Talk:AFL Grand Final location debate

Australia: Australian rules football Low‑importance

	Australia portal AFL Grand Final location debate 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What'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.

List of Grand Finals not at the MCG

Myself and user:Aspirex are disputing whether a list of the VFL/AFL Grand Finals not held at the Melbourne Cricket Ground is relevant to this article. I think it is highly relevant whilst user:Aspirex thinks it should be deleted.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, we are talking about these two subsections of these two diffs: [1] [2]

This article's primary purpose is to describe the debate surrounding breaking from long-term MCG grand final contracts. The prose-only version of this subsection meets this perfectly: it outlines all of the reasons why the contract has been broken in the past, and contextualises it with the years and venues of those instances. The table of results is superfluous to this: the competing teams, scores, dates and crowds are all unrelated to the article's core topic – i.e. the MCG contract and the reasons why it was broken in those years. Removing the table, as I suggest we do, does not deprive the reader of any content that helps to describe or contextualise the MCG contract debate. Including the table clutters the page with tangential statistics and a repetitious list of years and venues already included in the prose.

If it's a matter of style (either prose/bullets or table), I'd still favour the prose over the table, because the prose best allows us to group the grand finals by circumstance/reason and explain the reason properly. It's the list of circumstances/reasons – not the list of individual grand finals – which is relevant to this article's topic. Aspirex (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly argue that a list of scenario's where the key contention of the debate, where the Grand Final is played, has come to fruition and changed is extremely relevant to the page. Additionally it should be retained until a consensus is reached otherwise as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle where reverting should only occur "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement". Personal preference should not override this process. The content is neither controversial in nature or not relevant to the article. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that a list of scenarios is appropriate. I disagree with including full results for those scenarios. This past week, all that matters is that there was a GF at the Gabba in 2020 because of Covid. The fact that Richmond won it by 31 points is not relevant, and I'm hoping you can explain why you think that fact specifically warrants inclusion. From my perspective, it worsens the article by padding it with clutter and distracting from the description of the debate. Aspirex (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is enough to simply say of a succinct and fully comprehensive table that clearly lists exceptions to the rule at the centre of the debate that the article covers is padding, clutter and distracting then what is to stop anyone going to any page and deleting swathes of content on a personal whim? Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere if you ignore what I say. I contend that the results of these games does not contribute to the topic at hand. Why do you think it merits inclusion? Aspirex (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]