Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Season articles

Hey guys – hope everyone's doing well. Following on from the GAN discussion for 2023 AFL Women's season (now got the last couple of AFLW seasons to GA status – keen to get as many season articles as possible to a similar quality), I had a few points that I wanted to raise with everyone in the hopes of gaining a wider consensus. I also have another larger point that I wanted to discuss down the line for these articles, but I wanted to get everyone's thoughts on these first.

• Lead section – wording and potential inclusion of reigning premier and minor premier
• Club leadership and milestone tables – are they needed?
• Indigenous Round rebrandings
• Leading goalkicker table – including all/a maximum number of round leaders
• Player movement periods – before or after the season?

For the lead section, in a similar vein to Grand Slam tennis articles, I definitely feel like covering the reigning premier and minor premier in the same paragraph as the premier would be beneficial/interesting. For example, for 2023 AFLW: Melbourne was the reigning premier, but was eliminated by Geelong in the semi-finals. Adelaide won the minor premiership by finishing atop the ladder at the end of the home-and-away season with a 9–1 win/loss record, but was eliminated by North Melbourne in the preliminary finals. Brisbane won its second AFL Women's premiership, defeating..., and so on, with any double-ups (or all three, if applicable) morphing into one sentence. At the very least, I strongly think that we need to change the seriously outdated language of The premiership was won by _______ (because who speaks like that, in person or in the media?) to something like _______ won its/their ____ premiership or _______ won the premiership, its/their ____ overall. I also think that in this same sentence, we should always state the grand final venue regardless of league or season – we can't expect a new reader to know that the AFL Grand Final is always played at the MCG except on a few occasions, for example.

With club leadership and milestone tables, the short answer for me is keep them (coaches and leadership groups should be sourced separately, however), and I think that listing 200th game and 400th goal upwards for AFL and 50th game/goal upwards for AFLW is sufficient, but some of you might feel differently. With the Indigenous Round rebrandings, obviously it's a newer initiative, but would it be better to just mention the rebrandings in the prose (to which we should be devoting more time anyway) and game notes and otherwise leave the club names as they are in the results, like we do with the other tables? For the leading goalkicker table, I've reformatted the table for recent seasons, and in doing so, I've highlighted up to three players who led the goalkicking at the end of a round (if more than three players led at the end of a round, e.g. at the start of the season, this wouldn't apply) and kept them at the bottom of the table regardless of placing if they weren't in the top ten at the end of the season, even if they only led for a round (e.g. Alyssa Bannan and Darcy Vescio led at the start of the 2023 AFLW season, and Peter Everitt led for four rounds during the 2000 AFL season); keen to get people's thoughts on these changes.

Regarding player movement periods (for starters, I think that drafts should be split into separate articles from player movement periods and the original articles should be moved to "____ AFL/AFL Women's player movement period", rather than us continue to house information and tables related to player movement in articles titled "draft"), I think that the period mentioned in the article should be the one that takes place after the season rather than before (e.g. 2023–24 AFLW should appear towards the end of the 2023 season article, not 2022–23 at the start) or, failing that, both; I initially mentioned both in 2023 AFLW, but think that the latter holds more relevance to that season. As I said in the GAN discussion, yes, the player movement period introduces players to lists for the following season, but also includes retirements, delistings, etc. that are more relevant to the previous season; I think that the timing is also a factor (take the 2018 AFLW off-season, for example, when the trade period was held in May – it just seems weird to me having a trade period that happened in May 2018 appear in the 2019 season article). Regardless, I think that these should at least be mentioned.

Anyway, thanks for reading, and keen to get everyone's thoughts; if anyone has any other points that they'd like to discuss regarding season articles, regardless of league (though most of the points that I raised mainly just cover AFL and AFLW), please feel free. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping on trying to improve things mate :)

Regarding the lede section I agree with you about the rewording. And I agree about keeping the leadership and milestone tables.

Indigenous Round rebrandings - I think the names should be changed as well, as is done on the official AFL site and in media. That's kind of the point of the rebrandings, not to be just a side note.

Not sure I entirely understood your player movement point. I think the player movement periods should appear with the season they will affect. So for examples delistings, retirements, trades, and drafts happening between the end of the 2023 season and until the 2024 season, should be listed with the 2024 season.

Cheers mate --SuperJew (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

My views:

• Reigning premiers in the lead strong oppose. Sorry to start with a high horse rant, but this has always been a bugbear of mine. Each season is a standalone event, and the previous premiership is wholly irrelevant to it. Reigning premiers shouldn't be mentioned in the prose, let alone the lead, except when implied by mention of back to back premiers. Furthermore, the reigning premiers aren't otherwise mentioned in the prose, which is a contravention of WP:LEAD: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I know a lot of other sports include reigning premiers in their leads, but they shouldn't. I've always found it a distraction to the lead because the reigning premiers gets listed before the premiers of the primary topic of the article despite only passing relevance; read any Eurovision Song Contest article, for example, and the previous winning song is always the first song mentioned, which makes zero sense to me. Reigning premiers should only be included in things like the old Davis Cup or World Chess Championship where it's relevant as part of the new season's qualification.
• Minor premiers. I oppose in that form, but I recognise that this section is a bit lean and would benefit from a longer 'tale of the season' so to speak, and happy to collaborate on it. My opposition to this form is the difference in historical significance of minor premiership vs major premiership is substantial; when looked at through history, major premiership and runners up are much more heavily reported and remembered than the minor premiers in sources, and (except in the record breaking performances like Collingwood 1929 or Essendon 2000) references to minor premiers win/loss records are largely confined to databases, making that statistical element too detailed for the lead. (Edit 11 April: perhaps instead put the minor premiers WLD in the infobox, similar to the Coleman Medallist's goal tally, rather than in the prose of the lead). My concern with the way it reads in your suggestion would imply to a neutral reader that the two titles are viewed with almost equal importance, like in the A League - which I think we should all be able to agree is not the case in Australian rules. My suggestion to provide greater detail to the tale of the season while maintaining top-down importance would be, using 2019 as an example, The Richmond Football Club, which finished third on the home-and-away ladder, won the premiership after it defeated sixth-placed Greater Western Sydney by 89 points in the 2019 AFL Grand Final. It was Richmond's twelfth premiership. The minor premiership was won by Geelong, which finished third after being eliminated in the preliminary finals. I recognise that you and I have had this debate about sequencing things by chronology vs importance before, but I'm strongly of the view that we need to go by importance in the lead, hence my order; and going reigning-minor-major is the opposite.
• Re syntax. I chose the passive voice sentence syntax when I wrote these leads, largely to get around any its-vs-their arguments and have a sentence structure which could be consistent for clubs which are written as singular vs plural. But that's not the only way to deal with that so fine with reworking it.
• I disagree with stating the grand final venue as a standard. That is a fact about the grand final, not a fact about the season. Particularly since it seldom changes, I think as a one-step-removed fact its of too low an importance for the season lead.
• I also disagree with defining the minor premiership - when a link to the minor premiership page can sort that out. I think that approach adequately satisfies the competing intents of Use Australian English and MOS:INTRO's Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible.
• Club leadership, I think it's worth having, but due to my sequencing preference for importance over chronology I'd move it lower in the article.
• Milestones list, I'd happily expunge. The separate table was created as a compromise to keep milestones in the articles but stop them from junking up the game notes (since that's where they used to be placed) and that's fine by me, but my overall preference is to remove them and let the club season pages present that information because its a bit on the crufty side when compared with everything else in the article.
• Indigenous Round rebrands: I think readability is harmed by using the rebrand names in the template, and it's definitely not sustainable as more teams will likely start rebranding and the explanatory note will lengthen. My suggested approach is to write a new Sir Douglas Nicholls Round article, including a subsection which mentions each club's rebrands, link to that subsection in a short all-encompassing gamenote/roundnote, and then use the English names otherwise.
• Leading goalkicker suggestion: perhaps only include players who led from round 5 onwards as a cutoff, rather than using 'number of joint leaders' as the criterion? Otherwise no strong views.
• The draft pages have definitely experienced a lot of scope creep over the last 20 years, so a refresh makes sense in some respects - but it's also pretty useful to have trades, free agency compensation and the drafts all together in one place given they all involve draft picks. But apologies, I'm not quite understanding exactly what you're proposing? Could you elaborate? Aspirex (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Club leadership should be trimmed to coaches and captains. Vice-captains and broader leadership groups are not prominent enough outside a specific club's audience to justify their inclusion in a broader season article – e.g. in 2023 AFLW season the leadership groups are all sourced to club websites. These groups can be adequately covered in club season articles.
• Milestone tables should be trimmed to those of broad interest as determined by which milestones tend to get detailed coverage in reliable sources. If instances of a milestone are mostly sourced to databases or passing mentions (e.g. teams listings that mention "Milestones: Joe Bloggs, 50 games") these should not be included. Your AFL standards seem intuitively reasonable, no view on the AFLW.
• I have no objection to discussing the reigning premiers in a season article or even in the lead if called for, as a common aspect of a season's tale is how the previous champions get on – do they establish a dynasty or end up with a premiership hangover?
• Contra SuperJew my searches during the 2023 AFLW GAN found third-party sources did not necessarily use the rebranded names during Indigenous Round. In general we should be using terminology that will be coherent when discussing the season as a whole, so we should at most mention but not use the rebranded names.
• I like Asperix's standard of only mentioning leading goalkickers outside the top 10 if they led the tally after round 5.
• After reflecting a little on player movement periods the problem seems to be the same period contains moves involving players chiefly relevant to the preceding season but also players chiefly relevant to the next season. An established veteran retiring is most relevant to the last season, while the new number-one pick is most relevant to the next season – but both could happen in the same movement period. Maybe the solution is to mention both the preceding and following movement periods but explicitly tailor the summaries to the season's context rather than summarising everything that went on in the period.

– Teratix ₵ 10:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There must be a better or more nuanced approach to handling the discussion of dynastic performance than just a standard listing the reigning premiers' performance, though. If I considered Richmond 2017-2020, for example, I would think it appropriate to say This was the first/second/third of three premierships won by Richmond over four years between 2017-2020 in each of the premiership years; and if there's a Richmond story to be told in 2018, its the fact that this was their one non-premiership year, not the fact that they finished third in that specific year without reference to the two years that followed. What is the dynastic story for the Bulldogs' 2016 flag: for me it's more that they won a flag by having one good year without a prolonged period of success (i.e. 2016 was the only year that decade in which they won a final), far moreso than the fact that they came tenth in 2017 - and that context would all belong in the 2016 lead. Perhaps there isn't a single consistent format we can take and we would just need to agree on what gets included season-by-season - but that comes with a risk of trivia gradually bloating the leads. Aspirex (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that's why I made sure to say "if called for", i.e. depending on the specific season. I don't see how this principle risks "trivia gradually bloating the leads". If mentioning the reigning premier is trivial, remove it. If it is not trivial, include it. – Teratix ₵ 04:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Aspirex, I wholeheartedly disagree with the view that reigning premiers shouldn't be mentioned in the prose, let alone the lead, and that there isn't a single consistent format that we can use and going season-by-season would solve the problem – a simple mention in the lead is hardly distracting, for one, but there's always scope for reigning premiers to be mentioned in the prose (e.g. premiership favouritism, unveiling of the flag, current season performance including missing finals if applicable, potential season events) or other sections like season notes (e.g. historic feats like the last two reigning premiers being the first since 1976 to lose their first three games of the next season); as before, we should be putting a lot more time into prose. I'm also concerned that you would argue only linking minor premiership would make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible – if anything, directing readers who might not be familiar with the term (one that is seldom used outside of Australia, if at all) away from the article to get an understanding for it, all for the sake of trimming a few words, would do less for that than also briefly defining the term. If you want to trim a few words from the lead, get rid of the grand final teams' ladder finishes and after-finals rankings (1. again, who says/uses this, and 2. where do they appear in the rest of the article?) from your example; adding the win/loss/draw record to the infobox rather than the text won't solve the problem either, given how packed the infobox gets by season's end compared to the "lean" lead prose, to use your words. Otherwise, the leading goalkicker table point was more about including players who led during the season in the table regardless of where they finish than having a cutoff point, but I still think that as long as it isn't a large number of players (e.g. more than three), there isn't any harm in highlighting round leaders from the start of the season; for example, there were only two equal leaders after Opening Round this year, and only one after round 1 last year.

Regarding player movement (now also directed at SuperJew), see 2023–24 AFL Women's player movement period and 2023 AFL Women's draft to get an idea of how I think these types of articles should be revamped – I think that the draft(s) is significant and distinct enough to be WP:SPLIT from the player movement article, even if the draft plays a role in the overall period – and 2023 AFL Women's season#Player movement and draft for how I think this should be referred to in season articles. My view, a bit like Teratix followed up with, is that there is just as much (if not more) relevant to one season (retirements and delistings) as the next (drafts and other signings), with trades bridging the two, but I also think that timing is a factor. I don't have a problem with both periods being mentioned in some capacity in the same season article compared to only mentioning the former – so no, I don't agree with the "season it will affect" argument and just mentioning the preceding period. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll clarify that when I say the reigning premiers 'shouldn't be mentioned in the prose', I'm referring to an article with the level of prose we have today; in a properly written 2-3 paragraph subsection which outlines teams' performances and the broader context, I would have no issue making reference to the reigning premiers. But I still can't agree with including the reigning premiers as a standard feature of every season lead. There so many facts which better represent and introduce the subject of an AFL season than the finishing position of the previous year's reigning premiers.

Defining minor premiership still feels unnecessary to me; I feel it's pretty stock standard to use a sport's understood terminology with links, and assume a general level of familiarity with the sport from the reader. The 2019 Australian Open lead links and does not define 'Grand Slam', 'Open Era' and 'lucky losers' – all of those terms (except perhaps Grand Slam) would be roughly as unfamiliar to a non-tennis reader as minor premiership would be to a non-Australian rules football reader. (Also, our articles do have the complexity of Australian rules football's unusual usages of the terms 'semi-final' and 'preliminary final' – which would be less broadly understandable than 'minor premiership' – and I wouldn't want to get into a position of having to define those as well, since it would make the lead more definition than content).

I can't understand your point about the infobox getting 'packed with information' and how that does not "solve the problem" (in fact, I'm not sure what the problem is here that you think needs solving)? The entire benefit of having an infobox is to quickly relay high point statistical, and listing the minor premier's WLD record next to the minor premier's name seems like a simple approach to doing that.

I do agree that there can be a consistent lead format and that we're going to avoid a lot of arguments by creating it and sticking to it – I just thought I'd pitch that idea out there as an alternative.

I thought including the ladder placings would be an efficient way to get a bit more tale-of-the-season information into the lead, and I still don't think it's necessarily a bad option, but I'm not going to push that with any strength. The main point I'd make on this is that I feel it would be much more relevant on any given season page to list that season's grand finalists' H&A finishing positions in the lead than the previous season's premier's performance.

I see your point about post-finals finishing positions - although I use them fairly extensively myself, I recognise is the more obscure way to approach it and referring to the week-of-finals-exit makes more sense for the lead.

Can I suggest the following alternative compromise template. The Richmond Football Club won the premiership, defeating Geelong by 31 points in the 2020 AFL Grand Final. It was Richmond's second consecutive premiership, and 13th VFL/AFL premiership overall. Port Adelaide won the minor premiership for finishing atop the ladder after the home-and-away season, and was eliminated in the preliminary finals. Per MOS:NUMERAL, numerals or ordinals zero to nine must be spelled in words; and by choice we agree to use numerals for anything 10 or higher; we would just say VFL premiership instead of VFL/AFL premiership in seasons earlier than 1990.

Also worth pointing out and discussing while we're on the subject: when I put the current leads together, I tried to limit mention of any onfield achievement to only the very most significant all-time records and firsts. A full list of facts/records I called out in leads about onfield achievements is as follows: Fitzroy's 1916 flag from the wooden spoon; Collingwood's record 19–0 home-and-away record in 1929; Collingwood's record fourth straight premiership in 1930; Geelong's record 23-game win streak in 1952 (choosing that season to mention it instead of 1953 because the streak included the 1952 grand final); the record grand final crowd in 1970; Essendon's record 24–1 full season record in 2000; Pratt's and Hudson's record 150-goal seasons in 1934 and 1971; St Kilda being the last foundation club to win a premiership in 1966; North Melbourne being the last VFL club to win a premiership in 1975; West Coast being the first interstate club to win a premiership in 1992; South Melbourne/Sydney's record 72-year drought ending in 2005; and Geelong's record 119-point grand final win in 2007. While we're debating a consistent template, we should probably come to an agreement on whether this list of exceptions is worth preserving, or expanding.

On the subject of player movements, I think at a league season article level (which is what 4theWynne is looking at) it doesn't matter too much; but in the club season articles it makes the most sense to have all player movements grouped with the subsequent season (i.e. the season they affect); that means the subsequent club season page contains both that season's playing list, and all of the changes to tell the story of how the club built that list; the league season article should then fall in line with the club season articles for project-wide consistency. In my view, the only player movements that would be more associated with the prior season than the subsequent season are: retirements of notable players, since there will be announcements, farewell games, grand final motorcades etc. all historically connected to that prior season; and midseason sackings, for obvious reasons. I would associate delistings more closely with the subsequent season than the prior season because they're more of a transactional list management matter related to building that subsequent season's list.

On the goalkicking table, I'm not fussed out the outcome. Let my suggestion be considered but not influence the final consensus. Aspirex (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that something like this would be a fairer compromise for the lead:

For 2020: Reigning premier Richmond won the premiership, its third in four seasons and 13th VFL/AFL premiership overall, defeating Geelong by 31 points in the 2020 AFL Grand Final. Port Adelaide won the minor premiership by finishing atop the ladder at the end of the home-and-away season with a 14–3 win/loss record, but was defeated by Richmond in the preliminary finals.

For 2023: Collingwood won the premiership, its 16th VFL/AFL premiership overall, defeating the Brisbane Lions by four points in the 2023 AFL Grand Final. Collingwood won the minor premiership by finishing atop the ladder at the end of the home-and-away season with an 18–5 win/loss record. Geelong was the reigning premier, but did not qualify for finals.

And for 2023 AFLW: Brisbane won the premiership, its second AFL Women's premiership overall, defeating North Melbourne by four points in the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final. Adelaide won the minor premiership by finishing atop the ladder at the end of the home-and-away season with a 9–1 win/loss record, but was eliminated by North Melbourne in the preliminary finals. Melbourne was the reigning premier, but was eliminated by Geelong in the semi-finals.

This way, the order of elements is reversed and the grand final venue is omitted, but the reigning premier (in the case of 2020, the premiership and reigning premier are in the one sentence), minor premiership definition and win/loss record are retained. I always spell out zero to twelve, for what it's worth; and yes, the historical achievements/feats should be retained, but I'm not 100% sure that the list should end there. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with words up to twelfth. I'm still not happy with the win/loss record or the reigning premiers in the lead, but I'll compromise on win/loss record if we get rid of reigning premiers. I also noticed (which I hadn't spotted before) that you've included who eliminated the minor premiers, not just which round they were eliminated in - I feel that's too much detail for the lead. Brisbane won the premiership, defeating North Melbourne by four points in the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final. It was Brisbane's second AFL Women's premiership. Adelaide won the minor premiership by finishing atop the ladder at the end of the home-and-away season with a 9–1 win/loss record, but was eliminated in the preliminary finals. I'd prefer to see the grand final result before interseasonal context, i.e. Richmond won the premiership, defeating Geelong by 31 points in the 2020 AFL Grand Final. It was Richmond's third premiership in four seasons and 13th VFL/AFL premiership overall. Port Adelaide won the minor premiership by finishing atop the ladder at the end of the home-and-away season with a 14–3 win/loss record, but was defeated in the preliminary finals. In an article about the season, that season should come first. Also, don't need the word 'overall' for premiership count unless there is also a shorter timescale premiership count listed. Aspirex (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll go with moving the win/loss record to the infobox and changing the wording to push inter-seasonal context back for the premier if we keep the reigning premier and which teams eliminated the reigning and minor premiers. If you take those elements out, the end result is hardly any different from the original wording other than a little tweak of the language used and the addition of the minor premier – hardly a compromise. Take your most recent examples – if the lead for another season was worded that way and I read it, my first thought would be "OK, (was defeated) by who?". It's not too detailed at all – it's not as if I'm adding the bloody semi-final venue or anything that's a genuine stretch for detail/context. To your intial point, while each season is a standalone event, the premiership/team that won it is still relevant; how do they progress in the ensuing season(s) – how far do they fall, or how does the shift in power/success happen, if at all? It makes for an interesting story and is hardly irrelevent to, or a distraction from, the current season; this is even reflected in media coverage of seasons – for example, [1], [2] (2023 AFLW), [3] (2022 AFL), [4] (2021 AFL), [5] (2018 AFL). I've already addressed your other concerns about this element by agreeing to reverse the order of elements in the paragraph and endeavouring to cover reigning premiers in the prose so that it isn't solely mentioned in the lead, and am pretty adamant that omitting the teams that eliminated the reigning and minor premiers will genuinely detract from the sentence(s)/leave it looking like it's missing something (plus, you're willing to go with with a 14–3 win/loss record, but by Richmond is too detailed?), so I'm not budging on those two elements. Gotta give and take, mate. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 06:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I will not agree to any compromise which includes reigning premiers. I can think of at least ten things better representative of a standard season's onfield results which I would rather expand the lead to include: the Coleman and Brownlow Medallists, their tallies, premiership captain and coach, total attendance, a list of all teams which made the finals, the name of the AFL CEO/president, the wooden spooner and what they did with the No. 1 draft pick, and any coach sackings - because everything in that list is more iconic or notable to the season in question than the prior premiers' finishing position. And I believe your references even support my point: the 2023 AFLW reference ranked it the 9th biggest story; the 2023 AFL one is ranked the 17th biggest story; the 2021 AFL is just an article about Richmond, WP:ROUTINE coverage in context; and I can't even see the reigning premiers performance listed in your 2018 AFL reference unless it's buried in the Tom Lynch item in 7th – and yet you are trying to convince us that this fact is so important that it should be one of the top three things mentioned as a standard in every single season article. The 17th-biggest story of 2023, and you're telling me it belongs in the lead? Surely you must understand why I'm so adamant about its exclusion here. Aspirex (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion; the reigning premier/its performance may not necessarily be a top story of every season, but the only thing you've listed that consistently topped it in the references that I used as examples was the new premier/its finals run. Regardless, there seems to be a level of agreement here that the reigning premier can at least be mentioned in the lead if notable rather than excluded entirely. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else want to weigh in? Tagging Storm machine, HiLo48, The-Pope, Hawkeye7, Gibbsyspin, Jjamesryan, SportingFlyer, Lindsay658, Jenks24, Totallynotarandomalt69 and anyone else who might be interested, not just in the lead but other elements that I've brought up or you might want to bring up yourself. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 07:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to acknowledge that I've seen your invitation, no, these article are a bit beyond my level of interest. I'll pass thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, likewise. Sorry. I have never really cared too much for the season articles so I can't really provide an informed opinion. Gibbsy^spin 14:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

On the matter of 'who eliminated whom', I realise on reflection that I have no problem with it for the minor premiers, since its usually a grand finalist anyway. It's the reigning premier example which felt wrong because the mention of Geelong in the 2023 AFLW example felt entirely non-sequitur given neither Geelong nor its finishing position were otherwise mentioned. So I'm fine with mentioning the team who eliminated the minor premiers; except that if it's a straight-sets exit, I would suggest including either both or neither of the winning teams with the emphasis being on the straight sets nature of the exit (of course without using the words 'straight sets'). Aspirex (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, this is another constructive and thoughtful discussion – You love to see it. A big reason why this part of the wiki is in good shape.

For the lede, I'm agreeing with @Aspirex who has a similar view to me of using the Inverted pyramid (journalism), with the hierarchy being:

1. Who won the Grand Final, against who, and where was it (location being relevant for AFLW, less so for AFLM)?
2. Who were the minor premiers, and how did they go during the finals?
3. If notable, who were the reigning premiers and how did they do during the season/finals? (eg Geelong AFLM last year missing the finals is somewhat notable, if they had scraped into the finals and were eliminated immediately, not so much?)

I'm always an advocate for more referenced prose, so re-reading the AFLW 23 article, that overview section is a delight.

For the other points – the club leadership table feels encyclopedic, and its current prominence is fine in the sense that it surreptitiously details who was competing in the season and the key personnel. I agree with those that have suggested trimming it to just coach/captain and eliminating vice-captain and leadership group, but given some yearly team articles are light on/non-existent, the current format is appropriate. WP:SOURCESEXIST too for these outside club sites. The current limits on the milestone tables (especially AFLM) is appropriate, the AFLW one looks unwieldy at 50 matches, but it is what it is. @4TheWynne the leading goalkicker changes look really good.

Separate articles for the draft (which is an event anyway and separate on the US-sports articles) and player movement seems obvious now, the 2023-24 AFLW pages are a great precedent. Storm machine (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to acknowledge your thoughtful invitation. These matters, all relating to perspectives of the marketing of commercial Aussie Rules the 21st century, are outside of my expertise and interest; and, therefore, I can't really make any comment. However, you do have my best wishes.Lindsay658 (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have responded so far. For the lead, going over everything we have (and haven't) covered so far, it could look something like this:

The 2023 AFL season was the 127th season of the Australian Football League (AFL), the highest level senior men's Australian rules football competition in Australia, which was known as the Victorian Football League until 1989 (is this last part definitely needed?). The season featured 18 clubs and ran from 16 March to 30 September, comprising a 23-match home-and-away season for the first time in league history, followed by a four-week finals series featuring the top eight clubs.

Collingwood won the premiership, defeating the Brisbane Lions by four points in the 2023 AFL Grand Final; it was Collingwood's 16th VFL/AFL premiership. Collingwood won the minor premiership by finishing atop the ladder at the end of the home-and-away season with an 18–5 win/loss record. (In this case, if we consider it notable enough) Reigning premier Geelong failed to qualify for finals, finishing twelfth. (This could be extended to include the "first reigning premier since 1976 to lose its opening three matches" stat if necessary?)

Is there anything else that could potentially be added, removed or otherwise changed? Outside of the lead, most of us seem to agree on each of the other elements mentioned, but feel free to rehash anything or, again, bring up other points from season articles if anyone wishes. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to mentioning the VFL name change in the lead, but have found the current approach to be a useful middle ground position in acknowledging the league's mostly Victorian history without implying the existence of an acknowledged 'AFL era'. This used to be presented in this much more heavy handed manner. Should note that the word 'men's' should only be used from 2017 onwards. I still oppose reigning premiers in all cases, to ensure consistency year-to-year; consistency is to me a lot more important in the lead, especially when these planned prose summaries can be more readily flexed to fit season-by-season variations in notability. Finally, your last comment. I've already stated my position on what standard of notability should be upheld for inclusion of onfield records in the lead with the list in this diff. Could it be made a little less exclusive, yes; but is "the fourth time a reigning premier started the next year with a three-game H&A losing streak" so notable that it should go in the lead? Well my answer is obviously no, preceded by several choice adjectives. That is such low level cruft, I don't know how you could possibly suggest putting that into the lead and think that would help the article to achieve a GA standard.

Well, again, that's your opinion. SuperJew, Teratix, Storm machine, anything you guys want to add? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I don't think any sort of attempt to work out a formula for writing season leads will produce more than a stopgap. Any lead will almost certainly need to be replaced if someone gives the article serious attention, because what deserves mention in the lead depends on what has happened during the season – which is always different. That's what makes footy interesting. – Teratix ₵ 06:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes and no – I don't think it's impossible to come up with a few permanent elements to throw in the lead, or that it would necessarily need to be overhauled if someone wanted to raise the standard of the article (it could, however, be grounds for another discussion like this one), but I agree that no two leads are going to look 100% the same when you throw in other points specific to the season. I guess we're now just trying to get to the bottom of what other things we can include/are notable enough, along with the permanent elements. Aspirex is evidently being strict on the matter, where I'm trying to be a little more open-minded – I was just following on from Storm machine's point about Geelong's 2023 performance by suggesting that the 1976 stat could be used to support it in the lead, and think that other stats could be used similarly. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we in the long run we save ourselves a lot of grief and debate by having a very rigidly defined lead, followed by an expansive and changeable summary prose section straight after. Aspirex (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It would save you a lot of grief if we just ended this discussion and did things your way, I'm sure, but as you said yourself, the section's pretty slim, so nothing wrong with a bit of discussion to find other things to add, permanent or not; I'm fairly certain your idea of "low-level cruft" is a little different to others. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of what we decide, it's going to save grief for everyone if we have a consistent approach to the lead, because lead changes will always be controversial when they can or must be made across 130 articles. The point I'm making is that 'Geelong started 0-3' describes an event which occurred in the season, while 'first time that has happened since 1976' is related WP:TRIVIA; the former belongs in the prose, the latter belongs in the season notes section, and neither is so important to a reader's introduction to an AFL season that it should be among those five or six key facts in the lead. Aspirex (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

in the interest of trying to innovate to break an impasse, what if we expanded the lead with a more agreeable set of standard facts? Collingwood, captained by Darcy Moore and coached by Craig McRae, won the premiership, defeating the Brisbane Lions by four points in the 2023 AFL Grand Final; it was Collingwood's 16th VFL/AFL premiership. Collingwood also won the minor premiership by finishing atop the home-and-away ladder. Brisbane midfielder won his second Brownlow Medal as league fairest and best (or best and fairest), and Carlton forward Charlie Curnow won his second consecutive Coleman Medal as league leading goalkicker. It meets an objective of expanding the lead, which we both seem to be fine with, but without including the reigning premiers to which I'm so strongly opposed. Aspirex (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The Brownlow and Coleman Medals probably should have always been added, so that's fine, but I don't think that the premiership coach and captain are as necessary (they're highly unlikely to be included in the prose anyway). Say that we just included the former two and removed the VFL mention (just not sure that the league's Victorian history needs to be mentioned in a season article/think that it reads like a bit of an afterthought), I would reword the full thing slightly to this:

The 2023 AFL season was the 127th season of the Australian Football League (AFL), the highest level senior men's Australian rules football competition in Australia. The season featured 18 clubs and ran from 16 March to 30 September, comprising a 23-match home-and-away season for the first time in the league's history, followed by a four-week finals series featuring the top eight clubs.

Collingwood won the premiership, defeating the Brisbane Lions by four points in the 2023 AFL Grand Final; it was Collingwood's 16th VFL/AFL premiership. Collingwood also won the minor premiership by finishing atop the ladder at the end of the home-and-away season with an 18–5 win/loss record. Brisbane's Lachie Neale won his second Brownlow Medal as the league's best and fairest player, and Carlton's Charlie Curnow won his second consecutive Coleman Medal as the league's leading goalkicker.

4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggest we change atop the ladder at the end of the home-and-away season with the less wordy and more common sounding on top of the home-and-away ladder; and remove the words win/loss, as I think the meaning is equally clear without them and it avoids the need to also state 'draw' when applicable. Aspirex (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I can get my head around the first bit – "on top of the ladder" is still a bit informal, but OK (maybe atop the home-and-away ladder?) – but not removing "win/loss"; I don't see the need to remove "win/loss" or "win/loss/draw" just for the sake of making a tiny trim. Say a team goes 20–2–1 (or as Brisbane did in 2017 AFLW, 6–0–1) – if you left the term out, not super clear (especially to the average reader/someone who doesn't follow sports as much) if it's WLD or WDL, is it? You'd have to clarify the record; at least by keeping it in there regardless, we're maintaining consistency, like you've asked for. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think 'on top of' is necessarily informal, it's certainly more commonly used than 'atop' in general discourse – and even though I too would instinctively use atop, I do recognise there's an old-fashioned streak in my writing and that on top of is probably better in this case (which is to say: pick either version and I'm fine). On win/loss, leave it in as long as you change the punctuation from slashes to en-dashes - the words win–loss should have consistent punctuation with the 18–5 numerical record. Aspirex (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries; anyone else have anything to add? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I do want to stress, in case it comes up down the track, that this discussion should be seen as working out a standard "off-the-shelf" lead format that is convenient to use rather than something that is enforceable as convention. Editors on any individual season article can and should modify the lead depending on the article's particulars. – Teratix ₵ 15:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment, but with the view that the bar for inclusion outside that template needs to be high - i.e. inclusions should be at least as well known as the Brownlow winner, when viewed through an historical lens and not a recentist one. If we end up with more than 50% of season articles having extra content beyond what is templated, then I don't believe we're being selective enough. Aspirex (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverting to one of the other points in the discussion, there are now five clubs who will adopt Indigenous names for the Sir Douglas Nicholls Rounds, and the current approach of gamenoting the name changes and intents every time is getting longer. In the interest of finding a solution which would work practically if all 19 clubs took part, I'll again raise my thought that we use the English names only in the season pages, then write a Sir Douglas Nicholls Round article including a subsection which mentions each club's Indigenous name, the intent/basis of it, and the years of use; and have a standard Five clubs adopted Indigenous names during the two weeks of the 2024 Sir Douglas Nicholls Round#Names subsection gamenote in the first week of the Sir Douglas Nicholls Round only. Then use the English names exclusively in the season page (or maybe list the Indigenous somewhere in the season page prose, but more for completeness than as the primary reference). I feel a central location, and the club pages, are a better place to keep this information than the season pages, since we don't expect it to change very much year to year. Aspirex (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. – Teratix ₵ 02:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting work on a Sir Doug Nicholls Round article, will implement that strategy. Aspirex (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the general premise, but disagree with including the game note in the first week only – I think it should either be in both weeks like we've already been doing or moved to the prose. Also, while we're on the topic of an article for Indigenous Round, I'd also like to suggest that Anzac Day match be moved to Anzac Appeal Round, given the article already covers several other matches beyond the Collingwood v Essendon match. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The prose is probably the better place for it; it's more like a fixture feature which usually appears at the start of the article, than a gamenote occurring round by round. Thinking back to when they introduced the floating final-round fixture, I think we gamenoted it in year 1, prosed it for a couple of years after, then stopped mentioning it altogether because everyone accepted it as standard. That's probably where we should get to with this as well.

For Anzac Day, that's an interesting one. I'd say the Collingwood Essendon match stands alone as notable (like Dreamtime stands alone from Sir Doug Nicholls); so if we moved/created Anzac Appeal Round, we should also have an Anzac Day match fork. But unlike Sir Doug Nicholls Round, if we forked the centerpiece match details and results, we'd be left mostly with a list of the lesser matches rather than a list of observances, which I feel would not make for a very strong article and could be a deletion candidate. I'm of the view that the lesser matches in the Anzac Day Match article are being given way more space than they deserve based on their relative load of GNG references compared with Collingwood vs Essendon, and I don't think they are fixtures of sufficient prominence to warrant having results tables in Wikipedia. So if it were me, I'd leave the whole thing at Anzac Day match, and collapse the other stuff into a 2–3 paragraph subsection without results tables to get the DUEWEIGHT balance right. Aspirex (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Templates added to Category:Australian rules football navigational boxes

Hi WikiProject Australian rules football. I've just added about a dozen previously uncategorised templates to Category:Australian rules football navigational boxes (most are in the "0-9" section but also {{AFL Under-19s}}, {{AFL Women's All-Australian captains}} and {{AFL reserves}}). They probably require refinement into more specific categories, but members of this project are probably better-placed to do that. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Images

Many players don't have up to date images. For instance, the pictures of Jordan Dawson, George Hewett, Darcy Cameron are all of them playing for the Swans. There are no images in Wikimedia of them playing for their current team. What can we do about this? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Convince @Flickerd to come back to Wikipedia/? Most of the current era pics seem to have been shot/uploaded by them through that 2017–2019 period. Short of taking your own images, there's not really much that can be done (free sources are hard to come by). Gibbsy^spin 09:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! Maybe we can do some sort of collaboration with the AFL/clubs for this. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Apart from having users take images and upload them, trying to reach out to official channels (I'd think maybe photojournalists) and check if they're willing to publish a limited amount of pictures under a license relevant for Wikipedia could be an option. Also maybe to look through appropriately sourced sites, such as Flickr, if there are relevant pictures. --SuperJew (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok great! MaskedSinger (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the AFL would be receptive to a collaboration. They have strict conditions on stadium photography for a reason – there's a commercial interest in maintaining control over the distribution of high-quality photography and video. Even if they were receptive to collaborating I'm sure they would require something like a non-commercial license, which isn't free enough to be compatible with Commons licensing.

I've trawled Flickr and Commons pretty thoroughly for freely licensed images and they're hard to come by. Commons already has much of the low-hanging fruit. There's probably a little bit to squeeze out of the images we already have (cropping group shots to show individuals), but not much, and not in the long term.

Ultimately I think we have to accept, to some degree, we're a small project with a high bus factor. We were blessed with high-quality freely-licensed photographs for a few years, but that was never a guarantee we would always have them. We should be pleased we had a talented volunteer willing to contribute them in the first place. – Teratix ₵ 15:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, on reflection this is a little pessimistic. We still have editors contributing a few decent pictures – I shouldn't make it out as if Flickerd was the only guy doing this, just that the quantity and quality of his images were especially high.

I think a potentially under-investigated direction is asking photographers in the broader online fan communities if they would consider licensing any useful pictures. – Teratix ₵ 16:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

what if i speak to someone from the AFL? Could we come to some arrangement? Does this work? What would we need from them? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Plainly put, Wikipedia and the AFL are at cross-purposes here. The AFL is interested in making sure its commercial rights are protected so the business can make money. We're interested in writing and illustrating a freely-licensed encyclopedia. This goal is necessarily incompatible with the AFL's goal. It's not a matter of "oh, we just need to speak to the right people and say the right things". – Teratix ₵ 16:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

So then what about the clubs? Wouldn't they want their players to be displayed accurately? If a Magpie is now playing at the Bulldogs, don't think they would want to see him wearing black and white. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but again you have to consider the commercial aspect of things – clubs might prefer up-to-date pictures, but they would probably require payment for their use. At best they might be amenable to releasing images under noncommercial licenses, which aren't suitable for Commons. – Teratix ₵ 03:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly I think you are overestimating the importance of a player’s Wikipedia profile to a football club. They would not care one iota.

We do as much as we can here but 90% of current player profiles are years out of date in terms, and that to me is much more important than an image. Take Tom Hawkins for example – a wonderful article in 2016, of GA quality, and then two sentences since then have been written on the last 8 seasons of his career, in a time where he has undoubtedly peaked as a footballer.

Images are small fry here. Gibbsy^spin 03:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

or perhaps in general to put out to online fan communities if people who are going to matches or training (which would probably easier for the average fan to take photos), could take photos and upload them freely-licensed to Wikipedia. --SuperJew (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That means finding fans who love dealing with our arcane processes for uploading pics. Not a large group of people there. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I'd say the problem is in the other direction – it's so straightforward to upload images, you regularly get new editors uploading random ones they found on the internet without understanding they're not free to use. – Teratix ₵ 08:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel it has gotten much easier and better (I still remember using the UploadWizard and each photo was a story to upload (with dial-up internet too hahaha)). --SuperJew (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this, to point out that technically, you can't take a photo of a player at an official match venue or even any official event, according to the conditions of entry for anything but "private non-commercial purposes". Training is less clear, as you don't need a ticket to go that. Quite a few of our photos were taken during matches, so could be challenged by the AFL is they wished to do so. The-Pope (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I recall some discussion on Commons about this. Because these conditions of entry are non-copyright restrictions, I believe the consensus was disputes over whether pictures breached the conditions were a matter for the photographer and the AFL – the logic is supposed to run that Wikimedia sites themselves are not bound by restrictions in a contract they were not a party to in the first place, similar to how Commons accepts museum photography even if the photographer breached the museum's "house rules" on cameras to take the picture in question. – Teratix ₵ 05:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel that there should be a policy that if the photo is too old, it shouldn't be used as the main photo.....especially if they have an older team's uniform on Rhnu2008 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you think it's preferable to have no photo instead of a photo which is too old? --SuperJew (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Carlton colour

Bringing a small dispute here before I get a 3RR violation. Simple dispute: is Carlton's main colour described as 'navy blue' or 'dark navy blue'. Both appear in references from time to time. The club's constitution states 'navy blue', and given the self-defined nature of club colours, I'd say this should automatically trump any other reference. Constitution Aspirex (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Navy blue sounds right to me. Have never heard the phrase "dark navy blue" outside of the club's theme song, let alone anywhere else in society Gibbsy^spin 08:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither, it should be "M&M blue". – Teratix ₵ 12:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

With no other engagement and three editors (including this IP favouring the longer term consensus navy blue over one favouring dark navy blue, I will revert to navy blue until any subsequent consensus is reached. Aspirex (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Aspirex, excuse the late response as I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing and I'm just learning how to use the site. I've been trying to find this talk page.

The colour is described by carltonfc.com.au as "dark navy blue", the hex code is #031A29 and the official name for the colour is "Dark navy". The colour name is used in the online merch stores and it's the official colour that Carlton wear.

Dark navy is still a shade of Navy Blue and does NOT go against the constitution.

Geelong wear standard navy blue and white, Carlton has always worn a darker navy blue and as the guy stated above, it is even referenced in the club song: "the old DARK NAVY BLUES".

I also changed the colour to the official hex code, as the incorrect one was being displayed, possibly for many years 03norh (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that your references 'outrank' the club's constitution, or the many other references which refer to navy blue without the dark modifier. You provided one article reference from 2011 (the constitution dates to much more recently), and a website called teamcolorcodes which includes the disclaimer "Teamcolorcodes.com is not affiliated with any teams or leagues that have their colors displayed". And given the club song refers to navy blue, old dark navy blue, and famous old dark blue, this is clearly not a strong reference in favour of any particular shade name. Aspirex (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The club song is not a good source for this. Where it's used, I suspect that the word "dark" is there only to maintain the metre of the song. Lots of liberties are taken with language in poetry and song. Dark is really just another way of saying navy. Saying the same thing twice in a song is just poetry at work. The club itself says that its song is called We Are the Navy Blues, not the Dark Navy Blues. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but many refer to Carlton's colour/uniforms as "the old DARK navy blue", not "the old navy blue". Plus all the apparel websites state the colour as "dark navy". 03norh (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact the the official name for the colour that Carlton wear is called "dark navy", even the official merchandise stores state the colour as "dark navy".

The constitution does NOT specify a shade, it just says navy blue, so as long as it's still a shade of navy blue it does NOT go against the constitution.

Bottom line is that standard navy and white are Geelong's colours. The "dark navy" differentiates Carlton's colours from Geelong's and it is also the offical name for the colour that Carlton wears.

Even footyjumpers.com (although not an official AFL site) describes Carlton's uniform as "dark navy". To me it's just common sense 03norh (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are some more references:

https://thecarltonshop.com.au/mens-essentials-premium-polo/

("Dark navy blue" is mentioned)

https://au.puma.com/au/en/pd/carlton-football-club-2024-men%E2%80%99s-replica-clash-guernsey/776121.html

("Colour: PUMA White-Dark Navy-CFC away")

There you go "Dark Navy-CFC" is the official colour name of the apparel 03norh (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Trying to discuss this with you is very frustrating. You ignore what others say, and just keep repeating things you believe support your position. That's NOT discussing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I provided proof, whereas Apsirex has NOT 03norh (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The ONLY thing he has mentioned is the constitution (which does not specify any specific type of navy blue). I have stated FACTS of what they actually wear, it seems that this talk page is full of congnitive dissonance and denial of facts. 03norh (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The argument you're making seems to be that all references which state 'navy blue' are superseded by all references which state 'dark navy blue' because the former doesn't exclude the latter and the latter provides specificity to the former. I don't see this as true: navy blue and dark navy blue are different shades, and in the face of conflicting references, I again defer to the constitution of the club as the highest authority on the matter – and certainly as a higher authority than the listed colour of a supporters' polo shirt on a merchandise website. Aspirex (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

So going by what you're saying, "dark navy" does NOT count as "navy blue", am I correct in stating that?

If this is true then Carlton are obviously not following their constitution, because they're not wearing standard navy blue.

While it is true that teamcolorcodes.com is not an official AFL site (I never claimed that it was), it does however list the official hex numbers of each team's colours. The official colour of Carlton's uniforms and logo is #031A29 and the official name of the colour in the worldwide colour database is "dark navy".

If you look at Carlton's jumper compared with other navy blue AFL jumpers, you can see that Carlton has a much darker navy blue.

My position is that the constitution states that it must be navy blue (any shade as long as it's navy blue). There is NO specific code or shade mentioned in the constitution.

"Navy blue" alone is a rather vague description, as there are many different shades of navy blue.

Now if the constitution stated that it must be "standard navy blue" or they stated a specific hex code and Carlton actually wore standard navy blue (instead of the dark navy they actually wear), then this discussion wouldn't even be happening in the first place. 03norh (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, 03norh has given much stronger evidence than what you have provided. The "constitution" you keep refering to has not given a clear defintion of the shade of navy blue, so cannot be used as a reliable source.

"Navy blue" is a generic term for any form of dark blue.

When you state that "dark navy" does not constitute as a form of "navy blue", you are merely stating a personal opinion rather than a fact. Your argument ultimately holds no weight.

03norh on the other hand, has provided the offical colour name of the club apparel that ultimately gets worn on the ground, yet you continue to ignore this information in favour of your own biased opinion. Rhnu2008 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This dispute has to be the lamest reason I've ever seen someone make sockpuppets. – Teratix ₵ 14:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. What about [guy]? A two edit account pushing a slightly different counteropinion in the same infobox at the same time seems mightily coincidental. Aspirex (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Your comments are a perfect example of original research, which is unacceptable. 10:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Michael Voss stats

If someone could pop over to Talk:Michael_Voss#Coaching_stats_in_infobox and take a look that would be awesome. Commander Keane (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

AFL player lead sentence

Hi. Totallynotarandomalt69 recently made a change [6] at Oliver Hayes-Brown regarding the handling of "Australian" and "Australian rules football" in the lead. There has recently been a big discussion at WP:NFL (see here) regarding how to handle nationality in the lead for American football players, specifically former players. The supported proposal was: PLAYER NAME (BIRTHDATE – DEATHDATE) is a[n] NATIONALITY former professional football player in the National Football League (NFL).

I recognise that "Australian rules footballer" in the lead sentence is the considered norm across this project, but the same principal should apply to AFL players to comply with WP:NATIONALITY and MOS:CONTEXTBIO e.g. an Australian football player. Across the Australian soccer project, most player pages have an Australian soccer player, so clashing with association football shouldn't be a barrier.

I'm not a regular at this project so I am keen to hear from others.

Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I wouldn't be totally opposed to changing it to "Australian football player" but like you I'd be keen to hear from others before any widespread change comes in Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This could work so long as we continue to consistently apply WP:NCFIA to stop soccer players being described as Australian footballers. HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Look, I don't really mind what goofy calls the Americans choose to make about their football articles, that's their prerogative – but I'm sorry, they got this one wrong here. "American former professional football player" is just an ugly, ugly way to write. Four consecutive adjectives is too many. The sentence trips over itself. It's a perfect example of the kind of Wikipedia-ese you get when you're "writing by committee", trying to standardise and cram in every aspect of the subject into a single lead sentence. You lose sight of brevity and the result is this awful word salad. Let's not copy-paste this approach here.

I have several objections to "Australian football player" in particular:

• "Footballer" is more concise than "football player" and means the same thing.
• "Football" is an ambiguous term in the Australian context and different codes of football dominate in different areas. The nice thing about "Australian rules footballer" and "Australian soccer player" is that they unambiguously denote which code a footballer belongs to without editors having to make a messy and invariably contentious call on what "football" really means in the Australian context. Let's not disrupt that equilibrium if we can avoid it.
• "Australian football player" introduces unnecessary ambiguity about whether the subject is an "[Australian] [football player]" or an "[Australian football] [player]". Plus, there are [Australian football] [players] who aren't Australian by nationality and there are [Australian] [football players] who play a different code from Australian rules football. Because there is no such thing as an "[Australian] [rules footballer]", the term "Australian" in "Australian rules footballer" makes clear we're referring to the code, not nationality.

– Teratix ₵ 10:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I've seen ambiguity deliberately introduced in the past e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Barnes_(Australian_footballer)&oldid=732092552 for an old example, so that doesn't seem to be a thing</nowiki> Local Potentate (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that title is less than maximally unambiguous, but I'm okay with it because the code of football is immediately clarified in the first sentence, there's no other Australian footballer of any code named John Barnes, and I'm happy for article titles to trade off unambiguity for concision slightly more aggressively than lead sentences. – Teratix ₵ 05:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

Can I just ask, if Mason Cox has an American-Australian professional Australian rules footballer... and Zach Tuohy has an Irish professional Australian rules footballer..., why do we not do an Australian professional Australian rules footballer... for Australian players? DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Because not all Australian rules footballers (who have articles) are professional – AFLW and state league players, for example – so there would still be a lot of "Australian Australian rules footballer"s if we went down that path without further rewording the phrase. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's Cox and Tuohy's introductory sentences that should change somehow, not other Australian rules footballers' articles. – Teratix ₵ 04:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

An interesting discussion. For readability, it does feel undesirable to try to cram Australian, Australian rules footballer and (for recent players) Australian Football League into the same single-clause opening sentence. My read of MOS:OPENPARABIO is that it doesn't strictly require the specification of nationality – it states that there should be context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable. So I think when we're talking about an Australian person known only for an Australian rules football career, the pragmatic approach would say we meet the context objective without having to explicitly re-state Australian as a nationality – that's probably neater than insisting on adding another adjective between the first two mentions of 'Australian'. Dual sportsmen (which is where this started with Hayes-Brown) can be handled by taking the approach of "...is an Australian sportsman, who played Australian rules football and... to space the repetitions of 'Australian' out into separate clauses and make it a bit more readable. Aspirex (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the further detail. I appreciate all that. The "Australian sportsman" suggestion is a good option. Totallynotarandomalt69, are you ok with this? DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

For the Hayes-Brown page? Yeah that sounds fine

"Oliver Harry Hayes-Brown (born 28 April 2000) is an Australian sportsman who currently plays Australian rules football with the Richmond Football Club. He previously played basketball..." is probably how I'd lead but overall yeah sounds good Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

AFL season template

I want to discuss the colours on the new Template:Infobox AFL season. I put forward for an all-blue colour scheme, replacing the top box (red, white text, blue border) with the same blue with white as the other boxes. Reasons are: consistency with AFL general branding which is blue with white trimmings and red/white/blue logo (seen on website brand and premiership flag colour); consistency with other project infoboxes such as player stats which are blue; in recognition of 1990s AFL logo which was mostly blue unlike today's mostly red logo and would have less argument for a red top box; and a little bit of disliking the inconsistent box colours between the top heading and the subsequent ones. Alternative to blue and white would be adopting the same colour scheme as Western Bulldogs of all blue (of the appropriate shade), white text, red border. Aspirex (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

How the template is now looks mighty similar to the logo, so I didn't quite understand the issue? --SuperJew (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The logo is not the full brand. The logo on a blue background is the predominant brand for the league. Aspirex (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hence why all of the headers and 'below' are blue with white text, and in the absence of a logo, 'above' is designed to match the logo. I don't understand the issue either, it really just sounds like you don't like the look/use of the red. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I wouldn't have raised a discussion if I liked it. Aesthetically speaking, having the same colours for each heading would be preferable, and a lot more consistent with Wikipedia sports project norms. (I've gone looking – and I'm yet to find an infobox with more than one colour of heading in it, except where one of the neutral greys is used for a subheading). Aspirex (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

AFL finals series articles

Hey guys – hope everyone's doing well. Now that we've reached the AFL finals, a new finals series article has been created, but I wanted to weigh in and get other people's thoughts on these. I remember this popping up either in an edit summary or perhaps even a thread on here around this time last year, but my stance at the time hasn't changed, and that's that most or all of these finals series articles are poorly sourced, written and formatted, and I don't think that they add that much beyond maybe a paragraph or so that could just be added to the prose of the relevant season and grand final articles, with the only sourced parts either copied from AFL finals series or AFL final eight system (when covering how the finals work), or adding little more than useless trivia. I think that if we were to keep these articles, they would require a serious going over, but have a look at last year's, for example – we can't accept something of this quality. Anyway, would love to get some input, that way if we get rid of them, we don't have to worry about putting time into updating another article, or if we keep them, we can do this one right. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to get rid of them. I agree with everything you've said, these article are poor. It's just duplicated information, the unnecessary venues photocollage, and the "this is the xth time these teams have faced each other in a final" comments which have no encyclopedic value. Even if we worked hard at it, I don't think they serve much value being split. I'd happily redirect them all straight back to the season articles (no merging because there's nothing useful to merge).

And if we're in the mood for getting rid of low value spin-off articles, let's merge back all the post 2013 preseason articles similar to how this year's articles look. Aspirex (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to expand further, I can't really imagine an article structure where the finals page would add great stand-alone value. If we wanted to treat finals with greater prominence, we could use full scorecards and one to two sentence game summaries, but that can all still fit in the main season article. And actually list the Gary Ayres Medallist. Aspirex (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with all this, I wouldn't be opposed to stand-alone finals series pages if they had a lot more detail/value but evidently they do not and as you say, could definitely still be placed on the main AFL season page with full scorecards Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. And while we're at it, I expect that no matter what we say here, there Will be an article on the Grand Final, and it will include all sorts of useless trivia, such as who all the commentators are. That's not about the GF, but about a TV station's choices. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm wary of making calls based on how well articles tend to be written, rather than how well they could be written. There's usually enough material to merit separate articles on a season and its finals series – the question is more over whether this material is actually used. However, given a particular season article hasn't yet been expanded to its full potential, it makes sense not to have a separate article on its finals series until it is. – Teratix ₵ 01:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a fair caution; and if I'm honest with myself, I'd agree that each finals series does meet GNG in its own right and would probably fail an AfD. But I lean on the side that even an enhanced version would fit organically inside the season article, and would be more comprehensible to the average reader in its season's context than as a standalone article. Aspirex (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding adding the scorecards to the season article, see 2023 AFL Women's season#Finals series for an example of how this would look. Not sure summaries would be neccesary, though – any further content on finals progression, stories, statistics, etc. could just go in the prose or (if applicable) game notes. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I am seeing this discussion and want to put my input in it but would taking inspiration from other pages such as NBA playoffs or NBL finals work? On both pages you have exactly when each team qualified, updates to postseason appearances and also all the games played in the finals series as well as the ladder and ladder progression. There could also be a paragraph or two on what happened in the game if necessary. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I've always thought the NBA or NHL playoffs serve as good examples of the 'finals/playoffs' articles, but also by comparison highlight why the AFL doesn't benefit the same – in particular, the fact that there are around 80–90 games in those playoff series compared with only nine in the AFL is why I feel the AFL finals are a lot more easily mergable with the main season article; and the fact that the NBA and NHL do genuinely put a lot of stock in segregating playoff statistics from regular season statistics, which the AFL does not, tells me there's not a lot of standalone content beyond game results which can be merged. Aspirex (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I am also wondering maybe for finals we could include as a game note "this is the Xth time that team Y has played team Z following the 2023 Semi Final, 2022 Qualifying Final, 2021 Elimination Final, 2020 grand final and 2019 preliminary final" (fake games of course) Flipstatic Energy (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly opposed it. To my mind, those comments are the weakest feature of the finals article as it stands; barely notable if at all, and they serve no lasting encyclopedic value. Aspirex (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Flipstatic Energy, I'm gonna give it to you straight: that is exactly the kind of unsourced, trivial and unencyclopaedic dribble that we're trying to get away from, and one of the main reasons I started this discussion. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

nvm I misread that as the only thing that is different is that fact. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)