Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Notability of footy clubs in London

Just came across Category:Australian rules football teams in London. Most of these have been sourced from club websites or blogs, if at all. Is there any reason these should have articles in their own right? I notice that there also club pages for teams elsewhere in England and Europe as a whole. Do these need to be merged in with the Australian rules football in foo series? Hack (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

you could also include a bunch of Aussie country/amateur clubs too. It's a fine line between the hard line Mack-like insistance on independent reliable sources and the "does no harm" more inclusive view. I dislike the free webhost idea that some have that their club's honour boards should be archived. here. Even if there is an official club history written, it's almost always by someone associated with the club, so technically fails the independent test. Generally we redirect clubs to leagues if they aren't deemed notable enough. The-Pope (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
A lot of the country clubs have a strong history of coverage in local and regional media, not all of which appear in a google search. I'm questioning whether the London teams specifically have ever had any serious coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Just did some searching. There is an article on the overall governing body, AFL Britain (confusingly also known as AFL Great Britain and AFL England), but there isn't an article on the actual competition, AFL London. There is a lot of coverage in World Footy News, a blog which seems well-written but not sure if it's a reliable source. Some coverage is found in the Australian Times which looks reasonably professional. Other than that, there just seems to be occasional coverage along the lines of "did you know they played Aussie rules in <insert town>. Hack (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Acting captains

Prompted by this edit, but I'm asking more generally. Should acting captains be added to the myriad lists and navboxes we have about captains? Jenks24 (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, players who were named acting captain for a match now and then shouldn't be added to the lists. However, as in the case mentioned above (Hille - Essendon 2006) I think his name should be added. He was named acting captain for the rest of the season due to Lloyd's long-term leg injury. RossRSmith (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I was generally against it purely because it's very difficult to compile that info, it doesn't seem to be all compiled anywhere, but I think if we're going to make a note of caretaker coaches, then acting captains fall into the same category, even if it's for one game. It typically reflects the vice-captaincy anyway, but even when it doesn't it's still a fairly important appointment by a club, albeit purely a symbolic one. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Acting captains happen virtually every week due to suspension, injury and occasionally form. Caretaker coaches are either very rare due to illness or the "semi-permanent" replacement type after a coach gets sacked. They are not alike in my view. The exception is the long-term injury captain replacements, which I think are fair enough to use especially if they captain to a premiership or similar, but Luke McPharlin shouldn't be listed as a Freo captain because he tossed the coin last week. A footnote in the list of Freo captains, or in the Freo (not AFL) season article (when I get around to writing it!) maybe for completeness, but not in navboxes, templates or cats. The-Pope (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
It gets counted officially as a game served as captain of the club, the only real issue is that the data doesn't seem to be compiled properly. That being said, I think we go either way. Either the navbox reflects the honour rolls or we include every acting captain. I don't mind either way, but I can't get behind only getting behind the long-term ones since it's something of a grey area. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree that it's too much of a grey area for us to cover it easily. How long is "long-term" in addition to the fact that the data for this is very hard to find even pre-2000, I'd suggest it's easier and cleaner to not put acting captains in at all. Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Asst. coaches in squad templates

Another squad navbox query... when I went through all the navboxes last year a few of of them had senior assistant coaches noted in them. It's a pretty critical part of today's football landscape and I was thinking that it would actually be pretty to handy to have them noted, especially since we've got them in the inline templates as well. What are the thoughts on this? Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining squad templates

I'm only bringing this up because The Pope added McVeigh back into the Essendon squad template. I'm of the thinking that we don't necessarily have to reflect list lodgement, and we're better served reflecting what the list actually looks like at any given time. For instance, last year Fevola was removed from the Brisbane template very early on in the piece, which I think makes better sense in terms of showing people what squad Brisbane had at their disposal at any given time of the year. I think we should only be people on there who are going to serve that club again, and if for some reason they come back out of retirement it's easy enough to add it back in. I think it is a bit of an issue because even today I still find these templates on pages for players long retired or delisted. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

My view is that even retired players could still be recalled if a bout of gastro or injury went through a list. So as players are only officially removed from the lists on the dates of the official list lodgements (I think there are 3, one before the draft, one before the PSD and rookie draft and the final list) our lists should reflect those lists, with the appropriate annotation if the player is retired or delisted mid year. Of course we actually have two separate squad templates: the navbox list and the inline squad template list (that should be renamed one day to reflect the differences). The main reason for keeping them on the other template list is so that they still show up on Special:RecentChangesLinked/List_of_current_AFL_team_squads which is probably one of the best vandal fighting tool we have. Once a team is finished for the year then I have no problems updating the navboxes for officially retired and delisted players, but I wouldn't like to see players like Goddard, Cloke or Moloney removed until it is confirmed that they are leaving, not just rumoured or likely. The-Pope (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
In the extraordinary event that a player was recalled I think we could put them back on. I've certainly never done any of this without word from the club, and certainly in the case of someone like Antoni Grover he wouldn't be removed until Freo's season concludes. I think that the inline squad should absolutely reflected list lodgement, but I don't think we would lose anything if the navbox reflected what each individual club has said. In McVeigh's case he was also on the LTI and so couldn't play again, but when rookies have been delisted or the retirement is "effective immediately" I personally think it's better to have the navbox reflect that. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Bit each way on this one – it's easier and cleaner to just do everything on the specific list lodgement dates, but if someone wants to go the effort then I can't really see reverting them being that productive. Agree that if we do decide it's OK we have to be pretty strict on when it's OK to remove them – only when the club has confirmed it, not when it's almost guaranteed (e.g. Moloney). Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep - for instance I wouldn't go ahead with Jurrah for the moment because the wording doesn't say that he's actually going to be delisted even though that's basically what it means. I only do it if it's conclusively a retirement, delisting, or a confirmed trade from the relevant clubs. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
And now that Moloney's free agent status has been announced by the MFC, I still wouldn't make that change, as another example, until the actual move had been confirmed. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Getting back to this, I think the consensus is probably that we just stick with what's on the honour rolls, but a thought occured - would anyone be adverse to doing seperate tables and navboxes for acting captains? I just think there is a significance of it that could be done justice if there was a strong resource (and there may be in future), but maybe we're just getting out of control. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

How we record today's news in 2012 AFL season

As a Port Adelaide fan and a fellow human being I'm obviously greatly saddened by the death of John McCarthy. As a Wikipedian I deal with it by wondering how to record his death in 2012 AFL season. It seems a little harsh listing him under the Retirements, sackings and delistings subsection and his death surely will be one of the things people remember about this season but there's not really anywhere to put the article. Thoughts? --Roisterer (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Personally I would suggest a separate subsection and a few paragraphs about the event, since it is an extraordinary and extremely unfortunate occurrence and deserves a different treatment. Just my personal opinion - others will have differing views no doubt. Just tabling the idea. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that it needs to be covered in text, not just a table. Each of the sections really should have an paragraph or two as an overview, before the tables. The-Pope (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
      • The death of Troy Broadbridge in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami is not mentioned at all in either 2004 AFL season or 2005 AFL season, nor is the involvement of North Melbourne players/deaths of Sturt players in the 2002 Bali Bombing mentioned in 2002 AFL season or 2003 AFL season. The differences in this case are that the AFL season was still going when McCarthy died, and that the 2012 article is more detailed in general. Nevertheless, I'm not sold on the need to address it in text, and I think anything more than a short paragraph will be undue weight. (Certainly it should be addressed in text in more depth on 2012 Port Adelaide Football Club season.)
I think it highlights a fundamental issue with the "trivia after every game" format of the article. There was a proposal which was never followed through last year in which the results would be broken out into 2011 AFL season results with week-by-week gamenotes, and that would give us the opportunity to have a "notable events" section at the bottom of 2011 AFL season which has a select few game-notes, plus would provide a more appropriate home for brief in-text discussion of tragedies like this.
For completeness of the table, his death does need to be recorded in the "Retirements, delistings and sackings" table. The description would be something along the lines of "died on postseason holiday" with the date and a link to the relevant section of his article. Aspirex (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Incidentally, I went through a similar thought process when determining how to describe Sam Rowe's testicular cancer diagnosis in 2012 Carlton Football Club season, and in the end I decided to give it no special mention, and merely treated it as I would any other injury in the table of "Rookie Elevations/Long Term Injury List" swaps. Aspirex (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with league name changes

Just wondering if there is a preferred way of dealing with name changes in player biographies. For example, Don Holmes made his league debut for Swan Districts in 1978 in the Western Australian National Football League, played most of his career in the West Australian Football League, before retiring after the 1990 Western Australia State Football League season. Is there an elegant way of dealing with this without confusing the hell out of people? Hack (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it depends on the league. In the WAFL case, If you are talking generically I would just use WAFL as it was known as that for the majority of his career and is the current name, and maybe use a footnote to explain the name changes. If you are talking about a specific season then that name should be used, but piped linked to WAFL and again maybe use an explanatory footnote (if you can work out how to separate them from the refs- I can never remember how to do it!) The-Pope (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
"Is there an elegant way…" Short answer: no. I'd just go with "WAFL" for Holmes, as it seems like he played the majority of his career with the league under that name (and "WAFL" is probably more recognisable nowadays than anything else). Maybe refer to "the league" or "the competition" for other seasons to avoid unnecessary confusion. IgnorantArmies (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
@the-pope, Editor defined groups? I would have thought the simplest way would be just wrapping the note in ref tags. On Holmes, if he'd played one more season with the Eagles, he would have played in five leagues with two clubs... Hack (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 Premiership in "In the News"?

Seeing that the Gaeilic Football GF result is mentioned on the homepage in "In the News", I presume Saturday's result is newsworthy enough to make it? --Roisterer (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, there's a bit of discussion at WP:ITN/C. Basically, if someone fills in the match summary section of 2012 AFL Grand Final with info and refs it will be posted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Australian rules footballers from cities

Category:Australian rules footballers from Sydney and Category:Australian rules footballers from Brisbane, which are related to this project, have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The-Pope (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

All that is wrong with the world...

is in this list at #2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football/Popular pages. sigh. The-Pope (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability of amateur clubs

Coolaroo Football Club had been nominated for deletion. For a while I've been concerned about the notability of lots of our lower level clubs. Most articles are either micro stubs or overly detailed duplicates of the club's honour boards (and probably the only source that exists anywhere for some of them is the board hanging on the wall of the clubrooms). Now that footypedia is dead and even full points footy's and its replacement seem focused on only the AFL and the 2nd level leagues, the main online sources are local community newspapers and the clubs own website, often at sportingpulse. Some of the older teams in the bigger leagues may have some decent coverage, so I'm not calling for a blanket ban, but should we revert to the default position of redirect clubs to their leagues, unless there is significant coverage in independent sources? I know that some editors have put a lot of effort into these lower level teams, but I'm just not seeing enough refs out there to back it up. The-Pope (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Specifically on Coolaroo, there is some coverage in the local papers but I really don't see how it could be considered to meet WP:GNG. It and similar articles should be listed on the league page (assuming the league is notable) until notability can be proven. Hack (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

New AFL website

OK so it seems with the AFL's revamped website that all links used on Wikipedia are now broken. Not sure if the articles still exist or not on the website as the search function is not working and I can't get articles to load via Google either. – Allied45 (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. The site itself just took 30 seconds to load for me. As an IT teacher, I've always used the AFL's website as an example of bad, cluttered design, and a site that's too slow to load. I'm pleased to see they haven't removed those features! We may just have to wait (a long time?) to sort out the links. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Lachie Whitfield

New article that seems to meet WP:GNG. I rescued it from a BLP PROD but it needs some more references and categories. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. This time of year always sees plenty of articles on barely notable new draft picks, but the #1 draft pick is always notable. Keeping an eye on the recent changes to current player articles and to 2012 Draft articles is a good way to detect new articles even if they are poorly categorised. The-Pope (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:AFL player

Template:AFL player has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've managed to update the template code to make the links to work with most current players - just use the plain {{Brisplayer}} or similar for most players without any refid or anything, but if the wikipagename doesn't match the aflpagename, then an optional "|link=jonathan-brown" parameter must be used. An optional "|alt=Jonathan Brown" can also be used to change the blue link text on the wikipedia page to avoid having it say Jonathan Brown (footballer)'s stats. ie:
is generated by {{Brisplayer|link=jonathan-brown|alt=Jonathan Brown}}. I've updated the project's template examples page here to show the new usage. So now that it is useful again, you'd think it should be safe from deletion. The-Pope (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
so you will fixed by hand any with apostrophes, accents, or more than one space in the name? I just fixed a few, but there are probably more. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I've gone through the Freo list and updated them all, I'm sure that we'll get through the other 17 lists in the coming weeks. I'll send the AFL a message today to ask about the past player profiles and if they will ever return. The-Pope (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael O'Brien (Australian rules footballer)

here is the current list of those that have no chance of working without the link value set, since they don't fit the pattern: Gary Ablett, Jr., Michael O'Loughlin, Ryan O'Keefe, Setanta Ó hAilpín, Aisake Ó hAilpín, Lewis Roberts-Thomson, Nick Dal Santo, Shane O'Bree, Nathan van Berlo, Nathan Lovett-Murray, Jesse D. Smith, Matt de Boer, Jesse O'Brien (footballer), George Horlin-Smith, Cameron O'Shea. I fixed some of them. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

1999 AFL premiers – "North Melbourne" or "Kangaroos"

There's an ongoing passive edit war amongst various people at List of Australian Football League premiers about the entry for the 1999 premiership. Some people edit to use the name "Kangaroos" (as this was during that period of time where the team did not use the 'North Melbourne' name), and others are editing it to "North Melbourne" based on what is given in the AFL Season Guide. It's a small point, but let's get a consensus and move on.

I have a weak preference for 'Kangaroos', because my preference is to use the period-correct names wherever possible. I don't know if Wikipedia has an official policy that I can link to for that, but that's my preference. Aspirex (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox for leagues ?

Apart from the AFL and the semi-pro state leagues, all the other leagues around the country have a hodge podge of custom infoboxes without any standardisation. I've tried to source a suitable template but haven't yet found one. Some of these leagues are very notable in themselves, so it would be good to be able to use an infobox that doesn't have to refer to stadiums and attendances ... suggestions ? --Rulesfan (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rugby league football competition seems to cover everything necessary. Aspirex (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Any chance you think we could get these rugby templates renamed to more generic titles (the player squad list comes to mind too) The-Pope (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Statistics tables in articles

I've recently been going through the current player articles, updating the old links to the afl/club sites to the new format, and I've noticed that quite a few players have a detailed stats table in their articles, ie kicks marks etc, not just the games/goals in the infobox. Very few, if any, are up to date. Most stop in 2010.

I haven't removed any, but I am tempted to. Personally, I find it hard enough to keep the 22 Fremantle players games and goals tally in the infobox updated each week, to worry about detailed stats. Waiting until the end of the year is an option, but that's saying, if you want to see the recent stats, then go to the AFL tables site (or if you want, Footywire or whatever) and the {{AflRleague}} template should be in every player's external links section. So why do we bother trying to manually do something that an automated database system does so much better?

I can see that in the high profile retired players, it might be of use, or interest, and of course it is static for retired players, so easy to keep it correct; and maybe in a couple of current articles if you can guarantee that they will be kept updated (ie the Joel Selwood FA is an obvious candidate, but I see even it isn't up to date). Do others think it the effort of keeping it up to date is worth it, or is there consensus to leave them, regardless of their completeness, or should we just remove them from most player articles? And don't get me started on the "double-banger" version I've just seen in Martin Mattner! The-Pope (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly be arguing for keeping stats off the articles. Not only will we never keep up but then we'll no doubt face the issue of conflicting stats from different sources. --Roisterer (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Happy if we just get rid of them. Leave the stats to the external stats databases. Most articles should have a link to AFL tables. Jevansen (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If anyone has a copy of The Encyclopaedia of VFL/AFL players handy ...

could they check on Morley Kidgell, South Melbourne player from 1904? Specifically I wanted to check whether they give another name for him, as a search of our friend Trove throws up some references to a Henry Morley Kidgell, born in 1881, which would fit in with a 1904 debut, a 1948 death and his rise to the head of the Carriers Association of Victoria (a predecessor to the Transport Union). Cheers. --Roisterer (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got the 2002 version and it only has his name, club and number of games, nothing else. This ancestry list seems to confirm that he is Henry Morley, as he was in Southern Melbourne when he played for South then off to Henty, then back to the inner South East Melbourne. The-Pope (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Good stuff. I also notice that Trove throws up a funeral notice for Henry Morley Kidgell in The Argus (2 February 1948) that lists him under "Kidgell", and a 6 April 1876 Argus marriage notice of William Kidgell (son of Rev. Henry Kidgell) and Hettie Morley. So, I'm not sure whether he operated under a few names or whatever. And, does our sleuthing come under "original research" and thus we would have to wait until this is published elsewhere before we create an article for him? --Roisterer (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Scotch College has him at number 33 in their first 66 VFL playing alumni. Also confirms full name and key dates. Hack (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Trove also reveals this which I believe to be his birth notice http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5988899
and this, his father's obituary (note ref to Dromana, and the Morley & Co business) http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11234857
and this could be him playing for Dromana couple of years before his VFL career http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11234857
With the Scotch College link clinching the matter I think the other references we've all found are acceptable as they are from reliable published sources. By the way, the 2011 ed. of players encylopedia has same info as 2002 ed. RossRSmith (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Good work people. --Roisterer (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

missing promoted rookies end of 2007 in AFL Draft pages

From my looking at the AFL draft pages, we are missing listing the rookie promotions at the end of the 2007 season (beginning of 2008). My example is Jake King who was in the 2006/7 rookie draft, promoted to play that year, and fixed into the senior list at the end of 2007. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The AFL has always treated the rookie draft strangely in their official records, originally only publishing the previous years' elevations, but only the most recent year's draft in full. Then they started to list the drafts in full, but not in the club by club section. Then in the last couple of years they have included the elevations in the actual national draft. The info is available, so we can add it, but that is the reason why the coverage is variable, year by year. The-Pope (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability guideline

Howdy AFL folks! There's a discussion at DRV (here) about an AfD about a player. Throughout the AfD and DRV there have been regular references to "WP:ATHLETE, point 3", meaning the section of that guideline that pertains to Australian rules football players. It was the only section of that guideline (from what I could see) that didn't have a shortcut. To help things along I created WP:NAFL as a redirect to that section. Thought it might be useful for discussions - "does/doesn't meet WP:NAFL" and whatnot - like we have for other criteria. Stalwart111 00:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Having read the notability guidelines, I question why VFL players prior to 1990 are considered notable, but not SANFL players prior to 1991 & WAFL players prior to 1987 as up to this stage, these two competitions were of equal ranking with the VFL (lets not turn this into a debate about quality etc.) Either all should be considered notable, or only players post 1990 when it officially became rebranded as a national competition. Screech1616 (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It really comes down to completeness and reliability of sources. We have very good (online and offline) sources in the Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers and the AFL Tables site (and I guess now http://australianfootball.net/ too) that accurately lists all VFL/AFL players. WAFL and SANFL lists are no where near as complete (especially online) so it makes it harder to verify the lower profile players. The "point 3" mentioned above is designed to allow high profile recent players to qualify, despite not playing in a fully pro league. But for all players, WP:GNG rules it all, so if you have good refs (independent, significant etc) for someone who played back then, then the article should be OK to remain.
Finally, even though by the "rules" we still have over 6000 VFL player articles to create, I would guess that most of the older single season players will end up remaining as redlinks or just becoming a redirect to a team list, rather than a standalone article, unless they did something significant. The-Pope (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
With the improved accessibility of digitised records from the early 20th century, I do wonder whether a lot of VFL players technically passing WP:NAFL actually pass WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I think if we started bulk creating micro stubs for all early 1900s players, it might be a problem, but there is the possibility of not much digitized "of the day" coverage, but just enough modern day coverage in the encyclopedia of players, or individual club histories or obituaries. Like I said, I think we'll end up redirecting most to lists, rather than stand alone articles, regardless of WP:NAFL. The-Pope (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
For the multi-year players, is there a way of highlighting players who have played 100+ games? I figure we should be focusing on the players likely to have received serious coverage. Hack (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The point made above regarding the lack of information currently available digitised regarding the SANFL & WAFL would indicate that there is an obvious need for a consolidated location for this information, and Wikipedia would be an obvious medium for that. Of course it is always problematic referencing material outside of the interwebs, but I have never thought of Wikipedia as merely duplicating existing material available and it is important to document subjects that are not otherwise available online. Screech1616 (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
We just have to be careful of the no original research rule - if a list of players is published with a reputable publisher, then we can use it, but if it is just someone's scrap book, spreadsheet or self published info, then we can't really use it. The use of wikipedia as a storage vault for club history is very prevalent with amateur suburban or country teams, who like to duplicate their club honour boards on here, which I really dislike. The-Pope (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

SANFL stats

Is there a reliable source for SANFL stats? Hack (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Does South Australia have the internet yet? (seriously, not that I know of, and unlike the comprehensive AFL stats sites, the WAFL player stats site is incomplete, so shouldn't be relied upon for any details pre 1990, except for the very complete and accurate history pdfs on state and premiership players)The-Pope (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, was looking for something roughly the equivalent of those WAFL pdfs. Hack (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Not quite full records, but a couple of clubs are now publishing a list of all players to have played league football for their respective clubs:
Sturt - http://www.sturtfc.com.au/sturt-the-numbers
West - http://www.westadelaidefc.com.au/HISTORY/DEBUT_DATES.aspx
Screech1616 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

We have a Swannies legend amongst us!

Hi all,
Luffy034 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has identified himeslf as Troy Luff.
Big welcome for him, please, footy fans. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I welcome ALL new editors. It's certainly good to have someone who can edit from an insider's perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Uppercase nicknames

I notice that the Gold Coast and GWS official pages almost always use uppercase for their club nicknames eg Gold Coast SUNS and GWS GIANTS. Just wondering if anyone has seen this documented somewhere. Hack (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC) subsets of the AFL's site, so that's

Hadn't noticed that, but you're right. And the club websites agree. Capitals every time. Those websites, of course, are really subsets of the AFL website, which makes it about as official as it can get. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
On the same basis, the following eight clubs are always described by both location and nickname in an official sense (e.g. fixtures): Adelaide Crows, Brisbane Lions, Gold Coast SUNS, GWS GIANTS, Geelong Cats, Sydney Swans, West Coast Eagles and Western Bulldogs. The others (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Fremantle, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, Richmond, St Kilda) are described only by location. And it's not just a quirk of the 2013 formatting – I still have fridge magnets showing fixtures from 2011 and 2012 which show the same styling (although 2011 had 'Suns' instead of 'SUNS').
If we're being precise, then we would have to change every 'Suns' to 'SUNS', and every 'Geelong' to 'Geelong Cats' throughout Wikipedia (at least for articles relating to recent years), presumably by changing the {{AFL GC}} and {{AFL Gee}} templates. However, given that common usage gives proper case to the Suns and Giants, and omits the nicknames for everyone except the Bulldogs, I'd hope that we can justify taking no action. Aspirex (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not proposing name changes, maybe just a mention of the official usage if there was a supporting reference. Hack (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we should be sticking to the simple common names wherever possible. It's worth noting that of that list from Aspirex, all are "new" interstate clubs except Western Bulldogs, a deliberately chosen name, and Geelong. One story I heard about Geelong was that the club no longer wanted to be known as Geelong Football Club when the initials became the worldwide common abbreviation for the Global Financial Crisis, so they began to emphasise the "Cats". I don't, however, think there's really any confusion between the two. Port Adelaide is a very old club name that stands on its own. But we don't need the nicknames most of the time. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought the GFC/Cats thing was a joke but I just found this...
Niall, Jake (18 March 2009). "In dire times, Vic clubs aren't the only battlers". Hack (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
A huge NO WAY to uppercase anything other than acronyms. The manual of style is very clear that regardless of stylistic font choices, we don't replicate IKEA or whatever just because that us what is on the sign, or the marketing department wants us to use. Likewise, recent marketing decisions to use the "location nickname" form rather than "Location Football Club" should be treated with caution. The acceptance of the switch to the Western Bulldogs might make this seem a but schizophrenic, but that was an absolute name change. Given the recent deal with Levis Jeans for the rights to the word Dockers, I've seen Fremantle Dockers come into some official use, but I don't like it - we are the Fremantle Football Club, Freo, the Freo Dockers or The Dockers, not the Fremantle Dockers Football Club.
IKEA is an acronym. The relevant Manual of Style entry is WP:MOSTM. Hack (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course I had to pick one that was actually an acronym, didn't I! (Although I'd argue the ANZAC/Anzac rule could apply!) Looking around me, Asus is always capitalised on their equipment, but not here. Afterwriting found the MOS link that confirms that we almost always don't do all caps, unless they are actually the Gold Coast Sennheiser Users Northern Subgroup, and the GWS Greedy Invited Aliens New To Sydney. The-Pope (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia style principle on the use of capitals which says that when a whole word or phrase (such as a newspaper headline) is capitalised in a source that it is "normalised" (or some term like this) to standard text capitalisation when used in articles. I will try to find it in the Manual of Style. Afterwriting (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I found the MoS principles. They are found at MOS:ALLCAPS. Afterwriting (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

VFL/AFL Grand Finals lead

At the moment, the lead for all of our Grand Final articles contain the statement "It was the 'x'th annual Grand Final of the Victorian Football League/Australian Football League, (footnote: In 1897 and 1924 there were no Grand Finals and instead the premier was decided by a finals play-off; in 1948 and 1977 there were Grand Final replays after initial draws.) staged to determine the premiers for the xxxx AFL season."

I have a few problems with this. The most obvious is that the reasoning in the footnote, relating to deducting 1897 and 1924, then adding the 1948 and 1977 replays to come up with the same ordinal number as the season is no longer valid because of the 2010 replay. The other is the fact that early non-challenge finals have been retconned into Grand Finals (which is a wider issue in itself, but one which is mostly managed acceptably).

I don't see a strong need for the ordinal in the lead, and I'd propose to simply replace it with "It was staged to determine the premiers for the xxxx AFL season"; and, for pre-1930 "Grand" Finals which were not challenge-finals, with "It was staged as part of the xxxx VFL finals series, and determined the premiers the season".

It is a moderate undertaking to apply this to 117 articles, so I figured it's worth getting agreement up front. Aspirex (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

When did the numbering of Grand Finals first take place? Hack (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I remember the league advertised its Grand Finals with ordinal numbers back in the 1990s, but I can't recall that having happened for a while. Aspirex (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
All old Footy Records are available on the Victorian State Library website, so we can check what was used by the league at the time (I'm not able to check it at the moment, might be able to check it later tonight). The-Pope (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
And a HUGE thank you for alerting me to the fact the Football Records are online. So much for any sleep tonight. --Roisterer (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Another step towards textopedia

With the usual amount of notification and project involvement, we've just had a bunch of jumper designs be deleted from commons. I've given up on graphics here, the copyright gurus make it all too hard. But if anyone else wants to fight the fight, have a look at the "discussion". They mentioned moving them back to enwp, but just deleting them must have been much easier. The-Pope (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I have noticed the same. Particularly people who post to the talk pages of users who stopped editing years ago, warning them that an image added yonks ago when the copyright rules were different was about to be deleted unless updated copyright info was added. Perhaps if the people spent some time searching for the info rather than slapping a warning on a talk page, Wikipedia would be the better for it. --Roisterer (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see here for details. LGA talkedits 22:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Climate change and scoring shots

The 1976 and 1977 WANFL season articles claim that climate change, specifically a reduction in rainfall in Perth, led to a dramatic increase in scoring from 1976 onwards. I have heard this claim before but have never read it before. Does anyone know if the link between the two has been made before in reliable sources? Were there other factors involved - for example changes in ball specifications or manufactoring methods around this time? Hack (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The driest Melbourne winter on record was often said (in modern and contemporary sources) to have been the reason for the 1982 VFL season being the highest-scoring on record, so that sort of comment is not without precedent. However, to say that a long-term shift in scoring can be blamed entirely on the weather sounds like complete nonsense to me; even if a reputable source were to mention it, I'd be hesitant about giving it any credence. Changes in the rules or style of game seem like much more likely reasons – e.g. scoring dropping by 10% between 1993 AFL season and 1994 AFL season for no reason other than the length of games was shortened; or, scoring increasing dramatically in the VFA after 1938 because of the throw-pass. Aspirex (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Nonsense. Other changes over that years that have led to higher scoring include better quality balls in play. Long ago the one ball was used for a whole game. That changed around the time being discussed to a new ball each quarter, and now there are multiple balls swapped in and out of play as scoring occurs. A worn, soggy ball doesn't lead to high scoring. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I think I saw a reference to the VFL using a new ball each quarter for the first time in a news article from 1956 – but it may have been a once-off at the time. Aspirex (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
My memory is that the change happened later than that. In 1956 I would probably have been too young to notice such a thing, and I can remember it happening. But my memory is a crappy source...
Proper multiball only seemed to come in mid-way through the last decade. Before that, did they use just the two balls (one onfield and one spare)? Hack (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
AFL 2010 Season Guide (pg 950) has "1960: New ball used in each quarter when unfavourable conditions prevailed". No mention of the recent "esky full of balls behind the goals" rule introduction. The-Pope (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The WAFL only recently (last ten years) moved from two balls - per Laws of Australian Football - to multiball. Hack (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The 1977 Football Register notes the increase, but doesn't attribute it to anything "The general scoring rate of West Australian clubs continues to rise and this season, for the third successive year more points were scored than in the previous year." Given the drainage through Perth sandy soils, annual rainfall is fairly irrelevant, unless it rains on Friday or Saturday, it wouldn't affect ground conditions at all. A good case of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Trying to find something to explain it (my own WP:OR and WP:SYN, the switch from reserves to interchange didn't happen until 1978, but the centre diamond was introduced in 1973 and changed to a square in 1975, so maybe less central congestion led to more clearances to the leading forwards = goals? The-Pope (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Since the increase appears to be gradual throughout the 70s, it was probably just the increased prevalence of handpassing. That started getting more prevalent after the late 60s, if my history books serve me correctly, and made the play more open and higher scoring. Interchange wasn't really used for rotations the way it is today, so I personally doubt it had any significant impact on scoring. The centre quadrilateral probably contributed to the openness as well, but I personally suspect it was part of the general trend, rather than a step change in its own right.
Also, to put some numbers against my assertion from yesterday - in 1937, the VFA average was 84.7 points per game per team. In 1938, the first year that throw-passing was introduced and the boundary throw-in was re-introduced, that increased to 100.5. From 1949 to 1950, when those rules were repealed, it dropped from 93.1 to 80.2. Pretty good evidence to support that openness of play led to a statistically significant increase in scoring. Aspirex (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, if anyone's interested, Dead-ball era describes a period in major league baseball when scoring was low. I know this is only vaguely relevant to the discussion we're having, but at least it is a good example of a referenced article trying to explain a statistical shift in a sport. And it doesn't try to blame it on El Niño. Aspirex (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Premiership templates

For the multiple premiership templates, which you can see at User:Thefourdotelipsis/prem2, do you think it would be better just having individual years, or should we keep them as they are? Jevansen (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm for having the individual years – it creates uniformity across the board, those with 4 or more can be grouped and hidden, and in increases inter-linking. You should be able to access all of a given coach's premiership players from the given coach, for example. I'd be more than happy to do it all myself as well. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Windsor Mariners ‎

Hello.

I created a wiki ... Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Windsor Mariners

I'm trying to get it submitted but for some reason an editor said that it has been made already. BUT if you do a search for Windsor Mariners it only redirects you to the AFL Canada wiki ... so that's why I created this Windsor Mariners wiki page. Plus they had 2 Team Canada members which is extremely special.

Well, I was wondering what I can do to get this wiki page up and running.

Thank you in advance for your time and help. FootyInfo1 (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)FootyInfo1

Should we have consistency across the names of the articles on AFL clubs?

There's a discussion at Talk:Greater Western Sydney Football Club#Requested move proposing that the article name be changed to "Greater Western Sydney Giants".

I commented in the thread before that to the effect that I thought that "the name needed to be consistent with other AFL clubs. Trouble is, they're not consistent themselves. The older, pre-AFL clubs have names such as Geelong Football Club and Hawthorn Football Club, but a couple of the newer clubs, West Coast Eagles and Sydney Swans, don't fit that pattern at all."

I now see the possibility of something sneaky happening here. The editor proposing the name change is one of those determined that Wikipedia should use the name football for all articles about soccer in Australia. Removing the words "football club" from the Western Sydney article fits his broader agenda. HiLo48 (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

For teams like Sydney Swans and West Coast Eagles, you can't invent a usage for the sake of consistency. Hack (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
no. Happy to change the Giants' name, but consistency doesn't overrule common name. Assume good faith. One change doesn't act as a precedent for any other change. Every club is treated independently on it's own merits. No slippery slope. The-Pope (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It's possible to assume good faith, but observe obsession. One doesn't rule out the other. Obsessed people can still mean well. As someone from a long way away I'll admit to not being in a great position to know the common name of Western Sydney. But I doubt if a hard core soccer fan is either. And anyway, we don't really use common names for AFL clubs. I've just started a new job in Melbourne. As usual, I was asked who I barracked for. (Meaning "Which AFL club?" That doesn't happen in Sydney.) The answer to that question isn't "Xxxxx Football Club". It's just "Xxxxx", (e.g. "Collingwood"), isn't it? So, do we actually have a policy or guideline for the names of articles on AFL clubs? HiLo48 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
yep, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_rules_football#Wikiproject_Australian_rules_football_style_guide. The-Pope (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. The table in there is good. Instruction number 1. above it isn't. Clearly, it's ignored for several clubs. I don't have an issue with those places where it's ignored. but we probably need to clarify that instruction. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess the style guide would have to make it clear that the official name is the trading name, rather than the legal name otherwise we would have articles for Indian Pacific, St Kilda Saints Football Club and Western Sydney Football Club. Hack (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Grand final infobox

I am looking to add an infobox to a couple of WAFL Grand Final articles. I notice there is a Template:Infobox AFL grand final but this has a few AFL-specific fields so is not usable in its current form. Could someone with someone with some knowledge of the markup of this infobox modify the infobox so that it can be used on GF articles for state leagues? Hack (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also a very slack effort with its lack of conditionality. Any article prior to 2012 is simply going to have an empty space next to "Post-match entertainment", and many have the coin toss results blank. I suspect the WAFL ones may have broadcaster blank. I'll also raise another point: we should be much more selective with the information in this infobox. It essentially needs to meet the same criteria as Wikipedia:Lead. So: let's get rid of the coin toss result - it's not important enough to be in this top level infobox; it's barely important enough to go in the article. Get rid of the umpires - they're listed in the AFLGameDetailed infobox; from a historical perspective, who umpired the game is as important as who scored goals, but much less important than the result. Collapse the pre-match, half-time and post-match entertainment into a single entry: nobody needs to see Birds of Tokyo's name listed three times on successive lines. Aspirex (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 6
Date19 September 2010
GroundSubiaco Oval
Attendance24,638
ResultSwan Districts, 14.16 (100) def Claremont, 14.15 (99)
Accolades
Sandover MedalAndrew Krakouer Swan Districts
John Todd MedalBrian Dawson
Broadcast in Australia
TelevisionABC1
Radio720 ABC Perth
Here are my thoughts on the necessary fields
  • Title - <article title>
  • Image -
  • Teams -
  • Final score -
  • Date -
  • Stadium name -
  • Attendance - (optional)
  • Best player award name - (optional)
  • Best player - (optional)
  • Winning coach award name - (optional)
  • Winning coach name - (optional)
  • Entertainment - (optional)
  • Radio - (optional)
  • Television - (optional)
  • <wikilink to previous gf> <wikilink to next gf>

Hack (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Aspirex (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Had a bit of a crack at designing something from scratch. Any thoughts on parameters or design? Hack (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I like it. It's pretty much the same as what I used for the 1967 VFA Grand Final and 1971 VFA Grand Final and Goalpost Final (although those were just built from the generic infobox). There's no need to be as bombastic as the AFL Grand Final infobox. Aspirex (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
And I bet Michael Jackson was glad he picked such an exciting match to perform at. Aspirex (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Given the date of the GF, I suspect his appearance may have been reminiscent of the video from Thriller. Hack (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Law of Australian football

The laws page has been moved without discussion from Laws of Australian rules football to Laws of Australian football. The official law book appears with the title Laws of Australian Football with football capitalised. Given the official name of the code of laws has changed over the years and the scope of the article covers the entire history of the game, I would suggest Laws of Australian rules football is a more appropriate title. Hack (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As the article is about the topic, not the book, and on a world wide encyclopedia, "Australian football" is an ambiguous term, it has to be moved back to Laws of Australian rules football. I'm getting a bit tired of these naming issues. The-Pope (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Redirect reverted. Footy Freak7 (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I thought the move I made a few days ago was uncontroversial because the official title of the rules for the game is "Laws of Australian football" (Capitalisation is trivial, it doesn't matter if football is capitalised or not, as this doesn't change how the name is read). The sport has been officially called "Australian football" since 1905, when it was declared so at the first conference of the Australasian Football Council, before this there was no "official" name for the sport, but just a variety of common names. The original title for the article was at "Laws of Australian Football", but was then moved to "Laws of Australian football", then finally moved last year to "Laws of Australian rules football" under the misunderstanding that the "official name" of the sport is Australian rules football, which it isn't; this move was made without any discussion. The article is about both the rules and the rule book from which the rules come from. As for the name, that "Australian football" would be ambiguous, this can be overcome by validation in the introduction and maybe some redirect tags could be included. Also, if this article is just about the rules and the history of the rules for game then a more appropriate title would be rules for Australian rules football. – Marco79 08:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY redirect at RFD

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 26#Wikipedia:FOOTY. GiantSnowman 10:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Jumpers

Just wanted to give the project a heads-up that I am planing to nominate the following images :

File:Peel Thunder Jumper.png
File:Warragul Football Club Jumper 2010.JPG
File:Northern Territory Thunder Jumper.svg
File:Wanderers Eagles Jumper.svg
File:Robina Roos Jumper.png
File:Coomera Magpies Jumper.png

For deletion as copyvio's of teams kits unless someone wishes to make FUR's for them and they are removed from Tables's and Galleries as per WP:NFG. LGA talkedits 23:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This whole effort being undertaken to remove all visual imagery of Guernsey designs is an utter disgrace. What is next, national flags? Guernsey design is a common, recognizable, distinguishable identifier of different teams. If using that to identify a team's colours and identification is not fair use then we might as well give up. Soon there will be picky people challenging the use of a trade marked name to identify an article. Once a club uses a Guernsey design on a field to identify itself, it becomes public domain. They are using it as a distinct identifier, an article discussing that said team and using a visual description of the guernsey they use is fair use, how different is it to a logo? Screech1616 (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
welcome to textopedia. Hope you enjoy your stay. The-Pope (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
@Screech1616 : Using a design "on a field" does not make that design PD. They are no different to a logo and that is why these images do not belong to the uploader and need Fair Use Rationales if they are to remain on here. LGA talkedits 21:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious. What would be the legal status of a photograph I take of someone wearing such a jumper? HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
@LGA As you say, they are no different to a logo so you obviously understand what the FUR should be. Unfortunately you seem to fit into that group of so-called "contributors" whose primary aim is to remove information, rather than assist to find ways to justify it. The quality of Wikipedia will improve if people like yourself aim to contribute in areas such as fair use rather than just continuously mark for deletion things you can't be bothered to update appropriately. Screech1616 (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
@Screech1616, Firstly go and have a good read of WP:NPA and the bit on comment on content, not on the contributor. Secondly I am not going to make the FUR as I do not take the view that the use of the jumpers "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and that their "omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (WP:NFCC#8); if another editor is willing to make that claim then that's up to them. LGA talkedits 07:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Colours and jumper design are so integrated into the game of Australian Rules Football, unlike in other sports, the colours are an intrinsic part of a clubs identity so much so that they rarely change. Omission of the jumper design from articles relating to those clubs most certainly would be detrimental to the understanding of a reader. Screech1616 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Lake Oval

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lake Oval, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Hack (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

SAAFL on TV?

According to Sports broadcasting contracts in Australia#Australian Rules Football and South Australian Amateur Football League, the SAAFL will be on the Nine Network this year. Surely this is a sponsorship arrangement and not matchday coverage? Hack (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Page 13 announces the sponsorship and naming rights, but no mention of any broadcasting. The-Pope (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

1981 & 1982 VFL Drafts

We don't currently have articles for these two drafts and as much as I'd like to create these articles, there is a paucity of "credible" sources to use here - I don't know of anything in hardcopy that lists details of the players drafted (I'm old enough to remember the first draft and it barely rated a mention in the newspapers of the time) and we're left with posts on website forums giving the draft list (not that I think these lists are wrong but that many people wouldn't neccesarily see them as a credible source). So, what are people's thoughts - can we use say these posts as sources or go without having articles for two national drafts? --Roisterer (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

They definitely should have articles. This is probably the best online source, unless there is something in the google scanned copies of The Age. http://footystats.freeservers.com/Footystats/Draft(forgotten).html The-Pope (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Can't find anything else which lists the draft order, but Trove has a Canberra Times article about the 1982 Draft, which includes a list of those drafted and their club of origin.[1] Jevansen (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant! I've been looking for an online news source for the draft(s) for ages but no luck. --Roisterer (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Seeking discussion from the project on the treatment of the 2014 preseason within Wikipedia. Refer to discussion at Talk:2014 NAB Challenge. Aspirex (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Another request for dispute resolution at the abovelinked talk page. There has been only one additional respondant since this call. Aspirex (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom Wills

Thought I'd mention that Tom Wills, the founder of Australian rules football, is now a Good Article. Congratulations to User:HappyWaldo and fellow editors for creating a well-written and absorbing article. Occasionally I have fleeting moments of belief that I will actually get enough spare time to build up another GA myself but between work and my partner's belief that time spent on Wikipedia could be better spent sanding down bedroom walls, I can't see it happening anytime soon. --Roisterer (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata properties for AFL players

At d:User:Billinghurst/AFL properties I am starting to look to compile a list of properties that we would wish to capture for players and coaches articles. I would appreciate any feedback/additions, here or there, on what else may be needed. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Club Infoboxes

Someone has gone through all the club articles and has changed the infoboxes from (Infobox aus sport club) to (Infobox sport club). In doing this, the italic formatting around the club songs has changed to Quotes. The new headings are not really applicable to Australian Football. Emblem has become Nickname - Example: Essendon's Emblem is the Bombers, their nickname is the 'Dons. Nickname is generally an informal name, whereas Emblem is an official branding. Song has become Anthem - I have never hears a Club Song referred to as an "Anthem" Coach has become Head Coach - Club Coach would be a more common term, generally Head Coach is not used in Australian Football. Example: Mount Compass Football Club Screech1616 (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  • apparently it was merged with a baseball/soccer infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_sport_club&diff=608995786&oldid=461574842, unmerging doesnt look possible Gnangarra 09:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree than an Australian English infobox is needed. Disagree with the comment about Emblem vs Nickname; both the formal Bombers and informal 'Dons are widely considered nicknames of the Essendon Football Club, and I'm perfectly comfortable leaving 'nickname' as an Australian English heading. Emblem has a more heraldic overtone – e.g. Carlton's emblem is the monogrammed CFC badge, but its nickname (formal and otherwise) is the Blues; East Perth's emblem is the crown, but its nickname is the Royals. Aspirex (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
      • No, we don't need separate templates for Australian English, any more than we do for UK or South African, Canadian or US English. Reducing template duplication lowers the workload for those who maintain them, and those who parse their content for Wikidata , DBpedia and other purposes. It standardises appearance to the benefit of our readers, facilitating easier comparison between article subjects. The template was merged with Infobox sport team (not "a baseball/soccer infobox"). If the terminology is major issue, switches or alternative parameters can be added to the current template,. It's a pity the issue wasn't raised in the above-linked discussion, which was widely advertised. I suggest further discussion would be more usefully located on the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
        • A pity? Who the hell's fault is that? I don't play in the template world, but the impact of the change on Australian football articles was obvious and serious to me. People making these changes need to research impacts everywhere before blaming those from other places for not liking them. They must never expect representatives of the areas affected to know about such discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I agree, and the above-linked discussion doesn't appear to say anything about the Infobox aus sport club template in its heading, so I'm not sure I agree about the level of advertising. Nevertheless, my limited understanding is that if we were to update the template to give the option of Australian English headings, we would need to manually update every single article since the merging has defaulted to the US English headings. I think we, as a project, may need to work with Frietjes or Andy for the merge to be reverted and re-done with our needs included. Aspirex (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Where was the notification to this project? Hack (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
              • from what I can tell is the Infobox aus sport club was rolled into Infobox sport club, within days of that happening, Infobox sport club was rolled into Infobox sports team via the discussion where no projects were notified and only one person commented... All we need is for someone to address the language issues. Gnangarra 08:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If someone can fix the template issues, I'm happy to run through with AWB and fix the articles where necessary Gnangarra 08:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Just having a look at the template, the following changes should be made -
      • "coach" should have "coachtitle" added to specify a title other than head coach. Head coach is used in Aussie rules but there are a few variations.
      • "song" should be added.
      • "president" should have "presidenttitle" added to specify a title other other than president. This is to allow for titles like chairman (not really Aussie rules specific but is needed).
      • "ground" should be added.
    • Other suggestions are welcome. Hack (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Agree with those - although it looks like 'Home Ground' may already be available for use. I'd add that "Titles" should have (for lack of a better parameter name) 'titletitle', so that the infobox can use the more specific 'Premierships'. Aspirex (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, what is with all the '' (ie to format italic) being changed to " (ie quotes). Was this done at the same time? Screech1616 (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Australian Rules Football At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ladders on articles

I've been looking through a lot of the local footy league articles, and the ladders are taking up a lot of space. I think I can expand on those with some research, but I think it would be an idea to create a sub page for the league and only leave the most recent ladder on the main article. What does the project think of this idea? Real Footy V9 (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not really Wikipedia's place to report only the most recent ladder as a standard - that would be taking on the role of a news service, not an encyclopedia. I think with so many local leagues and differing levels of interest in each, it is difficult to set a one-size-fits-all standard approach. Aspirex (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
A news service? But isn't that no different to say for example 2014 AFL season with the results? It's natural for an encyclopedia to be updated and surely this would be nothing more than that? The most recent ladder could be applied to defunct leagues as well. Large amounts of info in ladders can be seen for instance in Hampden Football Netball League. Real Footy V9 (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
A ladder is interpretative and dynamic. A match result is a fact, and significant in terms of the AFL. So a ladder at the end of the year would reflect the 2014 season, but a running ladder is pretty meaningless. To note that the main namespace of enWP excludes the use of subpages. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ern Saunders

Apologies for what is probably a minor question but while searching for something else, I found a ["archie smith" collingwood&searchLimits=l-state=Victoria|||l-decade=193 great article] on Richmond, circa 1933. Amongst the caricatures that we're no doubt sadly not able to use, there's a refernce to Ern Saunders, the Richmond head trainer who also helped Sir Donald Bradman, amongst others. On the top of the last column, the article states that Saunders spent two seasons (1897 & 1898) playing for Collingwood before moving to South Melbourne to play for three seasons. The article certainly makes it sound like he played senior football during that time but, as far as I can see, Ern Saunders never played senior football (although his son Richie Saunders did). Am I reading the article wrong? --Roisterer (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd read it the same way as you. 4 likely answers:
  1. Old man pumping up his own tyres (oh to have lived in the pre-google days, hey kids, remember that time I kicked 4 for South in the wet at Bassendean!);
  2. He played 2nds and never played league (did they have 2nds back then?);
  3. He changed his name (but no Pie/SM player seems to fit the timeline on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_AFL/Debuts or the AFLtables pages like http://afltables.com/afl/stats/1897.html) or
  4. The AFL records are wrong and missed him.
I'd lean towards 1 or 2 as the most likely. As for using the caricatures - does the pre-1946 rule apply to sketches, or is that different to photos?
And you have to love that article "they are ruining the game", "too crowded", "Kicking up in the air and trusting to luck is not football!", "it's only crash football today, and most of its finer points are lost." Was this written in 1933 or 2013? The-Pope (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Essendon page

Yahoo to anyone who may be lurking. I briefly just tidied up the Essendon page to bring its structure more in line with other good international football club pages. Basically the structure is: History, club symbols, support, rivalries, organisation and finance, honours, current players and officials, match records and reserves. The page is still rubbish, but I feel its more appealing now.

The biggest change was by cutting the 'player awards' bit. Now this article is on the club, and the article becomes too lengthy when these are included. There's relevant sub-articles for these. Any objections? Aaroncrick TALK 22:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the article in general is a bit lengthy in general. I think the Essendon page is better than many others in terms of the balance of its history (i.e. it has a similar level of detail across most eras and isn't terribly recentist), but I think that detail is excessive in some places. I'm going to trim back the lead, which I think covers their movements in excessive detail. But I am a bit dubious about Jim Main's assessment of Essendon as an important or senior club in the 1870s; I've seen no contemporary references to Essendon as a senior club until 1878 – and in general I've found modern sources are quite poor at reflecting pre-VFL history. We can have this discussion in greater detail on the article's talk page. Aspirex (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sydney Swans on the to do list

We're apparently missing two articles, Reuben Cooper and Tony Vigona. Apparently, Vigona doesn't qualify as He never actually played professionally at the top level - his article was initialy AFD'd, but was user deleted under CSD:H. Cooper, I'm having a hell of a time finding any refs on the guy - he only played for us twice, and according to Footywire, he only lasted a week. If we're going to get articles on these two up, I'm going to need some serious help to establish notability which will get them in. Any takers to give me a hand? Thanks! CharlieTheCabbie (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Vigona may qualify under the third criterion of WP:NAFL for his exploits in the NTFL but it's hard to tell without having access to contemporary media reports. Hack (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That list of indigenous footballers is also very old, may not be complete or correct, or as you've found, might not be compliant with our current notability standards. The links earlier on the ToDo page to the players - separated into multiple season and single season players is more comprehensive as to what's left to do. The redlinks on the single season list, especially of the pre 1970s players, might end up being converted into mainly redirects to the club lists - ie List of Sydney Swans players, that are also still full of redlinks. Of course if there is someone notable either for play in other leagues, other sports or other life work on those lists they can still be created, and not redirected (I did one single VFL season player the other week who's in the Stawell Gift Hall of Fame). The-Pope (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I've pruned the Indigenous to do list. It looks like most of the remaining names are 0-gamers who may not be notable. Hack (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

2013 AFL Draft

Hi all, it's been a while since I posted here, but I've recently been doing work on the 2013 AFL Draft page, mainly in terms of tidying up the tables and article in general. I was hoping I could get some input into whether you think the structure of the article works.

For example, I am not too convinced the "Changes by team" table is needed, however I have left it in for now. My goal is to perhaps get this list up to Featured List standard, so it would be great if anyone who has had experience in that process to give a few pointers. Ultimately, I would like this article to serve as a model for the related draft pages and improve our coverage of this topic.

Thanks, Allied45 (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the 'changes by team' table is a space-filler, particularly when there is only ten or twenty trades to sort through (plus it has a bad heading, as it refers to delisted and retiring players which aren't given in the table). I also think the excessive list at the bottom of the National Draft table, explaining the full journey of every draft pick, is superfluous. Aspirex (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Everything you wrote was my initial thoughts as well! Thanks for the feedback, Allied45 (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The changes look great. I agree that the changes by team section isn't needed, maybe it belongs more in the 2014 AFL season article? I really like (and was probably the author) of the tracking of the draft picks, and think that pouring them as notes is a neat solution compared to having them in the table. I think the US sports do that with their pick trades. I'm not really a fan of the coloured cells, and hate having the key before the table - I want to see the content first, if I don't understand what something means, give me a hyperlink/popup or I'll look below the table to see what everything means. The-Pope (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so it seems that the changes section is out. Yes, I have seen the notes for draft picks on US sport lists as well, so I say we'll keep that for now at least. Using colour also seems pretty standard across most forms of lists, and I would think most people would find this helpful alongside text/symbols. I may have come up with a happy medium in regards to the key though - I've moved it to the right side of the table, so let me know what you think. Cheers, Allied45 (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
One last comment, the refs chosen are almost exclusively from afl.com.au. Many, especially those who work for other media, doubt the true independence of afl.com.au, and for avoidance of any doubt, I'd chuck in a few refs from Fairfax/News Corp/Yahoo/Ninemsn/ABC/Sportal/AAP etc just to vary it up a bit - especially as you're going to the hard work of adding archive links now, not just when they go dead in a few years time, which is a great idea, by the way. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrospective Liston and Field medals

Does anyone have a reference showing that the J. J. Liston Trophy and Field Medal were awarded retrospectively to players who lost on countback? I'm pretty sure it happened, but I haven't been able to find a reliable source confirming it. Aspirex (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

First question is did they ever have countbacks? Recorder Cup (pre-1940s) didn't - http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article12454494. If you know the name of someone who lost on countback, search for them in http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/newsSearch.ac?sy=nstore. Nothing there for Liston and countback or retrospective though. The-Pope (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, I've stumbled quite accidentally across the reference I need. Aspirex (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
List of retrospective medallists and further info on the award can be found here: http://www.hardballget.net/liston-medallists.html Easty01 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've noted on quite a few of our year based Brownlow Medal articles, that the external links to AFLTables and Footywire are used as sources for the medal listings and vote tally for each respective year. I've also noticed that our references sections are 99% empty. While I was speaking to someone in the help channel for the English Wikipedia on IRC, it was suggested that we can simply strip out the External Links headers, and use the two external links as reliable 3rd party references. Any thoughts on this? CharlieTheCabbie|Yack to the driver 23:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Anti-AFL POV pushing at Queensland rugby league team

Can I have some more eyes at the above article please. Only two of us have played on the Talk page for this issue, so we need more input. An editor who is happy to have players simply play for different codes when they move from one form of rugby to another insists on describing them as being poached when they choose to play Australian football. I think even the editor involved agrees that "poached" is a non-neutral term, but argues that it is what actually happened (and apparently doesn't happen when they change rugby codes). I believe it would do no harm at all, and be a much better look for Wikipedia, if we used the neutral term "recruited", but he won't have a bar of it.

Note that this has already been taken to the NPOV Noticeboard. No real support for our AFL hating editor's position. But he persists. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Australian rules football season leads

User:NickGibson3900 recently tagged 2014 AFL season for having too short a lead section, which has led to a couple of isolated unilateral edits of the lead. Makes sense to discuss this here, and whether we need a standard format, since it can have an influence on all season article leads. Aspirex (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My personal view is that the lead wasn't really too short. My preferred model is to keep it brief – you can see my style at the VFA season pages. Essentially, all I see as necessary is one paragraph detailing: the ordinal number of the season; the start and end dates of the season; the premiers and grand final result; the ordinal number of that club's premiership; and any other brief fact that characterizes that premiership (e.g. back-to-back, a club finished unbeaten for the season, etc.) Then, if it is necessary (which it usually isn't) a second paragraph to describe any major event which defined the season, such as the paragraph about the different scandals the AFL dealt with in 2013 AFL season. I don't see a need for much else – re-stating the Brownlow Medallist/leading goalkicker when there's an infobox already there beside the lead of the article seems superfluous. I don't think we should be endeavouring to provide an overall narrative of the season (as has been done for some of the WAFL season articles), as these can be difficult to follow, particularly for those without prior knowledge.
I had a look at some other articles and styles at random. 2012 NFL season is just as brief as the AFL leads have been, so we would not be alone in accepting a one-paragraph lead. 2005 MLB season is similarly brief, mentioning the season's drugs scandal and a couple of notable events and the World Series champion, but nothing else. 2007–08 Premier League contains a whole lot of isolated and random statistics in the lead; they really don't seem suitable for the lead to me, and our AFL season articles include the same sorts of statistics in the game-notes, so I don't think that is a model we should be following. Aspirex (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
When I made the edits I also looked at other sports and saw that they often include relegation/expansion/elevation info (not normally relevant to us except for those 1st years) and major award winners. I agree that they should be brief, so thought that only the addition of the two longstanding and highest profile award winners was reasonable. We might need someone like User:Graham87 to confirm how page readers treat info boxes - do they read it or not, and so is duplicating the info a good or bad thing for accessibility reasons? The-Pope (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Yes, screen readers read infoboxes fine. Graham87 11:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

One game wonder - notability

I've come across a player called Andy Demetriou who was selected once for South Melbourne but didn't make it off the bench. Other than the cooincidence of having the same name as a slightly more successful footballer, he doesn't seem to have got a lot of coverage in reliable sources. Given he didn't really appear in an actual match, what do people think about his notability? Hack (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks notable to me, see for example this write up in the Sun. Should probably be created at Andy Demetriou (footballer born 1958) though, and have Andy Demetriou redirect to the former chief. On the general topic of one game wonders, some will be notable (any chance I get, I'll give Ken Hall (footballer) a plug), but for some where virtually no coverage exists it might be better off to just create them as redirects to the relevant "List of X Football Club players" article as The-Pope suggests above. Jenks24 (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The "Herald Sun" article probably reflects the level of the journalist's gullibility, rather than a level of research which could be described as shallow and inept - but it should be noted that there are numerous players in period c 1930 - c 1978 who have careers of one or two games and did not make it onto field at all. For the record then, in my opinion, if being named in a VFL/AFL team achieves notability then that needs to apply consistently and yes notability achieved even if player never on field. RossRSmith (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I think he won a couple of flags with Port Melbourne, and I am fairly sure I saw an article about him (appraising him as a VFA player) in the Saturday Age some time during the early-to-mid-80s. Of players who've played only one or a couple of VFL/AFL games, I'd place Demetriou at least in the top 15-20% for notability on that basis. Aspirex (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Charles Mackay

Charlie MacKay (b. 05/05/1880) per the Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers played for both Melbourne and University - Demonwiki says the same thing. The List of University Football Club players doesn't give him a mention though. I can see a player named Frank Macky that played in the same year, for the same amount of games and goals. the Encyclopedia however has him listed as a separate person. Does anyone have more info? Wouldn't be surprised if they ended up being the same person. Terlob (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Terlob. There's a Charlie Mackay at our To Do list, which has him only as a Melbourne player. Those names were taken off the AFL official website. There have been some other instances of the Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers having two players mixed up, so if both the league and AFL Tables have them as different people I'd go with them. Jevansen (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't recall if our ToDo list was actually from the AFL or AFL Tables. After tying myself up in knots last night over Footscrays's Tom Jones (footballer, born 1904) and Melbourne/St Kilds's Tom Jones (footballer, born April 1904), who Demonwiki call Carlyle Jones, I am cursing the lack of first names in newspaper reports of the day, and the fairly common usage of middle names as common names. For what it's worth (not necessarily correct), this article, which is from the day before Frank Macky's supposed debut game, has a Mackey [sic] coming into the team (because 5 players are off to Adelaide to play in University Championships!). Mackey [sic] again features a month later in this report. The match report of Charlie MacKay's first game refers to a McKay. The-Pope (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank goodness for this aspect of the project (compared to the constant AFL myth-making, latest example being the McHale=714 nonsense). I've just started to delve into range of records, so no clear answer yet on Mackay/Macky.... however, have already found that F Macky is NZ born and was a medical student at Uni of Melb. Macky's parents were lost in the Lusitania sinking of 1915, so Papers Past site has bit on family to collate. Will tackle other family history records and try to clarify bit more about Charlie's life. RossRSmith (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a Charles Vincent Mackay (profile here) who went to Trinity College[2], with a birthdate just two days off the one given to Charlie MacKay. He was the "medical superintendent of Melbourne Hospital" in 1911. Jevansen (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This could be the birth notice, as it matches the info found by Jevansen, but not the football DOB.The-Pope (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Gold Coast Football Club

Starting yesterday afternoon, three (apparently) different editors have added Rodney Eade as coach of the club for next year. There are many rumours to this effect, but nothing concrete yet. I have reverted twice, and don't want to go near 3RR. Can others please help? HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and I'd keep an eye on Rodney Eade as well. Jevansen (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 debuts complete

I just created Jordon Bourke. This was the last red link on List of AFL debuts in 2014. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... but not so fast. 2 Kangaroos are redirects, not articles! The-Pope (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Conflict: South Australian National Football League

Need a input from a third opinion on an edit-war that is brewing on the SANFL page. Referenced information is repeatedly being removed by User:Thejoebloggsblog without reason other than accusation of vandalism or trolling. Repeated efforts to engage in discussion to understand what is objectionable has been ignored.

The text that is apparently objectionable is the following in the former clubs section:

  • Port Adelaide (1877-1996) - the most successful club winning 34 premierships before moving to the Australian Football League [1]
  • Port Adelaide Magpies (1997-2013) - formed to retain a Port Adelaide branded presence in the SANFL when the original Port Adelaide club moved to the AFL.[2] Won 2 premierships, 1998 and 1999. Amalgamated with the Port Adelaide club in 2010[2][3] and were replaced in 2014 with a Port Adelaide Reserves team.[4]

Having a bit of a look further, it seems that this was also a problem on the former Port Adelaide SANFL article. Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL) Screech1616 (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "History". Port Adelaide Football Club. Port Adelaide Football Club. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
  2. ^ a b "Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club Inc. Annual Report". Trove. National Library of Australia. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
  3. ^ Capel, Andrew (16 November 2010). "The AFL's Port Adelaide and the SANFL's Port Adelaide Magpies to unite for first time since 1996". News Corporation. The Advertiser. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
  4. ^ Homfray, Reece (2 September 2013). "Saying goodbye to the Port Adelaide Magpies is hard to do". News Corporation. The Advertiser. Retrieved 16 December 2014.

Rleague is no more!

Months after the rleague.com website closed down, and most of the manual links switched to afltables.com, the template that we use on thousands of player pages to get their stats has been moved to {{AFL Tables}}. I'll hope that a bot will magically appear to change all the {{AflRleague}}s to {{AFL Tables}}, because I'm not going to do it, but from now on, can everyone start using {{AFL Tables}} on player pages. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Great!. Any idea if we need to make a request for a bot to change the template on all the pages or is this actioned as part of the renaming process? Jevansen (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Stand-alone articles for reserves teams - review

I want to redirect all of the articles set up for AFL reserves teams (e.g. Geelong Football Club (VFL)) into a "reserves team" subsection of the parent AFL club articles. Each subsection would contain in brief detail the club's current and historical reserves affiliations, a list of premierships, and little else. I don't think it makes sense to describe these teams in the same way that we would a VFA/VFL club, since these are effectively developmental teams for which premierships are a bonus rather than necessarily a goal. I believe articles have been written for these teams only because of their affiliation with the VFL, contravening the guideline that notability cannot be inherited by association with the VFL; and that if the clubs' reserves teams were still playing in a dedicated reserves competition instead of the VFL, they would never be granted stand-alone articles. But, I thought I'd raise the topic for discussion rather than leap straight into it. Aspirex (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done in SA with Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL) now redirected to Port Adelaide Football Club
With one agreement and no objections, I'll get to work. Aspirex (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
They are only reserves teams, they are not notable enough to warrant dedicated articles.Screech1616 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Etihad Stadium

There is currently a proposal to move City of Manchester Stadium to Etihad Stadium on the basis that since 2011 that's what it is commonly known as. Obviously Docklands Stadium current name as Etihad Stadium isn't significant in comparison. Dan arndt (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

4300 players to go - the top 35

By my count, we've either just ticked over, or are about to reach, 8000 VFL/AFL player articles created. Fantastic work by all involved, from the relentless consistency of User:Jevansen to the "surge and disappear" complete team by team approach of User:Terlob, and all of the rest of us who pick off an article here and there. But, with 12315 players having played in the VFL/AFL, we still have half as many still to go. Despite what is written in WP:NAFL, over 600 of those players only played a single game. More than 1400 played less than 10 games and made their debut before 1940. I doubt if many of these players are truly notable. I'm not arguing to change NAFL, but I don't think the project is diminished if we declare that the default position for these old low game players is a redirect to the team player list article or mention on the dab page. At the other end of the notability scale, I've found 35 (after I completed Jim Miller (Australian footballer) today) 100 game players without articles, some as recently as the 1970s. IMO, these should be our focus.

Obviously, once these are done there are at least 600 other >50 games or >1970s players, and a lot of the lower game players, even single game players, which might be notable for pre/post VFL careers or other reasons, and I'm not by any means suggesting that we delete any articles already made, but just trying to highlight where our most obvious gaps are. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Might be time for another surge I think - I'll clean up these 35 pretty quickly, let me know of any other priorities too. Love the effort you put in mate. Terlob (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back! One of the reasons I'm working more on the "meta" side than the creation side is that I've lost/leant out/can't find my copy of the AFL Encyc of Players! Might need to buy a new version, I think mine is about 10 years old by now anyway! If you want I can publish a list of 50-99 game players too, but it doesn't really matter what way you go through 'em, team by team, new to old, family connections, common names, random or games played, it's just great that they are being done. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Terlob, good to have you back and thanks Pope for compiling these lists. Terlob, if you're tackling the 100 game players and maybe the 50 gamers, I might keep working through the remaining 1980s players. Something that might assist, Australianfootball.com, has death dates for most deceased players. Jevansen (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point on AustralianFootball.com, I've been meaning to mention it. I think we should start adding external links to it in most cases, as it is linked to the Slattery Media Group and hence has direct links to the AFL stats/history gurus such as Col Hutchinson, so it should be very accurate. I'll create a template to standardise the link format. I'm fairly sure that User:Gigs65 runs it, but hasn't edited here lately. The-Pope (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

AustralianFootball.com template is live

I have just created {{AustralianFootball}} to standardise the links to player articles on the AustralianFootball.com website. For those that don't know, AustralianFootball.com absorbed most of the old FullPointsFooty website data a few years ago, now has most of the AFL Tables data linked too, but still has some non-AFL/VFL players too. It is also starting to record death dates, which until now, have not been as readily available as birth dates.

Template use is very similar to AFL Tables, you just copy the name and number from the URL as the "ref=", ie

{{AustralianFootball|ref=clinton%2Bwolf/13486|alt=Clinton Wolf}}

prints as

Clinton Wolf at AustralianFootball.com

You only need to use the "alt=" parameter when you don't want the page name to be used. It's even smart enough now to automagically drop off the (footballer, born 1984) section too. The-Pope (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiConfererence Australia 2015 - Save the date 3-5 October 2015

Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015

As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:

  • indicate your interest in possibly attending the conference (this is not a binding commitment, of course)
  • add suggestions for topics to include in the conference: what you would like to hear/discuss (again, there is no commit to you presenting/organising that topic, although it’s great if you are willing to do so), or indicate your enthusiasm for any existing topic on the list by adding a note of support underneath it

It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au

We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of AfD

This football-related AfD only has two participants at the moment. Can we get some other input so it doesn't end as a summary no consensus. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Wren_Memorial_Trophy Aspirex (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Individual game trophies

We have quite a lot of articles dedicated to trophies such as Beyondblue Cup (AFL), Blue Ribbon Cup, Richard Pratt Cup, Prime Minister's Cup (AFL), etc. – which quite frankly are all scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to importance. Grand scheme of things, in each case the trophy's existence is its only notable feature; a list of trophy winners and bests-on-ground is not. I propose to redirect all of these (except for local derbies and other rivalries on a case-by-case basis) into a single article which gives the basic detail on each trophy (which teams contest it, where it is contested if relevant, what it's named after, when it was first contested, and what the best-on-ground award is called) and nothing else. Any comments welcome. Any suggestions on what to call such an article (because I can't think of anything elegant) also welcome. Aspirex (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Namespace and a forward slash

In article namespace subdirectories have been turned off so AC/DC is an article title. However the talk page talk:AC/DC consists of two pages, and the parent page is talk:AC a totally unrelated subject. As it happens it is unlikely that AC will move so the sub-pages under it are unlikely to be moved and even if they are the are "only" talk pages and it will not affect the article page.

Like article talk pages, pages under the namespace "template" have not had the the sub-page option turned off, so a template page like Template:1911/12 Essendon Bombers dual premiership players is actually a sub-page of Template:1911 and while this is not usually a problem, it causes problems if the parent page is moved, as usually at least all the talk pages including sub-pages, and possibly all the sub-pages under it in template space will be moved to the new name.

For this reason I have moved Template:1911/12 Essendon Bombers dual premiership players to Template:1911–12 Essendon Bombers dual premiership players (along with its talk page). This does not in anyway alter what is displayed in article space although it is necessary to change the "name=" parameter to the new name (eg Template:1911–12 Essendon Bombers dual premiership players) if the page is to remain editable directly from article space.

I suggest of future proofing that someone who supports this project goes through the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Articles and makes similar changes to similar pages. -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Does this apply to categories too? That list isn't kept up to date automatically, so based on the cats and templates in Category:WikiProject Australian rules football articles category, we have 12 categories and 37 templates that use a / not in a subpage manner.
  1. Category:NSW/ACT Rams players
  2. Category:VFA/VFL administrators
  3. Category:VFA/VFL players
  4. Category:VFL/AFL administrators
  5. Category:VFL/AFL Grand Finals
  6. Category:VFL/AFL players
  7. Category:VFL/AFL players born in England
  8. Category:VFL/AFL players born in Fiji
  9. Category:VFL/AFL players born outside of Australia
  10. Category:Former VFL/AFL clubs
  11. Category:Proposed VFL/AFL clubs
  12. Category:South Melbourne/Sydney premiership templates
  1. Template:AFL/VFL Grand Finals
  2. Template:VFA/VFL seasons
  3. Template:VFL/AFL debuts
  4. Template:VFL/AFL seasons
  5. Template:1898/99 Fitzroy Maroons dual premiership players
  6. Template:1902/03 Collingwood Magpies dual premiership players
  7. Template:1904/05 Fitzroy Maroons dual premiership players
  8. Template:1906/07/08 Carlton Blues triple premiership players
  9. Template:1914/15 Carlton Blues dual premiership players
  10. Template:1917/19 Collingwood Magpies dual premiership players
  11. Template:1920/21 Richmond Tigers dual premiership players
  12. Template:1923/24 Essendon Bombers dual premiership players
  13. Template:1932/34 Richmond Tigers dual premiership players
  14. Template:1935/36 Collingwood Magpies dual premiership players
  15. Template:1939/40/41 Melbourne Demons triple premiership players
  16. Template:1945/47 Carlton Blues dual premiership players
  17. Template:1949/50 Essendon Football Club dual premiership players
  18. Template:1951/52 Geelong Cats dual premiership players
  19. Template:1955/56/57 Melbourne Demons triple premiership players
  20. Template:1959/60 Melbourne Demons dual premiership players
  21. Template:1967/69 Richmond Tigers dual premiership players
  22. Template:1968/70/72 Carlton Blues triple premiership players
  23. Template:1973/74 Richmond Tigers dual premiership players
  24. Template:1975/77 North Melbourne Kangaroos dual premiership players
  25. Template:1976/78 Hawthorn Hawks dual premiership players
  26. Template:1979/81/82 Carlton Blues triple premiership players
  27. Template:1981/82 Carlton Blues dual premiership players
  28. Template:1984/85 Essendon Bombers dual premiership players
  29. Template:1986/88/89/91 Hawthorn Hawks premiership players
  30. Template:1988/89 Hawthorn Hawks dual premiership players
  31. Template:1992/94 West Coast Eagles dual premiership players
  32. Template:1997/98 Adelaide Crows dual premiership players
  33. Template:2001/02/03 Brisbane Lions triple premiership players
  34. Template:2007/09/11 Geelong Cats triple premiership players
  35. Template:2011/2012 AFL Mini-Draft
  36. Template:2013/14 Hawthorn Hawks dual premiership players
  37. Template:SAFA/SAFL/SANFL Grand Finals

I don't have much of a problem with changing the years - except that I'd prefer to see 2007, 09, 11 for non-continuous years rather than 2007-09-11. But is VFL-AFL ok? Should we do something like AFL (VFL) instead? And whilst we're moving things, should we get rid of the nicknames and use "Football Club", as per our MOS? The-Pope (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't really understand most of the above discussion but I do agree that we get rid of the club nicknames. --Roisterer (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Something interesting about Tom Nolan ...

Apologies in advance if this has a simple explanation; I had a flu shot earlier today and I'm still spaced. So, for no apparent reason, I was looking to update Tom Nolan (Australian rules footballer) and thus went to Trove, and found this.

Nolan made his VFL debut for Fitzroy in Round 10, 15 July 1899; as seen in the above link, the 20 July 1899 edition of Melbourne Punch refers to the debut of "Nolan" in the following way:

""Nolan" made a modest debut forward. F. E. Fontaine — for that is "Nolan's" real name — is the latest cyclist to covet football fame, and in Jackson, Tame, Denning and "Nolan" the scorcher has a fine representative quartette."

I'm guessing the F.E. Fontaine referred to is Fred Fontaine, who also played for Fitzroy. Fontaine isn't recorded as playing in Round 10, 1899, so theoretically could have played as Nolan in that match, but did front up in Round 11, against St Kilda, where our man Nolan is also listed as playing.

Punch was known as a satirical magazine so it's possible that their reference to Fontaine and Nolan being one and the same was not made seriously, or that F.E. Fontaine may be someone other than Fred Fontaine. Thoughts, anyone? --Roisterer (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

AustralianFootball.com, which is closely linked to the AFL statisticians and the Slattery Group, lists both players with different dates of birth and death. Fontaine and Nolan. Searching Nolan's death in 1930, I found this obituary, which says that Nolan was a lawyer. Two of his brothers seem to have played, Jerry and Herb. Actual, lots of brothers played. No idea if they did a swifty early in their years or not... The-Pope (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal (local derby best on ground medals)

I am proposing the following three mergers. I am proposing them here rather than on the individual pages because they share a common justification:

It would appear to me an obvious merger, and I've been quite surprised that my bold merger attempts have met with any opposition. These mergers involve no loss of content. The full narrative about the history of the medal, whom it is named after, etc., can be easily transcribed to the game article without seeming out of place; and the winners of the medal can be listed in their own column in the table of game results (consistent with how it is done in Anzac Day clash), which not only retains all of the information but puts in it clearer context, since the winner is listed beside the match result. Put in Wikipedia guidelines terms, the medal articles are unnecessary content forks, in that the game articles are not sufficiently large or unwieldy to justify the article spin-out type of fork.

As it stands at the moment, Showdown Medal and Marcus Ashcroft Medal can simply be redirected with no other action, since the target pages already contain the full content of the medal pages. Merging Ross Glendinning Medal will require the new columns to be created in the table. Aspirex (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I still fail to see why the merge needs to happen. The fact that someone has gone ahead and copied information from the medal articles back to the derby articles is not itself a reason to merge. And there is nothing inherently wrong with a content fork - the relevant guideline is not WP:SPINOFF, but WP:RELAR. The Showdown Medal is certainly notable (see here, for example). Is it independently notable of the Showdown itself? No, but it doesn't have to be. The medal article does not need to have the result of the game (and it doesn't); the derby article doesn't need the medallist. StAnselm (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Disagree. The Showdown and the Showdown Medal are not "distinct but related topics" as described in the definition of WP:RELAR; they are a single topic of which the Showdown Medal is a subsection, per WP:SPINOFF. Your linked reference clearly demonstrates this, since it describes every Showdown Medal in the context of its Showdown. Aspirex (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Following this recent AfD decision relating the deletion of other single-match best-on-ground awards, I believe it lends further weight to being more selective with which awards are given individual pages; and therefore a logical extension that the Glendinning, Ashcroft and Showdown Medals are not notable enough for their own pages and should be merged into the parent match articles. Aspirex (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the others were deleted because they weren't notable. The three mentioned here weren't listed with them precisely because they are notable. StAnselm (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That is a false statement and you should remove it. It was my decision and mine alone not to list the Ashcroft, Glendinning and Showdown Medals with the others, and you are not in a position to comment upon my motivations for doing this. My reason for doing so was that I was not proposing to blank and redirect those three articles to List of individual match awards in the Australian Football League, as was proposed for the other twelve; and it therefore would not have made sense to include them in the same discussion. Aspirex (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Grand Final icons aligning left?

It's bugging me that all of a sudden the icons for clubs on Grand Final pages are aligning left.

These things...

I'm sure its a simple fix.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I doubt it. I've noticed images aligning left on quite a few articles (e.g., Virginia) for about a month, so I can only guess that it's a deeper problem (maybe with Template:Infobox). I've been meaning to raise it somewhere, but I haven't got a clue where that might be. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

League Football Statistics in Infoboxes

I am currently in a dispute with Flickerd over the notability of the SANFL prior to the introduction of the Adelaide Crows. All reference to Central District and the games played and goals scored in the SANFL has been removed from the infobox for John Platten, likewise Port Adelaide games and goals have been removed from Craig Bradley and the West Adelaide details for Shaun Rehn citing:
SANFL stats/HL do not meet WP:NAFL point 3, stats/highlights are still notable enough to mention within article, however, VFL/AFL is the top-tier competition and he is known for being a VFL/AFL player, therefore, infobox should be reserved for that

Under this logic, Russell Ebert's 391 games for Port Adelaide and Graham Cornes's 364 games for Glenelg and South Adelaide should also be removed, just because they happen to have played a season in the VFL. How do we go about changing WP:NAFL? People with SANFL achievements prior to 1991 and WAFL achievements prior to 1987 should be treated in the same way as point 2 in regards to notability:

2.Before 1990, appeared in a match of the Victorian Football League.

Either they should be included, or point 2 removed altogether. This bizarre determination of notability means that Alan Tait is more notable in the Wikipedia world than Paul Bagshaw. Screech1616 (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say that 200+ games would meet the criteria of point 3 in WP:NAFL Is known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league. I know that WP:NAFL is an argument of whether a page for an athlete should be created, but it is still relevant to the infobox. Thus, SANFL stats are perfectly acceptable within the infobox for Ebert and Cornes as they have made major individual achievements within the league. My issue is that if a player is more recognised as a VFL/AFL player (as with the players above), then their SANFL stats should not be in the infobox, I think that it should still be mentioned within the article, just not in the infobox under playing career. I've exhausted this argument on my talk page with Screech1616, I'm just supplying my side of the argument on this page for clarification. Flickerd (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The SANFL have an important place within the infobox alongside the VFL/AFL stats. Wikipedia is the only independent location that up to this point regularly provides this information summarized as such. The heading it sits under is "Career", not "VFL/AFL Career". We are not talking about modern day SANFL stats here where the SANFL is little more than a reserves competition and feeder for the AFL, the removed detail is from an era when the SANFL was at the same level as the VFL (yes the VFL was the stronger competition, but it would be the equivalent of saying the English Premier League is a higher tier than the German Bundesliga). I am not sure what harm is caused by having this information included, it gives a much more accurate detail of the player's overall career. Screech1616 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer to include all AFL/VFL, SANFL and WAFL stats but the consensus has been to leave out state league appearances if the involvement is minor, particularly after 1987 in WA and 1991 in SA. Platten and Bradley would be notable for their SANFL achievements if they had never moved east, so they should be the types of players that have their stats included in the infobox. Hack (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm for it as well for pre 1987 in WA and 1991 in SA. Within reason though, I'm not sure Wanganeen's one SANFL season in 1990 if that significant for a guy that played 300 AFL games. After that era I think it's appropriate in some cases, if the player's WAFL/SANFL career was significant and AFL career minor, someone like James Gowans or Paul Thomas are probably good examples. I don't think however these stats should ever be included in the same tally like they were here. Jevansen (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jevansen, I was never saying that SANFL/WAFL stats should never be included for pre 1991/1987 if a player has played VFL/AFL, I just think it should only be for players who have made more of a contribution to SANFL/WAFL than VFL/AFL, so players like Rehn who only played 21 SANFL games should not be included which is what started this whole dispute. Flickerd (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NAFL is specifically designed as criteria to determine whether or not a player gets an article; and, more generally, the Wikipedia:Notability guideline is designed to refer to entire articles (as it says in the "in a nutshell" box at the top of the policy, The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.) Additionally, WP:NAFL is minimum criteria for inclusion; and not meeting NAFL doesn't automatically exclude. Therefore, I don't think Flickerd is quoting the NAFL guideline in the manner in which it is meant to be applied.

On the dispute itself, I don't think anyone should be arguing against players from pre-1985 having their SANFL/WAFL stats included, nor do I think anyone should be arguing against players post-1995 having their SANFL/WAFL stats excluded – we should be focussing our debate on the 1985–1995 grey area and not getting distracted by players like Ebert and Cornes.

Rehn is the very definition of a grey area player in this specific debate. He played his first season with Wests in 1990 (before the Crows joined) and was aged 19, but he only really had a two-year senior career with Wests before he was a regular senior AFL player. I'm a bit of a fence-sitter in the Rehn debate, but if forced to lean one direction, I think his games for Wests should be valid for inclusion in the infobox. My reasoning is that I don't believe SANFL football should suddenly lose its "senior status" in 1991 just because it lost its top twenty players on any given week to the AFL. And for players of Rehn's age: if I recall correctly, South Australian players still weren't being cleared to Victoria until they were 23 at that time (even if drafted at a younger age); therefore, young South Australian players around that time had very limited access to the AFL (probably five to ten spots in the otherwise experienced Adelaide Crows team); and Rehn's time at Wests was therefore still the highest level of senior football available to him, and it was still a good standard of football. That makes it "senior" in my mind.

Bradley is not a grey area player: his entire SANFL career was pre-1985 and should be seen as notable. I have no problem with those statistics being included alongside the AFL statistics and summed into a senior total.

Platten is a challenging one. I think his main stint at Centrals should be included in the same way as Bradley's time at Port Adelaide; but that final half-season at Centrals in 1998 is clearly of lower senior status. What we really need is the AFL history department to make a formal ruling on what is "senior" and what isn't – and then we could simply leave Platten's second stint out of the infobox but describe it in the text. Without that sort of ruling, I think we're kind of stuck leaving both stints in the infobox for completeness.

In my mind, the best solution is that we should include SANFL teams from the "grey area" in the infobox, but we should not sum SANFL and VFL numbers into a "senior total" for any grey area players. Follow the structure on Mark Williams (Australian footballer born 1958) and leave each league as separate for any grey area players; that way we're not making an implication one way or the other about the equivalency of the leagues at that time. Aspirex (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, this issue has nothing to do with notability. Secondly, I think the long-standing consensus is to generally not include SANFL stats, though I think previous discussions have centred on recent SANFL players (see here). With Cornes and Ebert, and I can see case for including SANFL stats, though not the totals; with Wanganeen, I don't think SANFL should be included at all.
I'm not overly fussed either way it goes, I was just following the way I interpreted the guidelines and what is currently in place, and I even said on my talk page that if the determination of notability is changed then I'll happily agree with it, it is why I suggested bringing the dispute here because it was the best way for reaching consensus. After reading what Aspirex wrote, I agree that pre-1985 stats should be included, but as a separate total and broken up into leagues, so I'll backtrack on Bradley, but as a separate total. I'm still not convinced Rehn's should be included as I'm still not sure it's significant enough, but once again after seeing what Aspirex wrote, I can somewhat agree with it. I agree that focusing on the grey area and clarifying that is the best course of action. Is there any way to create some sort of guideline (similar to the 2011 AFL season talk page) that reaches some sort of consensus so that can be a directive to avoid disputes in the future over the same argument? Flickerd (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the significance of 1985? The Adelaide Crows joined the AFL in 1991, surely 1990 is the year that should be considered from an SANFL point of view. The West Coast Eagles joined the VFL in 1987 so 1986 is the more relevant year for the WAFL. Also what does everyone think of Laurence Schache as an example, where all his career games are listed, but the total is split clearly into AFL & SANFL? Screech1616 (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No significance: I only said 1985–1995 because it represents the fact that the SANFL and WAFL lost their "seniorness" (for lack of a better word) gradually – and that players like Rehn who may have started a couple of years before their state's AFL team was established are seen to have their entire SANFL/WAFL careers fall into the grey area. As for Flickerd's suggestion: like I alluded to before, I don't think we're going to be able to set clear criteria mandating exactly what is to be included and excluded unless the AFL invents an official definition of "senior football" that we can work from (their talk last year about backdating senior premierships to 1870 and creating separate "Victorian era" and "Australian era" definitions hopefully suggests that they are heading in that direction). But if we were to try to make up our own definition, I'd suggest the following starting point, with the caveat that anything else can be included by agreement. I think by necessity there has to be a lot of case-by-case judgements. For the "Big 3" leagues, I'd suggest:

  • For continuous SANFL career stints which began prior to 1991, cannot be excluded from the infobox
  • For SANFL career stints which began in 1997 or later, can be included only if the player's SANFL career is much more notable than his AFL career. This would likely require an SANFL game count of at least 100-150 as a starting point. (Brett Backwell is a good example of such a player)
  • For SANFL career stints which began in the intermediate period (1991–1996, between the first AFL team starting and the second AFL team starting), these can be included if the SANFL career is notable – but does not require that the SANFL career be more notable than the AFL career. Notability in this period should be judged by deed, not by game count. (For example, I'd rate Andrew McKay's 40-game career at Glenelg or Nathan Buckley's season at Port Adelaide – in which they were top two in a Magarey count – worthy for inclusion)
  • WAFL rules are the same, except replace 1991 with 1987, and replace 1997 with 1995.
  • VFA careers prior to 1897 cannot be excluded, nor can careers with Richmond prior to 1908, or with North Melbourne, Footscray or Hawthorn prior to 1925. I'd be very keen to see some of the 1890s players have their full careers detailed rather than just the post-schism tail end.
  • "Total" statistics should only be given on a league-by-league basis. I think the Schache template is indeed a good one.
  • Inclusion is based on the start of their career, rather than on the year the games were played in, to avoid a confusing situation where we're defining half of a player's career as senior and half as non-senior. I think we can only do that if the AFL decrees it to be so.

For the Tasmanian leagues and post-1897 VFA, I think it becomes entirely case-by-case; and I think it should be based more on the absolute notability of their careers in the context of those leagues, rather than the notability compared with their VFL/AFL careers – e.g. Darrel Baldock, Barry Round, Peter Hudson and Laurie Nash all had, in my opinion, careers in Tasmania/VFA which should be included in an infobox, even though their VFL/AFL careers were overall much more notable; someone like Athol Hodgetts, even though his NWFU and VFA careers were more notable than his brief VFL career, wasn't important enough to those minor leagues for those teams to go in the infobox; someone like a Jim Christou, whose VFA resume was pretty impressive, could really go either way. I'd also feel comfortable including pre-1920s statistics from the Goldfields FL or the Barrier Ranges FA under the same criteria.

Also, I suppose on a related matter, how we set up the infoboxes should dictate how we define "original team". I think "original team" has to be the last team that the player played for which is not listed in the infobox – i.e. a team should not be detailed in the infobox and listed as original team for the same player. (In Screech's Laurence Schache example, Sturt is shown as both the earliest team in the infobox, and also as the "original team". In his case, "original team" would become Essendon Reserves, or maybe whichever team he played for in the Hopetoun area) Aspirex (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you cover most bases here, excellent summary. The suggestion you have put regarding "Tasmanian leagues and post-1897 VFA" could also be applied to WAFL post-1995 & SANFL post-1997. There may be some notables that do not play in the AFL, Jade Sheedy as a Magarey Medallist & Fos Williams Medallist would be a good example. Screech1616 (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I've come a bit late to this but working on what Aspirex wrote earlier: "What we really need is the AFL history department to make a formal ruling on what is "senior" and what isn't ...", back in the 1990s, there was a discussion by the Australian Society for Sports History about this issue (not specifically relating to Wikipedia, obviously, but what competitions should be considered as notable in a player's stats). IIRC, it was VFL/AFL, SANFL & WAFL (although the SANFL & WAFL could "lose" their notability if the comps became the equivalent of amateur leagues) and there were some strong arguments that VFA stats for certain periods be included (eg. the late 1930s when Nash, Pratt Todd, et al were making opposition backmen earn their pay).

As others have raised here, there remains the fundamental issue of stating that someone who played one senior match for Geelong in the early 1940s (when, due to player shortage, the club was literally pulling blokes off the street and sticking a guernsey on them) is more notable than a chap who broke goalkicking records in a range of country leagues. --Roisterer (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Help with infoboxes ...

So there I was, innocently attempting to add Brad Gotch's Port Adelaide statistics to his info box when I got this rather disconcerting message:

Warning: Brad Gotch is calling Template:Infobox AFL biography with more than one value for the "games(goals)" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used.

I wasn't sure whether I needed to go into hiding and take an assumed name (who knew Gotch was so opposed to having his Port stats added to his infobox). Can someone put me out of my misery and fix Gotch's infobox? Thanks. --Roisterer (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it hopefully. I removed the totals altogether, they just look awkward when there's more than one of them and having a SANFL total is a bit pointless when he only played one season. The infobox really isn't as friendly as some others (e.g. soccer), but christ knows how you'd go about changing ours to match and then implementing across all the articles it's used on. That ship has probably sailed. Jenks24 (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to highlight that point we reached a big milestone this week, Template:Infobox AFL biography is now transcluded on 10,000 pages. Jevansen (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Article naming - consistency or clarity, for today or for alltime?

There are two Aaron Blacks. One plays (sometimes) for North Melbourne, the other won the Sandover Medal playing for West Perth. Now, our standard method to disambiguate players with the same name used to be middle initials, but now is (footballer, born XXX), ie

Up until yesterday, the North Melbourne Black was at Aaron Black (Australian footballer) and the West Perth Black didn't exist. Then the West Perth Black was created at Aaron Black (footballer, born 1992) by User:Athomeinkobe. User:Compassionate727 has since moved them to Aaron Black (AFL footballer) and Aaron Black (WAFL footballer). Now I can understand how this makes sense, but we specifically try to avoid using AFL footballer as a disambiguator, as players rarely only play AFL (you could argue that at the moment he's more of a VFL footballer). He also played 3 games for Peel in the WAFL in 2009. Likewise, the West Perth Black could be drafted to the AFL next year, or move to the SANFL/VFL etc. So, should we leave it at the article title that best suits today, and move it only if the facts change in the future, or should we revert back to our standard format of using birth year? The-Pope (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely move them to disambiguating by year of birth. I thought at first this was going to be a difficult situation in which they were born in the same year (in which case we would disambiguate by month - see e.g. Dániel Kovács), but this should be straightforward, especially since the AFL footballer was once a WAFL footballer. StAnselm (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I actually tried to move the Sandover Medalist back yesterday to Aaron Black (footballer, born 1992), but was unable to. As has been said the NM footballer is also a former WAFL player so the current disambiguation doesn't suit anyway. I'd favour always using the standard format. Jevansen (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'd prefer using the standard format using birth year. RossRSmith (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems like we have an agreement here. I've moved the article to use year of birth disambiguation. Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Amarkum?

Perhaps 30 years ago I read an article about the traditional game "Amarkum", played by Aboriginal people in southern South Australia, which was similar to Marn Grook, and which the nascent Australian rules teams in South Australia based much of their rules on. The author claimed that we get the word "mark" from Amarkum.

I don't think I imagined the article (and I don't think it was an April Fool's Day article) but I can't find anything online on Amarkum. Has anyone else heard of Amarkum? --Roisterer (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like pidgin or creole for "I mark him" - him being the ball. Seems pretty unlikely, especially given the early versions of both rugby football and association football (and some of their predecessors) having the concept of a free kick being taken after a fair catch. Hack (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Small text in Infobox AFL player

Please see this discussion regarding small text in Template:Infobox AFL player, which may need to be altered to meet the WP:FONTSIZE guideline. Suggestions on how to display the information currently smaller than 11px would be appreciated. ~ RobTalk 09:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Things you find on Trove ...

As is my wont, I type random former Australian rules footballer names into Trove and never ceased to be amazed by the result. This time, it was Bernie Fyffe and the first result was Fyffe&searchLimits= this, a letter written by 6 year old Bernie to Kango Children's Corner in the Melbourne Advocate. Does this count as a reliable source to add to Fyffe's article (although we can probably leave out the fact his teacher was a Miss Gregson). --Roisterer (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Trove is an extraordinary resource and we should appreciate how accessible it is ! As to the Fyffe article - presume you mean a little note could be added to a Personal Life section in reference to where he attended school. Well, letter-writer's age is same as the player's would be, and it is a relatively unusual name, so almost certainly him. Seems to be a source that could be used. RossRSmith (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Haylene Grogan

Hello football enthusiasts. This draft is about a touch football player who has played in the World Cup. I don't know anything about this kind of football. Is this a notable athlete?—Anne Delong (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Touch is a different sport and isn't covered by this project, but she doesn't look like she'd meet WP:GNG, nor any NSPORT guideline, as touch football is not played professionally anywhere. Either WP:AWNB or WT:WikiProject Rugby league may be able to help more. The-Pope (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It's gone now. I realized that it was different, but there is no project for that kind of football, so I figured maybe someone here would know.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

ISBN for AFL 2015

I recently added an ISBN of 9771839838003 to a ref for the annual AFL 2015 Season guide book. I don't have the book, I got the ISBN from the NLA and a bookstore. It's being reported as an invalid ISBN. Does anyone have a hard copy of the book to confirm if it is real or a typo? Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard copy, that's definitely the ISBN. Flickerd (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

List of VFL/AFL players club by club

I wonder what project members think of articles like this where final training lists for 1949 were announced.

"Final Training Lists Announced". The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957). Melbourne, Vic.: National Library of Australia. 11 April 1949. p. 14. Retrieved 14 August 2015.

Do you think all these names can now be added to each club's entry no matter when they actually debuted, even if a couple of years later e.g 1951 or 1952, or indeed never ? The Richmond list for example could have N Bloom and J Grey added as the Trove article shows them on the supplementary list for 1949 but neither played a senior match for the club. RossRSmith (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Would be relevant on an article for that team's season for that particular year, but if someone was on the list but never played a game, they fit into the same category as the modern day draftees who are delisted with no games to their name. Example: Jonathan Giles was originally drafted by Port Adelaide but was delisted never playing a game. Played SANFL football for both Central District and Sturt before being picked up by GWS and now Essendon and has played games for both of them. He is in the categories Central District Football Club players, Sturt Football Club players, Greater Western Sydney Giants players & Essendon Football Club players. He is not listed in the category Port Adelaide Football Club players. Screech1616 (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
So, Giles was drafted by Port Adelaide. Does he and anyone else in similar situation therefore get listed on the Port Adelaide page in a subsection of "players who were listed but never played a senior game for Port ?" RossRSmith (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Check out the list User:Flickerd has been working on at List of Melbourne Football Club players#Listed players who did not play a senior game for Melbourne. No reason we couldn't compile a similar list for the Richmond players (or any other club), where you can add any player you come across who didn't play a senior VFL/AFL game but was a listed player. Jevansen (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but as long as it is consistent for all clubs. On the other matter - career length - e.g. if player is listed in 1947, but doesn't actually play senior game until 1950, has last senior game in 1952, but is on list until 1954, is his length of career shown as 1947-1954 (squad listing) or 1950-1952 (actual playing in seniors) ? RossRSmith (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I have been quite fortunate in finding information about Melbourne players because they are all compiled together with references on Demonwiki, so that's how I've managed to find players from the earlier days. I also feel strongly about consistency across Wikipedia under certain circumstances, however I feel this may be a task that is going to be very difficult to remain consistent across all clubs. I think the way the table is at the moment shows that it is incomplete and there is also a disclaimer, I think it's fine and encourage for other clubs to have that table too, but I think it may be very difficult to complete for some. I agree that I don't think a player who hasn't played a game should be listed with players who have played games, it should be a different table. As for career length, I wrote on the List of Melbourne Football Club players talk page that I believe that when a player is listed is a truer reflection of their career as they still had an opportunity to play and took up a spot on the list, and I've seen a couple of other editors changing to that thought process too through their edits on the list. When I was reading the lead-in on the page before I started doing this, it referred to the list not necessarily reflecting when the player was listed, so I decided to see if I could find the info of when they were listed, and I have been able to. I do feel that listing only playing careers is a safe-guard if the other information can't be found, and that is the case for some clubs. I don't think it should be a one-size fits all scenario, because if the information can be found, then the list should reflect that. I think there should be appropriate disclaimers at the top of the page saying what the list displays, and I think most of the pages already do that. If other lists do decide to go down this path it also doesn't have to be done overnight, so I don't think time being a factor should deter from improving the lists. Flickerd (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It's relatively easy for the newer, draft era-only teams to create the full "list of players never to have played senior footy", for instance, I've maintained the detailed list for Fremantle. There are plenty of Giles-like scenarios, Betheras, Nettlebeck, McFarlane etc. Lists like the 1949 are great for older teams, but were the squad rules as strict back then? I know transfers between teams and leagues were widely reported, but could the "country player moves to the big smoke" stories really happen without a formal transfer? That would make the completeness of those lists very difficult to compile. Even the Footy Records didn't seem to publish full squad lists until recently. As for the other question, I'd prefer to see squad length listed, not just games played length. I'd like to see Anthony Morabito infobox show "2010-2015" (or hopefully much more games over many more seasons), not just "2010-2014" or even "2010,2014", as AFL Tables lists it, even if he doesn't get another AFL game. But I can understand, but disagree with, the opposing view. The-Pope (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm just echoing most others when I say that having players who didn't play a senior match is useful. Demonwiki obviously makes it easier for Melbourne, Blueseum would for Carlton I assume, the draft and stricter squad rules for the national expansions teams like Freo. But I don't see why it can't eventually be done for all clubs. On the question of listing the full time they were with the club, the only problem with using clearances (which do seem to be extremely accurate) is that it doesn't always accurately show when a player left what could be considered the list. E.g. a player could not play a game for a year or two and then be cleared elsewhere. It's hard to ascertain whether they were "on the list" so to speak and just injured/playing ressies/etc, or whether they were actually sitting out of the game for whatever reason (business, travelling, fighting in a war). It will be a bit of a constant refining process for players from the earlier eras as more information becomes available. But when we do actually know, we should list all years they were verifiably on the list not just when they played a senior match. Jenks24 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nicknames in article titles

As far as I can see, we have a nearly even split of how to place a nickname in the middle of an article title. Should we use double quotation marks like:

or single quote marks like:

Or should we avoid it at all costs. I'm considering what to do with Jack McKenzie (footballer). I think that Jack "Dookie" McKenzie or Jack 'Dookie' McKenzie is best, as I've barely found a ref that doesn't call him Dookie. And he did have a son also Jack who also played a few games, hence more disambiguation is needed. And there was Alex McKenzie who was also called Dookie, who played for Carlton pre-VFL.(blueseum) I haven't been able to find an MOS section to advise either way. Or, do we simply remove the first name and the quotation marks altogether and go with Chicken Smallhorn and Nipper Truscott? I think Mark Jackson (Australian footballer) is probably better than Jacko Jackson, as he was never actually called that. Opinions? The-Pope (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a fair bit of reliable source usage of "Nipper Truscott" and "Mark 'Jacko' Jackson", so they could be justified. Not sure about the others. Hack (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
In terms of which quotation marks to use, British English uses single quotation marks primarily then double quotation marks, whereas American English uses double quotation marks primarily then single quotation marks. So I would lean towards using single quotation marks for Australian footballers nicknames. Flickerd (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I personally hate to see quote-marked nicknames in article titles, and I think we should avoid them. I'd go with The Pope's final statement of using the nickname as if it were the first name in the article title where it is appropriate to do so by WP:COMMONNAME – something which really should be limited to players where the nickname is so commonly used that people would be forgiven for thinking it is the real name – but otherwise leaving the nicknames out. Of the list there, Checker Hughes, Nipper Truscott and Chicken Smallhorn are the ones which most obviously stand out to me.
Also, to put a different spin on the debate, I think it's worth considering what we would do with Lance "Buddy" Franklin. His article is Lance Franklin, but he is just as commonly known by his nickname than anyone else on that list. If you wouldn't feel comfortable officially moving his article to Buddy Franklin, then it probably wouldn't be right to move any of the others to pages based on their nicknames. Aspirex (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
nicknames are pushed harder these days especially as players are encouraged to sign them with their playing number rather than their actual name, for most once they leave football not only does their nickname become less important but they also drift off into other less notable pursuits those that retain a profile tend to drop the nickname though with some exceptions. Redirects are cheap I think the nickname in title should just point to their actual name as its more of a passing fade than something of importance for the majority.... reserve the usefulness when disambiguation is needed. Gnangarra 09:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Quotation marks are advised against at WP:NICKNAME: "avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original first name(s) in quotes between first and last name" (emphasis mine). That said, it's hardly the most strictly enforced guideline going around – as this discussion proves, it's pretty easy to find article titles that don't follow it. Personally I'd do away with them because if they ever do get mentioned at a fairly rules-conscious process like WP:RM they're likely to be renamed anyway. Most of the ones listed could simply drop the given name and if there are any that wouldn't be well enough known as simply "[nickname] [surname]" then we probably shouldn't have had the nickname in the title to begin with. Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Slow edit war

Over the past few days, an IP/new editor is repeatedly reverting to his preferred version of the Sam Mitchell (footballer) and Chris Masten articles, incorporating, IMO, far too much detail, conjecture and reaction to the kneeing and biting incidents. As it is generally referenced, I've left a lot of it, but for reasons of UNDUE/BALANCE (nevermind the capitalisation/spelling issues), I don't think it all should be there. He/she is not using edit summaries, nor reply to talk pages, so can others please review and keep an eye on it. The-Pope (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Penalty card

The parts of the Penalty card article that mention Aussie rules could do with some work. Hack (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I've recently come across a lot of new nav boxes that have been created relating to Brisbane Lions awards, I'm not quite sure what the requirements of notability for nav boxes are, but for some of them I just cannot see how they are notable. I guess I'm basing it off of other nav boxes I've seen, and I don't know if it's a case of notability or if it's a case of no one making them yet. Here are the ones that I think lack notability






{{Nigel Lappin Trophy}} {{Alastair Lynch Trophy}}

I don't want to discredit the effort that has been gone to in order to make these, but when you have an external link section that looks like Luke Power's or Simon Black's, I feel like it degrades the value of other awards. I'm not 100% sure of the requirements, so I thought I would bring it here for other opinions. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad you started this discussion, I'd been meaning to for a while. Currently I think we have way too many navboxes and I'm as guilty as anyone for this, having created my fair share. We should create some sort of rough understanding about what would be 'notable' enough for a navbox. Just focusing on club ones for the moment, I think captain, coach, leading goalkicker, B&F winner are all good. Team of the century to I guess and there's probably one or two obvious ones I'm forgetting. Outside of that, I think it's mainly just clutter but I'd be happy to listen to reasons to keep others. Jenks24 (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree completely, it's getting a bit out of hand. Can't make a case for any of those BL templates listed being notable enough for a navbox. Listing the winning players at List of Brisbane Lions individual awards and records is sufficient. I'm also not convinced we should have navboxes for club "best first-year players" and I've never ever even heard of a "desire indicator" before. Jevansen (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Most of these intra-club awards are not at all notable. They deserve at best a list on the club's list of awards or the season summary pages. Definitely no need for navboxes. Sorry User:Jjamesryan, but they aren't needed. The-Pope (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment We have whole articles for similar Collingwood Football Club awards (e.g. Gavin Brown Award, Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy, Harry Collier Trophy) that failed to gain a consensus for deletion earlier this year. Now in my mind those articles and those navboxes should be deleted; but, since those Collingwood awards are considered to meet the project's threshold of notability for an article, then it would be a fair argument that the Brisbane awards should meet the project's lower threshold of notability for a navbox. Aspirex (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
A guideline that I would go for in terms of club navboxes would be awards that all/most clubs have and that are consistently awarded i.e. not on/off and ones that have been awarded for a while. So I would agree with all the ones listed by Jenks24. I am for having a best first-year/young/rookie player navbox (even though I know some clubs haven't had them made yet) considering all clubs have an award for it, the AFL industry places a large emphasis on younger players/draftees and the reputation that has been built for the Rising Star and AFLPA first year player means that young player awards do have value. Also there are often articles during the year about "who is your club's best young player" and articles about draftees, so there is a level of coverage, as opposed to something like the club's best tackler. Flickerd (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
In response to Aspirex (I hadn't seen your comment) I had a quick read of the discussion for the AfD of the Collingwood awards, I think if we agree with enough of a consensus here then we can re-start the discussion there, the previous one just stalled from a lack of discussion, and for what it's worth I think those articles should be merged as recommended. I think if enough of a discussion is generated here then we can come up with some sort of consensus in terms of club awards, and it appears to me so far that most people agree the above awards fail to meet notability, I don't think we should just settle because of a recent lack of discussion and failed consensus (on a page that probably has less views than here). Flickerd (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Brownlow Medal winners

Could editors please keep an eye on List of Brownlow Medal winners. There is persistent disruptive editing regarding Jobe Watson's Brownlow eligibility. Jevansen (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Urgent request

It is apparent that for the past five AFL Grand Finals, no pictures of the game have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons nor uploaded to Flickr with a suitable Creative Commons license for use on Wikipedia. I hope it isn't too much to ask: will any editor here who is lucky enough to be attending the Grand Final this year be able to take some photograph and upload some pics for us to use on articles such as 2015 AFL Grand Final? It would be greatly appreciated! Philip Terry Graham 05:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll preface this by saying photography is not really my go. But I do have a couple of (probably pretty poor quality) photos I've taken on my phone over the last couple of years that might be of some use. I've just uploaded them to Commons:
None of them are of the actual game, expect the Geelong v North semi which doesn't help the no Grand Final photos predicament. The rest are of the ground on GF day but nothing of the actual match. If any of the articles get really fleshed out though, they might be decent decoration. I should hopefully be going again this year and I'll endeavour to take an actual camera this time, but can't make any promises. Also, does anyone know what sides played in the curtain raiser last year (last image on the right)? I know it was some sort of rep under-16/18 footy but that's about all I can remember. Google hasn't been any help. Jenks24 (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jenks24: These are actually some pretty good quality images! Will you be there for the Grand Final this year, may I ask? Also, I've categorized your images for you and I've made your images of the ground on Grand Final day in 2013 and 14 the infobox images for both articles on the 2013 and 14 Grand Finals. Philip Terry Graham 22:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: Thanks for both the kind words and the categorisation fixes/additions to articles. I'm honestly a bit (pleasantly) surprised anyone thinks they're worthwhile. And I will be going to the Grand Final this year, barring some unforeseen disaster. Hopefully I'll be remember to take some pictures of the actual match this time. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
While we're at it, could we get a nicer infobox picture for AFL Grand Final than an out-of-date smoke-obscured scene from a pre-match show? Aspirex (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Aspirex: I don't see anything wrong with the image. I think in that situation it's more important to have a unique, identifiable image to depict the AFL Grand Final as a whole, rather than just slap on whatever is the latest image of it. @Jenks24: Did ya get any pics? :D Philip Terry Graham 02:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I shouldn't have emphasised the out-of-date part – it's the fact that the field is obscured by smoke (with no brightness from the fireworks that created it) and the generally sub-par lighting of the picture that disappoints me. Very unglamorous photo. Aspirex (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: got a few pics, they're all up at commons:Category:2015 AFL Grand Final now. I'm afraid they're all just phone pictures again so the quality isn't brilliant. File:2015 AFL Grand Final opening bounce.jpg is probably the pick of the bunch, it shows the game about to start. Jenks24 (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jenks24: Awesome! Though, I'd recommend using this image instead to use for the infobox on the 2015 AFL Grand Final article; it's definitely a prettier shot, with the glow of the sunset, and some Hawthorn fans celebrating in the foreground and whatnot. Thanks so very much for uploading those images! :3 Philip Terry Graham 18:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Switched. I wasn't sure if that one was too dark, but I'll take your word that it's the better photo. Thanks for the kind words. Jenks24 (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't Phil Walsh be included in Port Adelaide coaches template?

I noticed that the Template:Port Adelaide Football Club Coaches includes (in italics) caretaker coaches of Port Adelaide but Phil Walsh is not included. Walsh took over coaching responsibilities from Mark Williams for one match following the death of Fos Williams. If Alan Richardson is included as a coach on the basis for filling in for Ken Hinkley when the latter was battling the flu, then surely Walsh should be included as well. What do people think? --Roisterer (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Connolly included for the one game he took over from Schwab? Did whoever took over from Brad Scott this year included? And I dare not mention the mysterious game 714 Grand Final for Jock McHale! Inconsistency is the AFL's middle name. As for this case... I have no idea, didn't know it even happened. The-Pope (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
For me, the answer is to exclude Walsh and Richardson from the Port Adelaide template (and likewise to exclude Connolly and Bolton from the Hawthorn template). There is a clear difference between a caretaker coach who replaces the senior coach after he is sacked, and a fill-in coach who performs the senior coach's role when the senior coach is unavailable – and that difference is that the caretaker coach clearly moves up a rung in the organisation while the fill-in coach does not. For coaching statistics, we need to defer to an official source; and unfortunately we can't rely on AFL Tables because it still incorrectly shows Rush as Collingwood's 1930 GF coach despite the AFL's unequivocal clarification. Aspirex (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
-- "AFL's unequivocal clarification" What a joke that was ! Clarke (St Kilda) ill in hospital, AFL still recognise caretaker coach; Barassi (Nth Melb) in hospital after car accident, AFL still recognise caretaker coach, Hale (Hawthorn) in hospital after car accident, AFL still recognise caretaker coach, McHale (Collingwood) ill at home, AFL refuses to recognise caretaker coach - clear case of double-standards being applied. RossRSmith (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Aspirex that it makes most sense to remove all stand-in coaches, although I'm not sure about the point on official AFL sources. I think the AFL officially credits Bolton as the coach of Hawthorn for however many games last year and really the only reason they don't for Rush is because of sentimentality and that it would have buggered up their count this year. Jenks24 (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with you there; I think we start going down a slippery slope if we include all coaches who filled in for a week or so while the coach was ill/bereaved/otherwise indisposed. --Roisterer (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
As long as decision one way or the other is consistent across all clubs. Presume it is realised that some "caretaker" coaches were in place for anywhere between four to eight weeks ? They'll have to be deleted [or recently discovered ones not included] as well as the one/two week "fill-in" names. ALMOST ALL club templates will have to changed. In practical terms then entries like - Feltham (Bears) and Camporeale (Adelaide) to remain shown, but entries for e.g. Guy (St Kilda) and Cameron (North Melbourne) to be removed ? RossRSmith (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
So what do we reckon then ? Should Frank Davis be added to the Melbourne template for his week in 1979 as caretaker for suspended Ditterich, or do we remove all caretaker coaches whether their number of matches on duty was one, four, eight, whatever ? RossRSmith (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me like there's agreement to remove all caretakers, in the sense of people who were only filling in. For the Melbourne template, the only change I can see would be removing Barassi from 1964 (Checker Hughes would be kept in 1965). That would mean Davis isn't added. Jenks24 (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of icons

I suppose there's been a bit of a slow-burn – not really an edit war, but certainly a difference in style choice – relating to the use of team icons in articles, the key proponents Thejoebloggsblog adding icons and and Flickerd removing them on an WP:ICONDECORATION basis. Seeing that Thejoebloggsblog has just put icons back into the List of Australian Football League premiers article and Flickerd has reverted it, I think it's time to get a project consensus.

I'm personally in favour of the use of club icons in the main table of List of Australian Football League premiers, and of any table like it where there is a long list of teams and the key information to be conveyed is the frequency and grouping of a club's entries (e.g. how many flags, and in which periods did a club dominate). By my read of the WP:ICONDECORATION clause, I would say that in a list such as this one, the icons do indeed "serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension", which is a valid reason for including them. It allows readers to identify periods of club dominance at a visual glance, which counts as improved comprehension to me.

I am opposed to using the icons in most other cases, such as:

  • Tables where each club is listed only once, such as the "premierships by team" table in the same article. Since frequency or grouping are irrelevant in such a table, the icons don't help comprehension and therefore serve just as decoration. Using icons for the premiers and minor premiers in season infoboxes.
  • Anywhere that the club name is the supporting information rather than the main information. For example, in List of Brownlow Medal winners, the important factor is the player's name rather than his club; if the club names all had icons, that would distract from the players' names and make the reader more likely to focus on clubs which have dominated Brownlow counts – in other words, it doesn't aid comprehension. Using icons for Brownlow Medallists or Coleman Medallists in season infoboxes has the same issue.

I guess the other issue is copyright, as I've seen icons removed and re-uploaded on an ongoing basis for a while now. They don't seem to have that issue in the rugby league articles where they've developed their own icons with the team colours in diagonal square patterns rather than a likeness of the guernsey. etc. (See Template:League_icon) Perhaps we should adopt that same style. Aspirex (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

My issue is that I don't believe they serve an encyclopedic purpose as listing the name is enough for identification purposes. Also when reading any sort of AFL book or a physical encyclopedia, icons would never be used. Even if adding the icons were intended to be for encyclopedic use, I don't think this is the case, and rather they're just used as decoration per Thejoebloggsblog's request here on the Manual of Style/Icons talk page. I find the icons distracting which is one of the reasons on WP:ICONDECORATION and I don't agree that they "serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension" in this case. I know it's something that not everyone will agree on, but it is something that has reached some sort of consensus already at that guideline, and I don't think they are necessary as they wouldn't be used in physical/book form. In terms of the list of AFL premiers page, and the icons showing a period of dominance and number of flags won, sorting by team can give the exact same information without the use of icons, and I don't believe that aids comprehension either. Flickerd (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Is it easier to comprehend this table or this one? I think the icons add something - it's easier to see trends and multiple premierships. After spending too many hours watching NRL and AFL, I look for the colours in that NRL table as opposed to the team names. I think the logo icons are much easier to read than the coloured bands however. Terlob (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It's probably obvious what my opinion will be and I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate, but I honestly find List of Super Bowl champions easier to comprehend than List of NRL Premiers as I prefer the ability to sort to see trends that way. It's going to be something where people have different preferences and opinions. I don't follow NRL closely, but I'm still aware of teams, having the colours does not provide more comprehension for me, and to be honest I find the NRL table a bit overwhelming at first glance, and would personally look for periods of dominance by sorting. I believe that the first point of identification for most people is team name rather than colours, as casual watchers of sport aren't going to be aware of colours for all teams in a league. I'm not a big fan of the colour bands either, but they portray different information in this case, so I don't think the use of colour bands or icons is mutually exclusive. Flickerd (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't personally use the sort function very often, and to each his own; but I will say that where sorting falls short of a visual cue is when compiling information from adjacent columns – i.e. identifying a periods of frequent Grand Final appearances where some are won and some are lost. Aspirex (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Flickerd's argument. Additionally, one day it would be nice to see a few of these lists reach WP:FL status and be featured on the main page and there's no way an article with all those icons would pass FLC. Jenks24 (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Aspirex In regard to the copyright the icons have slowly become more and more generic. The only icons that are pushing the boundaries at the moment are that of Carlton, GWS and Brisbane. If these get taken down they can be simplified further. Generic shapes and colours have no protection under copyright. I think the icons add a significant amount to the articles. The icons in question... File:AFL Brisbane Icon.jpg Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A bit late to the discussion, but I'll add my two cents. This has also been an ongoing discussion on the A-League task force. In my opinion in some cases the icons can be a helpful visual cue and aid comprehension. I feel that the advocation of removing the icons and WP:ICONDECORATION is mostly biased and fails to take into consideration that different people learn and process data in different ways. For some people words can be the best way, while for others visual images can be the way to go, while others will benefit most from audio. As a whole, Wikipedia currently caters mostly to learning through a word-based way, which is unfortunate because I do believe it should cater to as many as possible. To do that we can use visual aids (such as icons), audio aids (such as recordings of articles, which we do not have enough of IMO, though I do recognise the difficulty in it, as articles change often). From all of this I would say to keep the icons, especially in places where they can serve to see patterns as Aspirex mentioned above. --SuperJew (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

AFL Ladders

I've noticed for quite some time that the AFL/VFL ladders are still mostly hardcoded. We have to input Games Played, Wins, Draws, Losses, Points For, Points Against, Percentage and Points. Out of these Played, Percentage and Points could be calculated based on the others (W+D+L, PF/PA*100, W*4+D*2). In soccer there has nearly always been templates which require the minimum input and the rest is calculated, with lately the Sports table module (specifically WDL) making it easier than ever. Is it not time Australian Football can use these kinds of tables? Either as a separate template, or another spin-off from the Module.

I have personally wanted to work on it for a while, but have not found the time due to my uni workload. And I'm not entirely sure if I have the technical skill for it. I'd love to hear ideas for implantation or even better if someone has time and ability to pick up the glove.

--SuperJew (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I generally resist this sort of change because there is seldom a one-size-fits-all solution. I still feel burned by the Infobox team when they swooped in, merged our Australian Football Team infobox with a generic Sports Team box, left us stuck with non-Australian terminology for everything then washed their hands of responsibility. In this case it's not that difficult to make the templates (remembering that South Australia and the rest of Australia need different templates) – but then when events like the Phil Walsh death (each team got two points but it wasn't considered a draw) or something like a Melbourne Storm salary cap event (still having a win-loss record but finishing with no points) then we're back to doing it manually. When I was writing the 1980s VFA season articles, many of which were full of forfeitures which were treated in different ways, I needed the flexibility of manual inputs. Anyway, for me, I have no problem with the templates being made, but I'm opposed to going back and switching any old ladders into the new template – and personally I'd advocate switching any finished season's ladder into to manual inputs once the year is finished to prevent any old ladders from being accidentally messed up by future changes to templates. Aspirex (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I see your point about the irregularities and I can assure you they've been problems in other sports too. For example Last season in the A-League, where Perth Glory were dropped to 7th place due to the salary cap scandal (easily fixed in the ladder just by changing the position number) or Last season in the IPL, where Maccabi and Hapoel Tel Aviv had points deducted for violence (fixed with the "dp" parameter, which could apply in a situation like the Phil Walsh death, but with a negative number to award points w/out games). Regardless these are the irregularities, and not the general case.
I also don't think it is necessary to switch old ladders into a new template. A new template would be first and foremost to make maintaining these ladders during the season easier for the editors.
--SuperJew (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not inherently against this, presuming it does make inputs easier while at the same time not losing any flexibility. However, I'd like to see some sort of mock-up before we start implementing anything. Modules are completely beyond me (the little 'coding' I do know is from fiddling with templates here), but the first thing that leaps out at me is that Module:Sports table does not appear to offer WLD, which is how Australian football ladders are displayed. Jenks24 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The Sports table is the general case. Have a look at this offshoot, which is WLD. The A-League implements it nicely. If I have some spare time, assuming no one else gets to it, I'll try and fiddle with it a bit in my sandbox. --SuperJew (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't noticed that the WDL module could so easily be switched to use WLD. I'll be interested to see how you go. Jenks24 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I was asked about this before, and I did a self-calculating trial template in User:The-Pope/sandboxLadder, which is shown in use at User:The-Pope/sandboxLaddercall. In terms of doing the variations for forfeits etc, you could try to make the calcs all optional, ie if there is a number there, it uses the number, if not, then it calcs itself. Not sure if that will work with unnamed parameters though, I don't know enough about the intricacies of template coding to be sure. Anyone who wants to play in my Sandboxes, please feel free! The-Pope (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aspirex:@Jenks24:@The-Pope: Ok. So with a lot of help, the Module has been adapted and can be used for footy. Don't worry Aspirex, it's also very easy to adapt it to SANFL point system. I have a trial here in my sandbox. Please have a look and let me know if there's anything you don't understand and/or should be better explained in comments on the source page. If there are no reasons against, we can start implementing this on the upcoming seasons. --SuperJew (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks to you and Qed237 for the work. Pinging other potentially interested editors: Flickerd, TheLabRats, MasterMind5991, Heusie18, Purrum. They all contributed to Template:AFL Ladder/2015 this year, hope I didn't miss anyone. Jenks24 (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
As I said to SuperJew when I tried to help him with this on the module talkpage, I am happy that I can help. This module started for soccer, to improve updating and reduce use of templates (before it was several templates inside a table). It has now grown and is being used across multiple sports like soccer, handball, icehockey, basketball and so on. There is a lot of different possibilities and it can be used in many different way, depending on a lot of settings that can be set. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me or write on the talkpage of the module. Qed237 (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. The only issue I have with it is the right column for qualification, is that hard-coded in the template or is it easily removed? I just feel that column is best suited once the top 8 is decided, because it could potentially create confusion in, for example, round 10 where there are teams in the top 8, but may not necessarily make the finals. I've seen these tables/ladders on pages such as world cups where it is subsectioned into pools and when a country is coloured it means they have qualified for the finals, I just feel it could be easily confused. Plus it would be great to have it look as close to the previous template as possible for consistency. Otherwise, great job! Flickerd (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The column is "hard-coded" together with the colours I am afraid, and that for two different reasons. Previously there was one format for leagues, where colors and column already existed from the start, and different cups, where colours had different meanings (like for example that the team had qualified) and no column was used. This was discussed a lot before the module creation (and also sometimes afterwards) with consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football to have the same format both on leagues and cups. The decision was then to use the league format, with the column and colours from the start, as it was most compliant with MOS for colors because some readers may be colorblind and we should not use only colors to indicate things. With that, we have statusletters to indicate if a team has qualified or not. If a team TTT has qualified simply put |status_TTT=Q and they will have a bolded "(Q)" next to their name with the explanation "(Q): Qualified to the phase indicated" below the table. These statusletters can often be removed after all matches has been played as the position is then indication if the team qualified or not. Qed237 (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I've implemented it in the current season. Feel free to talk about any issues/worries/ideas/improvements. --SuperJew (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I am just unsure as to whether the new template is good enough as the AFL can have points adjusted and changed, eg. Phil Walsh match cancelled. This also happened in the NRL and A-League with salary cap issues as mentioned above. I just don't really understand why you would want to change something that is already working? Thanks, TheLabRats (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Also, every time a team changes position, you will need to chnage the team name up to 7 times. I dont understand how it is hard to just add 4 points onto a winning team and do the percentage on the calculator. I also think with the points for and points against system, it really only makes it easier for other lower-scoring sports such as Rugby and Soccer, where the total number of points is much less. Just my opinion, TheLabRats (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I just edited the new ladder and believe it took way too long to update this. The other version was much quicker to edit, without having to change the team name 9 times! Can anyone tell me why we are even using this new format for AFL?? TheLabRats (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Attendance figures adjusted

See here. Apparently 146 matches (from 1909 to 1990, all at the G) have had their official attendance figures adjusted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated all the Grand Finals and the seasons between 1960–1990 so far, and I need to break now. --SuperJew (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

AFL/VFL/club season class?

Just a quick question, should the season pages i.e. 2015 AFL season, 2015 Adelaide Football Club season, be classed as lists or rated articles (i.e. start class)? I would have thought they would be rated articles, but I noticed 1897–2012 have been classed as lists, and the more recent ones are rated articles (mostly start class). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

They should be rated as articles IMO. Some of these sorts of pages lack prose so I can understand why they were classed as lists, but in an ideal world they would all be expanded with significant sections of writing. Also, season articles go through WP:FA not WP:FL as far as I'm aware. Jenks24 (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, they need to be written as articles to be classified as articles. As Jenks24 says, they need prose, and very few of them do. Aspirex (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Images from Trove newspapers

Does anyone have any suggestions for how these should ideally be, err, 'extracted' to get the best quality image? In the past I've just used screenshot and then uploaded that, but on reflection I thought someone with photoshop skills or the like might have a better suggestion. Asking mainly in relation to this which should be a good source of images for about 30 players, most of whom I assume won't already have a pic on Wikipedia. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A brief check of the item concerned, as made available on TROVE, indicates that:
(a) the "JPG" version available is of no better quality that that of the page already on display here,
(b) the "PDF" version available in not only less clear than the page already on display, but also is presented in such a mangled way that almost each and every one of the original images is cropped (and, therefore, useless for your purpose),
(c) in relation to taking "screenshots" . . . when the page on display is placed on full magnification the images are still rather small,
(d) [from (c)] the images' sizes can, however, be further enlarged IF you (i) use the "ZOOM" function on your browser, and (ii) use the "System Preferences" function to change your computer screen's "display" from vertical to horizontal,
(e) the move described at (d.ii) will allow you to display a much larger image (although it will be "sideways") for you to use as the "original" for your screenshot (and, further, obviously, once the "sideways" screenshot has been taken, it can be "rotated" back to an "upright" presentation before saving it).
(f) it will need some initial experimentation on your part to determine precisely what combination of magnification and ZOOMING gives you the best screenshot -- for example, you might find, in a particular case, that the maximum magnification of the "original" page (as set by the sliding scale at the right-hand bottom) modified by ZOOMING "out" (to make a smaller image) produces a better image for your purposes than the maximum magnification of the "original" page modified by ZOOMING "in" (to make a larger image).
(g) As with many of these old journals -- which are only available in bound copies -- the section of the pages at the bound edges are useless. (This means that the only possibility of establishing the content of text or the features of image at the bound edge is to locate an institution that has a physical copy of the journal whose staff are amenable to a request for a complete image of the page.)
(h) In relation to the issue raised at (g) . . . An examination of the "BUY" option available on the TROVE site does not suggest that taking such an additional step would end up with you receiving a top grade photograph of the original page (which, obviously, was printed on high quality glossy paper).
As a final tip, apart from the issues of correcting/adjusting/manipulating the various aspects of the images produced by the process outlined above . . . with all of your screen shots, regardless of however you might decide to eventually present the results of your enterprise, wherever it is possible to do so, always work with the infinitely-adjustable TIFF format, rather than the adjustable-only-by-designated-steps JPEG format (see JPEG#Sample_photographs). Hope that helps, Lindsay658 (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the detailed response, it's greatly appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Pleasure, Lindsay658 (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dave McGrath

Following on from a discussion at Jevansen's talk page (see User talk:Jevansen#Alan Thomson), I'm wondering if anyone else can have more luck finding a source to officially confirm that Dave McGrath (footballer, born 1872) is the same person as Charles McGrath (notable for being a politician). They have the same dob/dod and Dave's full name is "David C. McGrath" to Charles' full name of "David Charles McGrath". The politician's son, Dave McGrath (footballer, born 1899), also played for Fitzroy. Taking all this into account, they are almost certainly one person, but I think to merge the articles without first finding a source to confirm it would be a WP:SYNTH violation. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Found an interesting thread on BigFooty that deals with this, but doesn't solve anything. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Interesting read, thanks. Pity they haven't got the bottom of it either (and are sceptical he even played in his one VFL match!). I note one of the posters in that thread must be WhiteHartLane who has done some great work here. Jenks24 (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Following on a bit from the discussion here about navboxes a few months ago and more directly from a discussion at my talk page, User talk:Jenks24#Collingwood award templates. I think we should largely do away with any remaining succession boxes that are in use amongst this project. Either the award or position is notable enough for a navbox, in which case having a succession box us just duplicating content, or the award/position is not notable enough for a navbox, in which case the succession boxes should also be removed as non-notable. Thoughts? Jenks24 (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn on succession boxes, I am in agreement that there doesn't need to be a succession box if there is a navbox, i.e. B&F, captain and so on. However, I would prefer to have an acknowledgment of an award in a succession box compared to having it in the career highlights, and even though there is acknowledgment of the award within the prose, it can sometimes be lost. Per the discussion on Jenks24's talkpage, I think it is perfectly appropriate to have succession boxes for the Collingwood awards, however, it becomes hard when to draw the line, as we don't want a whole lot of clutter at the bottom of the page, so do we just keep it to the notable awards with navboxes to avoid this issue? I'm unsure. I am content with either way it goes, but I think it's good to have some sort of stand out acknowledgment of awards received and am probably leaning towards keeping the succession boxes as it is an easier way visually to recognise the achievements of the player as opposed to it being lost in the article, and I think it would be manageable if it became too cluttered as I can't foresee too many pages having this issue as there is a limited amount of awards per B&F night. Flickerd (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I just can't really see the logic in replacing the navboxes for these minor awards with succession boxes that are more prominent (for a less important award than what still has navboxes), more bulky and less functional. If we are going to have a succession box for something it may as well be converted into a navbox. Or am I missing something? Jenks24 (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Could some of these awards be moved up to the players infobox? Prominent players like Gary Ablett, Jr. have so much clutter at the bottom of the page - he has 14 succession boxes and 19 navboxes (Not including the additional nested navboxes), including a couple of duplicates. Terlob (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I can see both sides of the argument, so maybe we do just do away with club awards as an extra mention and just have it written in the article? Looking at Joel Selwood's, he has 16 succession boxes, the one's with navboxes already are "captain of Geelong", "IRS captain"," Ron Evans Medal", "Michael Tuck Medal", and "Carji Greeves Medal".
The rest of his succession boxes are club awards, which lack notability for their own navbox but the succession boxes do link to the List of Geelong Football Club individual awards and records; and boxes for AFLCA and AFLPA awards, do the AFLPA/CA awards have enough notability for their own navbox? Considering it's awarded to one player a year and for the whole competition they do have more notability than the club awards, but have the navboxes just not been made yet, or are there other notability reasons? Then there are a couple of records "AFL premiership / Rising Star Award double, Only player to win AFL Rising Star Award and play in an AFL premiership in the same year" and "Most career Brownlow Medal votes ever received by a Geelong Football Club player". I've thought for a long time that the bottom of his page is too cluttered, but his page is a WP:featured article and it was promoted when he had numerous succession boxes [4].
I am really sitting on the fence for this mainly because there are some awards that I think should be highlighted that currently don't have navboxes, more so the industry awards (i.e. AFLCA/AFLPA), and if they have their own navboxes then I am happy to remove succession boxes altogether as I have thought a bit more about club awards since the above response and they don't really need succession boxes. I would like to know other people's opinions on making navboxes for industry awards first though before they are created (the specific navboxes that might be created; AFLPA awards: Template:AFLPA best captain, Template:Robert Rose award (most courageous player), and Template:AFLPA best first year player; AFLCA awards: Template:AFLCA best young player of the year; Template:Allan Jeans award (senior coach of the year)). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather just have them in the career highlights section - if someone wants to look at the history of those awards they can always go straight to the article. Terlob (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that. I don't think there's any sense duplicating the career highlights section into bulkier succession boxes. Not to mention that succession boxes are rarely updated as well as navboxes, e.g. Selwood's article still has him as the incumbent "Captain of Australia". I don't think FAC normally takes a lot of concern with what's at the footer of the page – they certainly haven't the few times I've participated there. I think the intraclub awards and "records" can obviously go. They can be mentioned in the prose or career highlights if at all. Regarding the AFLPA/AFLCA awards, I think most of them would be notable so I see no problem with creating navboxes for them to replace the current succession boxes. It certainly seems a better solution than leaving the succession boxes to linger indefinitely. Jenks24 (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Similar discussion going on for NFL at the moment: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Succession boxes?. Jenks24 (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a current push to remove NavBoxes as per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 28#Brisbane Lions navboxes, now whilst some can be a bit trivial, they certainly do add value to a number of articles. At the moment all the All-Australian ones do not typically fit WP:NAVBOX criterion #4 because there is not a dedicated article on each AA team, but deleting these would be a poor outcome. Personally I have dedicated hours to creating NavBoxes for State of Origin teams (information that is poorly covered elsewhere) and would hate to see this work undone. Personally I think that Navboxes are a great way of linking articles together and add to the overall Wikipedia experience.Screech1616 (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite accurate that there's a push to remove navboxes. Rather there is a push to remove non-notable navboxes of which this project seems to have accumulated more than a few over the last few years. If you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 6#Navigational box notability? you will see pretty broad agreement that many of these types of navboxes were unnecessary bloat (though there was some debate about edge cases, e.g. best first year/young player awards). In the case of the Lions navboxes, even the creator of them now agrees about their deletion. Regarding the AA templates, I think they would be kept because, while not all AA years have articles, there are plenty that do (2015 All-Australian team, 2014 All-Australian team, 2013 All-Australian team, etc.) which shows that most (all?) AA years are notable even if articles haven't been created for them yet. I mean ideally we would create articles before navboxes but what's done is done. I'm not sure about the SOO navboxes, I'd be interested in hearing what others think. Jenks24 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the case with this project is that there isn't a large number of active editors in comparison to other sports, therefore, a main reason for why there aren't certain pages isn't because they lack notability but because they just haven't been created yet, for example, it's why there aren't created pages for All-Australian and the Brownlow Medal in the earlier years, they both have notability, but just haven't been made yet. Flickerd (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair call and that probably makes more sense, the State of Origin ones certainly would have notability (definite coverage in multiple newspapers), but no corresponding pages yet. I had halted my work on them concerned that they would be wiped away in an act of pedantry, but my fears may be relieved in this case.Screech1616 (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Best first year/young player navboxes

Hi,

Continuing with the vein of discussion regarding deletion/keeping of navboxes, I wanted to reopen the discussion about best first year/young player. As has been previously mentioned by Flickerd "all clubs have an award for it, the AFL industry places a large emphasis on younger players/draftees and the reputation that has been built for the Rising Star and AFLPA first year player means that young player awards do have value. Also there are often articles during the year about "who is your club's best young player" and articles about draftees, so there is a level of coverage." I agree with this statement and think it should be included in our "notable list" with captains, coaches, leading goalkickers and B&F winners. Comment your thoughts below. --SuperJew (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The pool of players eligible for each club's "best first year player" is too small to be treated as a serious award, in my opinion. A couple of years ago, Carlton's award went to Irishman Ciarán Sheehan who had played four end-of-season games. I don't consider these awards notable enough for anything but a one-line mention in the individual club season pages. Aspirex (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
At the time of writing that statement I did believe that best first year/young player should have its own navbox, but not its own page. At the time I wasn't aware of the WP:NAVBOX criterion and WP:NENAN and since the recent deletions of the club navboxes, I've slightly changed my stance. I still believe there is importance for young players, but the particular award doesn't meet Wikipedia notability due to the award only having a trivial mention in articles. I do believe the award should be acknowledged within the player's article though (i.e. within the prose). There are still a few clubs with best first year/young player navboxes, and I will TfD them soon for consistency with the deletion of the Collingwood navbox. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what damage these types of Navboxes do, and the whole effort to delete these types of instances does seem overly pedantic. As someone who has created 80+ Navboxes over the years as when I am browsing Wikipedia I find they often add more to the articles than the actual content, it is most disappointing. An award Navbox puts the award into context, gives a single view history of who has won and where that person sits in it. The list of navboxes at the bottom of the article gives a great graphical representation of the achievements of the subject. Maybe as a project we should define what is notable within our sport for things like this and use that as our guideline. In general there seems to be a growing focus on removing content rather than using that effort to add more. Undecided at the moment, but I am starting to lose the passion for putting more effort in as there always seems to be someone looking for a clause to undo your work, I might be done. Screech1616 (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Kangaroo guernseys

is this article about guernseys really notable as an article rather than just a paragraph in the club's main article? --SuperJew (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah, shouldn't be an article. Just redirect it to the relevant subsection of the North Melbourne page. Probably a copyright violation, given it just appears to have taken images from footyjumpers.com. Aspirex (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. Hope it was okay technically. --SuperJew (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

22under22 team

Hi, just asking a quick question. There's been a lot of talk about navboxes recently, and I was wondering if, in other's opinions, the 22under22 teams from 2012 to present are notable. I think they are, but I tend to be quite generous on the "notable" side. Thanks, Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 16:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

In terms of notability, 22under22 does receive some independent coverage [5] [6] [7] [8], albeit it's not overly extensive. I think it's notable enough to have the 22 Under 22 team main page, but probably not to have individual years of 22under22, i.e. 2015 22 under 22 team. Therefore, I'm leaning towards not having the navboxes. We also don't want to fall into the habit of having a navbox/page for every representative/honorary team in the AFL. The media surrounding AFL is continually growing, and as it does there's going to be more and more "team of the years", for example last year was the first time where there was an AFLCA All-Australian team [9], so I think we should try and limit the "team of the year" type pages/navboxes. Flickerd (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Thought it might be along those lines, but just making sure. Don't think the 22 under 22 teams deserve lone articles at all either, just on the general 22 Under 22 team is right at the moment unless they get significantly more media attention. Meanwhile, I'm going to add the AFLCA TOTY to the AFL Coaches Association Awards page, didn't even know it existed. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 05:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the AFLCA AA team was a once-off or if it will be annual thing, I guess we'll have to see at the end of this season. Flickerd (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

While we're on the subject...

Would anyone object to a navbox for the Essendon 34? (Or for the supplements saga in general?) Aspirex (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on the notability cause we've been talking these past weeks, seems fine to me. Has it's own page and is expansively and independently covered.
Where would you categorise it? Under awards or achievements? :P --SuperJew (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My proposal for the box:

Aspirex (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'm happy to have this navbox created and transclude into relevant articles. Flickerd (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
For accessibility reasons, you may want to tweak those colours. Hack (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
That's currently the colours of all Essendon-related navboxes, so if you do change them, you should do it to all Essendon-related navboxes. --SuperJew (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification of FLRC

I have nominated Mark of the Year for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

About new article Harry Blinman

Hi all,
Just a quick note about this. I started this article yesterday, and it would seem that Blinman is the same person described on the australianfootball.com website. (I also really wish that website had a Wikipedia page, but that's another story.) Would be great if those of you with non-internet sources - namely those primitive wood-pulp and printer's-ink based references that I believe are called "books" - could have a look at this.
Thanks! Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Who needs paper?
Thanks for those, Your Goaliness. Still looking for references that WP:VERIFY that the cricketer Harry Blinman born 30 December 1861 was the same bloke as the Harry Blinman born 30 December 1861 who played... oh hang on, he played a total of "-" games for the Redlegs... that would explain it. Pete "bloody obviously not as smart as he would like to think he is" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
PS: with respect to this thread, I was seriously pleased that I snapped up a Queensland State of Origin replica jersey at Indooroopilly Shopping Town some time last decade for only $AU 100 instead of the usual $AU 148. Have I mentioned that it's bloody obvious that I'm not as smart as I would like to think I am?
Ah, Blinman has been on my long list of to-do articles for some time. This will (should) give me motivation to go through the South Australian cricket history books I have and see what I can add. --Roisterer (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Is "-" games the same as "0" games? Hack (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope, it means they've got a source saying he played those years but they're not sure how many games. This article confirms that he also played football for Norwood. At a glance, it appears he was the better cricketer and his brother was the better footballer. Jenks24 (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Confused – Fred MacQuire

So, I was going through old players' pages, mostly disambiguating etc. when I noticed this. The Wikipedia article Fred MacQuire lists him as a North Melbourne player who played 2 games in 1956 (for no goals), who was born on 4 May 1938 and died on 19 December 2012. The only AFL Tables listing of Fred MacQuire also played for the Roos in 1956, but he played 10 games in that year, and continued to play until '59, playing 15 games for 2 goals. He is listed as being born on 12 November 1936. The article links to that page, and there aren't any other Fred MacQuires (or McQuires, Macquires or Mcquires) on the site. Also, the AFL Tables' Fred is 183cm / 84kg, and the Wikipedia Fred is 178cm /74kg. What is going on here? Can't work it out. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 00:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted. The AustralianFootball.com external link on Fred MacQuire leads to a profile on Ian Crewes. Comparing the two Wikipedia articles it looks like they're identical, other than original team. MacQuire's article was created a minute after Crewes so I suspect it's just an editing error. Jevansen (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
There may, in fact, be another entirely different element of confusion in the whole matter that makes it even more complicated! In his debut game he was listed, in The Argus as MacGuire: [10]; same with The Age: [11]; [12]. Perhaps, a search for his birth records, electoral lists, marriage, etc. might reveal his correct family name. It would not be the first time that officials at a VFL club, or at VFL headquarters, made an inadvertent error in hurriedly registering a player at the last minute -- or, even, perhaps, clumsily wrote a captital letter "Q" that was easily confused with a capital letter "G", rather than writing the capital letter "Q" as if it were a "2" in reverse -- when registering a player. Lindsay658 (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Also MacGuire at: [13]. Lindsay658 (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
This photo of him has surname as Macquire http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/71650554 RossRSmith (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I've created the redirect from Fred MacGuire to Fred MacQuire. It is incredibly hard to be sure of exact spelling - even birth/marriage/death notices sometimes get it wrong, if they were phoned in/re-typed etc. The Footy Record has MacGuire in the Under 19s and MacQuire in the seniors. The-Pope (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's three items that may clarify part of the problem, and make another part of the problem a little more complex: (1) identification as "MacQuire" and as a fishmonger: [14]; (2) Clear identification as Macquire, rather than MacQuire, in a source that, all things being equal, ought to be trusted to quite an extent: [15], at page 3; and, further (3) Another identification as Macquire, rather than MacQuire [16]. Given that it is reasonable to assume that both (2) and (3) come from the family itself, and that the reporter in (3) would have made sure of the spelling of the name in such an unusual way, I suggest that (a) the family name be presented as Macquire, (b) some reference made in the article to the various spellings of his name by North Melbourne and VFL officials, and (c) the article be re-titled (with appropriate re-directs) as Fred Macquire.Lindsay658 (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
In support, also see [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], etc.Lindsay658 (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, [28].Lindsay658 (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This is for the general information of all Aussie Rules editors.

In many cases a photograph pertinent to a particular article (such as [29]) exists but can not (because of copyright reasons) be uploaded into Wikipedia -- even under the Wikpedia's "fair use" rules.
Yet, within the restrictions of those same sorts of Wikipedia "fair use" rules, there is a way to draw readers' attention to the photograph in question -- and allow them to view it immediately -- without having an obscure set of linkages hidden away somewhere within a mass of footnotes.
The secret lies in the Wikipedia's capacity to present what it classes "external media" in a prominent location, on the page of an article, through the application of a specific template (that not only allows images to be directly linked to the article, but also other other media, such as audio and video clips).
It would seem that -- always provided that the image's original "distributor" has not breached copyright -- there is no impediment to presenting such a link on a Wikipedia page.
The Wikipedia template is fully explained at: Template:External media.
Three actual examples of the application of the external media template: Norman Hetherington (displaying images), Maud Jeffries#J.B.N. Osborne (displaying images), and Nicolas Rasmussen#Footnotes (displaying audio and video items). And, finally, two from Aussie Rules articles: Jack Dyer#Personal life, and Fred Macquire#Football.Lindsay658 (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Australian Football Media Association MVP

Does anyone know whether or not the Australian_Football_Media_Association_Player_of_the_Year is still a thing? I can't really find much on it over the past few years, but maybe it's changed names or something. The article goes up to 2010, so it's either missing five entries or it's missing a sentence explaining that the award is defunct. Aspirex (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Haven't heard of it being presented for a while now. The Collingwood Forever website also states that it has not been presented since 2010. RossRSmith (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Joe Wilson (Australian footballer)

Could anyone help complete the GA process here please? The nominator is absent and it needs some changes to pass GA. Thanks.--EchetusXe 17:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

500 goal players

Hello all,

I recently finished the creation of List of VFL/AFL players to have scored 500 goals, which as you can imagine took me some time. Frustratingly however, only a few hours after creation, I found List of Australian Football League all-time leading goalkickers. While I will begrudgingly admit that the second article is better and the first is now worth zip, I think that "List of VFL/AFL players to have scored 500 goals" is a better title, especially to conform with List of VFL/AFL players to have played 300 games. So, I've come here to see whether others agree or disagree with deleting the "500 goals" article and then moving the "all-time leading goalkickers" article to the "500 goals" title, or whether others have other ideas. Thanks, Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 00:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the '500 goals' title is better. It's unambiguous. Aspirex (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Only one response here so I'm going to go ahead and do it. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 23:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Should Watson's Brownlow have an asterisk now?

I think that List of Brownlow Medal winners should not have any asterisks or notes about Watson's suspension, until the AFL Commission makes a decision. Mr IP disagrees but won't discuss it. What do others think? The-Pope (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The verdict of doping is guilty, which means his performance was affected. I think the note should stay regardless of if the AFL decide to take the medal away retroactively or not, as his win wasn't the regular win of the Brownlow. --SuperJew (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The AFL did put an asterisk on Watson's award in the 2016 Season Guide according to this article, and the commission has indicated in a fairly official way that it will review whether or not he keeps the award in the event of the guilty verdict standing – considering that, I'd lean on the side of including a footnote. The IP's most recent, longer version of the footnote is written in a fair and balanced way. Regarding SuperJew's point, I cannot agree; if the award is allowed to stand, then Watson's name must stand in the table without an asterisk (although a full description of the circumstances will be valid for the 2012 Brownlow Medal article). Aspirex (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
There should be no footnote until the decision is made about the medal, per WP:CRYSTAL. StAnselm (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The info in the footnote is facts which happened (he was found guilty, he is appealing, the AFL have announced) and is all verified with references. Please don't make changes in favour of your own opinion while there is an ongoing discussion happening. --SuperJew (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been against including the asterisk in the past but the fact that the AFL guide now includes I think makes it hard to argue against it. That source, or the article Aspirex linked to, should be included in the footnote. Once the AFL Commission makes a decision, the footnote should be removed if he is allowed to keep the medal, if not then depending on the verdict his name will either be crossed out or removed and replaced by the runners-up. Jevansen (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that the Guide only has a footnote because there's a good chance the Medal will have been retracted before the 2017 Season Guide. As the article can be edited at any time, it doesn't seem necessary until the decision has actually been made. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 04:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on change to the main AFL infobox

Due to large-scale accessibility problems, Template:Infobox AFL biography needs to be updated. Please see the discussion here for more information and to participate in the discussion. ~ RobTalk 23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

People might have missed this due to an archiving shortly after the notice was left. If I'm reading it right, this would be a pretty big change for our infobox so more eyes/opinions would be a good thing. Jenks24 (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Awards and records pages

Thought any AFL editors might be interested in this. There is an AfD discsussion here on List of Leicester City F.C. individual awards which affects a few AFL articles. Many clubs have similar articles (Brisbane Lions, Essendon, Fitzroy, Geelong, Gold Coast, North Melbourne, West Coast), with a few of those (Brisbane Lions, Geelong, North Melbourne) nominated for deletion citing the Leicester AfD. Any opinions on whether those already nominated should be deleted, or whether we should nominate the others too? I'm in favour of keeping all. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 23:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Nominate the others as well. It's hard to argue with the AfD's comments that it's an indiscriminate list and consistent with existing consensus. Each club page should have a short list of the most salient awards, and each individual season page can list all of that season's awards no matter how minor. Aspirex (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Update: I probably should have looked at each of the pages before commenting on that. The Essendon and Fitzroy pages are honour rolls which can be merged straight into the club page and redirected. The Gold Coast and West Coast ones should be deleted alongside the others. Aspirex (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_rules_football/Archive_6&oldid=1251619024"