User talk:Flickerd/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The comma

Just to let you know, I don't like it, but as per mob rule, I mean standardisation and consistency, the comma is meant to be there before the born in the disambiguation qualifier. It's specifically mentioned in WP:NCPDAB and the RFC on it was Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)/Archive_8#Birth_date_format_conformity_.28second_round.29. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• @The-Pope: I wasn't aware of that - thanks for letting me know though. It's a bit of a weird rule, but what can you do... Flickerd (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• The only ones it really makes sense for is when the qualify doesn't directly describe the person - such as (ice hockey, born 1990) makes more sense than (ice hockey born 1990). I think rugby union and league also generally don't use (rugby xxxx player) but just the sport. When it does describe the person, like footballer, cricketer, politician, then the comma is superfluous. But like I said, thou shalt comply with the standardised rules! I generally haven't been moving the old titles, unless there is another reason to move it, but for all new articles I've been using the comma. Cheers The-Pope (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

MFC

I have made some small tweaks. The MFC's founding date is (as you know) a contentious issue. I was attempting to get across that, although a team called "Melbourne" played in the winter of 1858, a club as such with an administrative body wasn't founded until 1859. From now on I'll discuss any issues with you rather than revert. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@HappyWaldo: Thank you for that, I understood what you were saying about the team, I was just trying to add clarification and I do try very hard to work constructively with other editors, so having discussions in the future is much appreciated :) Flickerd (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jesse Hogan

Just FYI, the reason 12 years was listed was because of this ref which states "who is the youngest of four children by 12 years". There is a discrepancy here but we'll leave ten years based off the most recent source. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: Yeah that's fine, it's always hard when there's discrepancies, but like you said, it's probably best to go off the most recent source :) Flickerd (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits before match has finished

Could you please not save your edit until the match is finished on 2015 AFL season, as I've noticed you do it a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.12.43 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't even need to dignify this with an answer considering I strongly believe you are User:Shagadelicbasil23 and you're evading a block. I'm not doing it before the end of the match, it's when the siren goes. So to answer your question, I will continue editing the way I do as I am the one abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. Flickerd (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Rude ****

Blocked for abuse

Don't delete the streak on Jack Frost's page mate, no one gives a fuc* about your opinion you fgt JackETC (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is nowhere near notable and I'm reporting you to WP:ANI for abuse. Flickerd (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks again for all your help with the sockpuppet investigation. Much appreciated! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for the barnstar :) Flickerd (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Another SPI

Hi. For info, I've raised this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, good to see it's been resolved. Sorry I wasn't able to help, I'll be very limited in using Wikipedia over the next couple of weeks, but if anymore do pop up, let me know, but hopefully none do. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Shaun Rehn

In regards to removing debuts from Career highlights and the following comment:

   debuts aren't really career highlights, SANFL one is not notable enough, and AFL one can be listed within the infoxbox

I agree that for a player of Rehn's ilk that his AFL & SANFL debuts are not highlights alongside his other achievements, however I note with concern the comment that the "SANFL one is not notable enough". His SANFL debut occurred in 1990, before the Crows joined the AFL and at that time the SANFL was the pinnacle level within the state of South Australia. His SANFL debut at that stage is just as notable as his AFL debut a year later, in this case neither are notable as a career hightlight, but the SANFL one is not less notable just because it did not happen in Victoria nor because of what happened to SA footy the following year. I also note you had previously removed his West Adelaide career, I have added this back in. It is no less notable just because he happened to play a few games for West post the introduction of the Crows (see also John Platten, Craig Bradley) Screech1616 (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Screech1616: I accept your opinion, however, regardless of timing of when he debuted at SANFL level (in this argument, before the Crows joined the AFL), he is known for being an AFL footballer. AFL is the national and top tier competition, whereas SANFL is a second-tier and state competition, therefore, if a player plays in the AFL, SANFL stats/debuts etc. should not be held in the same regard. See WP:NAFL, although that is notability for whether a page for a player should be created, dot-point 3 is relevant to this argument, an athlete who "is known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league." Considering he played 21 matches in the SANFL, that does not meet the criteria of significant coverage and/or major individual achievements in a state football league, therefore, it is not notable. I'll reiterate that he is known for being an AFL player, therefore, for arguments sake, listing state-league stats with AFL stats within the infobox means that they are deemed equal, but they are different tiers of competition. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be mentioned within the page, it is just not notable enough for the infobox as that should be solely reserved for AFL stats if that's the top tier they've played.

This is also nothing to do with a Victoria vs South Australia thing, it's purely looking at it from a competition-tier point of view and what is deemed notable, for example, players who have played in VFL (post 1990) and AFL, generally speaking, don't have VFL stats listed in the infobox because it's a lower level competition; SANFL, WAFL, VFL, and NEAFL stats should not be listed for an AFL player unless it meets the criteria listed above.

Also, because other SA players have it in the infobox, it does not make it correct, it probably just means it hasn't been picked up yet. Because of the reasons listed above, I'm going to remove the SANFL stats for the above mentioned players and refer to WP:NAFL in the edit summary. I'll also reiterate, I'm not trying to offend by saying "SANFL is not notable", I'm not saying the competition isn't notable, I'm just looking at it purely from a competition tier point of view, I also don't buy into the state vs state argument just because I'm Victorian (I actually prefer the NEAFL competition to the VFL competition in regards to state level competition). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a argument based on "Tiers" however, at the time Shaun Rehn made his debut in the SANFL, that was the equal top "Tier" as you put it. Yes I agree, anything occurring from 1991 (the advent of the Crows) and beyond certainly fits into that State League category. Bringing the NEAFL into the argument is misleading, as that has always been at a lower level at all points in history (as itself, and the previous NSWAFL, QAFL & ACTAFL), likewise the current VFL which is merely the continuation of the former VFA. Anything SANFL prior to 1991 & WAFL prior to 1987 should be treated the same as VFL prior to 1990. WP:NAFL is very Victorian-centric and unencyclopaedic and I will take up the argument there also.Screech1616 (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

NEAFL is at the same level as WAFL, VFL, and SANFL on the tier basis - which is what the AFL uses, so it definitely is an argument of tiers (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-24/afl-to-review-secondtier-competitions read the last paragraph), so I don't understand why you think I'm trying to mislead you, I'm just purely saying I don't care about the whole Victoria vs the rest of the states mentality, and enjoy the NEAFL competition more than the VFL. I don't see the point in any further clarifying why only AFL stats for an AFL player should be recognised for an AFL player, because I don't think you'll ever agree with me. This also isn't a case of Victorians trying to shaft the rest of the competition, which I don't really understand either, but each to their own. I'm also not out trying to shaft SA football or say it's not notable, I'm just going based off of the guidelines that are in place. I think that if you are so passionate about this, then I support you in raising it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, I'm just going off of the guidelines that are in place that have already reached a consensus. If you are successful in changing the notability requirements, then I'll happily agree with it, but right now I'm going to ensure that the players meet the current guidelines. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, now, in the present time. However, we are talking about statistics during the period when those players were playing at the highest professional level at the time, league football in Victoria (VFL), South Australia (SANFL) & Western Australia (WAFL). Yes, now since the VFL went national these leagues have been relegated a "tier" below what is now known as the AFL, but to suggest that the pre 1991 SANFL records of these players should not sit alongside their AFL/VFL records is revisionist at best, disrespectful at worst. Screech1616 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Screech1616:If that's your opinion, I can't change it, but it's not my intention. I'm not going to bother with this anymore because you are portraying me in a way that is false, and I don't really appreciate it, I've continually tried to tell you I'm not trying to have a fight with you, but for whatever reason you seem to want to. Like I said, you're best directing this argument to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, which is what I'm going off of, so don't shoot the messenger. Flickerd (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

124.188.8.78

how am i vandalizing the hyperlinks went to no where and i made the information about him flow better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.8.78 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@124.188.8.78: You have received multiple warnings for vandalising with no attempts to improve, if you genuinely have no idea why you are vandalising I suggest you read WP:Vandalism, also read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Wikipedia has a strong stand on Biographies of living persons, which is where most of your edits are. You remove a lot of content that is useful, and that constitutes as vandalism. I've read a lot of your changes, and most of them don't make sense, and other editors have reverted your edits too as the original text was better. Removing references, even if they are dead links, is not appropriate, you're better off adding ({{deadlink}} that's the template) to it. Also adding an edit summary can be useful, so people can understand your edits. Just understand that you have been warned multiple times by different editors, so please read the above guidelines so you can improve your editing, because, as it currently stands, it is destructive and not helpful to wikipedia, if you had asked for help after the first warning, then this whole situation could have been avoided, but due to multiple warnings, I (and probably others too) are losing patience. I really do hope you improve your editing so you can contribute effectively, but please make the effort to do so. Flickerd (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@124.188.8.78: Also, if you see that your edit has been changed since you visited a page, it's probably for a reason, in the top right there is a tab called View History, have a look at that and see the edit summary by editors, because it may explain why your edit has been changed. I've noticed that you have often removed something again and/or done the same edit with no explanation after someone else either removed or re-added your edit, this can also lead to Wikipedia:Edit warring, so be careful of that too, instead of waiting for a warning on your talk page. Flickerd (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AFL Rising Star, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed

TheLabRats23

thanks for the tips appreciate it. TheLabRats (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem :) Flickerd (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Player pictures

Brilliant stuff mate! I've been meaning to do this for ages but have always been too lazy. Jenks24 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jenks24: Thanks for that :) I've been putting it off for a while too, but I finally got around to doing it; I'm hoping to get some more that I missed, but it probably won't be for a while haha. Flickerd (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Wills

I thought we were in agreement that haphazard scratch teams of 1858 =/= "club" with members, codified rules and administrative body of 1859. Every scholarly history I've come across makes this distinction, eg ... "Melbourne Football Club was yet to be formed, but already in mid-April, 1859, The Argus' J.B. Thompson was enthusing that football 'has become an institution in and about the metropolis' ... On May 14, 1859, the first scratch match of the season was played on the Richmond Paddock between sides led by Jerry Bryant and Thomas "Red" Smith. After the game, the Melbourne Football Club was formed." (Pennings, Mark, Origins of Australian Football, Vol 1, 2012, p. 19). What court case are you referring to? - HappyWaldo (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 AFL Goal of the Year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GABBA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed

Marrara Oval/TIO Stadium

Hi Flickerd. I saw that you have been adding the pipe "Marrara Oval" to wikilinks for TIO Stadium and leaving the edit sum "avoid redirect". Is avoiding the redirect the only reason this pipe is needed or is there something else wrong with the link? Generally, as explained in WP:PIPE#When not to use and WP:R#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken, there's no need to "fix" links to redirects like this that are "not broken". I've only undone one of the aforementioned edits, but you might find other editors doing the same for others for the same reason. Just thought you should know. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I've seen a lot of other editors fixing re-directs in a similar matter and I wasn't entirely aware of those guidelines, but thanks for letting me know, I don't entirely agree with the guidelines as I think fixing re-directs improves the page (under certain circumstances), and I will keep them in mind in the future. I don't have an issue though if other people revert, and I respect your opinion that you believe it's better the way it originally was. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In addition, TIO Stadium is just a naming right, and it is very likely that the name of the stadium will end up changing sooner or later, so whilst just having [[TIO Stadium]] is fine at the moment, I do think having the original, non-sponsorship name in the link is somewhat necessary for potential changes. I won't change it now, but just some food for thought. Flickerd (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If the link is really "broken" (for example, it's misspelled, it leads to a dab page, or leads to the wrong article) then it's perfectly OK to fix it. It's not that the other way is necessarily better, it's just that piping a redirect that is not "broken" is not really something that is considered to be necessary. The change is really only noticeable if you look at the article's source page so there's no visible improvement made and it doesn't make the reader get to the target article any quicker. If the "naming" someday changes, then somebody else will just create a redirect for the new name and a pipe will still not be needed.

I know other editors do this kind of thing, and that there are also bots doing it as well. It can, however, be one of those things that rubs other editors the wrong way and leads to stuff like this. (I'm not equating your edits with that editor's, just pointing out a recent example I am aware of.) There are also technical reasons (which I'll admit I don't fully understand) for not piping, so just being aware that there might be a downside to doing it is a good thing to know. Personally, I just leave them alone if they redirect to the correct target article and only fix them when they need fixing. Anyway, no blood no foul. Peace. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

AFL Attendances

Hi there, was just wondering how you find out the attendances for matches so quickly? any tips? TheLabRats (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, usually on Twitter or the TV coverage. Flickerd (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Above comment

Thanks TheLabRats (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 afl finals

Was just wondering if you knew about the user that keeps making incorrect edits on the finals series page? I agree and realised that the AFL has still not confirmed dates and times, but hes done both!' TheLabRats (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been editing the finals page, so I haven't noticed it so far, if you think it's wrong just undo the edit and explain it in your edit summary. The fixture has been confirmed now, so it's all correct now. The hard thing with Wikipedia is people use it as a news service, so for example, you probably would have seen that someone added the teams for the finals before the end of the Syd-GC, WCE-StK matches. Strictly speaking, they shouldn't have been added before the end of the match, but I didn't remove it because there was no way either Gold Coast or St Kilda would come back. Just go with your instincts, because the way that I edit may be different to what makes you comfortable, you'll become more comfortable when you become more experienced. Flickerd (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

AFL Finals

Thanks heaps, but where is the actual confirmation? Was just wondering as i was planning on going to one of the games. Could you please provide a link? Thanks TheLabRats (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It's on the AFL Twitter page, but here is the link to the one on the afl website. Also, if you want to add something to the talk page, you can just press edit on the previous thread and just add a colon (:) for a new line, you don't need to press new section each time :) Flickerd (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Flickerd, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Jenks24 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the automatic message above, I just noticed you'd created Oscar McDonald and was surprised that it needed to be patrolled. I've also given your account the reviewer user right – I'm not sure there are many (if any) AFL-related articles under pending changes, but it never hurts to have. Let me know if you think any of the others user rights would be handy for you. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. I'll let you know if I have any questions. Flickerd (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Jesse Hogan

Just wanted to say, great work on the Jesse Hogan article. You've done an awesome job at expanding it. Keep up your good work. Cheers! DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: Thanks for that, I really appreciate it. I think it's no secret who one of my favourite players is :) Flickerd (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Melbourne Football Club season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Walker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed

AFL salary cap

where did you get your data about the salary cap? Also do you have any information about why salary caps work/don't work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.60.179 (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@58.96.60.179: Hey, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Is there somewhere I was talking about it or on a certain page, because I can't remember doing anything relating to salary caps recently. If I did do anything relating to salary caps, it would have been from the collective bargaining agreement with the AFLPA, the salary floor of 95% is detailed on page 22, and a break down of the salary cap and player payments is from page 60. Here is a link to the CBA [1] Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Adelaide Crows attendances in Victoria

Hi, is it true (to your knowledge) that the Adelaide Crows, despite their regular high attendances at Adelaide Oval in recent seasons, don't regularly draw high crowds in Victoria? I'm asking this because I've noticed that the Melbourne Football Club have regularly hosted most (if not all) of the interstate clubs in the last couple of seasons, and it's well documented that they don't draw strongly in Melbourne (as an example, the Western Bulldogs vs Adelaide elimination final in 2015 was the lowest drawing final in Melbourne this finals series just passed).

Also, 2015 was the third season in a row Melbourne didn't have a home game against Adelaide, and their most recent home game against them in Round 22, 2012 had a crowd of just 18,500. MasterMind5991 (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@MasterMind5991: Hey, it's hard to say because it's very dependent on the team they are playing in Victoria, for example the Collingwood vs. Adelaide game at Etihad in round 18, 2014 drew a crowd of 41,486 and was a Sunday twilight, so based on that game, you would say Adelaide do draw a crowd in Melbourne, but also Collingwood are a very high drawing club. Teams such as Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, St Kilda and North Melbourne typically will not draw the same crowds as Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Hawthorn, Richmond and maybe Geelong. So I would say any interstate team who play in Victoria will not have the same draw card as Victorian teams, but there are also a lot more factors. I think the WB vs. Adelaide game having a smaller crowd than Hawthorn vs. Adelaide says more about the Victorian team than Adelaide, I don't know if that really answers the question, but I think it is safe to say all non-Victorian teams will attract lower crowds than Victorian teams for games in Victoria, but it is also dependent on which Victorian team is played, ladder position, and so on.

As for Melbourne hosting interstate teams; due to poor performances, Melbourne don't have as much of a financially and commercially beneficial draw compared with Richmond, Collingwood, Hawthorn etc. and that is why they typically host interstate teams, and teams such as St Kilda, North Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs. There are just teams that don't draw high crowds and have smaller memberships and unfortunately Melbourne is one of them and that tied with poor performances is why they typically have poorer draws. Hope that helps a bit. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't all been that bad for Melbourne if 2015 was anything is to go by. They still hosted their Queen's Birthday clash against Collingwood and have done so since 2001, and played on a Friday night (first time since 2012 and beating the hosts, Richmond) in Round 4. I also think Melbourne's commercially tough draws have resulted in a lack of matches above the Murray River (2015 was the second year in a row they had no game at any of the Gabba, Metricon or the SCG), and as a result they tend to travel less than the other sides in recent seasons (the two NT games aside). By contrast, Essendon in 2015 had two games each in WA and NSW (without having a home game against them), and didn't have the Gold Coast as a home game either. I also think that's a testament to how big Essendon is as a club, despite their recent troubles with ASADA. MasterMind5991 (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@MasterMind5991: I look at it more from a comparison point of view, and commercially (off-field) Melbourne has one of the worst draws for a Victorian side, they are very fortunate to have the Queen's Birthday contract though, but the round 4 game was a Richmond home-game, so Richmond would have gained more financially and commercially. I personally don't agree that no games in QLD or NSW has a negative impact on the commercial side, as a travelling team does not have a financial/commercial benefit by travelling interstate, unless of course it's a sold home game, such as Melbourne to the NT. A way it could have a commercial impact is through sponsorship, but I wouldn't imagine QLD and NSW companies would want to sponsor a Melbourne-based team. Having more games inside Victoria for a Victorian side is a greater commercial advantage, for example, Richmond had 14 games at the MCG in 2015, therefore, their membership will be higher due to greater opportunity to attend games, more game day sponsorship and corporate sales for Melbourne based companies, higher home-game attendances which in-turn leads to higher gate returns, and you can also argue TV revenue to an extent, but that's more a time-slot thing than where a game is played. The only other thing I can think of increased commercial opportunities by travelling is gaining members from those states, but I don't think that outweighs the Victorian memberships, for example, three extra interstate games may bring in an extra 1500 interstate members, but having three less games in Victoria may mean 3000 less Victorian memberships. It depends on the strategy of the club and whether they want to diversify that far nationally, I don't think many clubs have that strategy though as there is greater membership opportunities in their home-state. Some clubs will diversify into states that don't have a team such as Hawthorn and North Melbourne to Tasmania, Melbourne to Northern Territory, and St Kilda to New Zealand so they can gain extra members that way, but I doubt clubs will greatly target states with existing clubs as the competition is too strong.

Greater performing teams will have tougher draws in a football (on-field) sense (i.e. travelling more, shorter breaks, playing top-8 teams more than once), so that's why teams like Essendon travel more than Melbourne. Melbourne had an incredibly easy draw in 2015 in that regard, but from a commercial and financial point of view, it was a tough draw. Melbourne hosted this year Gold Coast, Fremantle, Sydney, Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide (Alice Springs), Collingwood (Queen's Birthday), West Coast (Darwin), Brisbane, St Kilda, North Melbourne, and GWS at Etihad (lowest Etihad crowd in history=horrible commercially, I wouldn't be surprised if the club made a big loss on that game). Except for Queen's Birthday, Melbourne did not host a single big-drawing Victorian club and probably wouldn't have if the QB contract didn't exist, they didn't deserve that luxury in 2015 anyway due to poor 2014 performances, but it in-turn means they do not get the larger home-game attendances due to the lower opposition attendees (lower gate receipts), they have poorer TV time slots and more games on Foxtel, and lower corporate sales, it's hard to say how big the impact is on memberships, as there are still a lot of games in Victoria, but it may depend on whether a supporter likes to go to games with bigger crowds, i.e. a game vs. Hawthorn or Richmond. I think the biggest thing to look at for commercial benefits is home games, as away games have little impact commercially, so I don't think travelling has much of an impact commercially. Flickerd (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Another point to make: I'm also of the opinion that Melbourne is most times (if not always) the away team against "darker-jumper wearing" (you'll see where I'm coming from here) clubs such as Essendon and Carlton, due to the jumper clashes. In particular, Essendon's clash jumper very nearly clashes with Melbourne's main guernsey (the 2015 NAB Challenge match, where Melbourne was the home team, is a strong example of this) and sometimes it's hard to see or know which team is which. The 2000 Grand Final (Essendon home game), 2004 elimination final and Round 15, 2010 (the latter two Melbourne home games) are also strong examples.

I live in Sydney and the Sydney Swans, a side that you mentioned don't regularly draw a huge crowd in Victoria (except for games against Hawthorn in recent years), regularly draw the bigger Victorian teams (such as Collingwood, Essendon and Hawthorn) season in, season out, and as you can imagine by Sydney having a huge supporter base (in Sydney, at least), most times these matches would very nearly fill either the SCG or ANZ Stadium. As for the GWS Giants, well they are still in their infancy but they did have three home games (four if you include a game against the Geelong Cats in Canberra) where they drew five-figure crowds (Round 6 vs Hawthorn, Round 17 vs Geelong, Round 19 vs Essendon and Round 21 vs Sydney), and won all but the game against the Cats. Their desire to host the bigger Victorian clubs is also a factor in their lack of home games against the interstate clubs such as West Coast or Fremantle (same goes to North Melbourne who in 2013 and 2014 didn't play either WA club as a home game), but their travel does take its toll (as an example, the Giants' average losing margin in Perth is a whopping 83 points).

Back to Melbourne now and I think a slightly improved 2015 season (seven wins, one more win than the 2013 and 2014 seasons combined), which included strong performances against Richmond, Geelong and Collingwood, could see them gain more free-to-air exposure, probably one or two Friday night matches, and possibly a trip to the SCG (which would be fitting if held near the end of the season, as Paul Roos' [former Sydney coach] coaching tenure nears its conclusion) could be in line. But let's just sit back and await the release of the draw next Thursday (29 October).

Finally, you may have noticed that I regularly update the season-by-season summaries for Hawthorn. Strictly speaking, I do not support the Hawks (rather, I support the Giants), but since I started on Wikipedia in 2011 I found myself regularly updating the Hawthorn season summaries as there were more of their games on TV and it was easy for me to simply update the scores every round. To sign off, you can follow me on Twitter at @mastermind5991 . MasterMind5991 (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@MasterMind5991: I've never really thought about the clash jumpers with Melbourne, Essendon and Carlton, but it's an interesting point. GWS is an interesting situation because I reckon a large reason why they host big-drawing teams is the AFL's aim to diversify into NRL areas. Compared with Sydney, Gold Coast and Brisbane, Western Sydney would be one of the hardest places to gain a large AFL following, so I think a lot of that has to do with strategy as opposed to performance reward or commercial benefits. I agree that Melbourne will have a better draw next year commercially, as improved performance does reward a commercially favourable draw. Imagine how good Western Bulldogs' draw will be next year compared to 2015. Also, in any other situation I would follow you no problem on Twitter, so please don't take it personally, but I do prefer to keep a level of anonymity on Wikipedia and I do want to keep my personal identity separate from this profile. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I also think the reason why GWS find it hard to gain a strong following is also due to the competition faced by the A-League's Western Sydney Wanderers, who have gained more fans (due to soccer being a more popular sport in the Western Sydney area) since they entered the league in 2012. But having the home games against those said Victorian clubs (and defeating Hawthorn and Essendon, who as I said before drew healthy five-figure crowds), as well as improved results on the field this season, did (and will, in the immediate future) help the club going forward. Imagine a Friday night game against (suppose) Collingwood at Spotless Stadium next year, it would really do the club huge wonders.

Another thing that I forgot to point out previously was that Melbourne didn't win a single home game in 2014 (their four victories that season were in away games, including a boilover in Adelaide), which could have resulted in them having the worst draw of all the Victorian clubs this year. Hopefully that changes in 2016. We also saw the Western Bulldogs this year and their own commercially tough 2015 fixture (no home games against Essendon, Hawthorn, Richmond, Sydney, the Geelong Cats and North Melbourne, as well as no Friday night or marquee matches), but they fought through it and reached the finals. There's no problem with the Twitter thing as well. MasterMind5991 (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects again

Hello, I notice you've had a conversation about this before, but I've reverted your edit to Sandy Blythe, because it's misleading ... the Teal Cup certainly wasn't called the AFL Under 18 Championships when he participated in them. I like to keep the "what links here" list relatively neat (so sometimes I bypass redirects, too), but I would never do it in this sort of case. Graham87 15:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem, although I do feel that this is different to the other case, I was genuinely trying to fix the links to match the official title as opposed to just avoiding a re-direct, but I will admit the Teal Cup fixes was a bit of an oversight, probably due to the amount of links I had already been through (~300). Flickerd (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

AFL Ladders

Hey,

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. What do you think? --SuperJew (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Hey, I reckon it's a good idea if it makes editing the ladders faster and more efficient. I'm very poor when it comes to creating templates, I tend to just edit ones that already have a base template, I'm not really sure how all the coding works etc., so I won't be much help in that regards. I'm definitely for making the process easier though, perhaps taking the idea to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football may help, and someone there may be able to come up with something. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I posted it there. Thanks. --SuperJew (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)