Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 3

Image:AFL finals.jpg

I've added this image to AFL finals system as I feel it looks better and is easier to read than the template. I'd be grateful if someone could review it for correctness please. Cheers. -- I@n 01:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct! Does the grand final have a nominal home team? Snottygobble 01:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! I think the grand final does have a team that is consistently treated as the nominal home team, but this doesn't seem to be decided in a consistent way. I seem to remember there might be a coin toss involved somewhere. JPD (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the image reads better than the template - the template was originally designed for articles like 2006 AFL season and so on, to format the actual team names and scores, etc. In fact I was looking for a picture like this when originally doing the template. - if I had been able to find one, it wouldn't have started off looking crappy like this - before User:JPD fixed it! -- Chuq 11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work on doing it diagramatically. What I'd suggest is technical though: JPEG sucks for doing line diagrams like this. GIF format would have been more suitable, or even PNG. I don't think loss of colours is a major issue here so GIF would have been better. JPEG is better for photos where there are more colour variations. - Bricks J. Winzer 07:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Image:AFL finals.gif is now up. If someone is good with Inkscape and svg vector files that'd be even better. -- I@n 09:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

PNG and SVG are the preferred (most open) formats for on Wikipedia. -- Chuq 09:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this User:I@n/2006 AFL finals? -- I@n 09:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just created AFL Finals Series 2006. However, I think that the gray template should be used, with maybe a link to the graphical version. By the way, has anyone found the image forthe 2006 finals, like the one listed @ AFL Finals Series 2005? I couldn't. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear up my comment above, which I realise was a bit ambiguous:

• I believe that the graphic created by I@n definately shouldbe used in AFL finals system, as it is the best representation of the win-loss path we have.
• However, I believe that in season finals articles, eg AFL Finals Series 2005 and AFL Finals Series 2006, you should use the gray box. Don't forget that there is a large section detailing the format on each of these season pages, as well as a Main Article: link to the AFL finals system article.

However, I'm not a member of this project (I think?), so feel free to ignore this. However, I will be helping with updating the AFL Finals Series 2006 article, and hopefully will be able to create a template which we can use to create match summaries in a more standardised table format, as opposed to those in AFL Finals Series 2005. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 AFL Finals Series Template

If no-one has any objections, I will use User:Daniel.Bryant/Sandbox0 (subst, so it doesn't matter where it is located) for adding results to the AFL Finals Series 2006 page. Any comments are welcome, and usage of the template can be found on the discussion page for my Sandbox0 (link above). Daniel.Bryant 02:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Style guide

The style guide says "In tables or ladders, use of shortnames or nicknames or combinations of both are acceptable as follows:". I had thought that the point of the discussion leading to the creation of the style guide was that a few of us didn't want the nicknames used in those contexts, but we didn't get around to discussing it further. I would like to the guide to say that shortnames only shoudl be used. Does anyone object? JPD (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

South Melbourne Football Club

I have long thought that there was no need for this article, as the history of the club at South Melbourne should be fully covered in the Sydney Swans article. Since noone has really replied my comments whenever I have raised this, I am wililng to go ahead and make the changes. If you object, please say so at Talk:South Melbourne Football Club. On a related matter, I have suggested that Category:Sydney Swans players and Category:Sydney Swans coaches be renamed to reflect the fact that they include old Souths players - please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 9#Sydney Swans categories to South Melbourne/Sydney Swans. JPD (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, someone seems to have done this already.--Rulesfan 07:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Current Squad National Flags

This issue Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_AFL/Archive_2#Aboriginal_flag.2FState_flags_on_club_pages seems to have come up again. User:Devoindahouse has re-added the national flags to the Carlton Football Club page. I posted some comments on the user's talk page. However, my personal opinion is that they are fine, and consistent with all other sports, especially in light of the AFL's recent decision to include an International Draft (see this link)[1]. If this is the case, however, someone should keep the other clubs lists consistent with the Carlton one.--Rulesfan 07:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they are ugly and pointless. Maybe only a national flag if they are not from Australia? They would be sparse enough to not clug up the lists. As for state and racial flags - they are really just an abuse of the images facility of Wikipedia. Details of a player should be left to the player article, not graphically detailed on their team page. Remy B 07:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also I find it a bit concerning that the Cartlon article is listing player positions (with forwards pointing to Striker... a term never used in Australian rules). For one, todays game is played such that players can and do play anywhere, so the categorisations are quite ambiguous. But the main problem is that it is replicating information that belongs in the player articles, and that sort of redundancy always leads to problems like data going out of sync because it is only updated in one place, or having different people discussing the information in different places, etc. I guess it would be OK if they were AFL or team specified positions rather than how the editor feels about it at the time (players can change their primary positions up to many times a season). Thoughts? Remy B 07:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. There is no need to mindlessly copy the format of the soccer lists. Representative football is not currently a major part of the sport, so flags are unnecessary, and there aren't set positions. We should only include the sort of information that is usually included in Aussie ruels team lists elsewhere. JPD (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed as well. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of VFL/AFL

The season articles such as 1897 VFL season have recently been changed so that they all start with something like "Results and statistics for the VFL/AFL season of 1897. Previously, instead of "VFL/AFL", many had the anachronistic Australian Football League or incorrectly linked Victorian Football League. Since each season was in fact either a VFL season or an AFL season, it would be much better in the VFL season articles to say "Victorian Football League, and link to the article about the league. That is, "Victorian Football League". I will make this change unless there are objections. The issue does make me wonder whether the the VFL/AFL article is necessary. The title is a term describing an entity that we already have an article on, which normally would mean a redirect. The only extra info in the article is the VFA/VFL section, which really should be separate anyway, and also is covered in the VFL article. JPD (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but will involve a fair bit cleanup work, including the info box on Australian Football League itself. Pudgey 22:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Telstra Stadium games

Hi AFL'ers, I know this weekend many of you will be busy :) but I thought some of you may be able to help - I have just replaced the crowds section in Telstra Stadium with a table, and am missing info on AFL matches at the ground pre-reconfiguration. I noticed some games were played there in 2002 AFL season but as reconfiguration lasted from 2001 to 2003 I don't know if these games count as pre-reconfiguration or not. I'm sure some of you would know! Thanks, -- Chuq 13:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It was only possible to play Aussie rules matches there after the reconfiguration which allowed for the oval field, so I'd say they all count as after the reconfiguration. In general, from memory I don't think the second two stages of the reconfiguration affected the capacity significantly, so they are not particularly relevant. For what it's worth, my brother played in the first ever Aussie rules game there at the end of the 2001 season! JPD (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What should I do??

What club (not players) stubs should I do now?? can anyone give me an assignment??

Reply to me when you find an assignment

Rakuten06 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the WP:AFL To Do List. Not really sure that a "clubs" section is relevant as we have created all of the AFL clubs...maybe that's something for an Australian rules WikiProject to tackle. Rogerthat ^Talk 04:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian football (soccer)

Hi, currently WikiProject A-League is considering an expansion to cover all football (aka soccer) in Australia. We would probably prefer the name Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian football (soccer), although since AFL's proper name is (I believe) Australian football I just thought I'd check here first to see if anyone has any major objections to the name. We could have a disambig at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian football as well. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian football (soccer) seems really ambiguous. Why not Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian soccer? Remy B 12:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"....." :) -- Chuq 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In hindsight I should have expected that answer and shouldn't have bothered asking. ;-) Carry on. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 05:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian football (soccer) seems fair and reasonable, especially if there is to be a disambig at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian football as well. Furthermore: we are happy with our title of Wikiproject AFL, and also, the current article on soccer is called Football (soccer), so a title of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian football (soccer) actually seems a fair compromise. Obviously, we would be quite entitled to hit the roof if the soccer fans were wanting to use "Australian Football" on its own without any form of qualification. But they aren't doing that, they have offered up the very fair alternative upfront - I think they should be allowed to run with it (from a strong aussie rules supporter). πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed pippu. BTW, the reason I called this Project "AFL" was because it is the only league notable enough to be able to cover every aspect of it on Wikipedia. What are everyone's thoughts on an Australian rules WikiProject, covering things such as football overseas, minor leagues etc.? Rogerthat ^Talk 12:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Australian rules WikiProject

see Rogerthat's comments above asking for "thoughts on an Australian rules WikiProject, covering things such as football overseas, minor leagues etc.?".

In theory yes, that would be good to seperate the broader sport out from the professional competition. In practice however I think we do not have the resources as yet to run two (or more) Projects covering Australian rules football. I am a fairly rabid SANFL supporter, but I can live with Neil Kerley or Jack Oatey being included under the "AFL" umbrella as the term AFL has become synonomous for most people with the broader sport of Aussie rules. Pudgey 07:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Pudgey makes a good point - and if it is acceptable to a stark raving mad South Australian - it probably means it's good enough to stay as it is. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

When Roger started this project, someone asked him whether it was about the league or the sport, and he said the league. That is why the name is what it is, and why the project page says the scope is Australian Football League-related articles. As Pudgey says, it would be silly to have more than one project, but I would definitely support broadening the scope of this project, which I think is a good enough reason to change the name. JPD (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

At what point does the notable bit kick in? For example there are some country leagues that are virtually professional and others that are strictly amateur. There also definitely needs to be more work done on the state leagues with an obvious focus on the big three - VFL, SANFL and WAFL. --Hack 02:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has occurred a few times over the past year and is to be found in a number archived in a number of spots. In summary, there would be no problem doing an article on most fair dinkum leagues (thus the Footscray Football Foundation, or triple F, which held its matches on Rowe St, Maidstone, would not get a guernsey, much less the Mitchell St Asteroids or the Gordon St Lions). The clubs that form each league can only seriously be considered if the article on the league itself has grown to a decent size. Similarly, the articles on most country towns are likely to be small enough to have a para on their footy team - once again, a separate article on the footy tea cannot really be considered if the town's or suburb's article is smallish. I find that to be a reasonably good guide. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

AFL Draft pages - explanation?

At Talk:2004 AFL Draft an anon user has commented that This article anticipates too much prior knowledge. I got here after hitting "random article". I didn't know what an AFL draft was then, and I still don't now. It seems to involve large spreadsheets. The comment seems a fair call to me. My suggestion would be to provide a short heads-up along the lines of:

"The AFL Draft is the annual draft of young talent by Australian rules football teams that participate in the main competition of that sport, the Australian Football League."

which is taken from the start of the main AFL Draft article. Sadly, it would seem that all the various Draft pages would need this added ... I'm prepared to do this minor task unless someone disagrees. I haven't looked to see if any other related lists have the same issue. Pudgey 06:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A good way to give context to annual articles is to have a parent article, eg. AFL draft, which talks about the draft process in detail and then link to that in all of the annual ones. A one or two line brief overview is still good in annual articles though. Remy B 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

VFL/AFL and Victorian Football League pages

I agree that with the comments above that VFL/AFL is not really needed — i.e. people would do a Google search for "VFL" and/or "AFL", not for "VFL/AFL" — and it should be a re-direct to the AFL page, since the AFL is the successor of the "Old VFL".

Secondly, I also feel that Victorian Football League should be be moved to something like Victorian Football League (1995) and Victorian Football League should be a disambiguation page, directing people to either the AFL page or, if they are really looking for the "New VFL", to Victorian Football League (1995).

Thirdly, since the new VFL is so different to the VFA, e.g. in terms of teams, the merger with the AFL reserves, etc., I think there should be a separate Victorian Football Association article (covering 1877-1995). (The VFA page is currently a redirect to the "New VFL" article.)

Any comments? Grant65 | Talk 05:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All three points seem logical to me and cover it pretty well. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about something like VFL I and VFL II?Hack 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As "VFL I" became the AFL, it would be covered on the AFL page. As for "VFL II", how about we call it Victorian Football League since 1995? Grant65 | Talk 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

AFL/AFL to me seems best. Victorian Football League since 1995 sounds like it is a continuation of the original VFL. To me reference to the original VFL prior to 1990 should be VFL/AFL and to the VFA as VFA/VFL. It is still ambiguous, but not as ambiguous as it could be... Hack 03:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hack, I don't follow what you're saying. Do you think we should stick with the present arrangements? The VFA was a respected amateur competition and both a forerunner and peer of "VFL 1"/AFL. It used to field separate teams in interstate carnivals as recently as 1987 and Terry Wallace was an All-Australian representing the VFA in 1988. I think it deserves better than a brief mention in a story on the current 2nd tier competition in Vic. Grant65 | Talk 07:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think the current arrangements should suffice. As I see it the current VFL is a rebadged and expanded VFA. If there is only a small section on VFA in the current VFL page then it needs to be expanded.Hack 07:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

References to any of the competitions at a particular point in history should be using the name from that time, but the article for, for example, the VFL/AFL is (rightly) at Australian Football League. So references to this league before 1990 generally should be Victorian Football League, and references to it's whole history VFL/AFL. There is no need for an article at VFL/AFL describing the term itself - a redirect is better. Whether there should be separate pages for the VFA and the new VFL is a different sort of question. The VFL is the current form of the VFA, and while it has changed a lot, it didn't all happen when the name changed, so it would be quite valid to cover the whole history in one article. On the other hand, a separate article might give a better reflection of the VFA's place in history. I do agree with Grant that the use of "VFL" to refer to the original VFL is common enough to make that a disambiguation page, but also agree with Hack that "since 1995" is not an appropriate disambiguation. 10:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what do we call the article? Grant65 | Talk 11:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that probably depends on whether it is going to be split in two or not, and I'm undecided on that... JPD (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with recently above. It would be ludicrous to name the VFL page anything like VFL II or VFL since 1995. VFA redirect to VFL, VFL with small disambig at the top prompting users to AFL. Just make sure all the links are done correctly, i.e. VFL. So long as the first paragraphs of the respective pages quickly detail the date of the name change. Aspirex 09:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of being a bore I have to disagree. The VFA was historically significant and a very different competition to the present VFL. I think it deserves its own article. Grant65 | Talk 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Football in Australia - naming conventions

I would like to invite all interested editors to have a read of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and offer improvements or suggestions on the talk page. Please do not comment about it on this page - I am hoping to centralise discussion in one place! -- Chuq 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

infoboxes

Given a lot of people are only putting AFL club details into players infoboxes can we possibly get some sort of consensus on how much detail gets put into the boxes. I would be for all state league experience being included in the infobox. Also the current box looks a bit messy - could we get someone to look at cleaning it up a bit (perhaps more along the lines of the {{Football player infobox}}).... --Hack 12:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I gather you mean Template:Infobox Football biography? That particular template is not generic enough - it looks to be too soccer-specific to my liking. Certainly the terminology is not Aussie rules. I agree with State League (WAFL, SANFL, TFL) experience being included for those who played pre-1990. After that (like it or not) those competitions are clearly of a lesser status. I would only include State League details since 1990 if they were of clear significance (eg Sandover medal or State League team representation) and even then I can see where some would not include them. Pudgey 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think all AFL players should have state league details (where that experience exists) as well as junior club details. If one was to look at the infobox one might conclude their football career only started with their debut at AFL level. The userbox (if this was used) would needed to be adjusted so it is clear that it relates to Australian rules football. --Hack 09:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, we have the AFL player infobox, now for the {{Australian rules footballer infobox}}. I think the current AFL infobox is a little too heavy; the soccer infobox is a bit tidier and something along those lines would be good. Rogerthat ^Talk 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That template is crap. who would use it. What about national and state representation (ie International Rules, State of Origin ?) and career highlights which the current infobox has ... I prefer the soccer one, even if it is soccer specific. --Spewmaster 04:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's crap then edit it.Hack 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

George Doig

Can someone have a look at the George Doig article and help redraft it as it seems a blatant lift from the website referenced? I won't get back here for a day or so, and with poor George's death yesterday the page may well be scrutinised. Pudgey 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone still involved ?`

Looks like this project has reached critical mass.

Anyone still interested ? --Spewmaster 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I still contribute articles but have to admit it's not as active as it was a few months ago, which may be attributed to it being the off-season of the sport. Rogerthat ^Talk 00:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

AFL Draft pages

At the moment, these are arranged in a very confusing manner. The 2006 AFL Draft page contains details of the pre-season draft from before 2006 (which occurred in 2005) and then trades and the national draft from before the 2007 season. I know that the AFL gives these drafts specific names: i.e. the 2006 NAB AFL National Draft and the 2006 NAB Pre-season and rookie drafts both occurred before the 2007 season. I believe that it would be best to group drafts into their relevant off-seasons, i.e. a page named 2006/07 AFL Drafts would list all drafts relevant to the 2007 season. This would remove the confusion. Thoughts on this proposal?

Secondly, i think we should be including the rookie draft on the drafts page. With so many players entering the AFL through the rookie system, there should be some reference to the rookie draft so that, for example, one could go back and find out where Bret Thornton or Andrew Carazzo were drafted. Aspirex 09:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the rookie drafts is that there really are a lot of non-notable players listed there that never played a game in the AFL. But I think we can still include them for informational purposes. As for your first point, I found it very confusing also when I was starting up the Draft pages a year or so ago, but going by the official way the AFL names the drafts I think it is best we leave it under 2007 AFL Draft. Of course, we'd need to include a notice of what date the draft was held and after all, it is called "Pre-season" for a reason, as the 07 Draft takes place before the season, while the Nationals are after the specified season. But I'm interested to see what others think on this. Rogerthat ^Talk 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Although the AFL material treat the National and Pre-Season Drafts in the way currently shown in Wiki, I'd have to agree with Aspirex - it does seem to make an awful lot more sense, from the point of view of providing information in the clearest way, to have all player selections happening between two seasons listed together (i.e. the 2006 National and 2007 Pre-Season on the same page). Cantiaci 23:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Football naming conventions!

We need some more contributors to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). There are still more soccer nazis then ruby and football supporters.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)

Krabby me 10:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter "how many" there are - it isn't a vote, it's a discussion. All supports of all codes are welcome to the discussion, of course, but stop trying to polarise the discussion by making it into an "us vs. them" - there isn't anything to "win" here. By the way, making statements like "soccer nazis" isn't really a good way of demonstrating your ability to discuss things from a Neutral point of view. -- Chuq 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this project AFL or all Australian football related articles?

I'm planning on joining this project, but I'm just curious. Is this project for just AFL based topics? Or for all Australian rules football related articles? Like for instance, the South Australian National Football League? --Borgarde 05:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the project is about the AFL, but there are as yet no other Aussie Rules projects, so those of us with an interest in state leagues etc have tended to use this as our umbrella. See also #Australian rules WikiProject above. Pudgey 08:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Australian rules around the world

I know this is not strictly speaking within the remit of this project but will interest a few here. There are a number of articles linked in the Aussie Rules Playing Nations links template that seriously test the notability criteria for wikipedia. For example the article Australian rules football in the Czech Republic is basically about a single team that doesn't play in regular competition and Australian rules football in Kenya covers a couple of training sessions a couple of years ago. Surely to have an article you'd need to at least have regular competition either at international or club level.Hack 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Barassi Line

Hi - I and a few others have been working on an article on the Riverina region. Although in NSW AFL is popular. Trying to track down an authority for the opinion and discussion is at Talk:Riverina#Football - VFL. There is probably an article in the topic the Barassi Line which is referenced most notably in Pascoe, Robert (1995). The Winter Game: The Complete History of Australian Football. Melbourne: Text Publishing Company. ISBN 1 86330 597 1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). Has anybody got the book and can they help? Thanks --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A question asked and answered but

A question asked and answered as part of the project quiz but the players article still doesnt have any mention of the persons playing career, and the question its here and the players article is here . Gnangarra 12:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-AFL players

Do we have a list of "articles needed" for players who were SANFL/WAFL/etc stars prior to 1987, or were at several VFL/AFL clubs in roughly equal proportions? For instance, Andrew MacNish was All-Australian in 1986 when he was with Subiaco, was listed by the Eagles in 87, although I can't remember if played any games for them, and later played three games for Geelong. Michael Aish (footballer) was All-Australian with Norwood in 1985 and 1986 but never played with the VFL/AFL.

Maybe we should have a separate list of "articles needed" for All-Australians(?) Grant | Talk 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lacking a separate Aussie Rules project I think the idea has merit. There is no existing list that I am aware of, but Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL/To do could easily be made to include sections for WAFL/SANFL/TFL/NTFL. Not sure if a cut-off date is necessary but if there were one for SANFL it would be pre-1991 (ie when Adelaide joined the VFL/AFL, sending the local competition to second-tier status). Certainly the All-Australians that were not VFL deserve to be recognised, and there were plenty of outstanding footballers in these states who deserve coverage. Pudgey 09:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a vote on whether to expand WikiProject AFL to a more general project encompassing Australian rules - it seems we're having more interest in detailing the histories of leagues like the SANFL and WAFL, which it could be said were on par with the VFL in terms of standard, and therefore notability. So how about a vote? Rogerthat ^Talk 00:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes much more sense to cover the sport than the league. I don't even see a need for a vote unless someone objects to expanding the scope! JPD (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JPD.

In a sense we have already started on the non-VFL players, with Hall of Famers such as George Doig, Barrie Robran and Stephen Michael.

Aussie rules is unusual in that it took so long for a national comp to emerge and the other leagues were formally equal to the VFL until 1987-1991. Grant | Talk 11:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it has to be done on an as-needs basis. To me anyone who has won a major award (Sandover, Magarey etc) is notable. Extending it to any WAFL/SANFL league player is probably stretching the definition. WAFL/SANFL club B&F winners or captains might be a long enough list, although often already covered by the AFL/VFL list. I'll let others decide about players from the VFA/Tassie/QFL/NSWAFL/NTFL etc And as I added a few weeks ago, we still have a LONG way to go with AFL/VFL players! The-Pope 10:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mate when (non-)players of the ilk of Jack Juniper (for example) warrant a WP:AFL article merely because they spent two years on an AFL list without ever playing an AFL game I think we could extend the definition of notable for WAFL/SANFL a little further than club captains and B&F winners if need be (see my comments re All-Australians above). :) Pudgey 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether they are notable enough for an article is a completely different question from whether they are included in this project, but yes, I would have to agree that there is no reason to prioritise the VFL, at least historically. If anyone can write articles for non-VFL players, go for it - don't wait for the project to change! JPD (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also could people not refer to players as former players just because they are not playing AFL.--Hack 09:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The flags are back again

I think they look awful. Collingwood and Sydney's lists look so messy with flags for everyone. This isn't soccer. We don't have a world cup. We don't have an active international player trade system. Peter Bell, Adam Campbell or Kris Massie are never going to play for South Korea, New Zealand or Sweden. Why not put a Brownlow logo next to Brownlow winners... it's just as relevant to the team list as a flag of where they were born. The-Pope 10:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of the flags, especially when 95%+ are going to be Australian (for obvious reasons). πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete them as you find them. They are a nonsense for the AFL as per The-Pope's comments above. Pudgey 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. You could perhaps put flags next to those of Aboriginal heritage or those born overseas but even then it's not really necessary. Rogerthat ^Talk 09:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...Why are the flags still there? I can't imagine why any reasonable person would think they should remain.

-They are clearly racist, we don't seem to classify other Australians based on their heritage.

-The aborginal flag doesn't represent a nation (an Australian flag make more sense).

-There is no reason to list nationality/ethnicity just because you are referring to a person. Search for Bill Clinton on wikipedia and you'll find there isn't an American flag next to his name each time he's mentioned.

-It looks silly having most players without a flag and it would also look stupid if all of them had the Australian flag, as mentioned above.

-In newspapers and on television they don't feel the need to inform readers and viewers that a particular player is of aboriginal decent, so it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.

For those reasons I think someone should remove them. Not me, I'm too lazy. Constan69 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

TAC Cup

Is this league and it's affiliated teams sufficiently notable for inclusion? They don't seem to meet criteria for creating biographical articles for the participants shown at WP:BIO. Garrie 00:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the TAC Cup article and the few associated club articles. The wiki links that are blue link to players that are currently (or were previously) on Australian Football League club lists which I think meets the criteria, being a national top-level sport. I agree that if not on an AFL list the individuals would not otherwise meet the WP:BIO standard as I understand them (unless of course they also have some other claim to notability that would meet the criteria). Pudgey 08:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up to let any interested parties know.

I did try to get AFL - contributors input here but lacking that I have listed North Ballarat Rebels at AfD here. My opinion is, while the TAC Cup is notable - as a source of talent for the AFL - the individual teams are not. Individual athletes are notable once they become members of a fully professional sporting league (see WP:BIO), I don't think it's too great a stretch to apply the same to individual teams.

If these teams individually meet WP:CORP then I will be more than happy with a decision to keep. But given the current reference is the TAC Cup website I'm guessing they have not been the individual subject of multiple works independant of the TAC / AFL, as required at WP:ATT.Garrie 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Go the swans in '07! Garrie 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Team location map

Hi AFL editors, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at some of the maps I have done at User:Chuq/Sandbox/Sports maps and let me know what you think! Thanks, -- Chuq 05:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, could be used in articles like Australian rules football in Australia. Rogerthat ^Talk 09:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Kelvin Moore

Hi AFL editors.

I noticed that there are two Kelvin Moore articles Kelvin Moore and Kelvin Moore (footballer). What do you think would be the best way of disambiguating them. Should there be a Kelvin Moore disambiguation page with links to Kelvin D Moore and Kelvin ? Moore (the young one). Cheers--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

According to AFC Record Season Preview 2005 (a booklet that came along with the NAB Cup version of the AFL Record), the younger Kelvin Moore is listed as Kelvin W. Moore. I think we can rename/move his page to Kelvin W. Moore. And I also think it's good to have a disambiguation page for both of them. Celticshk ^Talk 09:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, what I've done is kept the much more notable Kelvin D. Moore at Kelvin Moore, with a link to Kelvin W. at the top of the page. Kelvin Moore (footballer) serves as a disambig page which I think is fair. Any thoughts? Rogerthat ^Talk 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability - Australian rules football leagues, clubs and players

For editors interested in Australian football (the AFL kind), I have drawn up some draft notability guidelines (suggestions?) for leagues, clubs and players that can be found here - User:Mattinbgn/Sandbox - Notability Australian football leagues and clubs If these guidelines or an amended version thereof was gain some level of consensus it would provide some much needed guidance to editors about what article subjects are likely to be seen as notable and hopefully head off a number of WP:AfD debates. To keep all debate in the one location I would ask that comments be kept in the talk page of the draft guideline. All comments and suggestions and changes would be gratefully received. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 09:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt, well done for moving on this it is sorely needed. I for one don't really know where the top level of amateur AFL is, and at and above that level only should be notable for inclusion (in line with WP:BIO.Garrie 05:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:2006 AFL season/"Advanced" Ladder

Template:2006 AFL season/"Advanced" Ladder has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Celticshk ^Talk 04:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to AFL official club website player profiles

Since AFL's introduction of its new official site (along with the clubs' official pages), the current templates for the AFL player prolifes are all outdated, as they'll now all generate dead links. I don't know how to write/edit templates like those, so I wish someone will update them. Your effort will be appreciated. Thanks. — Celticshk ^Talk 01:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the quiz

Any idea why the quiz was deleted? It doesn't seem possible to retrieve it either. - Bricks J. Winzer 10:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It's still there for me, and no sign that it's been tampered with. JPD (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I was getting linked to the talk page for the quiz. - Bricks J. Winzer 13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird. JPD (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

ANZAC day match history page?

Is there a page for the essendon/collingwood anzac day match history or a list of results?--Dacium 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

95Collingwood Magpies 17.9 (111) Essendon Bombers 16.15 (111) MCG 94,825 Tuesday, April 25

96Essendon Bombers 16.9 (105) Collingwood Magpies 17.15 (117) MCG 87,549 Thursday, 25 April

97Collingwood Magpies 14.15 (99) Essendon Bombers 10.10 (70) MCG

98Collingwood Magpies 15.18 (108) Essendon Bombers 12.16 (88) MCG 81,542 Saturday, 25 April

99Essendon Bombers 15.18 (108) Collingwood Magpies 15.10 (100) MCG 73,118 Sunday, 25 April

00Collingwood Magpies 15.10 (100) Essendon Bombers 21.14 (140) MCG 88,390 Tuesday, 25 April

01Essendon Bombers 15.13 (103) Collingwood Magpies 14.11 (95) MCG 83,905 Wednesday, 25 April

02Collingwood Magpies 9.12 (66) Essendon Bombers 4.9 (33) MCG 84,894 Thursday, 25 April

03Essendon Bombers 23.9 (147) Collingwood Magpies 12.9 (81) MCG 62,589 Friday, 25 April

04Collingwood Magpies 11.13 (79) Essendon Bombers 17.10 (112) MCG 57,294 Sunday, 25 April

05Essendon Bombers 11.17 (83) Collingwood Magpies 10.9 (69) MCG 70,033 Monday, 25 April

06Collingwood Magpies 15.16 (106) Essendon Bombers 12.17 (89) MCG 91,234 April 25 AFL.com.au

2006 Collingwood 2005 Essendon 2004 Essendon 2003 Essendon 2002 Collingwood 2001 Essendon 2000 Essendon 1999 Essendon 1998 Collingwood 1997 Collingwood 1996 Collingwood 1995 DRAW

Made one earlier today - The Anzac Day clash Crickettragic 09:59 April 25

There is now two pages

• The Anzac Day clash
• Anzac day football match

These probably need amalagamating into one article. Maybe there should be a parent article on Blockbusters and include them all. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 20:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

{{afl-bio-stub}} sub-types

The AFL stub type has become very large; please comment at the stub proposals page if you have any thoughts as to how best to divide it up. Alai 08:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Photographs

I got the latest(June 2007 edition) of Australian Photography. There story "Who's Controlling What?" has raised a potential problem for adding Photographs from the current season. Whats happened is The AFL has contracted exclusive photographic rights to Geoffry Slatter Publishing, so how does this affect us well it means that commercial photographs can only be obtain via this company, this appears to mean that we cant upload images we take under free licenses as these enable commercial use and may put the photographer along with wikimedia in breach of copyright laws.

The story does indicate that that are some unresolved areas in relation to local print media images but it does exclude stock photo companies like "Getty Images". Gnangarra 01:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of points it would only pertain to images after the date of the contract not before, and Getty's has indicated that its considering a legal challenge to AFL's decision. Gnangarra 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that all the AFL has done is refuse AFL-accreditation and admission to non-Geoffrey-Slatter-affiliated press photographers. If the average Joe takes his camera to the footy and gets some good snaps of the action, then those photographs belong to Joe and Joe alone, not to the AFL. The only way the AFL could claim ownership of all photos taken at the game is (a) if they convinced the government to legislate for it; or (b) if they made every fan that walks through the gates sign a piece of paper saying they transfer rights to any photos they take to the AFL. It would be easier for the AFL to ban all cameras, but I don't think they're likely to do that! Hesperian 02:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately thats not entirely clear I have the right to take a photo like any other person at the a game but do I have the right to then sell that photo? If this was the case Getty Photographers would just buy a ticket go to the games sit in the outer with every body else. The issue is commercial use of the Image to which AFL has a asserted rights through exclusive contracts to the product(the game). Gnangarra 02:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I would contend that Getty can indeed buy a ticket and sit in the outer, and take photos and sell them. But they would have to take a reasonably compact camera without a tripod in order to be admitted through the gates; and they would be taking pictures from a lot further back than the Slatterites, who would have press photographer clearance to patrol the sidelines; and they would have people jumping up and down waving flags in front of them, and idiots spilling beer on thier camera... for these reasons having press photographer clearance is absolutely necessary to any serious press photographer; thus the AFL can control its images simply by deciding who gets accredited and who doesn't.

I still say the only rights to your photographs are your own "copyrights", plus any "legal rights", plus any "contractual rights". If the AFL have neither a legal framework for claiming the legal rights to any photographs of their product, not any contract in place with your good self, then they ain't got jack.

TO put it another way, the AFL can make any ridiculous assertion they want, and probably will, because that is part of their strategy. But as far as I'm concerned they are talking crap unless they can explain to me who gave them the right to tell me I can't sell my photos. I certainly don't give them that right simply by buying a ticket to the game. Hesperian 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

They probably could make it a condition of sale/use of the ticket, if they wanted to. JPD (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In the days of multi-mega-pixel cameras on mobile phones, good luck restricting production of 1200 x 1000 pixel images at any public event.Garrie 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

EDFL

Hi, i was thinking about improving the Essendon District Football League coverage on wikipedia by writing articles about every team in the league. Does anyone think this is a good idea? Jones234Jones 07:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you will run into problems with showing that the individual teams are notable in Australian rules football. If they are "just another local team" then most people will question why it should be noted in detail in an encyclopedia, and I would agree. Remy B 08:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a summary of the teams on the league page would be a good way to start. Hack 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Victorian Country football leagues and clubs

You may be interested to know that many articles on VCFL leagues such as Alberton Football League have been deleted through the PROD process. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 06:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Famous fans"

i have noticed on a number of the club articles a "famous fans" section has been added(for an example see the Geelong Football Club article), are these details really suitible for wikipedia? im also apart of WikiProject Baseball and these sections were all removed from Baseball team articles, is anyone against the removal of these sections? --Dan027 09:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think they don't belong on Wikipedia at all, but they definitely don't belong in the club articles. Remove them as quickly as you like. JPD (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There was once an article dedicated to this topic... it got deleted. Feel free to do the same for that sort of content in club articles. Remy B 08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed all the sections last night, only one was re-added (West Coast Eagles) i will keep an eye on these articles to make sure they dont get re-added again. --Dan027 08:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:AFL Sydney Swans

I have nominated (unused) template:AFL Sydney Swans for deletion, as a duplicate of template:AFL Syd. -- DH85868993 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject AFL importance assessments

I noticed that none of the 1255 tagged articles have been assessed for importance. Valid tags following the "{{WP Australia|afl=yes|" tag are: "afl-importance=top, high, mid, low or no".

I'm suggesting the following as a guide:

• Teams
  • Current and past AFL clubs = top
  • Other teams including VFL, WAFL, SANFL = low
• Stadia
  • MCG = top
  • Regularly played on as AFL fixutures = high
  • Infrequently played AFL fixtures = mid
• Players/people (highest of...)
  • Team of the Century players = top
  • Hall of Fame/Legends = top
  • Brownlow medallists = high
  • Coleman medallists = high
  • Other major medallists (eg, 'Rising Star', 'Michael Tuck', club awards = mid
  • Coaches = mid
  • Other players = low

Whilst obviously subjective, this may at least provide a start if anyone's inclined to start tagging. —Moondyne 08:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So why then did you assess Talk:Fremantle Football Club as WP Australia|afl=yes|WA=yes|class=B|afl-importance=mid|WA-importance=mid|importance=low? I've reassessed it as top/high/mid The-Pope 10:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake! Thanks. —Moondyne 04:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Club logo size.

What is the preferred size for the AFL club logos:
150px, 200px, 250px or 300px? --203.94.135.134 23:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Player Profiles

I'm going to go through and add some information on players, and i just want to know the requirements for an article. For example, many players have only played one game. Do these players deserve an entire article? Terlob 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about players from the VFL over the past 100 years. Something of a precedent was set in the Ted Flynn deletion discussion, where players who played at the top level of the sport (in this case VFL/AFL) are considered notable enough to have a page. That said, I wouldn't recommend starting articles for players, such as Flynn, of who there is very little information about. But anyone who's played VFL/AFL is notable enough to have an article about them. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just recently got a reference that provides a lot of information on players, and ill slowly be adding it. Starting with Carlton of course. Terlob 07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathan van Berlo

Is the section on "internet phenomenon" for Nathan van Berlo neccesary? I'd delete it but I'm a newbie so I thought I should see what others think. --TheGrantley 07:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dale Thomas

It's quite possibly the most unencyclopedic page I have ever seen. Apart from the fact that it look like the potential homepage of his fansite there are a ridiculous amount of pictures. Most of the pics are dodgy anyway as the author claims to have taken them when they have simply been lifted from reuters or some other news agency. Can someone give me a hand fixing it because I fear it this is going to turn into a revert war. Cheers Crickettragic 07:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my... that is a mess. WP:BOLD, by all means. Remy B 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there needs to some protection as it is impossible to stop the mass of dodgy edits that this article is getting.Hack 08:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Regional leagues in Queensland

Following this Afd lead me to consider how AFL Bundaberg-Wide Bay (or any of the other regional Qld league articles) individually meet WP:N or WP:CORP. As someone who is more interested in ensuring all articles address either of those two inclusion guidelines, than AFL itself, I am propsing that all following articles are merged:

• AFL Bundaberg-Wide Bay
• AFL Cairns
• AFL Capricornia
• AFL Darling Downs
• AFL Mackay
• AFL Mt Isa
• AFL Townsville

The rather clumsy article title I have at the moment is Regional Australian rules football leagues in Queensland. Equally clumsy is Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland. Either way I have commenced a draft in my user space. If you have any thoughts on my proposal please pitch in at Talk:Australian rules football in Queensland#Merge suggestion.

Garrie 00:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The above listed articles have been merged to Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland following moderate discussion.Garrie 22:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming players

When writing a new article on a player who has a name which is already taken up by someone else, what is prefered - (Australian rules footballer) or just (footballer) after their name? I've been making article for a while now I've been pretty inconsistent, just basically using whichever. Any preferences?

Crickettragic 09:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn on this one - (Australian rules footballer) seems too long, but (footballer) seems too ambiguous. If I had to choose it would be (Australian rules footballer). What I definitely do not like is adding a middle name initial where that initial is not often quoted for the player. Another option I have seen is (sportsperson) or (sportsman) for cases where the person was known for more than just Australian rules. A naming standard would be great if we could drum up enough thoughts on the matter. Remy B 09:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A problem I've come across sometimes with putting (footballer) is that someone will come across and add a 'Soccer Stub' tag to the article.

Crickettragic 09:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For disambiguation, we generally use the simplest term that distinguishes the article from other articles with the same name. Sometimes footballer is enough, sometimes it isn't. It seems to work well either way, although as Crickettragic says, sometimes the wrong stub is added. If it really is a stub, perhaps the best way to prevent this is to put a better stub notice on first. JPD (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also seen articles with name (Australian footballer), which fits between the two. --TheGrantley 03:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As much as it's a bit of a mouthful, as the (foo) bit doesn't have to be seen much (and do you guys all know the pipe trick? [[John Citizen (foo)|]] automatically drops what ever is in the brackets!... John Citizen) I prefer (Australian rules footballer) as it means when John Smith starts playing for Everton or the 49ers or whatever, you don't need to change. Wikipedia:WikiProject_AFL/Players/Disamb shows that there is a mix (a lot of the (footballer)s though are soccer players. The-Pope 20:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Metric system first

Hi I've noticed that a lot of players have their profiles with the imperial weights and measurements first. As a metirc country the metric system should be first and the imperial system in brackets. I've started re-editing them. Anyone want to help me? 60.230.78.50 07:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New club templates

As if we don't have too many templates in the club pages as it is, there is now another one that has been added to each club article that links to sections in the page (redundant because of ToC), links to season articles that the club has played in (seems a bit unnecessary), and then lists coach, captain, etc. (redundant because of far-top-right template box). Do we really need these? I would like to get rid of them because they badly clutter the page and dont add anything useful as far as links go. Thoughts? :) Remy B 10:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support removing them. The links to season articles are the only non-redundant links, and they are not specific to the club. JPD (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed them. I know it is cutting out a lot of hard work but we can't just clutter up the pages for the sake of not having someone wasted their time. The top-right templates on each page already do all the work we need for summarising the club's links. Remy B 11:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the templates should be removed just because of the links to seasons or redundant links. The templates are still at a construction stage. I have been gradually up dating the Geelong template which now includes links to GFC coaches and players as well as a link to their 2007 season. Currently there are redundant links on other pages, I admit that, but instead of removing the entire template, I think updating or adding to them is a better idea. All sport FA-Class pages have similar templates to these (Chelsea FC) and if featured article status is the ultimate goal then I believe these templates (or something similar) should be apart of each clubs page. If anyone is interested in updating their clubs template a list can be found at WikiProject AFL.
Sge 03:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the focus should be on the merit of the template in the page, not trying to repeat what other pages have done. I hardly think this template is a necessity for FA status! Regarding the template itself - we have an infobox for the club in the top right corner of the page. That infobox is a summary of the club, so I don't see why we need a new one. If there are additional links that it doesn't have, I think it would make more sense to either put them in the existing infobox, or include them in the text of the article, rather than create a new box of links. A lot of those links were internal links to sections in that very page, which seems more like a second table of contents. I really just want to avoid the scope creep of adding more and more templates that clutter the page. Genuinely notable information should go into the flow of the article because an encyclopedia is meant to be prose rather than boxes of links. Remy B 05:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox afl player

I've just added OPTIONAL 'image size' and 'image capt' tags to the standard Template:Infobox afl player that is used on many AFL pages. Just add

| image size = 
| image capt = 

to any box to override the default 200px width or add a caption. Hopefully I got the parser functions right - took me a while, but I needed something to take my mind off the Freo debacle. The-Pope 09:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't believe it but I had just come to this page to ask everyone about this exact thing!! I've been making alot of past player's articles and their pictures are so bloody massive eg Ron Todd (footballer). Good work mate. Crickettragic 07:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations Required Gone Overboard?

Looking at the Jim Stynes page, I see that someone has possibly gone a bit overboard on the "citations required"s. I understand some citations being good but is this too much? --TheGrantley 01:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is verging on WP:POINT. If you have to put that many tags on an article, just tag the entire article at the top. Putting a tag on each individual statement is just disruptive and unnecessary. I'm going to revert it and add an article tag to flag it for referencing. Remy B 08:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

_{btw, I wasn't referring to you specifically :) Remy B 08:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)}

Plagiarism problem

It has recently come to my attention that User:Phaplap who has created dozens of VFL/AFL player articles, has simply copy and pasted word for word their profile from the Fullpointsfooty website eg Don Cordner. Some articles he has created are mentioned on his userpage so if some of you guys could help me in fixing these articles it would be appreciated. By fixing I guess I mean that we can either delete the copy righted material and leave the article's as stubs or just reword them. I've left a message of this bloke's talk page so hopefully no more articles are created in this fashion. Cheers Crickettragic 10:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are just copy/paste jobs then they should all be marked with Template:Copyright. It is not considered OK to just reword some parts of the copyrighted text, it needs to be written from scratch. Remy B 01:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, this is going to be a big job sadly. It seems that every single Aussie rules article this guy has made have been copy and paste jobs. Apart from all the articles listed on his userpage there are many more as well that can be seen when you view his edit history. Crickettragic 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Phaplap is doing the right thing and going through every article he has made and removing all the copyrighted text. The problem however is that he is not explaining this in his edit summary and random users are interpreting his 'page blankings' as vandalism and are reverting the pages back to what they were. Crickettragic 16:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

New infoboxes

As above in infoboxes, i have created a new template (Template:Infobox AFL player). But it has some problems that i can't work out, like some sections not appearing when published on a page and others, so if someone could please take a look at it, that would be much appreciated. Also i've includeed many of the elements that exist in the current one and added a few other details based on the soccer template. Please put youer thoughts and ideas here. Allied45 10:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports)

Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Year in Australian rules football articles

I don't think this has been covered already but I thought that a series of articles covering a particular year in Australian rules football (eg. 2007 in Australian rules football) that would give brief details of each of the major leagues (VFL/AFL, SANFL, WAFL etc.), awards, births and deaths of famous footballers, interstate matches & anything else that could be of interest, could be a valuable set of pages. What do others think? --Roisterer 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like grounds for a dedicated AFL Wiki. Just not sure about having non-AFL people trawling through and marking all this sort of stuff for deletion or relevance. - Bricks J. Winzer 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern sydney power

This U18s club in the lower divisions of the Sydney AFL is currently listed for deletion. Please add your comments there. JPD (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

AFL Ladder

I've created a new ladder that we could use on all the AFL seasons which you can see here. Based on the 2007 ladder, I added the streak column but I'm not sure if we should use it on a uniform ladder template. This will be made into a template afterwards. Beamerized 05:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks a lot cleaner than the other ladders we have. I would not include the colours as colour decoration should be kept to a bare minimum on Wikipedia. The bolding is a good way to show the top and bottom 8, although I don't think we need to introduce the complexity of showing a top 4. I'm not sure about the streak column - it seems a bit temporal, and wouldn't really be notable information once the season is over. Other than that I would like to see it used as a standard ladder template on all the season articles. Remy B 07:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just did one without colour, I think it is a bit harder to distinguish the top and bottom 8 apart. Beamerized 10:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I definitely prefer that. The top 8 is fairly obvious... I mean, you have numbered them 1 to 16, so with the bold it's hard to miss. Remy B 10:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added another version without the streak column and moved the static template links down to the bottom. Beamerized 12:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I reakon we should go with the table without the streak column and include the colours to either distinguish the Top 4 and 8 or just the Top 8. Beamerized 05:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it again I think I would be happy with keeping the green for the top 8, but I don't think the top 4 is necessary. Remy B 07:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now made it into a template and soon will be changing all 2007 related ladders with the template. If anyone else has time to do previous seasons that would be great. Beamerized 13:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On further thought, since current ladders are using the {{2007 AFL season/Ladder}} format, should we just add ladders to {{AFL Ladder/2007}} so all ladders be localized? 14:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

AFL Style Guide in season articles

I brought this up when we originally came up with the style guide, but it still appears to be a problem. The season articles still have "Collingwood Magpies" and "Hawthorn Hawks" instead of Collngwood and Hawthorn. The person updating these pages appears to be using an anonymous account (with a constantly changing ip), so it would perhaps be hard to give them a message directing them to the style guide. I'm about a month away myself from having enough time to be able to go through systematically and change the relevant parts, but rather than do all that, is there anyone out there who could perhaps design an automatic bot to go through and do it? If so, this would saeem the best, most efficient way of correcting this problem. Blackmissionary 23:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You may have noticed that most of the team names are from individual templates. This would require one change per team and it would be mostly done. I would highly recommend you discuss it on the talk pages first because it is a fairly drastic change that might not match the general consensus. Remy B 13:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Brownlow Medal

If someone would like to help out filling in the votes for each game in each round that would be great. The Herald Sun website has a full list of every vote-getter. Beamerized 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

2006 Brownlow Medal isn't in great shape, either. Is it worth the effort? Is this the right place for that sort of data? JPD (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should, I just didn't have the time to do it, at least have a tally of the ones with most votes. Beamerized 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a list of the highest vote-winners is a good idea. JPD (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.202.171 (talk • contribs)

Chris Mainwaring

For those that haven't already heard Chris Mainwaring passed away last night at home, can editors please add him to their watchlist Gnangarra 04:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)