St Kilda Football Club was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 18, 2022 Good article nominee Listed September 15, 2024 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Melbourne / Australian rules football Mid‑importance St Kilda Football Club 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Top-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

What does the table of Attendances represent? It seems like a mix of all attendances, with the inclusion of the 22,000 against Port Adelaide. Needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.29.189 (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Valndalise the factual information plced on the article.

Have reverted the article back to the version with the encyclopedic information regarding our clubs awards and honours.

DONT ACT LIKE A MORON. IF YOU ARE ONE LEAVE THE ARTICLES TO SOMEONE WITH A SENSE OF FACT.

210.50.228.5 (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These charming comments above are brought to you by the one and only BrianBeahr, an indefinitely blocked editor. His edit and comment style are instantly recognisable. We will not be bullied by you Brian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.244.218 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the company names registry, "St Kilda Saints Football Club Ltd" is the new legal name of the social club only - and NOT the football club itself which appears to be still registered under the name of "St Kilda Football Club Ltd". If anyone has any evidence to the contrary then please provide it. Otherwise please don't change the official name of the club in the article. Afterwriting (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It it becoming increasingly apparent that this article - and other St Kilda F.C. articles - is once again being subjected to sockpuppet editing by an indefinitely blocked user. I am currently monitoring the suspected sockpuppet's edits. Afterwriting (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you see new sockpuppets of User:BrianBeahr working on this article, it helps if you can provide diffs to show the resemblance. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost certainly him again but at present he is flying just under the radar and not making it blatantly obvious. At present I don't know how to do the "diffs" thing properly. Afterwriting (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has become increasingly obvious that the "new" editor User:BawBaw1 is yet another in the long list of sockpuppet accounts of the indefinitely blocked user User:BrianBeahr. I have, therefore, reverted his most recent edits. Brian, I do not wish for you to be indefinitely blocked, but you have been for numerous valid reasons. If you want to edit on Wikipedia you will need to do so by following the correct process for getting yourself unblocked. Seeking to avoid the block by continuing to create sockpuppet accounts will not achieve anything. You really need to understand this and do something about it. Afterwriting (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}}

(the entire article was copied here. it has been deleted for the sake of brevity elektrikSHOOS 05:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

210.50.115.227 (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Don't just copy the entire page. Please say what specifically needs to be edited, in the form of "Please change X to Y." elektrikSHOOS 05:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} To update the 2010 GF results

CrysysKore (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please request changes in the form of "Please change X to Y." elektrikSHOOS 17:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anx10else think that the artice need soures and is pro st kilda? Stilltha1 (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tha latest scandal should be added! it show it ture side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stilltha1 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stilltha1, your spelling and grammar could use some improvement, but yes, I agree, the latest scandal is notable (receiving major media coverage) and should be covered in the article. I'm too lazy, though - someone will do it, hopefully. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all pages for other AFL clubs have this, so St Kilda needs it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sverik25 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing this here because it's one of the clubs Mick has been associated with. I'm just seeking a few more views on a discussion underway about an image an editor has proposed for the article. See the article history and the Tak page. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Malthouse did not have any premiership success at St Kilda as a player then I can't see any reason why there should be a photo of him in the article. His association with St Kilda is not prominent in the public mind. His prominence in AFL is nearly all about his coaching career rather than his playing career. So I would not support including a photo of him in the St Kilda article. There are many other more appropriate people than him. Yahboo (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have confused you. The proposal at hand is for a photo to be added to the Mick Malthouse article, not this one. HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:St Kilda Football Club/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The C of E (talk · contribs) 17:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this within the next few days. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Here is my review[reply]

• Are they at any point ever referred to as "Saint Kilda"?

No, St Kilda has never been referred to this way. As stated, they're named after the suburb specifically, not a Saint. (It is however, a common misconception.)

• Is there a way of distinguishing the 2 VFLs in the lead as per WP:PTM?

What I've done is state the transition for both, which should hopefully clear it up?

• Is there a suitable link for Premiership when there is one for minor premiership?

There is! It's even used later in the article, thanks for the pick-up!

• Was there a time when St Kilda split from University?

Yes, but it's not known. University later joined the VFL separately, so we know the two split, but we don't have a date - hence the usage of briefly to indicate it was not permanent.

• The association with Germany's colours should be clarified (was it because their colours were the same as the German flag at the time?)
  • Also, when did they return to their original colours and why?

Yes, it was. I've added some clarification for you. They returned to the colours in 1922 - the reasoning isn't ever stated however. I can guess it's because the war was over, but without a source no why should be given, obviously. What I've done is rather than list the date, as it would disrupt the section flow, I've used "temporarily" to indicate it wasn't permanent. The information is also available under the uniform evolution section.

• In the 2nd paragraph in 1974, consistency is needed with the dollars as per WP:$

Done!

• Why was the VFL renamed the AFL?

Is this particularly relevant to the article? By all accounts if it was I'd add it - but at least in my opinion, it's merely needed to inform the viewer that of the point when the competition's name changed. The explanation as to why can be left to the competition's page, which is hyperlinked.

• "Grand Final hangover" WP:TONE

Done!

• Guernsey needs to be linked at first mention

Done!

• the "Uniforms" subsection paragraphs are unsourced

I've been tossing this up. I understand where you're coming from, but this doesn't seem like this falls under the requirements of something that "has" to be sourced. It's also surprisingly hard to find a source which describes it in words.

• First line of Logos is unsourced

Going to ask for clarification here before I edit too much - do you mean the first line in the section, or the first line of the subsequent paragraph?

First line of the section @Empole1: The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, addressed. What I've done is make it a more broad neutral statement that serves as an overview rather than a specific one that needs a reference. It's still unreferenced, but the wording change should be fine. @The C of E: Empole1 (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "When The Saints Go Marching In" and "I Do Like To Be Beside The Seaside" should be wikilinked. Also the "Club song" section could easily be merged into 1 paragraph

Done!

• Soccer or rugby shouldn't be capitalised

Done!

• In reserves, does St Kilda still keep its affiliation with Sandringham? Article says 2019 so ideally this should be updated to clarify if its still current.

Updated as suggested! Glad you picked this up, the reference didn't have the information regardless.

• Apparrel sponsors need full sourcing

No can do, I'm afraid. Whilst I know what they are, any publications making note of this have been lost to the sands of time. As a result, I've done my best to list out the sponsors I can get resources for.

• Why has St Kilda got a strong following with Jewish supporters?

No idea. Doesn't seem to have been looked into by an outside source, just something that is the case.

• Is there a source for the Hall of Fame?

Yes, it's actually in the paragraph. I can add it to the template if you'd like?

• Reference 1, Title needs correcting

There doesn't seem to be an error here? If you could elaborate, that'd be great.

• Reference 45, AFL same as other sources using AFL needs to be consistent across the article.

Fixed! They're all lower case 'afl' in the website links now.

• References 68 and 69, ABC consistency needed

Done! One was a cite web rather than a cite news template.

• Reference 117, needs an accessdate

Added! Twas an easy find!

• In the vast majority of references, italics should only be used for printed sources (newspapers etc.)

I don't think that's the case? Most of these would've been done using the autocomplete function Wikipedia has for references, so by all means this should be ok. If you look at the source, the Italics are applied automatically to the "website url" parameter.

• Otherwise @Empole1:, it seems in good shape. LEt me know once you have addressed these and I will have another look. On hold at the moment The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There we go @The C of E:! I've done most thing that you've asked, but I've also left comments on each of your notes, so you can address each note individually if needbe. Thanks for undertaking the review. by the way. Much appreciated! Empole1 (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK @Empole1:, I think that's good to go for GA. Congratulations! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the club have a dalliance with the nickname "Panthers" for a few years? 2001:44B8:201:6C00:2CF9:F9EE:487A:3D67 (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is as it is the same club, just a different team. The other article seems to insinuate that it is a separate club "franchise". Rulesfan (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There are uncited statements throughout the article, particularily in the "Reserves team" section
• There are lots of short paragraphs throughout the article; these should be merged together and the prose copyedited.
• The lede, at five paragraphs, is longer than what is recommended at WP:LEAD

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]