an official sense. A precision argument that the Devils team does not yet exist within the TFC club also makes me lean that way. Aspirex (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above, particularly that the club seems to be using "Football Club" in an official capacity/its social media presence, which was enough for me to move it to the current title. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• I am frankly fed up with the constant appeals exclusively to whatever a club's "official", "proper", "trademarked" or "legal" name is when deciding on its article's title, which I have also seen on Fremantle's move request. This line of reasoning explicitly defies established titling policy – common names trump legal names. This criticism is not directed at editors who argue for FFC or TFC on policy-based grounds. But editors who persistently stick to this discredited line of argument must stop polluting legitimate discussion. – Teratix ₵ 03:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as previously indicated the club is and has always used the Tasmania Football Club as its name, ever since their bid to join the AFL was officially accepted. Given their nickname was only formally announced less than 24 hours ago it is premature to conclude that name is now going to be the commonly known name for the club. Dan arndt (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment For those unaware, the editor behind this proposal is also firmly pushing a similar change at Talk:Fremantle Football Club, and not just for Fremantle. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - current name aligns with convention used for the majority of clubs. Redirects should exist, of course. -- Chuq (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is no established convention for AFL clubs on whether to use [location] [mascot] or [location] Football Club. Gold Coast Suns, Greater Western Sydney Giants, Sydney Swans, West Coast Eagles and the Western Bulldogs all currently use the [location] [mascot] format. There is an active move request regarding whether to use "Fremantle Dockers" or "Fremantle Football Club". The rest use [location] Football Club at present, but there has not been an attempt to evaluate these titles' appropriateness in many years, and I am considering whether to file further move requests on a case-by-case basis. – Teratix ₵ 03:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Comment I think there is a clear difference between those clubs, plus Brisbane Lions, and the rest of the league. All those clubs have either, for various reasons, shed an earlier traditional identity that resulted in a stronger embrace of their nickname or have never commonly gone by the "[location] Football Club" name. You can't say that about any other clubs in the league. Superegz (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  All those clubs have either, for various reasons, shed an earlier traditional identity that resulted in a stronger embrace of their nickname or have never commonly gone by the "[location] Football Club" name hang on, isn't that an argument for using "Tasmania Devils" in this case? The club hardly has a history of "commonly going by the '[location]' Football Club name" – they've barely been announced – and, in fact, since they have been announced, third-party sources have tended to use "Tasmania Devils". – Teratix ₵ 04:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  I really don't think it is, not this early and especially when their social media etc says "Tasmania Football Club". Things like that mean something and will continue to do so over time. Journalists, commentators, general people will see it and it will seep into their language, already is. articles on websites with photos of the logo and launch are crediting that to the "Tasmania Football Club". I think you are too quick to discount that. If they go and change to being called "Tasmania Devils" everywhere, you would have a case, but thats not happening at this stage. Superegz (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Jmmka 1.145.223.159 (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

• Relist comment: I initially closed this as Not Moved, but it was pointed out to me that the Opposers here don't really have any policy-based arguments and are just appealing to the official name, which isn't per policy. Therfore, I am relisting this to see if in another week a policy-based consensus can form. Bensci54 (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I will try to compile a more comprehensive analysis of which name third-party sources are tending towards. Hopefully, that will result in some substantive progress on this discussion. – Teratix ₵ 15:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I will elaborate on my previously stated oppose to hopefully put this to bed. Both names are very clearly recognisable, and I don't think I need to provide more evidence of this than has already been presented. Both names meet naturalness, albeit in different contexts – TFC is used frequently and naturally when describing the club as a whole or corporately [7] [8] [9] [10]; TD is used frequently and naturally more often when describing the team from a football sense [11] [12] [13]; since this is an article about the club as a whole, not just the club as its future onfield team, the former is favourable for naturalness. Tasmania Football Club is the stronger name from a precision standpoint, because this club is already clearly the primary topic for the TFC name to the exclusion of any other football code, while Tasmania Devils is and will always be in somewhat of a disambiguation triangle with the similarly named Tasmanian devil and Tasmanian Devil (Looney Tunes) when it comes to determining which of the three would be the worldwide primary topic for the words Tasmania and devil in their various forms. Both names are equally concise; I don't accept that TD is more concise than TFC because of raw word count, concision is met absolutely by the exclusion of superfluous words (for example, Tasmania Devils Football Club would fail concision because it would be equally clear by removing either 'devils' or 'football club').

  The strongest argument in favour of TFC is consistency. A look at any Australian rules football club category e.g Category:Australian rules football clubs in Melbourne, Category:Australian rules football clubs in Victoria (state) ,Category:Australian rules football clubs in Tasmania, shows that there is overwhelming consistency regarding the use of the [Location] Football Club naming convention. The minority of clubs which go against this trend are clubs which have never gone by the [Location] Football Club format in a legal or organisational sense (does not apply to Tasmania), clubs which have adopted directional location or similar such as Western Bulldogs or Northern Bullants where the location part would never be spoken without the mascot (does not apply to Tasmania), or clubs whose formal name is [Location] [Mascot] Football Club where the concision argument would favour the [Location] [Mascot] format (does not apply to Tasmania).

  Irrespective of the outcome of the promised analysis of commonness of each name in a couple of weeks of media, I think my arguments clearly lay out why TFC is the better name than TD. At worst, it could be argued to be a similarly valid title to TD. It certainly does not outright fail or contravene the overarching titling policy. So at worst, this is a line-ball decision, and in this situation the closer should be considering the overwhelming weight of WP:IDONTLIKEIT views as being representative of the general WP:AFL consensus and closing as reject rather than no consensus. Aspirex (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  On recognisability and naturalness: it's not about whether the names meet some minimum standard – it's about which is more recognisable and natural than the other, and that comes down to what name is preferred in reliable third-party sources.

  On consistency: as I've argued on Talk:Fremantle Football Club, a far more relevant reference class to use is "AFL clubs". Although there is no overall consistency in this class (11 use "Football Club", six use "[mascot]", one is under discussion), consistency does emerge when we examine clubs who gained their present identities during the era of national expansion, starting with the Sydney Swans in 1982. In this class, six use "[mascot]", one is under discussion, and the lone exception (Adelaide) may be worth re-examining, as we have mutually acknowledged. Using "Tasmania Devils" would be consistent with this trend.

  Precision is about whether the titles "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article", which both "Tasmania Football Club" and "Tasmania Devils" do. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to worry about the marsupial and the Warner Bros. character, but WP:SMALLDETAILS is quite explicit that small details are often sufficient to distinguish topics: e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane! vs. Airplane; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey as long as suitable hatnotes are in place. So, nothing to split these titles on precision.

  Concision is an objective measure: "Tasmania Devils" is 15 characters, two words, "Tasmania Football Club" is 22 characters, three words. You can argue we should accept TFC as a name because other factors outweigh concision in this case, but to argue TFC and TD are "equally concise" is the equivalent of arguing "15 = 22" or "2 = 3". I agree both names are relatively concise compared to "Tasmania Devils Football Club" – but that name isn't a candidate.

  Irrespective of the outcome of the promised analysis of commonness of each name in a couple of weeks of media but this is highly relevant for determining recognisability and naturalness? I would understand if you said "my expectation is TFC will be more common than TD in this analysis" or even "there will be no clear preference for either name", but I'm a bit confused as to why you wouldn't even consider this an important factor. COMMONNAME is explicit that Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used ... as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.

  the closer should be considering the overwhelming weight of WP:IDONTLIKEIT views An invalid argument doesn't become more valid because more people believe in it. At best this would show the local consensus is out of step with project-wide consensus. To be fair, I increasingly believe this. – Teratix ₵ 04:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I think relisting this was a mistake. I agree entirely with what Aspirex said. The fact that the overwhelming opinion is one way says to me that its more likely that the rules need to be tweaked than anything else. Organisations like Australian football clubs tend to essentially have 2 names that are well known and understood. One with a nickname and one without. I think the evidence is clear that except for a few exceptions, the community prefer a more formal name in this setting. In some ways, I think this is connected to these clubs being seen historically as community clubs run by members and not marketing franchises as common in other sports. For Tasmania in particular, there are a lot of places where third party sources have taken the cue from the club's use of the "Tasmania Football Club" name. For example here: "Tasmania Football Club: A symbol of pride for Tasmanians" [14], "Looney Tunes tribute to Tasmania Football Club" [15]. As Tasmania, unlike the other expansion clubs of Gold Coast Suns and GWS Giants comes from a traditional Australian Football culture, its not surprising that people are gravitating more to seeing the club in a more traditional way. I think this should be taken into account when understanding this.Superegz (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Superegz, Aspirex (and any others interested): seeking feedback on this proposed methodology for systematically examining sources to determine the WP:COMMONNAME. I was in two minds about whether photo captions should be included in the analysis or not. – Teratix ₵ 03:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  The numerical outcome will not sway my opinion. WP:COMMONNAME does not require the commonest name to be chosen, it merely states that the commonest usually meets the five criteria the best; I have already outlined from first principles why I think TFC meets the five criteria better. Aspirex (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I find that a bit astonishing, to be honest, I was under the impression opposers were genuinely convinced TFC was going to be the COMMONNAME over TD. I'll take it you have no particular objections to the methodology, you just think the result is immaterial. – Teratix ₵ 04:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't read the methodology. Aspirex (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  OK, you have every right not to, but if I run this through and you want to object to some aspect of how the search was conducted after the result has been obtained, closers will look on that poorly. – Teratix ₵ 04:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – in regards to much of footy history, I am a traditionalist; to that point, I don't feel I can provide an unbiased opinion here. Tasmania Football Club is how I would like it to appear, but I think the arguments by both Aspirex and Teratix (I always get you guys confused on WP:AFL!) hold weight. In regards to trawling the web for WP:COMMONNAME stats and getting shut out by paywalls, a (free) library subscription can get past that fairly easily. I ran a couple of search queries on ProQuest via SLV which took all of one minute. From 18 Mar 2024 (nickname launch date) until today, the phrase "Tasmania Football Club" had 119 mentions and "Tasmania Devils" had 125 mentions. The difference is negligible. Cheers. Gibbsy^spin 10:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not a bad idea to check, but there's a few problems with taking those numbers at face value. Newspaper databases will obviously exclude many prominent sources (e.g. AFL.com.au, ABC News, Fox) which don't publish in that format, they often list syndicated pieces multiple times, and there is a need to check whether the mentions actually correspond to the thing you're interested in. For example, I ran a similar check on NewsBank and the first hit I got for "Tasmania Devils" was about the Talent League team. (For what it's worth, i.e. not that much, numbers on that check were 260 TD vs. 196 TFC, which would significantly favour TD...) But definitely will include pieces from these databases in a wider analysis. – Teratix ₵ 13:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that you are getting results for the Talent League team is one of the reason why the name shouldn't be changed. With the current name, this potential confusion is limited. Superegz (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I could just as easily argue "Tasmania Football Club" could be confused with any other Tasmanian football club or the Tasmanian A-League bid. But I don't, because we both know there's such a thing as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for a particular term, and it would be disingenuous to pretend e.g. people are just as likely to be looking for a Talent League team as an AFL team. Even if other entities are sometimes referred to by the same term, we have tools for preventing confusion – hatnotes, disambiguation pages and so on. Let's stop with the cheap gotcha arguments and actually give some thought to how to work out the COMMONNAME in a systematic way. Do you have an opinion on that methodology I linked? – Teratix ₵ 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  The club was anounced only a fortnight ago, and won't play a senior game for another four years. That time, or even a year or two later, is when a common name for the club will become apparent. It would be ridiculous for Wikipedia to claim to know now what that will be. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Unless you're proposing to leave it as "Unnamed Tasmanian football club", its last stable name, we will need to make a preliminary judgement on the common name whether you like it or not. – Teratix ₵ 00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, we leave it at the name it has today. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  There has never been a consensus for the name "Tasmanian Football Club", so that would be inappropriate. – Teratix ₵ 03:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Really you are just being silly now. Superegz (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  To me, results that close simply don't make any case for a name change, especially as Teratix acknowledged, some of the Devils figure could be a reference to the junior team. May even be possible typo references to the animal or cartoon character in there. Superegz (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: why does it feel like future editors are likely to have a discussion that makes Tasmania Devils a redirect to Tasmanian Devil (disambiguation)? Without adding to the cacophony of oppose votes, I think the arguments about WP:PRECISION in favour of TFC are cogent. Storm machine (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• The proposed methodology I linked for systematically determining the club's COMMONNAME now contains a list of sources I propose to examine. Most are well-known Australian media. There are a couple I've included because other editors mentioned them during this discussion or because they popped up in results from my preliminary googling (using the neutral term "tasmania afl" to avoid bias). Please let me know if there are sources not listed you believe should be considered, or sources currently listed you believe should be removed. – Teratix ₵ 02:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  We need to consider all sources that get published in the next five years. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Obviously we are unable to consider sources from the future. Do you have any constructive suggestions to make or should I take it you have no particular objections to the proposed source list? – Teratix ₵ 03:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  My objection is to any current list. It is wrong to change the name now. I remind other editors that you want to change the names of many other clubs, " if not in all cases". (I'm using your own words there.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  That does somewhat worry me. I can't imagine such suggestions going down well with some of the old Victorian clubs or Port Adelaide in particular. Superegz (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Please stick to the topic at hand. I have submitted no such move requests. I haven't yet done enough research to determine whether or not they are warranted. – Teratix ₵ 05:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  OK, no particular objections to this list, in that case. – Teratix ₵ 04:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  That is a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  You have a general objection to the concept of any list of this nature. You don't seem to have a particular objection to the specific sources on the list I wrote up. – Teratix ₵ 04:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Having read the extensive conversation here, I found Aspirex's contributions to be most persuasive and thus submit a weak oppose. I would like to add to the discussion surrounding common name vs legal name. As it is not yet clear whether Tasmania FC or Tasmania Devils will prevail as the common name, with both in widespread use at the moment, it seems fair to give some weight to the legal name for now—perhaps, you could say, as a tiebreaker. So, I think the current title is suitable but that it would merit revisiting down the track. Axver (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(responded on user talk) – Teratix ₵ 07:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha. All that does is make communcation more disjointed and scattered. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

I have changed the wording above. Is it OK? HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Comment Just wondering why this is still open. Superegz (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.