Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Template:Infobox AFL biography parameters

4TheWynne and I have an unresolved dispute regarding whether to use the fullname parameter of the AFL biography infobox if the subject's full name is identical to their common name (listed on top of the box, same as article title without disambiguation). (For an example of a subject with the identical full name listed, see Nina Morrison) There are a few good reasons to avoid this:

1. It is redundant to information supplied in the infobox's header, immediately above.
2. It is slightly misleading, as it may be sourced from an article or database that in fact is using the common name.

This is affirmed by the template documentation, which includes a comment suggesting only to use the parameter when the full name is different. I am not aware of any good reasons to include this parameter, but have brought the issue here as an opportunity to discuss and create a convention going forward. – Teratix ₵ 00:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that there are several parameters which need to be discussed, and "fullname" isn't one of them (however if people feel so strongly about it, then that's fine – it's just something that I've always done across all BLP articles, regardless of the subject). Teratix, you should probably spend less time worrying about the most basic of parameters and more time getting the others right when creating footballer articles (I'll use this edit as an example). Anyway, the four that I'd like to discuss are "caption", "original team", "draftpick" and "debutstadium", as well as whether seasons should be linked. There are other parameters that have been discussed over time which I think everyone seems to agree upon, so they probably don't need to be brought up. These are my views on each:

• The month (and this applies to all images throughout the article, rather than just in the infobox) shouldn't be included in the caption, as it means very little in the context of a football season – just the year is enough (e.g. <name> playing for/training with <club> in 2019). I used to argue that the round should be part of the caption instead of the month, but that's also unnecessary.
• The original team listed should just be the highest-level team that the player played in prior to being drafted (TAC Cup/NAB League or similar, or state league if applicable).
• The draft should be formatted in a way that better disambiguates between AFL and AFLW player articles – rather than "national draft" for men's and "AFL Women's draft" for women's, it should read "AFL national/rookie/pre-season/mid-season draft" for men's and "AFL Women's national/rookie draft" for women's, as both are national drafts (in other words, AFL/AFL Women's is the only difference).
• The venue (applies to all links throughout all articles and templates) should just be the stadium name rather than the commercial name (e.g. Docklands, not Colonial/Telstra/Etihad/Marvel depending on when the team/player debuted/played). It would just be so much easier to have all articles formatted the same way, and readers would know the stadium without having to hover over the link every time.
• Seasons should only be linked in certain sections of the article (e.g. statistics) – anywhere else, including the infobox, lead and body, is unnecessary.

I don't expect everyone to agree with all of these, but these are just my views, and perhaps we could come up with a consensus for each. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I reject the implication that any of the parameters changed in the aforementioned edit were somehow wrong. Most changes were merely stylistic preferences. However, arguing over these preferences is time-consuming and pointless, so I avoid it unless there is a compelling reason to prefer/avoid an option (as there is regarding the the fullname parameter). As for the parameters you mentioned:

• caption and originalteam: I agree here, concision and focus on the important information is best in an infobox.
• draftpick: It should be clear from context which league the player competes in.
• debutstadium: I agree regarding this parameter, but I am sympathetic to the argument that the use of sponsored names in season articles provides historical context.
• Season links: I am fairly liberal with my use of wikilinks but I appreciate that some think less is more. – Teratix ₵ 05:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• fullname - personally I don't think it matters either way, I think I usually do fill it in. But regardless it seems funny to me that 4TheWynne, you write about linking being unnecessary in some places, but are happy to repeat information here which some might deem redundant.
• caption - I don't think having the month is a problem, while I also think the longevity of the player's career could effect how relevant it is.
• debutstadium - As the consensus is to use commercial names in most places (season pages for example), (which makes sense to me as that is how they are referred to in the media sourcing the information), they should be used in the infobox parameter too. And as Teratix siad, it also can provide historical context.
• season link Like Teratix, I am happy to have more wikilinks rather than less (and personally feel WP:OVERLINK is a bit of a joke - this is the internet - linking is useful). However, in fairness for consensus of the project, I will mention that we had a discussion about the statsend parameter and the consensus was not to include wikilink to the season there.

--SuperJew (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

SuperJew, like I said, these are just my personal views, though "I think I usually do fill it in" (when it comes to the "fullname" parameter) pretty much applies to me as well, so I don't know where you're coming from – filling in a parameter which some might see as redundant and WP:OVERLINK are two different things (the main difference being that one can just be a preference and one is a guideline). Teratix, I understand your point about the "draftpick" parameter, but my main reason for bringing that up was the fact that the league name isn't included in the name of the men's draft, whereas it is in the women's draft – they should either both just read "national draft", etc., or both include the league name in the name of the draft. With the links, it's not so much about "less is more" and more just about what's necessary – that's what WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK are for. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: I was just wondering.. not having a go. Just sounds to me both come from thoughts of redundancy.🤷🏼‍♂

Regarding WP:REPEATLINK, it says if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article. I would also say that infoboxes stand alone in their usage. --SuperJew (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In AFLW articles, I use "2017 national draft" and "2017 rookie draft" but "2018 AFLW draft" because there was no AFLW rookie, preseason, etc. draft in 2018. Even "2018 draft" might be OK, although it seems slightly vague. I'm not aware of any discussion that concluded the AFL and AFLW should be treated any differently on this matter? – Teratix ₵ 08:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

SuperJew, the season links were also supposed to be article-wide, not just for the infobox, and have nothing to do with citations. Teratix, I think that's essentially what this conversation is – I think we're both in agreeance that "national draft", "rookie draft/signing", etc. should be used for both; it's just a matter of whether we put AFL/AFL Women's in front of it (which we ultimately don't have to do, as we want to be descriptive enough without being too descriptive). With AFL Women's specifically, I don't agree with "AFL Women's draft" (which is how it's formatted a lot of the time), "AFLW draft" or just "draft", the latter of which is definitely a bit vague, as you say – I think the 2018 versions should at the very least be "2018 national draft" and "2018 rookie signing". 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

On that count, I agree: the league is clear from context and there is no need for it to be mentioned. – Teratix ₵ 10:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't my reason for it, but I think we're on the same page with that one anyway. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Slightly changing the subject, I've often thought it would be a good idea to better record the outcomes of these discussions by expanding and updating the style guide to cover other matters such as football-related notability guidelines. Allied45 has created a helpful table on their userpage which could be used as a starting point. – Teratix ₵ 01:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

That's quite extensive Allied45! Well done :) Btw I noticed it's on the userpage, and suggest if you want you can move it to your sandbox or even to a sub-page of your user page. --SuperJew (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Teratix and SuperJew! I have moved what I started on my user page to User:Allied45/WikiProject Australian rules football style guide. Feel free to contribute! Allied45 (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

AFL Rising Star at FLC

AFL Rising Star has been nominated for featured list status by Allied45. – Teratix ₵ 12:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Australian football at the 1956 Summer Olympics – rewrite complete, review requested

My curiosity toward the exhibition match of Australian football that took place at the 1956 Summer Olympics led me to investigate the details behind its inclusion and the match itself. The current Wikipedia page is spotty, glosses over details, lacks templates and is generally just poorly laid out. I have since completed an entire rewrite of the page, increasing its size from ~12,000 bytes to ~37,000 bytes, as well as upping the number of references from 13 to 43. I'm requesting any number of editors to have a read over the article and make any edits they feel necessary, be it for clarity, brevity or otherwise. There are a small number of images available on Trove relating to the event, although I'm not entirely sure on the copyright process for these given the murky mid-50s dating of it. I have a feeling we could apply for an OTRS ticket. Any experts in this field, do speak up. The rewrite is available here at my sandbox. Feel free to make any edits and if any of you think it is in good enough shape to copy over to the live Wiki, I will do so, otherwise it is likely I will proceed anyway within the next week or so. Just wanting to give the heads up. Cheers, Gibbsy^spin 01:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. I would eliminate the repetition of squads, keeping only the team in position, with a list below of anyone who didn't make the final team. I am almost certain that thanks to the Disney inspired, cultural vandalism URAA copyright extensions, no press photo post 1946 is allowed. The-Pope (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Two month virtual editathon on Women in Sports

WikiProject Women in Red is devoting the next two months (July and August) to a virtual editathon on Women in Sports. Please take this opportunity to write more articles about women footballers who lag far behind men on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Positions in List of Brownlow Medal winners

A few users have started adding a column with playing positions to List of Brownlow Medal winners. Before I start cleaning up the list (Brett Kirk is an association football right back?), and completing the list back for the first 60 years, does everyone agree that positions should be in the list at all? Whilst it used to be more regular and "fixed", Australian football has never had truly allocated positions like some other sports, so it's a bit of WP:OR, especially in recent years. The-Pope (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd delete it. As you say, it's OR, it's difficult to put a consensus on someone's position, and it's also somewhat a SYNTH by stealth comment on it being a midfielders award. Aspirex (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• It should be deleted. I don't see the relevance of players' positions to their Brownlow Medal wins anyway, even if they could be reliably sourced. – Teratix ₵ 12:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've nuked it. Very easy to do with the visual editor compared to the old wikitext editor, which I still prefer for most edits. The-Pope (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Representation of awards in statistics sections

Hey everyone – just thought I'd bring something to your attention that I thought might be worthy of discussion. I've seen numerous editors add back the background colour denoting a premiership win (see example below) in the statistics sections of players in the last couple of years, most notably – and recently – Johnny Stormer (a clear-cut case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU).

2019†

Before I get into what I wanted to propose, I was under the impression that there was a consensus disallowing this, that the awards are mentioned enough elsewhere in the article – could someone please confirm whether or not this is the case? Thanks. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll get into it anyway, as I was going to propose this regardless unless people were vehemently against it. I was actually looking to propose that both premierships and Brownlow Medal/AFL Women's best and fairest wins be represented on the statistics table, as I thought including two of the three highest accolades in Australian rules football (the other being the Norm Smith Medal/AFLW-equivalent) would actually be a cool touch, particularly now that we're including votes in the table, and it would make these tables on Wikipedia even more helpful than on other websites which just display statistics. I decided against including ineligibility for the best and fairest awards, as it would be too difficult to research every season that every player was ineligible through suspension, whereas just the two new colours would be easy to add, and would be the most I would add to the current group of colours – one applies to the season column, and the other applies to the votes column.

Below is the amended table with all colours included (this example is for VFL/AFL, whereas the last row of the AFLW table would read "Won that season's AFL Women's best and fairest award" instead and then be changed again once the award's given an official name). The pre-existing colours have been altered slightly for visibility/brightness, and the wording of some of the rows has also been changed so that they're less ambiguous, something that another user proposed on my talk page when inquiring specifically about the wording (e.g. specifying home-and-away season).

	Led the league for the home-and-away season only
	Led the league after finals only
	Led the league for the home-and-away season and after finals
	Played in that season's premiership team
	Won that season's Brownlow Medal

With this in mind, rather than have the actual text for the table in articles, we could create templates for each individual combination, listed below (even if some of them are rarely or never used). This way, rather than having to try and find the colour elsewhere when one needs to be added, another letter can just be added to the template, and it will change to a different template which has that extra row of the table.

Below is an example of a player's statistics table with all of the colours in use (I've used Dane Swan who, to my knowledge, is the only player whose statistics table would require all five colours).

Example

Season Team No. Games Totals Averages (per game) Votes G B K H D M T G B K H D M T 2002 Collingwood 36 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 2003 Collingwood 36 3 0 0 14 13 27 4 3 0.0 0.0 4.7 4.3 9.0 1.3 1.0 0 2004 Collingwood 36 13 2 5 105 66 171 49 18 0.2 0.4 8.1 5.1 13.2 3.8 1.4 0 2005 Collingwood 36 14 3 2 143 91 234 67 22 0.2 0.1 10.2 6.5 16.7 4.8 1.6 0 2006 Collingwood 36 21 19 12 311 176 487 168 44 0.9 0.6 14.8 8.4 23.2 8.0 2.1 11 2007 Collingwood 36 25 13 14 422 173 595 187 85 0.5 0.6 16.9 6.9 23.8 7.5 3.4 20 2008 Collingwood 36 24 22 23 368 222 590 163 75 0.9 1.0 15.3 9.3 24.6 6.8 3.1 12 2009 Collingwood 36 25 18 25 444 325 769 161 77 0.7 1.0 17.8 13.0 30.8 6.4 3.1 12 2010 Collingwood 36 26 24 23 505 315 820 146 123 0.9 0.9 19.4 12.1 31.5 5.6 4.7 24 2011 Collingwood 36 24 32 23 472 288 760 129 77 1.3 1.0 19.7 12.0 31.7 5.4 3.2 34 2012 Collingwood 36 21 25 22 442 283 725 138 71 1.2 1.0 21.0 13.5 34.5 6.6 3.4 25 2013 Collingwood 36 23 21 21 436 281 717 131 79 0.9 0.9 19.0 12.2 31.2 5.7 3.4 26 2014 Collingwood 36 17 11 12 244 180 424 79 49 0.6 0.7 14.4 10.6 24.9 4.6 2.9 17 2015 Collingwood 36 21 21 14 336 273 609 104 81 1.0 0.7 16.0 13.0 29.0 5.0 3.9 13 2016 Collingwood 36 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Career 258 211 196 4242 2686 6928 1526 804 0.8 0.8 16.4 10.4 26.9 5.9 3.1 186

This took a fair while to put together – what does everyone think? I know that there are some who don't really care for having these statistics tables or are against having them altogether, but I'm a massive fan of them, and feel like these proposed changes could benefit the project rather than hinder it – interested to know everyone's thoughts. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I like it and agree it would be useful. However, instead of dozens of separate templates, couldn't there just be one template with several parameters to enable the different aspects of the key? – Teratix ₵ 03:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What would the default template be, though? There isn't anything that each template/combination has in common. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Could it perhaps be combined with Template:AFL player statistics start? – Teratix ₵ 04:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

But then you'd also be combining it with multiple other versions of the template as well (ruck, with votes, AFLW, etc.), and you'd be creating multiple copies for a lot of the combinations. It'd be the same thing with Template:Australian rules football statistics legend, as there are multiple versions of that template as well. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have stalled a bit. This is a good idea, obviously it would be ideal if it could be implemented without resorting to dozens of templates, but if there's no alternative then it's fine to implement. – Teratix ₵ 02:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not in favour. Style/accessibility guidelines discourage the use of colours as the primary means of conveying of information, and trying to make uniform across the project a colour coding which is applied to very articles (i.e. only star players who accumulate a lot of statistics) doesn't seem likely to aid overall project readability. The sorts of things proposed for colour coding are really high-level things – premierships, major awards, league-leading stats getters – and these belong in prose and the infobox in my opinion. Aspirex (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Aspirex, if that's the case, then why did a version of these colours exist in the first place/why are people still trying to add premierships back to tables? I personally think it's a much better option than, for example, having the statistics table and then the statistics the players led actually written out underneath (e.g. "Led the league in disposals and average disposals in 2017, led the league in kicks in 2018 (finals only)" etc. in dot points). I think the key/colours are pretty easy to understand and a great way of simplifying things and making the table a bit more visually interesting without leaving information out. I can't exactly see why you would put a statistic that a player led in the infobox (which is really only for honours/awards), and why separate that information and just put it in the prose when you can also put it in the statistics table (where the statistics are already there)? I'm not suggesting to not put it in the prose, but to do both. 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 08:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

My view is not invalid just because I haven't acted on it in the past. And leading in a statistic is only notable if it supports a prose statement (e.g. Joe Bloggs made a name for himself as one of the game's best rebounding defenders, and led the league in rebounds in 2014, 2016 and 2017), and that's the only means I'd ever use to include that information. Aspirex (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Peter Matera

Was just on the page of Peter Matera to add the news about him joining the AFL Tribunal and saw that the page doesn't have a single reference. I will try to devote some time to this but if there is anyone else who'd like to improve it, please feel free. He deserves a page befitting his greatness! MaskedSinger (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Added a couple. – Teratix ₵ 02:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Probable conflict interest of editing – fate of articles

I've come across two editors – @Internationalfooty: and @Aussierules: – who, judging by their usernames and contributions, likely have conflicts of interest with Australian Football International and related competitions.

Internationalfooty has about 300 contributions, making substantial contributions to:

• Australian Football Harmony Cup – six sources
• Australian Football International – created, two sources
• Footy 9s – created, two sources
• Major League Footy – created, no sources redirected
• USA Footy – created, no sources redirected
• Australian Convicts – currently redirects to Australian Football International
• AFI World 9s – deleted, see AfD
• EU Cup – eight sources (but none are independent)

Aussierules has about 40 contributions but has not edited since 2007. Other than the articles listed previously, they have also made substantial contributions to:

• Aussie Rules UK – created, no sources redirected
• Aussie Rules International – snuck onto Template:International Sports Federations for six years PRODed
• Aussie Rules Europe – created, no sources redirected

I'm aware this is not the appropriate forum for discussing user conduct; my question is, what should be done with the articles? Which should be deleted, which should be merged/redirected, and which (if any) should be kept? – Teratix ₵ 10:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Club honours

Opening a discussion owing to recent edit warring involving User:Davefelmer, User:Jjamesryan, User:RossRSmith, User:SuperJew, me and possibly others about what titles and honors should be captured alongside senior premierships on Australian rules football club pages. Let's discuss here and arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS that can be carried forward throughout the project. Aspirex (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think something has to have an official trophy to be an honour. A minor premiership, as in finishing first on the ladder at the end of the H&A season is definitely a noteworthy achievement, and is also mentioned in media (not ignored). --SuperJew (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I should initially specify that there has been next to no edit warring here, especially involving the likes of Jjamesryan, RossRSmith and others you list. Having a one-time discussion involving one or two edits isnt edit warring so the post is totally over-the-top to start with. But to address SuperJew's point, it simply isnt encyclopedic to list something as an honour that is not officially recognised by the league, has no official trophy to represent it and isnt even listed by clubs themselves on their own official websites. It is the definition of artificial section bloating. While things like minors and wooden spoons may be popular parts of fan culture in the sport, this does not give them any reason to be listed as encyclopedic honours when they officially dont have that status. And just because there is a literal sense of prestige in the eyes of some to them doesnt qualify them either. Take soccer for instance, where it is considered extraordinarily prestigious to finish in the top 4 of a league and qualify for the UEFA Champions League, and top 4 qualification itself has often been referred to as like a trophy in some media and the number of times a team qualifies for the UCL has been listed in media. But that doesnt make it officially an honour as per the organising bodies of the game and thus they arent listed by any clubs on official mediums or on the project as honours, because they arent. Another good example of this would be a project debate that occured regarding Major League Soccer's initial usage of fan-valued rivalry trophies as honours. For a while on Major League Soccer club pages, trophies were listed for teams that had won derby matches against their rivals, as its a popular part of fan culture to name and celebrate a trophy that you 'compete' for in a lot of rivalry matches. However, people came together on the wikiproject football page there and quickly established that these were totally ill-suited to be listed for the very same reasons things like minors and wooden spoons cant be listed. I dont see how there can be any debate here. The wooden spoon is a mock award for coming last, that is absolutely the last thing that ever belongs in an encyclopedic club trophy haul. If people want to mention it, it doesnt belong in an honours haul. And minors are already accounted for by the McClelland Trophy (which has been awarded to the minor premier since 1991) and other equivalent trophies that award directly for it now or did so before when taking into account senior, reserve and youth league results. But those are the only official, league-recognised honours for it historically so those can only be the ones listed. That seems entirely fair and logical. Davefelmer (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, to summarise my position: minor premierships and pre-season premierships strong include, wooden spoons weak include.

Bringing this first back to a policy discussion, I believe it's clear that all three titles in question at least meet the minimum requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia: numerous sources establish the WP:NOTABILITY of the titles within the historical context of the leagues, covering a range of articles from the AFL, third parties, and across a range of years (minor premierships, including pre-1990 VFL [1], [2], [3] [4]; pre-season premierships [5]; wooden spoons [6] [7] [8]); I don't think I need to justify WP:VERIFIABILITY or WP:NPOV here since those aren't really in question. So at the very least, any editor is well within his or her right to include all three titles, and I see no policy-based argument on which this content must be excluded; hence that leaves this project free to set a benchmark by WP:CONSENSUS.

Davefelmer, essentially you are offering a suggestion that only titles bearing a league-sanctioned trophy should meet the project's benchmark for inclusion; I disagree, and I contend that there is no Wikipedia policy which directly supports your opinion. I believe the sources above show all three titles in question are fairly broadly considered to be of sufficient esteem or ignominy to be listed alongside other premierships. I disagree that these are "unencyclopedic" – it is information which is unquestionably accurate and which informatively chronicles the performance of a club through its history, and this meets my definition of encyclopedic content regardless of "officialness". I also am unswayed by your OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/DOESN'TEXIST discussion of soccer projects – all sports (and different countries within each sport) have their own cultures surrounding the titles and achievements which are of greatest note, and just because one Wikiproject has decided minor premierships or preseason trophies aren't worthy of note, it does not mean another Wikiproject dealing with a different sport should or must make the same determination. (And, by-the-by, it's pretty easy to find counterexamples from other sports; e.g. NCAA basketball teams list all final-64 tournament appearances in their infoboxes regardless of finishing position – which is the whole reason we should avoid making decisions based solely on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).

Overall, I strongly support continued inclusion of minor premiers and preseason premierships on all AFL, SANFL and other pages; something which has been a general consensus (whether deliberately or tacitly) for a long time now. On the matter of the wooden spoon – I've said 'weak keep', really just because there has also been a tacit project consensus in the past to include. But I wouldn't miss it if we agreed to exclude it because, as Davefelmer correctly points out, it's not an honourable title and it does feel out of place being listed alongside the positive achievements. Aspirex (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Minor premierships as standalone achievements were not recognised by the AFL itself until 1991 when it became the McClelland Trophy which is listed for all clubs. Before that, it was recognised as only part of the criteria for acquiring an official trophy along with a team's results at reserve and youth level, which combined to award the McClelland Trophy before 1991 in the AFL and continues to award equivalent trophies in other leagues like the Stanley H. Lewis Trophy (SANFL) and RP Rodriguez Shield (WAFL), all of which are listed. Deciding to take what the league officially recognises as one of its trophies and then removing two of the three criteria for it, weighing it all on its own and then adding it additionally to club hauls is nothing but section bloating. The league itself doesnt recognise it, they arent listed on its own official website and they arent recognised by clubs themselves on their own official websites either! In the absence of both league and club recognition, its a dead case. A few random news articles (half of which you provided are not accessible btw) mentioning them means nothing.

As for the Wooden Spoon, the league considers it a 'record' of sorts but it most certainly isnt an 'honour' as its coming bloody last! Thus, just like I said above, of course it can be listed on a club's page but it doesnt belong in the honours haul. It should simply be referenced or listed elsewhere. And I never said anything about night/pre-season premierships. They are all listed. Davefelmer (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This diff shows you clearly originally attempted to remove preseason premierships as well, although I see that your more recent edits leave that in place, so I accept we now have a consensus there.

You still haven't offered any policy-based justification for breaking an established WP:CONSENSUS on minor premierships or wooden spoons. Your comment that "A few random news articles ... mentioning them means nothing" is a complete lack of understanding of content notability guidelines - what you mean is that it means nothing to you, that's all. Aspirex (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The league not recognising them and clubs themselves not recognising them as official honours in standalone form (apart from the McClelland Trophy since 1991 which is listed) is evidence enough. Just because they happened to be listed before and nobody made note of this doesnt imply that a consensus ever existed in the first place. It was simply not noticed. And content regarding sports trophies isnt notable when its not recognised by the league or the clubs that take part in it. And if you mean notable in the literal sense of 'oh, this sounds prestigious and notable so should be included!' then thats just stupid because this logic could be used for any achievement. A club could win all their away matches all season, or another club could win a game by a record score, or a club could pick up the most consecutive number of wins or whatever else and as long as the media report on it, they'll become 'notable achievements' and be added as honours? It makes no sense, you can't just create no standards and a free-for-all for what to add in the section. Minors are already noted in the two ways they are officially awarded by the league, and finishing last is not an honour. Davefelmer (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Wooden spoon might not be an honour, but it is definitely notable. --SuperJew (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Davefelmer, you say "just because they happened to be listed before and nobody made note of this doesnt imply that a consensus ever existed in the first place", which is literally the exact opposite of Wikipedia's CONSENSUS policy which states "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Right now, I don't see any signs that this consensus will be changing, considering three separate editors disagreed with and reverted your original changes. The discussion is still open, but provisionally I'll be reverting your edits until I see any sign of a shift in consensus. Aspirex (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

If you want to play it that way, four editors made reverts initially and when I explained the logic, three did not revert back, implying consensus. Your entire post as well was simply created because YOU had a problem with it, not anybody else. There was no edit warring with other editors and you exaggerated the extent of the reverts to try and draw people in to side with something that you simply had a problem with. At the end of the day, if something isnt recognised as an honour by the league or by the clubs that take part, it isnt an honour. Davefelmer (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: I think you are reading the situation in the way that suits you. I reverted you once, but would of reverted once more if I was active enough at this time to get to it before other people. But I also didn't start an edit-war because I don't want to be blocked for something stupid, and rather go through the discussion process (even though per WP:BRD as you made the first change (B) to a stable page, and was reverted (R), you should've started this discussion (D) in the first place). --SuperJew (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I didnt consider it a bold edit as a multitude of sources were found that show that the league itself doesnt consider them as honours and clubs themselves dont list them either. All these sources are above in this very conversation. In the face of the league not recognising them, clubs not recognising them and no trophy being awarded for them anyways, it was beyond clear and obvious that the way they were listed previously was wrong and not representative of the official reality. Thats really what it comes down to. Davefelmer (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Again you are reading as you wish. You can't claim a certain edit is bold or not - that's subjective. The point of bold from BRD is changing a stable page. As said already above, the pages have had the minor premierships and wooden spoons listed for years with no challenge or change to that. Whether that is right or wrong, it is stable, and a change of it is bold. --SuperJew (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

SuperJew, I agree that it is definitely notable as I've said above, it just shouldnt be in the honours section. Have it in 'records' which is where the league website has it or in another part of a club's page. Davefelmer (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Well in that case, you should've moved it to the section you think appropriate instead of removing it completely. --SuperJew (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasnt sure what section was appropriate, it was just obvious that finishing last isnt a professional honour. Throughout this discussion, we have seen that the league lists them amongst its 'records' section but not honours section, so thats where they could go. If we're agreed on that, do you want to move them there or should I? Davefelmer (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Be my guest :) --SuperJew (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good! Will get on it shortly Davefelmer (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any more suitable location on any club page to list minor premierships than next to the other premierships and team titles - for reasons of grouping similar honours together, and grouping similar types of lists (i.e. lists of years) together. And on the shorter state league club pages, there often is no other location. I'd still leave them where they are.

Aspirex (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of places where they could go. An easy and practical solution would be to place them in 'records' as you could argue that although the league on their official website doesnt reference them in the records section, they are by nature statistical records of the regular season. Thus, a note of them could be made there. I would be happy to go through the clubs and incorporate them there. Davefelmer (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Listing season honors next to game records doesn't seem like a sensible place to put them. Aspirex (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Officially speaking they are not seasonal honours, but by nature they are statistical records of the regular season. Hence it would be a good fit in the records section. Otherwise, we could simply mention them in the top intro for teams. So for example “x club has won y Premierships and z McClelland Trophies. They have also finished top of the regular season ladder 12 times (minor premiers).” Davefelmer (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, compromise solution which should resolve all issues. The club honours/premierships sections are all renamed to call them 'Club honours' instead of 'premierships', where necessary. The table in which they are listed is subdivided to clearly separate official league premierships (full season premierships in all grades) at the top from all other honourable or (for wooden spoon) dishonourable titles, with inclusion norms set as deemed notable by the project. This retains all of the content (which there a clear consensus is notable for inclusion) but has clear delineation of the different of status between premierships and others. Template upon which all can be based would be:

Premierships
Competition	Level	Wins	Years Won
VFL/AFL	Seniors	16	1906, 1907, 1908, 1914, 1915, 1938, 1945, 1947, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1987, 1995
VFA	Seniors	2	1877, 1887
Victorian premiership	Seniors	4	1871, 1873, 1874, 1875
VFL/AFL	Reserves	8	1926, 1927, 1928, 1951, 1953, 1986, 1987, 1990
VFL/AFL	Under 19s	6	1948, 1949, 1951, 1963, 1978, 1979
Other titles and honours
Championship of Australia	Seniors	2	1968, 1970
Challenge Cup	Seniors	1	1871
Australian Football Championships	Night Premiership	1	1983
VFL/AFL	McClelland Trophy	5	1969, 1979, 1985 (tied), 1987, 1995
AFL	Preseason premiership	3	1997, 2005, 2007
VFL/AFL	Minor premiership	16	1906, 1907, 1908, 1910, 1914, 1916, 1921, 1932, 1938, 1941, 1947, 1972, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1987, 1995
VFL/AFL	Wooden Spoons	5	2002, 2005, 2006, 2015, 2018

Lower league club pages which lack the full table (using an untabulated listing) can ideally be upgraded to the same format (good opportunity here to create consistency); or alternatively can follow a lesser version which still ensures premierships are listed above other honours. Aspirex (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The entire point is literally that stuff like the Wooden Spoon and minor prems as standalones that are not associated with official league trophies are NOT honours. Hence SuperJew's and I's agreement about the best place to move Wooden Spoons. Minor prems should be moved likewise, as they are not official honours as per the league (apart from the McClelland Trophy since 1991, which is listed) but they are statistical records of the regular season and so have clear justification in the 'records' section. Or in the intro sections as a note. Or both even. Davefelmer (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case, this version should be agreeable to everyone. It keeps club full-season records and achievements together, and completely eliminates any suggestion that these have official status.

Premierships
Competition	Level	Wins	Years Won
VFL/AFL	Seniors	16	1906, 1907, 1908, 1914, 1915, 1938, 1945, 1947, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1987, 1995
VFA	Seniors	2	1877, 1887
Victorian premiership	Seniors	4	1871, 1873, 1874, 1875
VFL/AFL	Reserves	8	1926, 1927, 1928, 1951, 1953, 1986, 1987, 1990
VFL/AFL	Under 19s	6	1948, 1949, 1951, 1963, 1978, 1979
Other titles and honours
Championship of Australia	Seniors	2	1968, 1970
Challenge Cup	Seniors	1	1871
Australian Football Championships	Night Premiership	1	1983
VFL/AFL	McClelland Trophy	5	1969, 1979, 1985 (tied), 1987, 1995
AFL	Preseason premiership	3	1997, 2005, 2007
Finishing positions
VFL/AFL	Minor premiership	16	1906, 1907, 1908, 1910, 1914, 1916, 1921, 1932, 1938, 1941, 1947, 1972, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1987, 1995
VFL/AFL	Runners-up	13	1904, 1909, 1910, 1916, 1921,1932, 1949, 1962, 1969, 1973,1986, 1993, 1999
VFL/AFL	Wooden Spoons	5	2002, 2005, 2006, 2015, 2018

Aspirex (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This works for me mate! Fair to the statuses and is logically constructed. Davefelmer (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Great. Don't be surprised if you get some 'undo' notifications, as I'll use that as a starting point when I update. Aspirex (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Australian Football League

Club tables

Hey everyone (thought I might reach further by discussing here, particularly as this may affect more articles than the specific one mentioned). Thejoebloggsblog has insisted on using a format for the club tables at Australian Football League that is more consistent with professional American sporting competitions – while it condenses the table slightly, it leaves out what I believe to be relevant information in colours, members, premierships, totals, etc. (I also don't see the benefit in sorting by state when alphabetical order is perfectly fine). Personally, I'm a fan of the pre-existing format (which has also been applied at the AFL Women's and VFL Women's articles), but what does everyone else think? For ease of access, I've included both versions below. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Pre-existing table (with column fixes)

Club Colours Moniker State Home venue 2019 members Est. Former league VFL/AFL seasons VFL/AFL premierships First Total Total Most recent Adelaide Crows South Australia Adelaide Oval 64,437 1990 — 1991 29 2 1998 Brisbane Lions Lions Queensland The Gabba 28,023 1996 — 1997 23 3 2003 Carlton Blues Victoria Docklands Stadium 64,269 1864 VFA* 1897+ 123 16 1995 Collingwood Magpies Victoria Melbourne Cricket Ground 85,226 1892 VFA 1897+ 123 15 2010 Essendon Bombers Victoria Docklands Stadium 84,237 1871 VFA 1897+ 121† 16 2000 Fremantle Dockers Western Australia Perth Stadium 51,431 1994 — 1995 25 0 — Geelong Cats Victoria Kardinia Park 65,063 1859 VFA 1897+ 120† 9 2011 Gold Coast Suns Queensland Carrara Stadium 13,649 2009 — 2011 9 0 — Greater Western Sydney Giants New South Wales Sydney Showground Stadium 30,109 2009 — 2012 8 0 — Hawthorn Hawks Victoria Melbourne Cricket Ground 81,211 1902 VFA 1925 95 13 2015 Melbourne Demons Victoria Melbourne Cricket Ground 52,421 1858 VFA* 1897+ 120† 12 1964 North Melbourne Kangaroos Victoria Docklands Stadium 42,419 1869 VFA* 1925 95 4 1999 Port Adelaide Power South Australia Adelaide Oval 51,951 1870 SANFL* 1997 23 1 2004 Richmond Tigers Victoria Melbourne Cricket Ground 103,358 1885 VFA 1908 112 12 2019 St Kilda Saints Victoria Docklands Stadium 43,038 1873 VFA* 1897+ 121† 1 1966 Sydney Swans New South Wales^ Sydney Cricket Ground 61,912 1874 VFA 1897+ 122† 5 2012 West Coast Eagles Western Australia Perth Stadium 90,445 1986 — 1987 33 4 2018 Western Bulldogs Bulldogs Victoria Docklands Stadium 44,373 1877 VFA 1925 95 2 2016 ^ denotes that the club has relocated at some point in its existence * denotes that the club was a founding member of its former league + denotes that the club was a founding member of the VFL † denotes that the club did not participate in one or more seasons due to one or both of the World Wars

American competition-style table

(from Talk:Australian Football League) 4TheWynne has been reverting my updates of the team table. I have been using the team table formatting style of the professional sporting competitions of the United States. These tables are simple covering only the relevant details. The old table was starting to get overloaded with information such as previous years membership figures which is excessive and likely contravenes Wikipedia rules. I see no reason why the new table is not preferable to the old table. Other professional sporting competitions do not provide tables for old franchises instead linking to pages for defunct teams of the competition in question. This is more efficient.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe the recent membership counts to be excessive, as they give an indication of the strength/popularity of each club – I find that to be far more useful than, say, the capacity of each team's home venue. Also, as I mentioned in a couple of edit summaries, there isn't enough sourced content in the "former clubs" section to warrant splitting to a new article – we don't have to make these wholesale changes just for the sake of being like other sporting competition articles. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that stadium capacity is certainly not appropriate for AFL considering the amount of grounds sharing and the fact that the clubs generally have little to no ownership or over the grounds they play in - very different to the US. Membership, I'm slightly against as I've always considered it a bit crufty, but no strong opinion either way. Premiership, I'm in favor of displaying as a preference - I've always found it frustrating having to go to another page to find out which clubs are most successful when reading about US sports. Head coach, I'm not in favor of displaying - compared with all other things in the table which summarize the club's entire history in the briefest possible way, having the present day head coach would be well down the importance list for things I'd include. Aspirex (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agree with that. I'd much rather use the pre-existing table including the VFL/AFL premierships column but remove the membership one. RossRSmith (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

A bit late, but the pre-existing table is much better. The "American" table also violates the colours rule, and AFL doesn't group things by state in the way American sports group conferences. SportingFlyer T·C 12:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Template

Also, does anyone think it's necessary to differentiate between VFL and AFL in the ribbon of the relatively new Template:Australian Football League (as per this edit) when there's already a note at the bottom of the template explaining the name change? I personally think it's pointless to have both, and that the note is far more useful. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a need to differentiate between the two competitions. However, cannot see the need for the Grand Finals list virtually repeating the seasons list, so would remove it. Cut the note back to simply refer to the 1897 & 1924 GFs not being held. RossRSmith (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't think that either of those would be the best options. The whole idea behind this navbox is that it combines all of the relevant information into one place (replacing a few of the smaller navboxes and taking some of the content from Template:Australian rules football which was relevant only to AFL), which is why seasons and grand finals are both listed; I've already replaced the older templates with the new one at all of the relevant articles (including grand finals), and think it's far more useful to have one bigger one (where everything's still easy to find) than several smaller ones. I'd also much rather keep the part about the name change in the note than remove it and differentiate via the ribbon, as it makes the template even bigger and look like there were two distinct competitions (as opposed to actually saying that there was a name change). That's just my take on it all, anyway. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Nomination of Portal:Australian rules football for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Australian rules football is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Australian rules football until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• If it's kept (and, in theory, it should be as there's enough content) I'm willing to adopt the portal and fix it up to highlight some of our best content and make it into a useful navigation page. If anyone has ideas on how to improve it, please let me know. SportingFlyer T·C 12:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

2017 AFL Women's Rising Star at FLC

Editors may be interested to comment on 2017 AFL Women's Rising Star, currently at FLC. – Teratix ₵ 09:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Melbourne University W.F.C.

I recently updated and expanded Melbourne University W.F.C.. I believe the article meets the notability guidelines required to justify a separate article. However @4TheWynne: has constantly reverted my edits and has engaged in an edit war. He insists on merging the article into Melbourne University Football Club. If anybody here has any contributions to make see Talk:Melbourne University Football Club. Djln Djln (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is not a neutral notification. Reyk _YO! 18:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And it takes two to edit war... – Teratix ₵ 23:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    • This is not canvassing. It was invitation to participate in a discussion, a discussion that had previously been ignored. It only takes one to start an edit war and 4TheWynne is the one that started it. I ended it and got a discussion going. And now you're even object to me starting a discussion, even though most of the participants agreed with you. WTF Djln

Sports reviewing ideas

I've floated some ideas in the hope of increasing participation for FAC reviews of sports related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#FAC reviewing of sports articles if anyone is interested in the idea or has a better one. Kosack (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

AFL Media redesign breaking external links

AFL Media recently overhauled their websites (AFL.com.au and the club websites), which, of course, has caused many links to the sites to break. Chiefly, the templated external link for player profiles now leads nowhere. If someone who's good with templates has some spare time to fix it, that would be great. – Teratix ₵ 01:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I asked the AFL on Twitter for a list, and got told "they are too busy to do that sort of thing". So I've found a way to extract the names and numbers in the URLs...then just then need to find a way to align them to the wikidata items, then change the template code... might get it all done before they decide to change it again! And I'm too afraid to check if all of the article links have been broken too. The-Pope (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Article links seem to be working fine, luckily :) – Teratix ₵ 10:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Modern VFL players

Each of the non-AFL-named but AFL-aligned VFL teams have player list categories, that all players get put into, similar to what we do in the SANFL/WAFL: Chris Judd and Matthew Pavlich are in East Perth and South Freo player cats, despite only playing one game etc. So lots of Hawthorn players (including Hodge, Rioli, Roughead) are also in Box Hill's cat and Carlton has a lot in Northern Knights. But the same name teams (Geelong, Richmond, Collingwood etc) only have a (VFA) players category, from before they joined the VFL/AFL, with (as far as I could see) no modern players. Darcy Fort was created recently and was placed in the Category:Footscray Football Club players cat, as he played for them a few years ago at VFL level before he was drafted by Geelong. That cat doesn't exist, it's a redirect to Category:Western Bulldogs players, which is obviously not applicable. So should there be a Category:Footscray Football Club (VFL) players? Or should we just re-define/name the existing Category:Footscray Football Club (VFA) players cat? Personally, I would rename all of the (VFA) cats to Category:Footscray Football Club (VFA/VFL) players and include both modern and pre-VFL admission players to the same cat. It is the same club, and the same competition, after all. Just a long hiatus in most cases. Omitting it, when his time at Werribee is included, seems dumb. And I'd include both dropped AFL players and non-AFL listed VFL only players in these cats. The-Pope (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Tricky one. I certainly wouldn't redefine the pre-VFL categories to include pre-VFL seniors and post-AFL reserves players because they're very different things. It could also be problematic calling it Footscray reserves/VFL players because you pretty much end up including every AFL senior player in the category. Perhaps a special, albeit small, category called Footscray VFL/reserves players which is specifically defined to exclude players who only played in the Footscray reserves while on the senior list. That way it could include both VFL listed players and players from the old days who played Footscray reserves, never played a senior game, but still went on to have a career of note. It still creates a distinction between the way we treat clubs with present day reserves teams and the ones without, but I feel it's a valid distinction to make. Aspirex (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Specific wording suggestion: this category comprises players who played at least one game in the Footscray Football Club reserves team, in the former VFL/AFL reserves or present day VFL, excluding players who did so only while eligible to play senior football for the club. Aspirex (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Aspirex that pre-VFL seniors and post-AFL reserves players should be kept distinct, but is there really a problem with including senior AFL players in the "reserves" cat? After all, as The-Pope mentioned, this is the practice for other clubs' VFL affiliates. I suggest three categories: the existing Category:Western Bulldogs players and Category:Footscray Football Club (VFA) players under their existing criteria, and a new Category:Footscray Football Club (VFL) players including all players to have played for the VFL team.

(By the way, apologies for adding the redirect category. I just saw it was blue-linked and went for it). – Teratix ₵ 01:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that Richmond treats their 5 or 6 non-AFL listed VFL premiership players differently to the 15-17 AFL listed VFL premiership players, so why should we? The-Pope (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a level of impracticality to having a reserves players category which doesn't exclude senior players. Something like 98% of each senior club's players throughout its history would qualify for its reserves category as well - established senior players who were traded to the club and who were never dropped would be pretty much the only players who wouldn't qualify for the reserves category.

Let me suggest the opposite solution then. Perhaps rather than trying to split hairs, we'd be better off combining all categories into one: there's a fair argument to consider a player to be a Footscray Football Club player if he has played pre-1924 VFA seniors, post-1925 VFL/AFL seniors, reserves or under-19s; and if he has been been a professional footballer paid by the Western Bulldogs even if he only ever played for Williamstown. (I'd probably leave the women's team as a separate category, since it's much easier to differentiate). It's then content editors' job to make sure the prose explains the extent to which the player fits the category. Aspirex (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Something like 98% of each senior club's players throughout its history would qualify for its reserves category as well - established senior players who were traded to the club and who were never dropped would be pretty much the only players who wouldn't qualify for the reserves category. I don't understand why this is a problem. – Teratix ₵ 00:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Feels like a huge amount of category duplication for minimal navigational benefit to me. Aspirex (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It's true many players will be in both categories. But it seems like the least-bad solution to me. The-Pope's proposal omits the distinction between VFA and modern VFL players, which I think is necessary to include as the VFA team was the highest level at which one could play for Footscray at the time, whereas the modern VFL team is at a lower level than the AFL side. Your first suggestion distinguishes between AFL-listed and non-AFL listed players, which causes players who played for the modern VFL side to evade listing in the 'VFL/reserves players' category. I agree with your reasoning about who constitutes a Footscray player in your second suggestion, but I don't understand why we shouldn't distinguish between the types (VFA, VFL/AFL, modern VFL) when we easily can (indeed, already do to some extent).

Admittedly, the flaws of your first suggestion are not so serious, and it's a definite improvement over the current situation, so I'm happy to compromise. – Teratix ₵ 13:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

My main issue becomes the historical VFL/AFL reserves players. Such players should be categorized alongside modern VFL players, since the distinguishing feature of the category is playing in the club's reserves team, irrespective of which league that reserves team was playing in. I'm not convinced that the categorisations we're looking at are a good reflection of this. Aspirex (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

So a reserves cat (including modern VFL and VFL/AFL reserves players), a VFA cat, and an AFL cat? – Teratix ₵ 13:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Improved article alerts

Hello all, I have updated the project's article alerts subscription. It previously only caught pages tagged with the project banner, which is not on every relevant page (some are instead tagged with the WikiProject Australia banner, then marked as supported by this WikiProject). It should now pick up all relevant discussions across a wide range of forums, so consider watchlisting the page if you have not already. – Teratix ₵ 13:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing up player lists

I was thinking that we could change the player lists into 3 segments. We keep the main list for players with 100+ games, then we make another one for players with 25-99 games and then a third for players with 1-24 appearances. Also, if we make the tables sortable, this makes the tables easier to view various stats such as most games, most goals, etc. without having to check through each and every decade. Thoughts? WDM10 (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said on the Collingwood players' list page: I don't see a point in splitting the list - it makes it harder to maintain and there's no benefit to the split. (Also where would you put players listed who haven't debuted?). --SuperJew (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I think making the table sortable is a good idea. --SuperJew (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I gather this is a common practice for large soccer club player lists. It has its benefits and negatives – on one hand, lists are reduced to more manageable sizes and readers can easily find the club's most significant footballers without the clutter of fringe players. On the other hand, there are three times as many lists to update and the added complexity of transferring items between lists.

The guideline on splits notes pages above 60kB "probably should be divided" and above 100kB "almost certainly should be divided", although the guideline applies "less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table". Currently, the longest player lists (foundation VFL/AFL clubs) are only around 70-80kB, so I believe the utility provided if the tables were made sortable would outweigh the disadvantages of having such long lists. – Teratix ₵ 12:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the lists then be merged as opposed to having separate ones on the same page based on decade or is it fine as is? WDM10 (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, yes. – Teratix ₵ 04:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll trial the merger on the Collingwood page and see how it works out. WDM10 (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10: Looks better! And will be easier to update too not having to update every decade or the whole page together ;) --SuperJew (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

1897 VFL season

There is a page for the season (1897 VFL season) and a page for the finals series (1897 VFL finals series) which are pretty much the same. Should these just be merged? WDM10 (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I also think both articles are a bit heavy on crufty statistics. Reyk _YO! 06:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the season page can stay mostly as it is. The finals series page seems mostly a duplicate and should be changed to be in finals series format (like 2019 AFL finals series) - remove all regular season info, expand on the finals' games - expanded template and expand prose. --SuperJew (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. User Frietjes edit in December (an attempt to do something with a template) seemed to have inadvertantly transcribed the entire 1897 season page into the finals page by mistake. Ive undone that. Aspirex (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

McClelland Trophy

Why do WP AFL player biographies show the McClelland trophy as an individual award won by the player? It's always been a (low key) club award. There's no prize or recognition for the player. Strange. 182.239.199.35 (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, the examples I've found (e.g. Dustin Martin) all listed the award under the section for team awards (as is done for premierships etc.), rather than the section on awards for individuals. If you find an article that lists the trophy as an individual award, please correct it, but it doesn't seem to be a regular practice. – Teratix ₵ 06:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It isn't an individual award, saying a player won the McClelland trophy in year XXXX when he played for team YYYY is ludicrous. It shouldn't be in the biography at all. 202.161.4.23 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, articles are making it quite clear that the award is given to a team, not an individual, and so long as that is the case I see no reason the award should not be mentioned in the biography at all; playing for a team that wins the minor premiership is no small feat. – Teratix ₵ 04:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No other source I've seen credits a player as winning a McClelland trophy in their list of accomplishments. Perhaps you know of one. Otherwise it just comes across as fancruft. 182.239.218.175 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Discord

Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Question on List of Port Adelaide Football Club players (before 1997)

Hi all

I am completely lost by the need for the "Debut" column at List of Port Adelaide Football Club players (before 1997). The previous column "PA career span (SANFL)" seems to cover the debut year and when it doesn't, it's confusing (eg. according to the PA career span column, Brian Beinke made his debut in 1993 but the "Debut" column states "1996"). And there is the case of Darren Bartsch, who is listed as 1994 for both "PA career span (SANFL)" and "Debut", although Bartsch played for West Adelaide for many years prior to his Port Adelaide debut.

Can we just get rid of the "Debut" column, or at least make it understandable what we're referring to? --Roisterer (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Roisterer: the List of Collingwood Football Club players page has "debut" column and "years at the club" column. There are cases (for example Tyler Brown), where the player is at the club for a few years before debuting, so the "debut" year will be after the first year of "years at club" (for example TBrown is at the club since 2018, but only debuted this year). I suppose it's the same case in this page you listed, but can be better explained of couse. --SuperJew (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"original team" parameter

In the {{Infobox AFL biography}} there is a parameter named "originalteam". What is the meaning of this? Is it the last team the player played for before being drafted to AFL/AFLW or is it the first team the player played for (at what level)? --SuperJew (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally should mean the last team prior to being on an AFL list for a modern player. Should probably mean the last team before going onto an ANFC-affiliated senior list in the pre-1987 era (whether that be SANFL, WAFL, NWFU or whatever), but I don't think we're very good at that, and generally take the Vic centric approach. Perhaps it should be defined as being the highest level of under 18s/19s football played - which would redefine a lot of old Victorian players' original teams as being the same as their VFL/AFL teams. Aspirex (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Nicknames

Can Bloods be used for South Melbourne? WDM10 (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I would hope so. It's certainly real. And some Swans fans of mature years still use the term. Just find a source. Might need to be an older document about the VFL. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Bloods, to me, is on the same level as Dons or Roys: not quite as informal as Pies, but still probably should be avoided in general prose about South Melbourne players or events. Especially after the early 30s when the Swans nickname came into use. Aspirex (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

AFL Women's club best and fairest articles

Hey everyone – just wanted to discuss the club best and fairest articles for the AFL Women's teams. One of them, Melbourne's, is currently a redirect as a result of this discussion nearly two years ago despite having more sources than the other articles and four winners as opposed to two at the time – should we try and find as many sources as we can for each article (not just Melbourne's) and then try to come up with a different result for Melbourne's, or do we redirect most/all of the others for now? I don't know, I just don't feel great about one of them being a redirect while the others (most of which are also four seasons old) remain untouched, that's all, and would much prefer to have the same ruling for all of them – what does everyone think? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the page should exist for each club. --SuperJew (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think the page should be recreated, the AfD result was unfortunate but the number of WP:TOOSOON arguments and a couple clear non-Aus arguments show that it's probably soon enough now. The alternative would be to rename the men's award to something like Melbourne FC best and fairest and include the information there. SportingFlyer T·C 07:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, I'd definitely prefer the former – how would we go about a new discussion? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: I'd probably just recreate the article and make sure notability is clear (secondary news sources covering each award, etc.) Another option would be to create List of AFL Women's best and fairest winners by club article if it still doesn't pass another deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is sufficient coverage, I'd go ahead and recreate the article. However, I did a quick search for the award and I couldn't find enough sourcing to declare it unambiguously notable. It's quite possible I've overlooked something. – Teratix ₵ 14:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

If the subjects turn out to be not quite notable, it should be pretty straightforward to add the relevant content to each club's article. It may even be easier just to start adding content there and splitting once there's enough to establish notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Melbourne

Here are the sources that were most recently at the article:

• https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/05/18/give-me-the-best-coach-says-pearce/
• https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/twin-roles-and-new-goals-as-daisy-makes-it-back-to-the-aflw-20200206-p53y7q.html
• http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2017-04-02/pearce-wins-club-best-and-fairest
• http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2018-03-28/pearce-claims-second-best-and-fairest
• https://womens.afl/news/17763/b-f-wrap-star-demon-rewarded-for-standout-season
• https://womens.afl/news/50116/best-and-fairest-wrap-up-who-won-your-club-s-awards-

Perhaps it might be easier to just compile additional sources that we find here and see what we end up with first? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Individual club pages for junior metropolitan leagues not allowed?

Hello All, I am relatively new to editing in Wikipedia. One of my more recent articles was on the Saturday Football League in the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne, notable because it is the only league to play on a saturday. I created individual wikipedia articles on the clubs in that league, but they were all deleted because they were not notable. Are these sort of articles on junior metropolitan clubs allowed, or was it because I had not written enough? Thanks. Doggo375 (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, the basic idea behind wikipedia is that all topics have to be "notable". Of course that word means very different things to every different person, so to try to agree on a minimum level of notability, the rules (see the notability guideline) is that all topics must have been significantly covered in multiple independent & reliable sources. Again, the meaning or applicability of each of those terms - significant, multiple, independent & reliable - can be debated. But in general, in a sport like Australian football, with no promotion/relegation, or high profile multi-level cup competition, very few local clubs would pass the significant coverage in multiple independent & reliable sources test. Significant means more than just a report on the results. Independent means not a book written by the ex-club president. Reliable means something that has been published by a responsible publisher/paper, not just a facebook post. If you want to retrieve your work to work on it more - or get a second opinion, you can ask the deleting administrator (Hut 8.5 to undelete it and put it in your sandbox, where you can develop it more without it being "live" to the world. The-Pope (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that seems to make sense. There wasn't too much informationn on them anyway, so I don't think I'll follow up on it. Thanks for your help!Doggo375 (talk) 6 June 2020

Sitewide change relevant to a template

Formatting of captions

Re: {{AFLW player statistics start}}, see MOS:TABLECAPTION. As all data tables need captions, they should be added to all instances of this template, e.g. at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ebony_Antonio&oldid=961521692#Statistics. Please let me know if you have any questions by using {{ping}}. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, many pages (e.g.) use only color for significance, which contradicts MOS:COLOR. Again, please let me know if you have questions on how to make these pages more accessible and less hostile to the blind. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I can maybe get my head around this (although it would help if you actually got the name of the league correct), but am I the only one who thinks that this is unnecessary and this is excessive? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 08:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

4TheWynne, Yes, you are. Please see MOS:TABLECAPTION: "all data tables need captions". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to respond, as we're talking about possible project-wide change here? Pinging The-Pope, SuperJew, Teratix, Aspirex, Allied45, SportingFlyer, WDM10, HiLo48... even if I am the only person who feels the way that I do and it's just a unanimous "Yep, let's do this", at least we'd be having more of a discussion. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I am happy with the additions of the captions. WDM10 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

My long-standing opinion on stats tables is that we shouldn't have them at all. Impossible to keep up to date, just a link to afl tables and Australian football is better. At least you know that they are updated automatically each week. So I have no opinion in adding captions or changing colours. I do pity a blind person being read out a string of random numbers from these tables: 2018 24 22 212 167 67 65... The-Pope (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the additions and keeping the stats tables. SportingFlyer T·C 04:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with The-Pope, the tables duplicate work already handled far more promptly and efficiently by specialist sites. But if we are to have them they should be accessible, and my understanding is that there was a recent discussion that strongly affirmed the need for table captions for this purpose. – Teratix ₵ 11:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with 4TheWynne this is reasonable. This seems unnecessary IMO too and actually harmful as it makes the "Legend" header harder to read. This might be reasonable too, but I think it needs a better title. Will also add that Koavf might want to get the name of the league correct before making snarky comments at other people. Regarding The-Pope's comments about having the tables, I don't think it's impossible to keep up to date, just requires work, and there are a few which are updated by users per game (for example Adam Treloar and Steph Chiocci). Since the updates should also come with an update date, I don't see the problem with it not being necessarily the most up-to-date (I tend to update them on a season basis). Regarding that the information is on outside sites, you can say that about all of Wikipedia (or should be able to as all the info should be sourced) - the beauty is that Wikipedia has it all on one page. --SuperJew (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  SuperJew, If you don't like the styling of the legend header, then change it. Don't remove semantic accessibility features because of style. If there's a misspelling, fix it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Koavf: Both 4TheWynne and myself have been fixing your misspelling. Your tone doesn't at all promote any motivation to work with you or try to listen to your points. --SuperJew (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  SuperJew, Samesies. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• On second thoughts and after looking at it again in-context of the article using "(player name) AFLW statistics" on the stats tables (such as [this edit) is redundant. The player name is redundant as it obviously pertains to the player as it appears on the player's page. "statistics" is redundant as it appears right below the header ==Statistics==. "AFLW" is the part which is least redundant as one could argue there might be other stats tables (for state league or other sports). However, apart from cross-coders, playing in the AFLW is the only reason for notability for almost all of the AFLW players and therefore for most of them it is quite obvious. --SuperJew (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  SuperJew, Table captions are not redundant, as they do not serve the same purpose as things that are not table captions. If you have better text for the captions, please insert it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Koavf: How is it not redundant? Two headers reading that this is statistics, the second one saying that it's Daisy Pearce's statistics (obviously as it's her page). In short, redundant. --SuperJew (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  SuperJew, There are not two headers: table captions are not headers. Headers are used for things like indexing in search engines and creating outlines in XML (e.g. with OPML). Captions are used by screen readers to give introductions to tabular data. I can give a very short answer like this or a longer one by pointing you to the HTML 5 standard (or WHATWG). These have semantic meaning that is different even if they use the same words (which they shouldn't). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Koavf: Okay fine, I concede that they're technically not the same. Whatever. The point is that when you're reading the page, you have two things saying the same thing ("Statistics"). Functionally for the average user reading the page, they are the same. --SuperJew (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  SuperJew, Accessibility isn't about accommodating the mild inconvenience of the "average user". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, you haven't provided much of a reason at all as to why this must be formatted as a caption and can't have a border around it. All you've said is that it's necessary because MOS:TABLECAPTION (as in that's literally all you've said), but if you make the caption bold again, essentially all you've done is remove a couple of borders and the slightest bit of colour around "Legend", which is why I (and I'm guessing SuperJew as well) found it the least necessary of the changes you're insisting upon. Also, surely "...the styling of the legend header" is a slip-up if "table captions are not headers"? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

4TheWynne, I did give you a reason: MOS:TABLECAPTION. All data tables must have captions. I don't understand what is unclear. Are you asking why those are the accessibility standards from the W3C? I'm happy to have a meta-conversation about what accessibility is or why it exists but the policy here is very clear and it's not "All data tables must have captions, unless they are about women's Australian rules football statistics". Why are we discussing this? It can have whatever styling you want. Styling and semantics are two different things: I personally don't care about the styling for any of these elements and I'm happy to have anyone change them to anything rational and that follows good design principles. I quoted SuperJew when I wrote "legend header" and he was incorrect in calling it a header, yes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, I've amended my initial wording, as you seem to have only focused on the "caption" part and not the main reason why I brought it up. What makes including the caption within a border irrational/how does it follow bad design principles, in this instance? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

4TheWynne, I do not think there is anything that is poor design about including a border around the caption. In case I was unclear, I think that is a perfectly valid choice to make in terms of how this displays (for the users who can actually see it displayed). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, so basically you're saying that something like this would be acceptable:

If so, it's not that different from what it used to be. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 08:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

4TheWynne, No, this would not be acceptable because all data tables need captions and this doesn't have one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, what did you think I meant by "including the caption within a border (of the table)"? Further – given you encouraged us to ask questions if we have any – how is having the caption sit above the table (see below, which I think is what you're pushing for as the end result for this one) more or less accessible for blind people than just inside (as above)?

I'm not necessarily trying to argue for one or the other at this point, but the difference between the two seems so incredibly minor that I thought it was worth asking the question. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

4TheWynne, I thought you meant that you would make a table with a caption and then you showed me one that didn't have a table caption. I don't understand why you are going thru this over and over again: all data tables need captions. It doesn't matter if they are about women's Australian rules football or not. It doesn't matter if they are in the template namespace. It doesn't matter if you want to style them with borders. If your "solution" is "Okay, well what about a data table that doesn't have a caption..." then it's not acceptable. What is not being communicated here? I'm not asking rhetorically or sarcastically: I am genuinely confused. The second example you gave has a table caption whereas the first one doesn't, so screen readers would read one as a caption and wouldn't read the other as a caption. I'm happy to go into more detail and I assume that you're asking questions in good faith, so I'm not sure how interested you are in high-level discussions but do you understand the distinction between semantics and style? Maybe that's a good place to start if I'm not being clear enough or if this is still confusing in spite of the effort that both of us have put into this conversation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, I think I'm just going to add the caption to the variations of the above template, as you didn't really answer my question about the difference between the two in regards to accessibility and we don't seem to be moving forward with any great momentum with this specific template, so don't worry too much. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Wording of captions

If most people agree with adding the captions (specifically for the statistics table itself and the key for "exceptional" statistics), we should come up with wordings that we can all agree upon. The other thing to consider is that the same wording doesn't have to apply to every variation of the above templates. For example, for the statistics table, we could do something like VFL/AFL/AFLW playing statistics (depending on the era of the player) and do the same thing for coaching tables (VFL/AFL/AFLW coaching statistics). I don't think we need to have the name of the player in the caption – we can just apply these captions to the templates themselves and make edits to the necessary player and coach articles (as opposed to just making the caption possible at each template and editing every single player and coach article to add the captions and their names). That's just my take – what does everyone else think? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"[Player] AFLW statistics" and "Coaching statistics" and "Career overview for [Coach]", etc. are all totally legit. As long as the caption is an accurate and complete description of what the table is about, any of those would do. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, while I understand your point about having a complete description of the table (I don't feel as strongly about the word "statistics" contributing to the caption being redundant as SuperJew), how much of a difference will having the player/coach name actually make given the article is obviously/only about that person? Also, for the other template, I think something like Significant statistics or Key for significant statistics (if we want to get really wordy)? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

4TheWynne, The goal is to have context for the data below and succinctly sum up tables, so someone can certainly write just "Statistics" but that would not give sufficient context if a table were transcluded in another page (e.g. this is very common for listings of television series episodes). So I personally think that captions that are a kind of bare minimum of the sort "Statistics" are poor form but they aren't necessarily wrong. I think the bold examples you gave above are perfectly fine. Thanks again for asking me to give my perspective. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

In my view, "Playing statistics" and "Coaching statistics" would suffice at this point and can be simply appended to each of the templates rather than manually updated for every article (I think it is unlikely that an individual players' statistics would be transcluded in any other article). For the "Legend" template, it would be better if we could combine the "Significant statistics" into the one template with optional parameters (similar to Template:NBA player statistics legend) and use symbols with colours instead of solely colours. Allied45 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, while I know you were just saying that as an example, I'm not suggesting to simply use "Statistics" as a caption for the statistics table – the suggestions that I gave were more succinct than that, just omitting the player/coach's name (I'm assuming the examples I gave that you're happy with are for the other template); Allied45 beat me to the punch in saying that these aren't the kind of tables that you'd see transcluded in another article, as they are unique to player/coach. Also, I'm trying to get as many people to give their perspective as I can, but you're the only person who's contributed a lot of the time. Allied45, I actually don't mind that idea regarding combining the templates, but with the aforementioned caption, I still think the league name needs to be included, as a lot of these people also play/coach in state leagues, NAB League/NAB League Girls, etc. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: My preference would be to include the relevant league, I was just thinking from an overall perspective to reduce the extensive manual updates that would be required; I would be happy to have either option. Allied45 (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Allied45, don't worry, I completely understand and agree with where you're coming from there – at least we wouldn't be updating every single article (lots don't have statistics tables anyway, so we'd only be talking about some of the ones that do). This is what I was thinking of doing for players' statistics tables, if we were to include the league name in the caption:

• Template:VFL player statistics start (pre-1987) (ruck) – VFL playing statistics (for those who retire before 1987, when tackles were first recorded)
• Template:VFL player statistics start (ruck) – VFL playing statistics (for those who retire between 1987 and 1989)
• Template:VFL/AFL player statistics start (ruck) – VFL/AFL playing statistics (for those who begin playing before 1990 and finish playing after the name change)
• Template:AFL player statistics start (ruck) / Template:AFL player statistics start with votes (ruck) – AFL playing statistics
• Template:AFLW player statistics start (ruck) – AFLW playing statistics

Including the league name in the caption makes the creation of the new templates necessary, but that's only if people agree with the idea. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 08:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: I actually did not realise we currently have eight different "statistics start" templates, and I would be hesitant to create more since three of the current templates are not in use in any articles... I think it would be worthwhile using this opportunity to reduce the number of templates, and it should be possible to have a single template to cover all players.

Side note: I would also support condensing the template to remove the season-by-season averages, and just have the career averages at the bottom (I feel this would reduce article clutter, I am happy to do a mock-up as a proposal). This would need to be a wider discussion to determine the correct usage of these stats tables, as I note that there were several editors above who were not a fan of even having these at all. Allied45 (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Allied45, because of the separate templates for rucks, how would it be possible to have one template to cover all players (unless you want to omit hit-outs entirely or have about a thousand players with empty hit-out columns)? The idea with the other start templates was to try and move the Brownlow/AFLW best and fairest votes to each and update all articles accordingly (which was proposed in this discussion), but my guess is that only 80-100 AFL/AFLW players have these updated/new start templates with their statistics tables so far. I completely understand that nobody really wants to update every single player article that has a statistics table, but if we're to finish the earlier job (I think most people were pretty happy to have the votes as part of the table instead of a separate table), I think it's inevitable, and if we're going to do that, we might as well update all of the start templates as well (if applicable) – I'll do it all myself if I have to. We'd have to update every article anyway if we were to make mass changes to each table like you're suggesting (which I'm vehemently against, as including season averages is something that we're doing that other pages aren't) or remove them entirely (only two editors gave this opinion, so "several" may not be entirely accurate). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: Okay I see where you are coming from in regards to the ruck templates, however what criteria are we using to determine whether to use the standard template or ruck template? There are many players in the modern game who play in various positions, or participate in the ruck from time-to-time. For example, Tom Hawkins is predominately a forward but has recorded 313 hit-outs in his career (the same could be said for many "non-traditional" ruck players). In regards to my season averages suggestion, the reason why I brought it up was if we are going to be making mass changes anyway, perhaps it is a good opportunity to get an updated project-consensus on whether any other changes should be made at the same time. Hopefully this would limit future mass updates. Allied45 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Allied45, that's a fair question, but I feel like we should know which ones to apply the template to – I feel like we could probably just assess it on a case-by-case basis unless we wanted to use a criterion (e.g. if they average a certain number of hit-outs a game). I understand the point you're trying to make about Hawkins, but that's 313 hit-outs in 257 games at only 1.22 per game – does something like that warrant inclusion? Otherwise, I wouldn't say we were going to be making mass changes anyway – just one or two templates and moving the votes/changing the colours (and adding symbols) for those that haven't been looked at – but I understand where you're coming from. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Colours and symbols

Assuming we were to make symbols a permanent addition to colours in the significant statistics key (however we choose to format it/combine with other templates – refer to this discussion as well), how would everyone feel about something like this:

†	Led the league for the home-and-away season only
‡	Led the league after finals only
§	Led the league for the home-and-away season and after finals
#	Played in that season's premiership team
±	Won that season's Brownlow Medal

I don't know if there are any rules as to which ones we can and can't use, but I tried to avoid currencies. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem with templates

It seems the templates for player profiles aren't working following a change of structure on the websites. For example putting {{Adelplayer}} on Sophie Li's page leads to this URL, while her profile is actually at this URL. Any savvy people here who know how to fix this up? --SuperJew (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this might have been covered already, but you just need to add the '1746/sophie-li' from the URL (thereby giving you {{Adelplayer|1746/sophie-li}}) – this can be done for all players, as all club websites pretty much work the same in this regard. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 09:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This came up last December. – Teratix ₵ 09:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok great that works fine for the specific case. Thanks! Is there a way of automatically updating all of them? --SuperJew (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

No, unfortunately. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 09:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a shame, guess we should see if anyone wants to volunteer to go through players' pages and make sure they're updated (at least for the current AFL and AFLW players) --SuperJew (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

So I was playing a bit around while fixing up Collingwood's links. Firstly it seems like the number is the main identifier now - so this URL also leads to Pendles' profile. The other thing I noticed is that players who have played for more than one club seem to have the same numbers at all clubs, for example Beams at Collingwood and D. Beams at Brisbane --SuperJew (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, sure, but shouldn't we just have the template for the player's current club rather than two or three? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: They don't show exactly the same info, so I think it's worth having both, but I don't have a strong opinion either way. --SuperJew (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is a way to fix them all, semi automatically. Find a way to scrape all the id numbers from the website, or get someone from the AFL to send you the list (I tried last year, they were too busy, probably no one left to do it now). Then create a wikidata ID and upload them all. Then modify the template to read the wikidata item. Simple! The-Pope (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Haha most of that is out of my technical Wiki knowledge to do. But I can try to tweet a few accounts and try to get a list of the numbers (though could be everyone is on unpaid leave :( ) --SuperJew (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait The-Pope, how does {{AustralianFootball}} handle this? I would suppose it's the same case - players identified by numbers? --SuperJew (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@The-Pope: I was linked to this page. I'm trying to work out if it's useful or not. Be happy for any insight. --SuperJew (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You got my hopes up... but no, none of those fields correspond to the AFL site page numbers, must be internal to the fanfooty site. But a similar list for the AFL site is what I'm after. Might have to start scraping the websites... only 32 pages to do... (and I found you on twitter!) The-Pope (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Step 1 done. I've scraped the websites so I have a list of IDs and names and teams (thanks to https://www.parsehub.com). Now to create the WikiData property (never done that before). Then to align the AFL scraped list to WikiData items (tricky due to name variations Josh or Joshua etc). Then to upload (that's the easy step thanks to quickstatements). Then to rewrite the template (copying the {{AustralianFootball}} style. OK. Off to Wikidata... The-Pope (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help! (mostly just hardcoded editing if needed) --SuperJew (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Well it'll have to be the little people doing it. Maybe I'll make some headway with it :) How about you create a temporary page under the project's scope where we'll save it so we don't do double work? (and hey! I got a new follow :) ) --SuperJew (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

AFL player ID now exists and the uploading of data is underway (1021 items). If you find an article (current players only - unless the AFL club website expands to include past players) without a working url, then just click on the wikidata item link and see if there is an "AFL player ID" in the statements section. If there is, compare the number to the number on the AFL club website (number only, not the name). If there isn't find the number and add the statement to wikidata. Any issues, drop me a message and I'll sort it out. The-Pope (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Awesome The-Pope!!!! --SuperJew (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Greetings from Canada! I just tried updating the {{Geelplayer}} template for Gary Ablett Jr, but couldn't find an answer that works. His current profile is this one. I set the template to {{Geelplayer|385/gary-ablett}} but the template appends it with "-Jr." which makes the resulting link go Out of Bounds. Can somebody more savvy with the template please have a go at this one? Cheers, PKT(alk) 15:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Putting name=Gary Ablett worked. i probably should update the template documentation soon. The-Pope (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

List of 2020 debutants to be created

Hi all, I have made a list of all the debutants in 2020 that do not currently have a page on them. The list is on my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doggo375#Articles_to_create

Feel free to create any of these, or maybe add this list to the To-Do list. Doggo375 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Is adding the full date of birth a WP:BLP or WP:DOB violation?

Hi all, just wondering if adding the full date of birth in the infobox of an AFL debutant I recently created, Ryan Byrnes, is a violation of WP:DOB. Chris.sherlock seems to think it is, wondering if I could have adivce from other more experienced users such as The-Pope and 4TheWynne, and if it is, let me know when and when not to add it. Thanks. Doggo375 (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The primary tests for violation of WP:DOB is the notability of the subject and how widely the full DOB has been publicized in reliable sources. So, for Kylie Minogue, it has been so widely publicized and reported that it can't be a violation. However, for a more minor figure as Ryan Byrnes (and I'm not saying he is not notable, just the degree) then it could well be a violation of BLP as it exposes his personal information which could lead to harm of the subject. Also, it needs to be taken into account whether the DOB actually adds to readers' understanding of the article, and whilst the year of birth is completely relevant, I don't see that the day he was born is particularly important in this regard.

I realize it's kind of annoying, and I wish to clarify that I have no personal animosity towards anyone adding the material. However, as it could lead to harm, it needs to be removed unless there is a good reason to add it, and multiple reliable sources can confirm the date. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I just thought I'd get some second opinions. Also thanks for the barnstar! :) Doggo375 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with second opinions :-) I encourage it! keep up the great work. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DOB specifically says that it is not a violation if the DOB is found in "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". An NRL profile clearly qualifies here. If a person was concerned about their DOB being listed, it would not be on their NRL profile, as Byrnes' is. Frickeg (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

(I think you mean AFL, Frickeg) I believe this to be a non-issue, for the reasons listed above. We include the full name, date of birth, height, original team, etc. for all footballers if the information is available (as would be the case with all current AFL and AFLW footballers, for example), and all three external links at Byrnes' article (club website, AFL Tables and Australian Football) list his date of birth, so why all of a sudden would listing it here be a problem? Doggo375, you haven't done anything wrong here. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 06:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I do, ta. Can you tell I am not a sport person? Frickeg (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Frickeg, all good – I can, but I can also definitely understand people getting the codes confused, especially those who don't follow/have an interest in sport. We at WP:AFL will let it slide on this occasion. ;) Doggo375, I've fixed up the lead section of Byrnes' article for you. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 06:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur with 4TheWynne and Frickeg on this matter; listing the full DOB for footballers is very much the standard, and Byrnes can always ask for the day and month to be removed if he does not wish them to be publicised. – Teratix ₵ 06:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Teratix, 4TheWynne and Frickeg, always appreciate the second opinions :) Doggo375 (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Echoing all of the above, the DOB for all players is found in the weekly game day programs, annual season guides, both official club and unofficial stats websites and some trading cards. What I don't like to see if the full date of birth and full name of children of players, even if the birth announcements are publicly released by the player themselves (instragram etc), club websites or independent papers. I just don't think there is any benefit, compared to the risk, of making that information even more available.The-Pope (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Years at club on club's player pages

Do these include rookie years? WDM10 (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all years. --SuperJew (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. WDM10 (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, definitely rookie years, and I think the lists and infobox should include all years that the player is listed, including before they made their debut and any years after their last game, if they remain on the list. Especially in the modern fixed list size era. Retired players who aren't training but remain listed for contractual reasons (Tippett, Rance etc) are debatable. Probably lean to only until their announced retirement year. Note that AFL Tables doesn't do this in their club player lists, they only show debut - last game seasons. We don't have to match them. The-Pope (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup as The-Pope (talk · contribs) said. The statistics table and/or external stats sites can be used to see breakdown of which years and how many were played. Rookie-listing status should be written in the prose. --SuperJew (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination for Australian football at the 1956 Summer Olympics

Hey guys – although this article is only listed as 'supported' by WP:AFL, it seems like this is the best location for any sort of discussion and improvements given how niche Australian football is on Wikipedia. A bit over a year ago I decided to rewrite the entire article (+30,000 bytes) given how poorly formatted and lacking in useful information it was. I feel like having it recognised as a GA would be great for the WP:AFL community and a solid recognition of this unique event that will almost never be repeated. I'd appreciate if anyone here is willing to either conduct a review (given the subject matter) or at least help support my nomination in some form. Many thanks, Gibbsy^spin 03:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Stadium Names - Sponsorship

I am opening this discussion due to an ongoing discussion on the 2020 AFL Season Talk Page, whereas I believe it would be more applicable here.

The topic of disagreement was in relation to the use of sponsored stadium names as opposed to their unsponsored counterparts on season pages for the AFL. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Premierships Years and Rivalry Pages

I have noticed inconsistency among the three rivalry pages where a member of the rivalry has achieved a premiership. On both the Western Derby and the Sydney Derby pages, the premiership years for both Sydney and West Coast are highlighted in the corresponding colour, and link to the accompanying Grand Final of that year. However, the page for the Showdown does not do this for the respective premiership years of Adelaide and Port.

I have noticed that the Showdown page did have this information in 2016, but this was changed on the 9th of November that year, as seen here (the revision in question) and here (its predecessor). As all three pages should be consistent (as should the Q-Clash page, if Brisbane or Gold Coast were to win a premiership), I see two solutions:

1. Re-add the information to the Showdown page as it was in 2016 (that is, link to the Grand Final and colour the year box appropriately)

2. Remove the information from the two Derby pages and simply link to the season pages.

My personal preference would be towards the latter - the information isn't particularly relevant to the page at hand, and as such, should not be displayed on the page. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree option 2. Premierships are not relevant to the rivalry unless the game is a grand final. Aspirex (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm with option 2 also. I don't really mind the colours but changing the link to the GF as opposed to season is unnecessarily inconsistent. WDM10 (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As this topic has not received any more posts within this week, I will undertake changing this to the agreed upon standard. This thread is still open for discussion if this is to be changed at any point. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Premiership team navboxes

We currently have the following Richmond recent premiership player navboxes in existence:

• {{2017 Richmond premiership players}} - on 6 player pages & the GF article
• {{2017/19 Richmond dual premiership players}} - on 2 player pages
• {{2017/19/20 Richmond triple premiership players}} - on 15 player/coach pages
• {{2019 Richmond premiership players}} - on 1 player page & the GF article
• {{2019/20 Richmond dual premiership players}} - on 5 player pages
• {{2020 Richmond premiership players}} - on 3 player pages

My issue with this approach is that, especially for the "dual players" navboxes, they list 16-19 of the 22 players (so it looks big enough to be a whole team), but because 14 of them are triple premiership players, it's only on 7 player pages. It's misleading or confusing.

I proposed to merge it all into a single navbox as per below. User:4TheWynne reverted, so I want to discuss it here. I understand that the recent Hawthorn/Geelong repeated wins have not been merged like this, but I think it gives the reader a very clear view of who played in all three and who played in only 1 or 2, something that the other multiple navboxes don't do. I'm open to merging the 3 dual lines into a single group, or conversely splitting the 3 singles into 3 different groups. If they win a fourth, then it could be easily expanded to cover the quads/triples/dual and singles. Any opinions? The-Pope (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the whole concept of templates for double/triple premierships is bizarre. Just have one for each premiership and if a player won twice/three times they'll have two/three templates. I haven't seen any other navboxes which merge part of them. --SuperJew (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Superjew. They're a pretty poor use for a navbox. I'd get rid of every multiple premiership navbox, and give each club a "List of X Football Club premiership players" list which allows the players to be split into dual prem/triple prem/etc sublists. That retains the content in some list form. From a notability standpoint, it is being a dual premiership player - not being a 2017/19 dual premiership player as distinct from a2019/20 premiership player - which matters. Aspirex (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Although if we're talking the original two options only, I agree with ThePope's layout vs 4theWynn's. It is a more informative and consistent layout overall. Aspirex (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I also think SuperJew's idea is optimal to be honest. I was slightly confused the first time I saw a template like the one currently being used, and if we put ourselves in the shoes of an average reader then I have no doubt they would be confused to. I am also in agreement with Aspirex that The-Pope's is better as it covers all the premiership players throughout that period. Doggo375 (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that six individual templates to cover three premierships is overkill. As above, I think we should have one for each premiership; and utilise navbox grouping where necessary to keep articles looking neat (like Roger Federer). For players with multiple premierships, we could organise them as '[Player]'s premierships', for example. Allied45 (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that just having one template for each premiership is fair. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake, I'm definitely in favour of navboxes for each year and none of the grouping boxes. --DustyNail (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I support just one per premiership. The groupings (Like in Cameron Smith) can be used for multiple premierships but a dynasty can be easily shown by a lot of boxes. WDM10 (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

So is that a consensus to do away with dual/triple/etc. premiership templates altogether? If so, how do we go about that - a giant bulk delete is the easiest way to avoid repeat TfD discussions, but there's quite a lot of admin effort in reinserting premiership team navboxes onto pages which have the dual/triple ones. Aspirex (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit of work. I have got started on this and swapped the Geelong templates. Allied45 (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Australian rules football players that played in the NFL has been nominated for deletion

Category:Australian rules football players that played in the NFL has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for sports stadia

A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

American Football Minor Leagues WikiProject Proposal

I have made a proposal for a WikiProject, American Football Minor Leagues. It will improve football minor-league articles. Put your name in the "support" section of the article if you would like to join. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

New "medical sub" rule

So regarding the new "medical sub" rule the AFL announced today - it says If the 23rd 'medical substitute' player doesn't take the field, they will still have a senior game credited to their career tally. What do we do with this regarding tallying players' stats in the infobox and stats table? How does this affect stats averages? What if the only game(s) a player "plays" is being a medical sub, is he notable for an article? --SuperJew (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Do whatever AFL Tables does. That's the NOR/V compliant solution, even if it depresses the averages slightly by including games not entering the field in the denominator. Aspirex (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so stats we'll do relying on sources. Fair enough. (Still thinking giving someone a game for sitting on the bench is dumb, but that's a different issue haha). Still wondering about notability (though I guess as it is presumed, if they never make an appearance they're not notable). --SuperJew (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

In terms of games played, including unused subs as games played matches the approach when players were often an unused 19th or 20th man last century but still got a game added to their tally. Can I also repeat my annual request that we delete all stats tables because they rarely provide any meaningful content or prompt any narrative discussion, are impossible very difficult to keep up to date and are better provided by the stats only websites. The-Pope (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@The-Pope: Thanks for the info about unused subs count in the past. Regarding the stats table, I think "meaningful content" is a bit of a subjective term, as to some readers knowing the disposal count per season for a player is very important, while others might not care at all and might not even care how many games the player played (or was sub for) in his career. Regarding the difficulty to keep up to date, I don't think it's any more difficult than keeping the infobox section up to date and both are easier than the prose sections. Personally I'm not very for or very against them, so will go with whatever is consensus. --SuperJew (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)

There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Small font in tables

Hey everyone. I know this might seem like a pretty minute and insignificant thing to discuss – and, for the most part, I suppose it is – but is this really necessary? The small tag is supposed to be for side comments, fine print, etc., whereas it isn't supposed to be used for stylistic changes like these, per MOS:SMALL. The "it's already used _______ and _______" argument is also a pretty thin one, as that doesn't make it right. Below is the table at the article where this issue arose, to give you an idea:

Season	Recipient(s)	Ref.
2017	Nicola Stevens
2018	Chloe Molloy
2019	Jaimee Lambert
2020	Jaimee Lambert (2)
2021	Brianna Davey

Would appreciate people's thoughts, even if it seems kind of pointless – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not say it should be used on Collingwood's AFLW b&f page because it's used on other pages. I pointed out that the case is that it is currently used on pages and I think whatever is decided should be consistent across the project. --SuperJew (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Literal read of MOS:SMALL is that the HTML small tags are for semantic purposes (i.e. to do with the language used) and not for style. This is a style decision, so the MOS would dictate the small tags should be removed here and elsewhere. (Worth noting, though, that applying this throughout the project would require a lot of changes: season infoboxes use the small template, the AFLGame and AFLGameDetailed templates have some small parameters hard-coded into them, the ladder and Coleman progression tables all use subscripts as an alternative means of getting small text for style purposes). Aspirex (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I was referring project-wide to the b&f pages. use in season infobox, and AFLGame templates can be a different discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the question itself, I think using non-small text puts more emphasis on win number than needed. The small tag keeps it as a minor point. --SuperJew (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

SuperJew, I understand where you're coming from – once upon a time, I probably would have liked to use small font more than necessary/just go with whatever was already in place at project level (in some instances) – but even "more emphasis on win number than needed" sounds more like a stylistic opinion. I personally don't think it would take as long to get rid of the small font at the relevant pages as some of the other project-wide changes that have been ticked off – in this case, Aspirex, I just mean the pages where it can be easily changed (including instances where we reduce the size of the whole tables, not just some of the text within, like at the individual Brownlow Medal articles), whereas we could just leave the hard-coded stuff for another time or something. Here are some examples:

(From List of VFL/AFL minor premiers)

Season	Minor premier	Premiership points	...
2011	Collingwood (19)	80
2012	Hawthorn (8)	68
2013	Hawthorn (9)	76
2014	Sydney (8)	68
2015	Fremantle	68
2016	Sydney (9)	68
2017	Adelaide (2)	62
2018	Richmond (9)	72
2019	Geelong (14)	64
2020	Port Adelaide (4)	56

(From 2020 Brownlow Medal)

	Player	Votes
1st	Lachie Neale (Brisbane Lions)	31
2nd	Travis Boak (Port Adelaide)	21
=3rd	Christian Petracca (Melbourne)	20
	Jack Steele (St Kilda)	20
=5th	Patrick Dangerfield (Geelong)	15
	Dustin Martin (Richmond)	15
	Jack Macrae (Western Bulldogs)	15
	Luke Parker (Sydney)	15
=9th	Cameron Guthrie (Geelong)	14
	Clayton Oliver (Melbourne)	14

* The player was ineligible to win the medal due to suspension by the AFL Tribunal during the year.

(From 2020 AFL season)

2020 AFL premiership season
Teams	18
Premiers	Richmond 13th premiership
Minor premiers	Port Adelaide 4th minor premiership
Wooden spooners	Adelaide 1st wooden spoon
Brownlow Medallist	Lachie Neale Brisbane Lions (31 votes)
Coleman Medallist	Tom Hawkins Geelong (42 goals)
Attendance
Matches played	162
Total attendance	949,740 (5,863 per match)
Highest	32,865 (First Elimination Final, West Coast vs Collingwood)

What do we reckon? At least it would be a start. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Mangoplah Football Club

The relatively new article about Mangoplah Football Club seems to be about a topic of questionable notability. WP:NTEAM points to WP:GNG, but I still question the notability of a local football team. Even if it is notable, it needs a ton of cleanup. The main section is far too long and does not follow WP:MOS. Kstern (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor with no interest in football whatsoever, with over 100 citations, even if some are run-of-the-mill, there seems to be more than enough here to pass WP:GNG. Frankly I'm impressed at the effort that one contributor has put into writing this article. Kerry (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

In honour of the effort, I found a suitably-licenced photo to illustrate the article. Kerry (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

22under22 template

I just saw Doggo375 created the template {{2020 22 Under 22 team}}. Do we have a need for such a template? Is it notable enough? --SuperJew (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say no - although for style rather than notability. Three of the five guidelines for navbox use are: All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject; The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent; If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. I don't think that's true for the 22under22 team (or indeed for many of the other team related templates we use) (WP:NAVBOX) Aspirex (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Australian rules football kit graphic codes

I am looking for a list of codes to produce designs in the Australian rules football kit codes template. It produces a small graphic that looks like the strip or jumper an Australian football team wears. Does anybody know where I can get all the codes? HIHPISBrian (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Australian rules football articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:Australian rules football articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ruckman or Ruck

I've opened a request to move "Ruckman" to "Ruck" at Talk:Ruckman (Australian rules football)#Requested move 2 June 2021. Please give your input there. --SuperJew (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Assessment

I'm new to Wikipedia and am not sure if this is the right space to ask, but I've given Justin Clarke's page a bit of an upgrade for a university project, I'd be very appreciative if someone could give it a reassessment. I don't think it's quite in good article territory but I think a C-Class or a B-Class would be suitable. Any other feedback regarding the article's quality would be very helpful as well. JayKayWags (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello JayKayWags, I'd be happy to give it a look over the next few days. – Teratix ₵ 02:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Question re: disambiguation

There is a Rename Request over on the WP:Association football/soccer section involving two soccer players with the same name, although it was noted there is a third person who plays Aussie rules football, which has led to some uncertainty about whether that would require a move as well. The discussion is at Talk:James_Rowe_(football_manager)#Requested_move_8_June_2021 with the Aussie player being James Rowe (Australian footballer). If anyone has any insight, would you be able to comment there? Thanks. RedPatch (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ben Jarvis (Australian Footballer) and Ben Jarvis (footballer) appear to be about the same person

Hi all,

• Ben Jarvis (Australian Footballer) (created 11:54, June 30, 2021‎)
• Ben Jarvis (footballer) (created 17:38, September 17, 2020)

would appear to be about the same person.

While do I have the sysop buttons, can't WP:MERGE them, via "Special:MergeHistory&target=Ben_Jarvis_(Australian_Footballer)"

This may have been tidied up before I clicked "publish changes"

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems to have been dealt with, Kusma deleted the first one. --SuperJew (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Usually I would have just redirected this but I thought you had already rejected this option for yourself. As the article is so new, deletion + cleanup of links (which I hope I completed) should work fine. —Kusma (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Player statistics in articles - necessary or not?

Hi everyone,

Given that we can assign all recognized VFL/AFL players an external link to their career statistics via AFL Tables, I feel it is pointless to include their statistics in their Wikipedia article. It takes up space that can be used for discussing their career in prose format. I'd like to hear what other community members think about this.

Cheers Kingjezza (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

More of a personal preference on my part, but I do prefer to have them there for convenience reasons. I also think its good to have them there for premiership players/players who got a record amount of disposals that season etc. However, I'm not strongly opinionated on the topic, I wouldn't mind either way.Doggo375 (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

For me, this is a no-brainer: yes, they should absolutely be included. The statistics table doesn't "take up space" – we as a community just need to put more effort into the prose for player articles (I know I put a lot of time into statistics and only really get onto prose when I have a bit more time). To me, it just makes the article feel fuller, and there are things we can do with the statistics tables – formatting, additional information, etc. – that these other sites (AFL Tables, Australian Football, etc.) don't. I'd personally be less inclined to keep the honours and achievements section, as it's essentially repeating what's in the infobox, but that's just me. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 07:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There is room for discussion of whether there is a point in including the career statistics or not. But there is nothing in the saying that it takes space that can be used otherwise. This is an online encylcopedia - there's no limit on pages. --SuperJew (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

My personal opinion on the direct question: I don't think they're necessary, and I never read them – games, goals and behinds are really the only season/career aggregated statistics that I believe add value to a player's narrative unless an alltime record has been broken. I also never fill in the stats tables myself, because I derive my Wikipedia related joy from writing prose, not from updating statistics. If you're asking a leading question about whether or not to remove them, I'm happy for them to stay: they meet the three pillars of Wikipedia, they meet the hobbyist joy of those Wikipedians who enjoy stats rather than prose, and from a style/clutter standpoint they're always down the bottoms of the articles under all of the prose so they can easily be ignored for readers who only want to read the prose. Aspirex (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hate it. Shouldn't be there. Rarely, if ever, provides any useful information for most players. Hard to maintain and keep accurate and up to date on the 700 or so active players. I'd remove them all. But I know that others, primarily 4TheWynne, like them. Games/Goals in the info box and links to AFL tables and AustralianFootball are all I think we need. The-Pope (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Coaching statistics

Is there a website similar to this but for AFLW and WAFL? I have searched on google but couldn't find anything. Steelkamp (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

On Australian Football you can find stats per coach from the AFLW (doesn't seem to have WAFL stats), for example Stephen Symond or Wayne Siekman. Can't find a page though that lists all of a club's coaches together if that's what you mean. --SuperJew (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that is fine, separate or together. I looked on that website, but couldn't find any pages for coaching statistics. They aren't linked from the club pages. Still need WAFL stats though. Steelkamp (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

WAFL Footy Stats has lists by team by year, ie Claremont, but not stats directly. The-Pope (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

New article (of historical interest)

This article (The Footballers' Alphabet) has just been completed; and in the process it has been cross-referenced to each of the 34 players and two other individuals mentioned in the special sports poem that was written and published in 1898, the second year of the VFL competition. Lindsay658 (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

WWoS program

Not sure where to ask exactly, but figured users here might have a clue. It seems there are two pages for the same program - Wide World of Sports which airs on Channel 9. The pages are Wide World of Sports (Australian TV program) and Nine's Wide World of Sports. Is there a difference between the pages or should they be merged? --SuperJew (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged. The latter is not a program, rather it is a brand for 9's sports related content. It is also a website. The former is simply a program that aired on ch 9. Steelkamp (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Jamarra Ugle-Hagan has now played his long-anticipated first AFL game

Hi all,

Please see: Draft:Jamarra Ugle-Hagan

WP:ADMIN hat on - I note that some of text in "AFL career" would appear to be pretty much identical to the what is here.

<sings> Deep In Our Hearts Everyone Barracks For Footscray</sings>

Pete "Rugby league state of origin? I'm not interested in that any more" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Karmichael Hunt

I have nominated Karmichael Hunt for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Finals series articles

I feel we've established a very weak article structure for the season finals series articles.

In particular, the prose which accompanies each game is generally of this style: The second qualifying final will see second-placed Port Adelaide face third-placed Geelong. This marks the fifth finals meeting between the two sides, following qualifying finals in the previous season and 2004, a semi-final in 2013, and the 2007 AFL Grand Final, won by Geelong.

When we write like this, we're writing a preview that you'd see in a newspaper or the Football Record, not an encyclopedia. I'd like to see us strip all of these previews out entirely - maybe replace them with prose summaries of the games (although this too may be superfluous as the boxscore might tell enough of the story).

I'd also advocate for removing the venues map-and-picture box. I feel these boxes are best suited to world cup style tournaments where those venues have been part of a fully contained bid package or similar - not to a club championship where it's an extension of a home-and-away system. Aspirex (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Eyes on Taylor Adams

Hi all,

The user Dawnseeker2000 keeps removing information from Taylor Adams, removing the publisher of the sources (as in their most recent edit). I have tried asking why, but the user ignores the request, not explaining themselves and furthermore acknowledges reading what I wrote, but not answering the content issue (see my talk page). I don't want to get to WP:3RR on this, so asking other users to see and try and help sort this out too. --SuperJew (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation required for Port Adelaide AFL statistics?

Hey everyone – hope you're all doing well. I just wanted to bring up an issue that has arisen at the Travis Boak article; Thejoebloggsblog is continually adding "AFL" to Boak's games record holder honour and that honour alone, believing there is a need to specify the league as Russell Ebert played more games in the SANFL. While I understand why, my reasoning for disagreeing is that the honour links to an article with "VFL/AFL" in the title, namely VFL/AFL games records, and people will see (if they didn't already know, and didn't already gather from "Travis Boak ... Australian rules footballer playing for the Port Adelaide Football Club in the Australian Football League (AFL)") that it refers to the AFL; I also suggested that if you're going to single out that honour, you might as well put "Port Adelaide AFL captain", "...playing for Port Adelaide's AFL team", "Port Adelaide (AFL)" under playing career/in the statistics table, etc. – basically just about every other mention of Port Adelaide in the article, rather than one honour, which Thejoebloggsblog ignored. Given this user doesn't seem to have grasped WP:BRD or like to discuss at all based on previous edits and I didn't want to be accused of edit warring myself (though probably will be by some corners anyway), I thought I'd open the discussion here and see what you guys think. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 08:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it is clear that if he's an AFL player and all his information is about AFL, then there is no need for the disambiguation. --SuperJew (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Thejoebloggsblog on this. Port Adelaide's unique historical circumstances warrant that sort of delineation in a way no other club's does when long term or whole-of-club history is considered. By my read of the article, the games record is indeed the only honour which needs disambiguating, as everything is very clear from context and is correct without specifying AFL. Aspirex (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Help with transcluding a section

Hi all, Seems that recent changes to 2021 VFL season have changed something and now the 2021 Collingwood Football Club season in the ladder section of the VFL part, doesn't show the ladder, but rather the lede of the article. Could someone help fix this? (BTW this is a great example of why I think templates are preferable for this). --SuperJew (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC) It wasn't the lede actually, but the whole article. So I have commented out the call for now until this is worked out one way or another --SuperJew (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Lets get 2021 AFL Grand Final to WP:ITN!

Lets get 2021 AFL Grand Final to WP:ITN! We haven't had a grand final at ITN since the 2018 Grand Final. The main thing that needs to be done is to expand the match summary. Steelkamp (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated it now. Steelkamp (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Premiership player categories

Today User:Johnny_Stormer created and populated a number of "multiple premiership player" categories.

• Category:One-time VFL/AFL Premiership players
• Category:Two-time VFL/AFL Premiership players
• Category:Three-time VFL/AFL Premiership players
• Category:Four-time VFL/AFL Premiership players
• Category:Five-time VFL/AFL Premiership players
• Category:Six-time VFL/AFL Premiership players
• Category:Seven-time VFL/AFL Premiership players

as well as

• Category:Melbourne Football Club Premiership coaches
• Category:Melbourne Football Club Premiership players

Looking as to whether these are overcategorisation, I'm torn, because, for most of these players, it is a defining characteristic of their football career. They would be introduced at any football related event or every article about them as an "X-time premiership player". But similar cats for baseball and Superbowl champions have been deleted, but the one for NHL champions has remained. Cats by Olympic/Comm Games medal colour also exist.

The "premiership player by club" cats actually would have been useful for me a few weeks ago when I tried to work out how many Melbourne premiership players were still living. I ended up having to do multiple WP:PETSCAN comparisons using each year's navbox to work it out. These cats would make that a simple, single query task. But others see this as a categorisation by performance, which for actors/singers etc isn't allowed, but the application to sportsmen has been debated.

So are these all OK to keep? Should they go straight to WP:CFD for a decision, or should we agree here? Are the "by club" ones ok, but not the "by # of wins"? Pinging User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Good Olfactory and User:Namiba for some input. The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would support their deletion at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with The-Pope's initial thoughts. I think the premiership-winning status of a player is most usefully and most appropriate a club-driven categorisation; i.e. there should be a Category:xxx Football Club premiership players and it should be a subcategory of Category:xxx Football Club players. The league-wide 'One-time, two-time... seven-time' would be an overcategorisation over the top of that, and the precedent at other sports is compelling. I feel that multiple-premiership winners when not grouped by club could be a valid list article rather than a category. Aspirex (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• I also support deletion.--User:Namiba 18:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Player Significant Statistics

Hello everyone, the Player significant statistics ( e.g. Australian rules football statistics HS) shading on player's AFL playing statistics sections of articles is in need of some work. @4TheWynne has noted (User talk:4TheWynne#Significant statistics) "unfortunately, with these ones, we just have to be all over it and do it ourselves."

I recently added Clayton Oliver's handball records in 2017 and 2018, through much manual work (by counting back from the last final to the end of the home and away season, comparing him to Mitchell and Neale). This isn't really sustainable, as it is very easy to overlook statistics without clear/obvious winners, , easy to make mistakes, and could potentially pose a data problem with e.g. a player that played exceptionally well for one game then was injured for the rest of the season, but whose statistics are hidden and thus may be missed when doing manual average calculations.

As I recently stumbled across this, I assume there are many more records that are either wrong or incomplete (especially older records).

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what can be done? Is it simply a case of checking every total and average in AFL StatsPro/AFLtables and working backwards? Is anyone keen to help calculate back to 2010/2000 (or further) and "complete" the data? DiamondIIIXX (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Last time I read the AFL Record, it used to carry season stats leaders - if that's still the case, then the Finals Week 1 Record is the reference you need. Aspirex (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems very strange... for 2010 (page 52-53) (https://issuu.com/slattery/docs/round_qf2_2010) , it doesn't have Disposals, Goals or Behinds, or the averages for anything... DiamondIIIXX (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I had assumed you were talking about accumulated stats and not averages. Considering the process of averaging inherently normalizes the benefit a finalist has over a non finalist in the accumulation of statistics, my suggestion is that the 'average' statistics should only show the complete season leader and that no effort should be put into determining the h&a leader - the actual distinction between the two titles is trivial, and the amount of back calculating you're describing would be close to WP:OR (although acceptable with consensus). Aspirex (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It took me a couple of read throughs of your comment to understand it - I'll see if I can try to explain how I've understood what you wrote. You think we should scrap the current templates of using Home and Away only leader, Post Finals only leader, and Leader through Home and Away and Finals, and replace with only Post Finals Leader - for both totals and averages?

That way we could use AFLTables as the only source, and it would be extremely easy to verify and maintain. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll put it this way: for averages, I have a strong view that we should have only a "post finals leader", and would actively argue that we go that way because I don't think it makes sense to consider "pre-finals" and "post-finals" separately when you're averaging them anyway. For totals, I don't have a strong opinion – but all your points about ease of maintenance and ease of referencing are good reasons to consider going with "post finals" only. Aspirex (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. What are the next steps with the templates to make these changes happen? DiamondIIIXX (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should have for statistics at end of whole season (h&a regular + finals), as having at end of h&a isn't a regular stat and hard to maintain, especially if done retroactively (the only end of h&a stat which is important is the minor premiership and ladder positions for the draft, but those aren't affected by finals series). --SuperJew (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm a little late to the party here, but I'm strongly in favour of continuing to differentiate between the three (home-and-away only, finals only and whole season) for totals and averages. My reasoning is sort of an extension to my argument as to why we should have the statistics table on Wikipedia, and that's that if there's any way we can make player articles more interesting for readers in a way that other sources don't (e.g. AFL Tables, Australian Football, etc. don't include any of what we're talking about here), we should. I think it's interesting to sometimes have a statistic/average that one player might lead for the home-and-away season but then have that overtaken by/fall below someone in the finals; for example, we had an instance in the AFLW this year where Brittany Bonnici led total and average disposals for the home-and-away season (222 @ 24.7), and was overtaken for total disposals by teammate Brianna Davey after finals, but both players' averages were below Alyce Parker and Georgia Patrikios (both 23.9) after finals. My point here is that, while it might take a little while to research for past seasons that don't already have these covered, these statistics aren't overly difficult to stay on top of for the current season and it makes the statistics table more interesting than just having the player who leads a statistic at the end of the season. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Should we have then who leads per round? Half-season? Month? Why are the 3-4 finals games so different? --SuperJew (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aspirex @4TheWynne @SuperJew "I think it's interesting to sometimes have a statistic/average that one player might lead for the home-and-away season but then have that overtaken by/fall below someone in the finals" — Whilst I understand the sentiment, and I love stats myself, this fails WP:OR (this remains true even if the facts exist - if there's no published sources, it fails) The alternate view is quite compelling - if we take only the Post Finals leader for each stat, it rewards each accomplishment. If a non-finals player still leads the total for disposals after the finals, well done. If they don't, then their accomplishment might be recognised in the disposals average - see Jack Macrae and Tom Mitchell this year. Mitchell would still be rewarded for his disposals (through average), whilst Macrae is obviously recognised for his record-breaking total, Post Finals.

"while it might take a little while to research for past seasons..." We have to consider the maintenance as well — We haven't found a single source splitting results by H&A and then by H&A+Finals. This means it's first breaking Wikipedia's rules to include it, but also the amount of calculations and assumptions that have to be made leave a lot of room for error and mistakes. At least with going by just AFLTables, the records are homogenous back to 1965, and can be verified by any editors just looking at the respective page. If someone makes a mistake by listing the wrong person as the disposals average leader (e.g. skipping over a player with higher disposals, and giving the title to another player), anyone checking the year stats can confirm or deny the error, compared to the current situation which requires re-calculation for each statistic verification, which is highly burdensome and not really fitting for an encyclopedia. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

TFD Discussion started.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 3#AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have just closed the discussion and deleted the templates. I suspect the affected articles require some further amendments, but I wasn't sure the best way to execute those changes. I felt it best to defer that decision to the interested editors above. The list of articles can be found here. ✗plicit 01:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there anyone a bit better-versed in advanced template coding than me who might be able to help over at Template:Australian rules football statistics legend? I'm trying to add the statistics indicators as parameters Template:NBA player statistics legend-style, and it sort of worked, but I'm trying to put each parameter on a separate row that bypasses the columns and it's proving difficult. If it ends up being too hard to fix or everyone would prefer to keep the templates, happy to just update the templates and continue with those. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@4TheWynne I have had a quick play with it and managed to make it not look too bad. Tell me what you think. (I also appreciate the idea of making this template, as it will massively simplify each page. I also appreciate changing the "led the league" to a blue colour, for accessibility purposes.) DiamondIIIXX (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

DiamondIIIXX, I actually don't mind it – I've just made some final tweaks to the formatting to the point where I think it's ready to go. Would still be cool to see if there's a way to format it in the way that I suggested earlier – if anyone knows how to do this, please let us know – but otherwise, I'm happy to apply these to the other legend templates and put the other templates that I created up for deletion. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@4TheWynne I just added Hitouts. If you have a different formatting idea for that then please add it. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@4TheWynne The ruck page wasn't there when I looked... DiamondIIIXX (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Post deletion

I see the deletion discussion ended with a delete result and the template has been deleted from player pages (for example). Problem is that the statistics tables themselves still have the background, but now it is unexplained (see prev example). How do we go around removing the background colours from all pages the templates were used on? --SuperJew (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

SuperJew, wouldn't we just do it manually? There are still other pages that need their colours updated anyway (in other words, weren't updated when the colours were changed and symbols added), so it was always going to be a bit long and arduous to update all of the affected articles. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@4TheWynne Do you know of a source for AFLW stats? Preferably like AFLTables? DiamondIIIXX (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

As AFLTables doesn't record stats for the AFLW, the source that is used right now is Australianfootball.com. For checking who leads at the end of the season, the AFLW official stats page is a handy source. Doggo375 (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The official stats page looks broken at the moment. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That might be because you currently have the stats selected for the 2022 season, which hasn't occurred yet. When you go onto the stats page, click the arrow to the left of the text that says 2022 NAB AFLW Competition, and select 2021 or any other year. Doggo375 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm talking about the "Player Stats" selector. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

DiamondIIIXX, it works on the app, so at least we know that it works in some form, but not sure why the 2021 player stats aren't showing up on the website. But yes, Australian Football is the way to go, as we don't have the luxury of using both that and AFL Tables like we do with the AFL. All good regarding hitouts as well – otherwise there'd be a heap of articles needlessly showing hitouts in the legend when they don't have the statistic in their tables. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Further work

@4TheWynne @SuperJew I've recently done a few edits, updating many legends and tables with the new template, except for just the P (Premiership players).

Further changes that will need to be done include: AFL Womens - I haven't been able to access the statistics for these, so it would be good if someone else can finish this off with the correct templates.

I know this involves updating these players(as I recorded who had what templates before I submitted the TFD):

• Georgia Patrikios
• Alyce Parker
• Dakota Davidson
• Chloe Molloy
• Aishling Sheridan
• Emma King (footballer)
• Lauren Bella
• Ebony Marinoff
• Daisy Pearce
• Brooke Lochland
• Brittany Bonnici
• Cora Staunton
• Jess Duffin
• Darcy Vescio
• Ellie Blackburn
• Emily Bates
• Monique Conti
• Bonnie Toogood
• Angelica Gogos

I also know that there were 110 players with just the "P" template, and so those players will need to have their template updated. (Can someone do this automatically with Auto Wiki Browser? I don't use it.) It would be good if the rucks & non-rucks could all have their template replaced with the new one.

Once those things are done, I will go through each year in AFLTables and update any players we've missed. I know West Coast's Josh Kennedy is one of them. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

WAFL historical name change

It's been long held that the coastal competition in Western Australia was called the WAFA until 1907 and then the WAFL from 1908 onwards. I've seen this in countless articles both Wikipedia and otherwise, including australianfootball.com]. However, I've found newspaper articles which put that change of name on 27 March 1907, e.g. link, and hence that the 1907 WAFA season was actually under the WAFL name (and indeed 1907 articles widely referred to the 'league'). Before I take this as reason to start changing anything, I thought I'd best ask whether anyone is aware of some more recent historical edict that has declared 1907 a WAFA season in any sort of official way. Aspirex (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Protection?

Was wondering if you guys think we should add protection to Jordan De Goey for a couple of months due to the recent story? If we should, are there admins here who could do it? --SuperJew (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected by Ohnoitsjamie. – Teratix ₵ 00:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Teratix: Yeah, I requested the page protection ;) --SuperJew (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Fitzroy vs. Geelong (6 July 1963) -- query whether "Good Artlicle" candidate

I have just completed a new article: 1963 Miracle Match. Wondering if it's a candidate for GA status? Lindsay658 (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I've never formally done a GA review so this is my opinion only; but I don't think it would meet GA and these are my suggestions.

• Lead: Better establish the lasting notability of the game in the lead. This was Fitzroy's sole win in a two-year span, won against that year's eventual premiers, win by Wally Clark in his sole senior coaching game, and it spawned a book dedicated to the game: make those front-and-centre. GA reviewers might object to some weasel words in the appraisal paragraph.

• Due weight: my opinion is that articles on sports matches frequently don't strike the right balance between background/context (usually too much) and the game itself (usually not enough), and I'd suggest cutting out some background details to strike that balance here. The most extreme example is that there are more words on the impact of the following week's weather on non-football-related Melbourne infrastructure than on the second half's match report. Several sections, including the weather and postponement of the following week's matches, the topography of Fitzroy Cricket Ground, each team's changes from the previous week, and each coach's career – could be cut back.

• Background section: GA reviewers won't favourably view a section which is mostly a verbatim newspaper prediction of the game result. I would suggest you limit this section to four clear paragraphs and introduce a few concepts earlier: the team's records to date; the fact that it was an interstate week and in general what that meant; the weather; and a summary of the predicted result, together with the fact that no commentators were present.

• Brunswick Street Oval section: GA reviewers will definitely take issue here. It is mostly unreferenced and reads a bit POV. The later appraisals of each coach's playing record on the ground has the same issue.

• The teams: I'd suggest keeping it briefer: all ins and outs matter in grand final week, but less so for other games. I'd give the tables, name the players who were on interstate/country duty, and keep the appraisals of the teams' relative inexperiences – but put them side-by-side in the same paragraph to juxtapose the point. Remove the highlights on the premiership players, as highlights are against MOS.

• Coaches: Keep it briefer also. It's important that both were one-time senior coaches, usually the seconds coaches because of interstate duties, but I don't think much of the other information is relevant.

• Aftermath: What's missing is some extra details demonstrating the fact that the game is still remembered and has that long-term notability which warranted the article's creation.

• Other questions a neutral reader might be left with: When/how did the game come to be known as the 'Miracle Match'? Given the article gives such a positive assessment of Wally Clark's coaching (all but crediting him directly with the win), more information on his return to the seconds, or on whether the seniors offered him a coaching job, or similar, might be appropriate.

• Prose style: I found that the extensive use of parentheses/brackets impacted readability.

• Style suggestions: I'd suggest numbers for win-loss records instead of words, and firsts/seconds/thirds instead of First/Second/Third XVIII.

Aspirex (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Lindsay658 (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion process for Football Clubs

I have just encountered a campaign to delete articles for football clubs. It is questioning the notability of many of our articles. These are what I have found so far:

• Salisbury North Football Club - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salisbury North Football Club
• Ironbank-Cherry Gardens Football Club - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ironbank-Cherry Gardens Football Club
• Macclesfield Football Club - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macclesfield Football Club
• Clarendon Football Club - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarendon Football Club

It appears the following have previously been successfully removed:

• Balaklava Football Club - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balaklava Football Club (2nd nomination)
• Hummocks Watchman Eagles Football Club - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hummocks Watchman Eagles Football Club
• United Football Club - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Football Club
• Two Wells Football Club - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Wells Football Club

Not Australian Football but it appears the following are also being questioned:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macclesfield Basketball Club

Updated 12/11/2021 More nominations for deletion:

• Yankalilla Football Club - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yankalilla Football Club
• Langhorne Creek Football Club - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langhorne Creek Football Club

What can we do to salvage these? Screech1616 (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Find substantive independent sources that discuss the clubs, if these exist. To be honest, most of the referencing for those clubs' articles is quite poor and redirection to the articles on their respective leagues doesn't seem to be an unjust outcome. – Teratix ₵ 04:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Should improving the articles not be the end goal here, rather than deletion. The articles are a starting point. Screech1616 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, improving the articles should be the goal, but ultimately, decent sources need to be cited otherwise improvement is impossible. Local clubs' articles have long been magnets for fancruft and it's unrealistic to expect them to have a free pass from referencing standards for months or years on end. Discussing the clubs within the articles on their respective leagues may well be a better solution. I do agree that full-on deletion would be a needlessly poor outcome and I have made comments accordingly. – Teratix ₵ 12:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Joel Selwood

I have nominated Joel Selwood for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

VFL players competing under an assumed name

Just wondering if there are any other VFL players — that is, apart from Collingwood’s Percy Edward Rowe ("Paddy Ryan") and Essendon’s Alfred Snowden Carter ("Driver") — who played in the VFL under an assumed name? (And, of course, there was also the entirely different (1902) case of Essendon’s Fred Mann who played in two matches as "Goodthur".) Lindsay658 (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't add it because I have no reference, but Mann was only Goodthur once; cross referencing newspapers with AFLTables, Jack McKenzie was Goodthur in the second of the games. Garry Hocking aka Whiskas also comes to mind. Aspirex (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Good job on a productive 2021

WikiProject Australian rules football has 27 Good Articles. 13 of them (almost half) became Good Articles in 2021, making that year an incredibly productive year for this project. Of those 13 articles, there were 7 nominators. Congratulations to all involved, and hopefully we can get some more Featured Articles this year. Steelkamp (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS (and NAFL) an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NAFL] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Further proposals at Village Pump

Your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS/NAFL would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:

• Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
• Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
• Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
• Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
• Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
• Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
• Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
• Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

AFL - Reliable Sources for home towns / first football club?

What site/sources are considered reliable for hometown, and first football club?
In particular, are the following considered reliable : country footy scoresm, council web sites, AFL club sites, local historic spcieties and Local league web sites?
(The last club they were transferred may nnot be the club they started at; as may players got through Gippsland or through a bigger clubs such as Oakleigh Charger)s.Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)br Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Daisy Pearce at FAC

Hey guys – hope everyone's doing well. Just letting everyone know that I've nominated Daisy Pearce as a featured article candidate – if anyone felt like having their say and/or contributing to the article (particularly sourcing, etc.), more than welcome. Thanks! 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"AFL season" articles

How does this Wikiproject feel about possibly renaming article like 2022 AFL season to 2022 Australian Football League season? That'd be more consistent with the main-topic title, with the WP:BOLDTITLE as it appears on most of these pages, and it'd avoid the slight weirdness where some "<year> AFL season" pages are redirects to the American Football League ones (albeit these are all disjoint in time). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I would be opposed. Under the five WP:CRITERIA, four favour 'AFL' outright, and the fifth (precision and disambiguation) is neutral given the lack of temporal overlap between the American and Australian leagues. Better solution would be to fix the leads and bold titles of the VFL/AFL season articles to match the phrasing on articles like the NFL seasons (I.e. Abbreviate in the bold title and expand in the same sentence). Aspirex (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

We count those very differently! I'd count that as "concision" as favouring AFL, precision and consistency very clearly favouring the longer form, and recognisability and naturalness favouring the latter for me, but I can see that's be different for different people, especially as regards their degree of familiarity with the topic. (Here it's a pretty familiar topic, especially as Gaelic footballers are often reported jetting off to play Aussie rules, but most people would stare at your blankly if you said "AFL" out of context -- and very possibly in it.) Very much agree on how to handle the lead sentences if there's no consensus to rename the articles. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I would support moving those articles to "Year Australian Football League season" form. So we can cut down the confusion over which league "AFL" should be associated with. Indeed the current confusion is made greater, as it involves two different sports. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the scope for confusion is probably pretty theoretical: you'd have to go actively looking for something that doesn't exist to find yourself in wildly the wrong place. Likely not many people thought the American Football League was still running in the '90s or later, but maybe somebody thought that Aussie rules was trading as "the AFL" in the '60s. The Arena Football League might be the most likely to lead you astray. But the inconsistency is... mildly vexing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

My idea was to move "1960 American Football League season" – "1969 American Football League season" article titles to 1960 AFL season" – "1969 AFL season" article titles. To better line up with the "1920 APFA season" – "2022 NFL season" article titles. But, that idea's been rejected. It appears the AFL abbreviation, has come down to between the American Football League and the Australian Football League, unfortunately. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I would be against changing the article titles as well. Even comparing the pageviews of individual season articles for the Australian Football League against the American Football League and Arena Football League, the former always garners more traffic, so that could be a measure of which is more recognisable, at least on this site; with that in mind, I would definitely agree that the status quo favours four of the criteria mentioned earlier. Changing the titles of the Australian Football League season articles would affect so much more than just those articles, too. In regards to wording the opening sentences, I made a few changes to the 2000 AFL season article recently, including the lead section, and came up with this:

The 2000 AFL season was the 104th season of the Australian Football League (AFL), the elite men's Australian rules football competition, and the eleventh under the name Australian Football League, having changed from Victorian Football League (VFL) after the 1989 season...

Would something like this suffice? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Stylistically that's great, if they're staying at the present titles, yup. But on that, the trouble is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ship has sailed on AFL, unless you plan on re-opening that particular can of worms. Nor did Australian Football League end up at AFL (Australian football), or some such formulation, so it definitely causes an inconsistency. Maybe not a vastly important one in the grand scheme of thing... Actually just looking at Category:Australian Football League, the ad hoc variation between the two seems strikingly high, and it doesn't look like the unabbreviated ones are generally forced by disambiguation. I don't get the point about changes beyond those articles; this really would just be a those-articles change. It's not like the redirects would be lost or turned into disambiguation pages, so there'd be no issues with links, say. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

4TheWynne While we're considering this, there's two things I've wanted to change about the intro statement for a while - removing the word 'elite' (which I feel is a fairly imprecise buzzwordy description of anything preceding the fully national era) and removing the counting of AFL-named seasons (which implies some formal delineation which does not exist). I'd suggest "The 2000 AFL season was the 104th season of the Australian Football League (AFL), the highest level senior (men's) Australian rules football competition in Australia, which was previously known as the Victorian Football League until 1989" for AFL seasons, adding the word men's only from the AFLW's commencement in 2017 onwards; and "The 1980 VFL season was the 84th season of the Victorian Football League (VFL), the highest level senior Australian rules football competition in Victoria" for VFL seasons. Aspirex (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(comment moved to keep in thread/time order, pardon my presumes) I'm just a tourist on this page, but "highest level" seems clearer and more precise to me, in the same way "top division" or "first class" is used in other sports. "Elite" gives me flashbacks to "who is or isn't an 'elite' quarterback" debates in the NFL, which is indeed used in exactly that type of fuzzy way. (i.e., not generally to just mean those in the top-level pro league.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like we have a couple of people in favour of this, a couple of people opposed, and a tremendous amount of apathy from the community at large. Oh well. Given that we have more than enough centralised sports-policy drama for the time being, I think I'll shelve this idea for the time being. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

With the NFL playoffs in progress, one would've thought there'd be more interest from football fan editors. GoodDay (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I have made the lead section updates as described above. Aspirex (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

NAFL likely to be overturned

The mammoth discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability has been closed. While the major proposal to abolish NSPORTS entirely failed, a subproposal to abolish participation-based criteria passed. There seems to be some dispute over exactly how and when to implement the closure result, but the upshot for this project is that NAFL is likely to be removed or require significant modification in the near future. The major consequence will be that citing NAFL at AfD will carry no weight as a defence against deletion. Instead, articles will be assessed merely based on GNG. There are three options for this project: 1) do nothing and accept GNG as the sole standard, 2) seek consensus to reinstate NAFL in its current form, 3) seek consensus for a modified form of NAFL.

• 1 is the default, but as previously mentioned it may become more difficult to defend articles at AfD. Or it may not, I'm honestly not sure what proportion of NAFL-compliant articles are also GNG-compliant.
• 2 is possibly preferable from a preservation standpoint, but it would be difficult to gain consensus since it would probably be viewed as reopening a done-and-dusted discussion. Probably the only way it would be possible is to decisively distinguish NAFL from other sports participation-based criteria, perhaps by demonstrating a relatively high proportion of NAFL-complaint articles are also GNG-compliant. Say, take 100 NAFL-compliant articles and assess how many are GNG-compliant; if the proportion is >90% then NAFL might be considered sufficiently calibrated to GNG to remain in force.
• 3 is an alternative but I can't think of a good non-participation-based modification off the top of my head.

Personally I have mixed feelings about the change. On the one hand, it will probably reduce the amount of one-line stubs, but on the other hand some footballers which project members might consider notable may have their articles deleted. – Teratix ₵ 05:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The whole RfC is contentious and devisive, with many WikiProjects and editors objecting to it. It's currently being discussed more at the NSPORTS talk page and at ANI. --SuperJew (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If the closure is overturned, that's a different story, but pragmatically we should consider next steps assuming it will remain in force. Another idea I had would be an article improvement drive focusing on shoring up sourcing in these biographies. – Teratix ₵ 00:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I def think over 95% of Aussie footballers who've played in the AFL or AFLW pass GNG. Having a drive is a very good idea (maybe a destubathon?), also regardless of the RfC. I have a list somewhere of articles to destub which I can help create a list for the drive, but unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to research and expand too much as life is quite busy rn :S --SuperJew (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there's value in seeking a modified form of NAFL (Teratix option 3). The GNG vs NSPORTS debate, to me, boils down to striking a balance between policy/procedure and practicality. Trying to debate sports bios on GNG at AfDs is a nightmare because the line between ROUTINE vs SIGCOV is so subjective; having a participation-based inclusion criteria saves everyone a huge amount of administrative time.

I do agree with the NSPORTS debate that NAFL in its current form sets far lower a bar for inclusion than GNG. Personally, I disagree with SuperJew's view, and I would expect if we did a thorough audit of our bios we would be lucky if even 40% of NAFL-qualified footballers would actually properly pass GNG. GNG requires SIGCOV, and the bulk of references in our bio pages are either databases (AFLTables and AustralianFootball.com and Jim Main's Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers), are primary sources (e.g. a club's website's blurb on its players) or ROUTINE – i.e. news articles that report on transactional things like being drafted, playing a first game, etc. Take Steven Browne as an example: he played 23 games for Carlton, which puts him above the median and inside the top 50% of games for the club; his article, while it contains plenty of details and words, is currently and will only ever be built entirely on databases and routine coverage, and therefore does not meet GNG.

I agree with SuperJew that a sourcing drive isn't really practical. I recently brought Jim Baird (Australian footballer) up to a GNG standard, and it took two weeks of my limited discretionary time; and given you can count the active biography writers in this project on your hands and feet, we're unlikely to make any meaningful inroads.

We need to be thinking through some other practicalities: chief in my mind is whether players who fail to meet a tightened standard are deleted outright, or redirected to the club lists – and if redirected, what do we do about two-club players and do we have to made modifications to the club list pages to account for it. Aspirex (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't overturned. NAFL has been removed in last few days. RossRSmith (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Was any guidance given on whether non-notable players should be redirects or deletions? Aspirex (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Boyles Football Photos

Does anyone have any information relating to the recent disappearance of the irreplaceable and magnificent storehouse of Aussie Rules historical data formerly at https://www.boylesfootballphotos.net.au ? Is the AFL, with its squillions and squillions of dollars taking any steps to rescue/exhume this valuable resource? Is there a legal or commercial reason for its disappearance? Lindsay658 (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the site being down is a real loss. Have just checked another forum that I'm on and site admin in Oct/Nov was trying to get it back online. Appears to have been some problem updating to cope with change made by service provider. RossRSmith (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, and the explanation.Lindsay658 (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

1910 VFL Grand Final

Hello AFL editors - I happened to see the 1910 VFL Grand Final article today. Some time last year, somebody added a rather detailed description of the Final, but it's unreferenced and it looks like a possible copyvio, based on the language being rather un-encyclopedic and archaic. Those of you more knowledgeable about the history of the VFL than I should have a look and trim it back as you may see fit. Cheers, PKT(alk) 17:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It was indeed all copyvio, which I've removed. Thanks PKT. Jevansen (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This was from the 1910 Argus, can't see how that's still copyrighted. Of course, little value in just pasting newspaper articles verbatim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs) 08:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Work on new article "1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game" of Australian Rules football completed

The lengthy and arduous task of compiling the accurate and detailed article on the 28 October 1916 exhibition match of Australian Rules football, contested in London between two teams of AIF soldiers, is now completed. Please see both 1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game and Talk:1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)