Talk:2012 AFL Grand Final

Australia: Australian rules football Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2012 AFL Grand Final is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of Australian Football League premiers#AFL premiers .281990-present.29|fifth VFL/AFL premiership victory]] The anchor (#AFL premiers .281990-present.29) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Orphaned references in 2012 AFL Grand Final[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2012 AFL Grand Final's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Stats":

From 2008 AFL Grand Final: "Grand Final 2008 Geelong v Hawthorn". FinalSiren.com. Retrieved 8 April 2011.
From 2002 AFL Grand Final: "Brisbane defeats Collingwood". Footywire.com. Retrieved 2008-02-12.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend we drop the Match summary because it's crap[edit]

Someone has begun to add text to the Match summary section. While I know it's being done with all the best intentions, it's really not very well written. (No personal criticism intended. Please read on.) I checked last year's report. It's tragic. While I know I could help make it better, what makes us want to try to do this? We are not professional football writers.

There's a fair chance that the editor trying to write this stuff (or at least people editing it later) will be a fan of one of the involved teams. That never helps either.

For the home and away season we just use links to the match reports on afl.com.au. (See 2012 AFL season.) They are independent and professionally written.

Why not also do that for the Grand Final? HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without the match summary, the article has undue weight on everything else in it: the entertainment, the season summaries, the Grand Final sprint - none of that is worth mentioning without a match summary. I'm fine with commenting out the section until someone writes it out properly.

Perhaps the 2008-2011 Grand Final articles are a bit more detailed than we need. Certainly I think the ones that I wrote for 1967 Tasmanian State Premiership final, 1967 VFA Grand Final, 1971 VFA Grand Final and 1999 AFL Preliminary Final are of acceptable level of completeness, but I think with the additional resources available for more recent matches we should be striving for a bit more detail - perhaps listing the goalkickers, but only mention the time of goal sparingly. What we don't want is a match summary like the Essendon vs Kangaroos match in the 2001 AFL season article, where the author has just taken the scores out of the infobox, and re-written that into a paragraph which offers no new content. Aspirex (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you really think that something professional can be created, good luck to you, and go for it. As I said though, while your previous efforts may be fine, we still have an awful lot of crap in similar past articles, and what's in this article right now reads like random quotes from a television commentary. Not encyclopaedic at all. HiLo48 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-activating this thread. I've been patient for three months, and I know some people have put in some effort here, but IMHO, we're not there yet. As a hard core Wikipedian I don't think it's anything that we should be proud of. Are we really happy with "The first goal was a crumb"? Remember, this is a global encyclopaedia, and we'd probably like non-fans to have some idea of what went on, and that's not going to help. Details of the match are obviously now fading in peoples' memory, so fixing this is now all the harder. Given the poor quality, is this section really justified? HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first goal is still a crumb. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN nomination stalled[edit]

This article is proposed for mention on the main page but the nomination is stalled because of multiple issues with the article. Can someone please address these so the nomination can proceed? Thanks, --RA (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a bit late now. Does anyone care enough about revising the basic structure, and getting rid of the "multiple issues with the article" so that there's some hope of faster inclusion at ITN this year when this article is used as the template for 2013 AFL Grand Final? HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is a lack of anyone taking the time to write up a match summary. I think the main reason for that is that there aren't that many Swans fans on here, and the rest of us moved on quickly to the trade month, draft and other issues. I think the structure is fine, other than the "overall report" is a bit redundant - I'd put any "global/overall" issues at the top of the match report section, and also move the scoreboard up to be at the end of the match report section, not after the teams and umps. The-Pope (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what do we do about the match summary? Please see the above thread. Are we really happy with "The first goal was a crumb"? As I said three months ago. It's crap. Explaining why doesn't fix it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 AFL Grand Final. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606071433/http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/16931/Default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/16931/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]