Talk:AFL siren controversy

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

Title[edit]

Perhaps the word "Sirengate" does not really inform the reader what the situation is and is not in any way an "official" title. Perhaps renaming it to York Park siren controversy 2006? Or even AFL siren controversy 2006? All suggestions welcome. Rogerthat Talk 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are better than "sirengate", which I chose because I couldn't think of a better title. I can confirm that the WA newspapers have indeed dubbed it "sirengate", so the reference to it should stand. But the title should change. I like York Park siren controversy of 2006 or AFL siren controversy of 2006. Snottygobble 03:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either of Rogerthat's suggested titles are fine - let's choose one and make the others redirects. Sirengate indeed! :-)
On a related note - did play really continue for nearly one minute? I'm getting the impression that there was a ball up, a scramble and then a rushed shot at goal that scored a point, representing approx. 6 seconds of actual play, and then a free kick was awarded for a late tackle, resulting in another shot at goal, it was at this point that the timekeeper blew again and the umpie signalled the end of the game. I guess, there was a lot of gesticulating from the Freo players before that final ball up, so one minute of time may have elapsed between the two sirens - but it might be misleading to say there was a minute of play - probably very difficult to be precise without going into a whole lot of detail. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From memory (of the subsequent coverage not the game), Baker's first shot at goal was about twenty seconds after the first siren, and the sounding of the second siren was about one minute after the first siren. You're right, this needs rephrasing. Snottygobble 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can time it from this video (not sure if we are allowed to post copyrighted links, if so I will promptly remove it): here. From what I remember it was around 25 seconds or so, with the whole cancellation of the behind and Baker's free kick (not actual play) pushing the time to one minute or so after the siren. Rogerthat Talk 03:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time clock runs out at 2:05:20.
  • Point scored at 2:05:40.
  • Goal umpire given all clear at 2:06:10.
  • Connolly on the field from about 2:06:25 until 2:08:00.
  • Second shot at goal at 2:08:15.
Uncertain: when second shot at goal was offered to Baker; and when siren rings for the second time. Snottygobble 03:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second shot at goal was nearly 3 minutes after the first siren, bloody hell, I didn't know that! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, very surprising. I watched the game as it unfolded and it was utter confusion as to what was going on. You can't tell at what point in time the first behind is cancelled either. Rogerthat Talk 04:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second shot is acknowledged as a free kick shot after the siren, so this does not imply that play went on for three minutes. Play went on for twenty seconds until Baker's first shot. Thereafter it was time off while the umpires dealt with various issues like whether the siren had been heard, sending Connolly off the ground, and offering Baker another kick. The second siren then went, there having only been twenty seconds of extra play. Baken then took his free kick after the (second) siren.(forgot to sign before) Snottygobble 05:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title again[edit]

Let's not dilly-dally on the title. We've got three footy fans here - let's make a decision.

AFL siren controversy 2006

Sirengate

York Park siren controversy 2006

  • support (first preference). Snottygobble 04:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't think it needs to be this precise... surely we won't have another AFL siren controversy this year! The-Pope 04:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pippu and roger have stated their support for AFL siren controversy 2006 above, so that gives this option sufficient support. I'm going to make the move. It can always be moved again if lots of people come out of the woodwork for vote for some other title. Snottygobble 05:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant rules[edit]

Seems a little long-winded, should we move the rules to a new article and then simply link to the relevant clauses? Rogerthat Talk 09:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Nothing worse than having to flip between two or more articles when you're trying to get info on something. Keep it all together. Reyk YO! 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work[edit]

Good coverage, nice well-rounded article. :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Reyk and Pfctdayelise. There is just one point in the article where maybe the flow is lost a little, that is, just before the sub-heading Final minute controversy. The paragraph before mentions the Sainters getting 7 of the next nine goals to get within a point, and then this fact is mentioned again in the next paragraph. I understand the latter is going into more detail and describing the events in the last minute of play, but it does raise doubts about whether the paragraph before fits in. (small observation only and I didn't want to play around with it) Otherwise, I too think it's pretty good. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Reaction[edit]

I'm wondering whether public reaction could/should be added to the article to detail how important the result was to the Fremantle fans in WA. Before the AFL made their decision to overturn the result, some Freo fans had graffiti'd the actual result on Fremantle Oval's scoreboard to say "Fremantle 14.10.94 St. Kilda 13.15.93" in white paint. The club left it up there as the Dockers trained on the ground for the day, and was mentioned in the news. Also, the suspected reaction if the result had've happened at Subiaco instead of Launceston would've been nothing short of a stadium riot. I can type up a proper paragraph for this unless anyone has any objections. Orichalcon 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would have been interesting to see if there was a riot, I seem to remember that game where the black-out occured and it got a little crazy.--Dacium 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sirengate Hotel[edit]

I have a good idea for a parody of the incident: A hotel near Aurora Stadium called the Sirengate hotel. A list of features: Scott Gall 10:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • An hourly siren not loud enough for everyone to hear (symbolic of the siren that wasn't acted upon.)
  • Two wings, one named Fremantle with 94 rooms, and one named St. Kilda with 93 rooms (symbolic of the score.) The St. Kilda wing will have a ghost room (symbolic of the behind they eventually missed out on.)
  • Four strobe lights in the hallway (symbolic of the four players that were reported in the first quarter.)
  • Three 50-meter high poles behind the main building (symbolic of the point in the third quarter, where Fraser Gehrig conceded three 50-meter penalties.)

Number of players on the field[edit]

Someone keeps adding the rule on exceeding the allowable number of players on the field. This never had anything to do with it. Why is it being added? Hesperian 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it has some vague relevance (i.e. that extra players were on the ground when the game had not been officially finished by umpires), it hardly seems important. After all, players and officials generally wander onto the ground from the bench when there is a kick for goal after the siren, and nobody bothers calling for a line-up because their presence is inconsequential. Now, had Dockers players flooded onto the ground, congregated in the forwardline, then realised that the game was continuing and tried to defend, there would be some merit. However, the captain has to explicitly ask for a line-up in order to get the team's score cancelled - and the commission would not have been able to rule on this because, unlike the timekeeper error, it was not external to the game. Had the game been ruled a draw, then there would have been the potential for the Dockers to be fined (as happened to the Western Bulldogs when they stuffed up an interchange last year) - and media people did comment on this, and this should be mentioned (I will slot in a paragraph). However, the extreme case of score cancellation was never on the agenda, hence stop adding it!Aspirex 05:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Captain[edit]

The Teams section lists Luke Ball as the St Kilda Captain, while later in the article (where the confrontation between Chris Connolly and Lenny Hayes is mentioned), Hayes is stated to be the captain. Could somebody who knows which is correct make the necessary adjustments. Aspirex 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar incidents[edit]

In an edit summary, His Holiness The Pope questions

"Is the Swans 19th man really a similar incident? Nothing to do with "siren controversy", just similar in speculation about reversing a result (which didn't happen)".

Since it is kinda hard to reply with an edit summary of my own, I'll bring this here.

I think that the defining character of this incident is the occurrence of a breach of the rules and/or playing regulations that places the legitimacy of the match result in doubt. As such, I think the 19th man incident is quite similar. In particular, I think it more similar than the NTFL and NRL examples.

But I have no particular attachment to my edit, or indeed the entire Similar incidents section, so by all mean revert away if you think it unsuitable.

Hesperian 13:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about using the edit summary instead of bringing it here in the first place. I do now understand your view, it just took me a while to work out why it was listed as a similar incident. Maybe we need to separate the list into siren incidents and result challenge incidents. Any other result challenges you can think of? The-Pope (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, mate. If "siren incidents" means matches where the result hinges on whether a score was kicked, or a mark taken, before or after the final siren, then those incidents are a dime a dozen, and I think them not particularly interesting or encyclopedic. The rules of the game state that a quarter ends when the umpire hears the siren, not when the siren sounds, not when the umpire calls an end to play. The umpire's decision is always allowed to stand in these situations, and the result is uncontroversial, except to the fans of the losing team, and they soon forget. Hesperian 00:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section is titled "Similar Incidents", not "Similar Incidents in Australia". Should a similar incident that happened in American football between the University of Michigan and Michigan State University in 2001 be added? The final second of the clock seemed to last for more than a second, thus allowing MSU to run one final play in which they scored the winning points? I'm pretty sure the clock operator (an MSU employee, as this happened at MSU) has admitted that there was probably a mistake made, but the result was never overturned. It was doubly bad for Michigan fans (like myself) in that the referees missed an infraction by MSU on the final play that would have nullified the winning points, regardless of the clock. Ypsidan (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if it was notable. Hesperian 04:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not on either count. The rules of gridiron are nothing like either rugby or football. Adding it is not appropriate. I also severely question it's notability given that it wasn't a major game either in league (ie NFL) or in season (which is why the STJFL is notable - it was a grand final AND it got mainstream media coverage which I am still trying to locate). AFL-Cool (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to bother putting it back, mostly because every other event listed happened in Australia. But that doesn't mean I can't discuss the point. It seems very analogous. The rules difference is true but unimportant. A clock is a clock in Australia, the US, or Mars. This might not be known to Australians, but there are many people (myself included) who hold College football in higher esteem than NFL football - regardless of the fact that the NFL is more publicised overseas. It was an important game in season too, mostly because Michigan was ranked #6 in the country coming in (out of over 100 teams) and had a legitimate shot at a title had they won. People in this state will never forget it. The game result also changed a facet of the rules forever. The fact that it was just a regular season game is of course valid, however. Ypsidan (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STJFL[edit]

Once and for all - this note stays. The incident is notable because it was a grand final (it is irrelevant that it was a junior grand final) and because it represented the first - and only -time since Sirengate that such an incident has occurred. Here are a couple of sources that probably aren't passable under WP:RS but they are worth a look at least.

These came from a Google search while trying to locate the Mercury article which I know I saw back then. AFL-Cool 12:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.... The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Hesperian 13:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're in a position to be making demands AFL-Cool. Take it easy, no one is attacking you or your contributions. Just because you have made edits to this article doesn't give you the final say on what remains or is removed from it. You're not an administrator and even if you were there are procedures to follow. Adding comments like "Swallow it" on the talk page of User:Hesperian, who actually is an admin, probably isn't helping your cause. I'll repeat what I said on your usertalk (for the benefit of a third party), until the references are provided, the note shouldn't be included on the article. If you want to go to the state library and get these reliable sources that you say exist, please do so. However, while the best reference remains an amateur video on some little known website, this incident has no place on wikipedia. Jevansen (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are making demands that I come up with reliable sources now. I am being bullied and I am responding in self defence. I don't have easy access to the library and pushing me like this is bullying. The note stays because if it lost for any length of time it may not come back, and that is a bad thing. If it's removed again I'm taking it to the appropriate resolution area - which will include a bullying admin (iny my humble opinion). AFL-Cool 03:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You first added that material on 7 May. In 9 days you will have had a year to provide references. That's plenty of time. No, I'm not demanding references "now"; personally, I couldn't care less how long it takes you to come up with references. But until you do, the unreferenced material should not be included; that is in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of our core policies. "If lost for any length of time it may not come back" is nonsense; the paragraph can be pulled out of the article history at any time.
So I'm removing it again. I would be delighted if you would take this further; maybe the message will sink in if you hear it from someone else.
Hesperian 04:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm also not making any demands for him to come up with these sources. As long as this note is not included on this page then it is entirely up to him when and if he wants to find the relevant references. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of dispute[edit]

  • 7 May 2008: Material added to article by AFL-Cool.[1]
  • 5 August 2008, 10:36: Removed as non-notable by 124.168.195.104.[2]
  • 5 August 2008, 11:42: Restored by AFL-Cool.[3]
  • 5 August 2008, 13:15: Removed as non-notable by The-Pope.[4]
  • 6 August 2008, 13:22: Restored by AFL-Cool.[5]
  • 6 August 2008, 15:58: Removed as non-notable by The-Pope.[6]
  • 6 August 2008, 16:02: Restored by The-Pope, with request for reliable source.[7]
  • 30 November 2008, 7:42: Removed as non-notable by Jevansen.[8]
  • 30 November 2008, 21:23: Restored by AFL-Cool, with claim that it was covered by mainstream Melbourne media.[9]
  • 25 April 2009, 4:15: Removed as non-notable and unsourced by Jevansen.[10]
  • 26 April 2009, 9:38: Restored by AFL-Cool.[11]
  • 27 April 2009, 4:31: Jevansen tells AFL-Cool that he intends to remove it as unsourced, seeing as AFL-Cool has had since November to provide a source, and hasn't done so.[12]
  • 27 April 2009, 4:33: Removed again by Jevansen.[13]
  • 27 April 2009, 5:57: Hesperian indicates agreement with Jevansen that AFL-Cool has had plenty of time to provide a source, and it should now be removed as unsourced.[14]
  • 27 April 2009, 12:28: AFL-Cool tells Hesperian that it is notable but sourcing would require a visit to the state library.[15]
  • 27 April 2009, 12:29: AFL-Cool says the same thing to Jevansen, adding "I'm putting it back and it stays".[16]
  • 27 April 2009, 12:30: Restored by AFL-Cool.[17]
  • 27 April 2009, 12:40: AFL-Cool announces on talk page "Once and for all, this note stays." [18]
  • 27 April 2009, 12:42: Jevansen tells AFL-Cool that the material shouldn't be included until a reference is provided.[19]
  • 27 April 2009, 12:43: AFL-Cool tells Jevansen that he will consider further removal vandalism.[20]
  • 27 April 2009, 12:59: Removed as unsourced by Hesperian.[21]
  • 27 April 2009, 13:03: Hesperian quotes the relevant text from Wikipedia:Verifiability on the talk page.[22]
  • 27 April 2009, 13:09: Jevansen tells AFL-Cool to calm down, and reiterates that the material shouldn't be included until a reference is provided.[23]
  • 28 April 2009, 3:37: Restored by AFL-Cool.[24]
  • 28 April 2009, 3:40: AFL-Cool declares that he is being "bullied" by a "bullying admin", and threatens/offers to escalate.[25]
  • 28 April 2009, 4:00: Removed again by Hesperian.[26]


The matter is now closed. An anonymous IP has provided two sources from the Mercury - one of which was on the front page. That should eliminate any doubts to notability, and therefore this matter should be closed. I don't think we even need the Melbourne ref now.
And baiting in edit summaries isn't right either, Hesperian. AFL-Cool 10:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I alone in thinking that the first ever post by an Anon-IP shouldn't be taken on face value? I hope that it was a genuine good samaritan and you aren't making matters worse Mr Cool. Use of sockpuppets aren't allowed and I think Admins can cross reference IPs to accounts. Interestingly, the geo-locate on that IP puts it in NSW. Does SLV mean State Library of Victoria? Do Next G IPs all route through NSW - I'm on Next G in WA and that service puts me in NSW too, so it's likely that it was posted from a mobile broadband account. Still, I'm not convinced yet - why would an anon-IP even be aware of this dispute, let alone find the answer and post it without logging in. If it was you or your mate who found it, then next time get him to take a photo of the front page with his phone and upload it somewhere! If it was an established editor, then come clean and say who you are, so we can decide if you are a reputable source. The-Pope (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask me, Pope. I have no idea. There could be a number of possibilities. I was nowhere near the library today and haven't been for ages. If you don't want to believe that, then that's your problem. Maybe the Anon will see this and respond? Who knows? Don't make this more than it seems even though it might on the face. Coincidence is all I can think of at worst. But it helped even if there was no photo. I did look up the headlines and they spat back nothing so I guess the Mercury doesn't keep archives of it's stories, or if they do you have to pay for it. All we can do is wait and see if the Anon comes back. Or maybe someone else. Heck, I wasn't going to look a gift horse in the mouth even if it was an Anon. AFL-Cool 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verified using Factiva. Hesperian 23:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. I was going to add something here, but it has already been discussed it seems. The incident is notable and the sources verified. 121.220.23.33 (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this incident removed and why is the page not allowing edits by IP's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.226.132 (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat the question. It hasn't been answered for months. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has been addressed several times, a non-notable children's match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.102.49 (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The verification by Hesperian above says it's notable. And you didn't answer the other part.203.15.226.132 (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on AFL siren controversy. 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) 03:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AFL siren controversy. 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) 23:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Please add the following to the section "Similar incidents";

  • The 2007 STJFL (Southern Tasmanian Junior FL) Under 14 Grand Final ended in almost exactly the same way. Sorell was leading Lauderdale by three points when the siren blew, but the umpires failed to hear it and the timekeepers failed to keep the siren going as what happened in Launceston. In the ensuing play, a set shot from Lauderdale fell short and was marked by another Lauderdale player, who kicked a goal. Lauderdale were ruled to have won the game by three points and were presented with the premiership. Sorell lodged a protest, and the STJFL declared the match a draw and awarded the premiership jointly to both teams.[1][2]

This incident is notable because it was on the front page of a major Australian daily newspaper. The fact that it was a junior game is irrelevant. It passes WP:N and should be included. 2001:8003:591D:2400:6DE1:3F80:5072:B36D (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A most interesting episode of the umpire not hearing the bell occurred in the SANFL first semi-final in 1945. As a child, I remember asking my father if an umpiring mistake ever changed the result of a grand final. He said that in the 1945 1st semi-final, the umpire didn't hear the bell and West Torrens kicked a goal after the siren, winning the game. West Torrens then won the preliminary & grand finals and thus the premiership. Years later I found out that Torrens actually won by 6 points so I concluded that my father's recollection wasn't entirely accurate. Nonetheless, now that newspapers are online, it can be confirmed that Torrens were able to kick a goal after the siren and win a game that otherwise would have been drawn because the umpire did not hear the bell. I think it's a sufficiently interesting story that it deserves its own special entry. I'll write it tomorrow if no one objects.Graemem56 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[3][reply]

References

  1. ^ Bresnahan, James (August 30, 2007), Siren Row sparks U-14s' fury, Hobart, Tasmania: The Mercury, p. 1 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  2. ^ Martain, Time (August 31, 2007), Siren sides share spoils, Hobart, Tasmania: The Mercury, p. 3 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  3. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/74620695

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:AFL siren controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 15:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review to come soon. Steelkamp (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to quickfail this review due to many sections not having citations, thus meaning the article falls significantly short of criterion 2. I recommend against nominating articles that you didn't do much of the writing for. Next time, it you want to nominate an article that was mostly written by others, ask the other authors on the talk page first. They might have ideas of where the article needs improvement. It is very rare that a GA quality article is just sitting around waiting to be nominated and most articles require significant effort from the nominator to bring them up to snuff. Other, more minor issues I noticed were that:

I notice you have not yet had a successful good article nomination. My tip to you is to make sure all the references work (that there are no dead links or links that go to the wrong place) and that all paragraphs have citations.

Steelkamp (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the suggestions. Hopefully future editors can take on your useful feedback for future tweaking. Electricmaster (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 April 2023[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFL siren controversy → Sirengate – We're seventeen years on, and Sirengate is without doubt the WP:COMMONNAME for this incident; it's unambiguous and clearly understood within football circles. The AFL siren controversy name, by comparison, really only exists here on Wikipedia; and the talk history indicates that this name was chosen as a neutral-sounding compromise name on the third day after the game was played, at which point the 'sirengate' nickname was newly coined and not yet in widespread use, leading the editors at the time to feel rightly uneasy about its use - but I think we're well past that being a valid concern. Sirengate is better name in any case, as the AFL siren controversy name does a poorer job of indicating that this is a description of a specific incident/game than a general controversy about sirens. Aspirex (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirengate is a terrible name. Using an American idiom in connection with Australian football just sounds like a commentator trying to be cool and clever. That's his job. Can you provide any evidence that others have used that name for the incident during the past sixteen years? Further, as I read the article, I kept thinking "Why on earth does this article even exist?" It's classic sports trivia. NOT Wikipedia-worthy material. I'd be leaning towards deleting the article entirely. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Google searches easily show use of Sirengate across multiple primary and secondary sources, newspapers, the ABC and so on; and the use of 'AFL siren controversy' almost exclusively in WP mirror sites. Aspirex (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: To form a clearer consensus echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – a cursory search indicates that it's the name commonly used to refer to the incident, including by the AFL in some cases (e.g. [27]). Whilst "-gate" is generally a word to avoid, there's no prohibition against its use if wide usage can be ascertained. (Indeed, on the same principle, I think that 2007 Formula One espionage controversy should be at Spygate (Formula 1) and Renault Formula One crash controversy should be at Crashgate.) Sceptre (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. I regard such language as gruesome and no-encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:POVNAME, which advises us to avoid colloquialisms like these even when they are the common name; the given example of a title we would avoid is Antennagate, which seems directly relevant to this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AFL_siren_controversy&oldid=1197144944"