Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Statistics tables

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stat boxes

What do we all think of these? - you know, the ones on the Selwood and most Geelong articles. I'm a strong fan, but the Pope has a differing opinion. Aaroncrick TALK 10:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already registered my opinion on my own talk page, but basically: they're not all that difficult to maintain/update; the alternative riff I've used on Ricky Dyson and a few others is even more compact and neat (rather than the Selwood one repeating the same info in the first few columns for both totals and averages; they provide valuable and objective information at a glance for the reader, and I think that having both statistical and ideally in-depth biographical information is one of the key assets of being able to cover footy players on Wikipedia. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a template for statistics, Template:AFL player statistics start (kudos to Allied45 for creating it), which is in use in a few articles. It seems a lot neater than a table – Mark LeCras#Statistics and Cameron Ling#Statistics are good examples of it in use. I♦A 08:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, fantastic. Wasn't aware of that, thanks for the heads up. Far more functional than what I've been doing as well. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Quick question though, what is preferable? Should we be listing years when players did not play a game, as is the case of Marcus Drum? I'm not sure that it's of huge benefit and makes the table look incomplete, but I'm not sure what the consensus is? Maybe I'm just depressed about what Gumby's table would look like. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Statistics tables in articles

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

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

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

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

Question regarding statistics table

In the statistics table there are two options: the regular format and the ruckman format. First question: Is there a reason that for ruckmen the stats are in a different order? I can understand that there is an added column for hit-outs (as that is a major part of a ruckman's work) but why not just add it instead of all the order being different? Second question: Some players (such as Dane Swan and Alan Toovey) are not ruckmen, but have been known to ruck when needed (and have hit-outs listed in their stats on AFL Tables). Currently (amongst the players I looked at) their hit-outs are not included in their stats. Anyone know what reasoning there is behind this? Should their hit-outs be listed and their format changed to the ruckman format? --SuperJew (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, when adding stat tables, if the player plays as a relief ruckman occasionally, I use the ruckman table. Many if not most players have two or three hitouts a season, but when there are about 20 or more, use the ruckman table for mine. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 23:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why they're in a different order and why the template creator changed the order. I have noticed this, and it's in my long list of stuff to fix, but there are over 60 transclusions of the template, so just reordering the template will stuff up all the transclusions, so it's unfortunately a bit of a job to fix. As for the non-ruckman, I have attempted to fix it and have done so for about 20 or so players, unfortunately there was a period where nearly every addition of the stats table was the ruckman one. My rule of thumb is looking at their career average, if it's around the 5-10+ hitouts, then I would keep it as a ruckman, there may be a season where a player has 20 hitouts, but there overall average is less than one hitout, so I'd get rid of it in that case. It's a bit of a case by case basis, if they aren't known as a ruckman (i.e. Swan and Toovey), I'd keep the normal stats even if there are hitouts in their AFL tables stats. A clear example is Elliot Yeo, he is often the third man up, but he isn't known as a ruckman so that stats table wouldn't be approriate. Flickerd (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
ignoring my preference that we don't have any stats at all outside of games and goals in the infobox, and without having looked at the template, generally the order presented in the table doesn't have to match the order entered. That's the benefit of using templates, one change can automatically apply to hundreds of transclusions.The-Pope (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately the template only applies to the header (below) and each season has to be manually ordered, so it's easier to reorder the ruckman template as it's 54 transclusions vs. 628. Flickerd (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
normal
Season Team # Games G B K H D M T G B K H D M T
Totals Averages (per game)
ruckman
Season Team # Games D K H M T H/O G B D K H M T H/O G B
Totals Averages (per game)

Flickerd (or anyone else), would you be able to reorder the ruck then? The sooner it's done, the less transclusions it'll be. --SuperJew (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I'm currently in the process of doing it, I'm just on holiday atm for a week, but I reckon it should all be done in about a month (hopefully). Flickerd (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


This didn't take anywhere near as long as I thought it would, but this has been all fixed now and all the ruckman stats tables now match the order of the non-ruckman stats table with hitouts added onto the end, so all future transclusions will now need to match that order (below). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Season Team No. Games Totals Averages (per game)
G B K H D M T H/O G B K H D M T H/O
Amazing, great job Flickerd! --SuperJew (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Stats box, alignment

Not sure if I'm going insane but I think the stats boxes have been changed to align differently to in the past. I'm certain the total row used to align directly to those above at least. Can anyone confirm if this is true or I'm just losing my mind and never notice this before. (talk) 6:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've just noticed this in the stats tables too, it's definitely aligning differently whereby the ! parameters are now aligning left rather than centre, this is probably something that's happened in the wikitable module. These things usually correct themselves after time as the wikitable template is highly visible so I'm hoping it will be fixed soon (as I have no idea how to fix it in the module). Flickerd (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
There's still no fix. Is there something we can do on our end to fix it assuming the parent module never gets fixed? DustyNail (talk) 5:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
DustyNail, I can't really see anything that can be done from our end as it's just the ! parameter in a wikitable, it's not a template where the issue is happening. I'd recommend bringing the issue up at Help talk:Table and explain the aligning issue. Flickerd (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Brownlow (AFL) and best-and-fairest (AFLW) votes in player articles

I've added votes boxes to several AFLW players' articles (having added statistics and honours/achievements sections to these articles, among others, previously) and would argue that, because the Brownlow Medal and AFL Women's best and fairest are the highest individual honours in their respective competitions (and in the sport as a whole for males and females, respectively), it's something that should be added at all AFL and AFLW player articles (or at least those that contain an honours/achievements section – there are a lot of articles that don't even have a statistics section, let alone that). I was reverted multiple times at one article by SuperJew (who claimed that this matter had already been discussed but couldn't tell me where) because that player didn't have any votes in their two seasons thus far. My main argument here is that I still think a votes box should be added regardless of whether the player has any votes, largely because of the importance of the award. I can perhaps understand it not being required if the player goes through their whole career without earning a single vote, but at the same time, how will we know that the player didn't receive any votes – is that not still just as important? That would be like having a statistics section without the statistics table, linking to AFL Tables and/or Australian Football, and indicating that a player's statistics can be found there. If there is already a consensus in place on this matter, then I was unaware, and would at least like to read the discussion, but if not, then I want to be heard out here. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 07:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We will know the player didn't receive any votes by omission, much like after Richmond won the premiership last year we didn't add a sentence to every non-Richmond player in the league saying "X didn't win the premiership in 2017". To compare to your statistics table comparison, if a player doesn't play a single game they shouldn't have a statistics table. --SuperJew (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
My view is that although the Brownlow and AFLW equivalent are the highest honours, the reality is that it's top ten placings that are notable, not the gradual accumulation of votes by fringe players. Imho, a standalone table which for example itemises a ten year fringe player's Brownlow record as 0-0-4-1-0-3-5-6-2-1 isn't improving his article; stick the Brownlow votes by year in the stats table if the player has one, and put placings in the honours section. Aspirex (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy with votes going in the statistics table. I don't think it's entirely necessary to have placings on their own, other than being mentioned in the article body, but at least having the votes in the statistics table means that they are perhaps less redundant and they can be viewed in the same way as they are at the aforementioned AFL Tables and Australian Football sites (where the votes are found in the same table as the statistics). Though I understand it would mean going through every VFL/AFL and AFLW players' articles (at least those which contain a statistics and/or honours and achievements section), in terms of the table itself, I think it would ideally be listed next to games as "Votes", where it would still come under totals, and would link to the respective award. For example, this would be a men's table:

Season Team No. Games Votes G B K H D M T G B K H D M T
Totals Averages (per game)

This would not affect the existing legend template, which refers only to playing statistics, however I think that it should be moved to Template:Australian rules football statistics legend to achieve gender neutrality (that, and it really is just a statistics key). I then think that there should be a separate start template for AFL Women's players – Template:AFLW player statistics start – which would look exactly the same, except it would link to the AFL Women's best and fairest and not the Brownlow Medal:

Season Team No. Games Votes G B K H D M T G B K H D M T
Totals Averages (per game)

This would affect all ruck-related templates as well (including having separate templates, all of which contain "ruck" instead "ruckman", for the aforementioned reasons). How would people feel about this as an alternate proposal? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It should probably be on the far right of the table, not next to games. No source I've ever seen gives Brownlow votes second billing after games. Aspirex (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand that, but I've done it this way so that it stays under totals and doesn't go on the far right of the totals section of the table, splitting the playing statistics. Either that, or games and votes both don't come under totals and can go on the left and right of the playing statistics, respectively (see below). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 03:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Season Team No. Games G B K H D M T G B K H D M T Votes
Totals Averages (per game)
That justification re totals vs non-totals makes sense. But I do prefer this more recent version to keep the onfield and off field stats apart. Aspirex (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I do as well – I also think it looks neater this way. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 04:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Really not a fan of the tables - it's unnecessary and doesn't provide useful information for the amount of clutter (or, in the case of losing best and fairest, not useful at all). Also don't see the point of having yet another column in the stats table to record trivial amounts of votes. Easy enough just to mention the Brownlow votes in the article text if it's significant. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
To which table are you referring? I honestly don't see how the votes are trivial – this could just be me (which isn't uncommon), but I personally think that the votes are just as important as any of the other statistics in the table, and that calling them trivial would be like calling the rest of the statistics trivial. I also disagree with your second point – it's even easier to just record the votes exactly as they're presented in the sites that the section is sourcing, which is exactly what the most recent version above does. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 04:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Below is an example of what a player's statistics table would like with the above changes. In this case, I've used Jobe Watson:

Example
Season Team No. Games G B K H D M T G B K H D M T Votes
Totals Averages (per game)
2003 Essendon 4 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0
2004 Essendon 4 7 6 2 37 42 79 23 16 0.9 0.3 5.3 6.0 11.3 3.3 2.3 0
2005 Essendon 4 5 2 0 23 32 55 14 5 0.4 0.0 4.6 6.4 11.0 2.8 1.0 0
2006 Essendon 4 21 6 7 203 276 479 114 69 0.3 0.3 9.7 13.1 22.8 5.4 3.3 0
2007 Essendon 4 19 6 5 193 249 442 85 62 0.3 0.3 10.2 13.1 23.3 4.5 3.3 5
2008 Essendon 4 19 4 8 193 265 458 54 68 0.2 0.4 10.2 14.1 24.1 3.8 3.6 5
2009 Essendon 4 22 10 10 221 322 543 73 98 0.4 0.4 10.0 14.6 24.7 3.3 4.4 10
2010 Essendon 4 21 10 1 209 363 572 77 91 0.5 0.0 10.0 17.3 27.2 3.7 4.3 16
2011 Essendon 4 17 15 11 237 208 445 77 65 0.9 0.6 13.9 12.2 26.2 4.1 3.8 15
2012 Essendon 4 22 20 8 343 295 638 106 105 0.9 0.4 15.6 13.4 29.0 4.8 4.8 30
2013 Essendon 4 19 16 18 259 264 523 74 60 0.8 1.0 13.6 13.9 27.5 3.9 3.2 17
2014 Essendon 4 15 10 2 185 226 411 70 70 0.7 0.1 12.3 15.1 27.4 4.7 4.7 8
2015 Essendon 4 12 6 6 124 163 287 45 53 0.5 0.5 10.3 13.6 23.9 3.8 4.4 7
2016 Essendon 4 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0
2017 Essendon 4 20 2 6 194 278 472 97 84 0.1 0.3 9.7 13.9 23.6 4.9 4.2 0
Career 220 113 85 2421 2985 5406 901 848 0.5 0.4 11.0 13.6 24.6 4.1 3.9 113

This should give the best indication. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the inclusion of Brownlow/WomB&F votes in the stats table and think it is far cleaner than the current Brownlow Votes table. The only thing is I would prefer if it is in the legend as having just a "Votes" column heading is a bit ambiguous IMO (even though there is a link, I'd still prefer to have it in the legend). I think having the column heading as BV and then the legend as Brownlow Votes and WBFV or BFV for the women's with the legend as Women's best and fairest votes (but this means there would be separate templates for AFL and AFLW). The only other issue is a procedural one, as there are 901 transclusions for the basic table and 85 for the ruckman one. This is going to be a mammoth task to update all the tables and the votes column can't really be added to the template until all transclusions are updated. I'd suggest creating a new template with the Brownlow column option just while it's all being implemented and then the created Brownlow template can be redirected to the existing template with the added column once all stats tables are updated. Flickerd (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with shortening from "Votes" to an abbreviation while the women's award still doesn't have an official name – I think our task will be made easier by not having to have two different legends as well, which is why I thought having two different start templates, both with a "Votes" column (with the men's linking to the Brownlow Medal and the women's linking to the AFL Women's best and fairest), would be the best solution. All that making the changes to the start template(s) will do is add an extra blank column – would it not be easier to do that first before updating every article that includes the table? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 10:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Then you would have nearly 1000 articles with an uneven table and unexplained column (see below) and how realistic is it going to be that they're all going to be updated in a very short amount of time (it will probably take over a month if done efficiently, so it will probably take even longer). I am strongly against having that amount of pages with a table that has a blank column like that. With the aforementioned suggestion of having a seperate template that is then redirected, no further updates will need to be made after that and it eradicates the issue of having large amounts of pages with blank columns. Flickerd (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
If votes column is added to template before transclusions are updated
Season Team No. Games G B K H D M T G B K H D M T Votes
Totals Averages (per game)
2003 Essendon 4 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
2004 Essendon 4 7 6 2 37 42 79 23 16 0.9 0.3 5.3 6.0 11.3 3.3 2.3
2005 Essendon 4 5 2 0 23 32 55 14 5 0.4 0.0 4.6 6.4 11.0 2.8 1.0
2006 Essendon 4 21 6 7 203 276 479 114 69 0.3 0.3 9.7 13.1 22.8 5.4 3.3
2007 Essendon 4 19 6 5 193 249 442 85 62 0.3 0.3 10.2 13.1 23.3 4.5 3.3
2008 Essendon 4 19 4 8 193 265 458 54 68 0.2 0.4 10.2 14.1 24.1 3.8 3.6
2009 Essendon 4 22 10 10 221 322 543 73 98 0.4 0.4 10.0 14.6 24.7 3.3 4.4
2010 Essendon 4 21 10 1 209 363 572 77 91 0.5 0.0 10.0 17.3 27.2 3.7 4.3
2011 Essendon 4 17 15 11 237 208 445 77 65 0.9 0.6 13.9 12.2 26.2 4.1 3.8
2012 Essendon 4 22 20 8 343 295 638 106 105 0.9 0.4 15.6 13.4 29.0 4.8 4.8
2013 Essendon 4 19 16 18 259 264 523 74 60 0.8 1.0 13.6 13.9 27.5 3.9 3.2
2014 Essendon 4 15 10 2 185 226 411 70 70 0.7 0.1 12.3 15.1 27.4 4.7 4.7
2015 Essendon 4 12 6 6 124 163 287 45 53 0.5 0.5 10.3 13.6 23.9 3.8 4.4
2016 Essendon 4 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2017 Essendon 4 20 2 6 194 278 472 97 84 0.1 0.3 9.7 13.9 23.6 4.9 4.2
Career 220 113 85 2421 2985 5406 901 848 0.5 0.4 11.0 13.6 24.6 4.1 3.9

I don't really see too much of a difference/the big deal between one approach (above) or the other (below), and I don't want to sound like I'm trying to argue for one of them, as that's the least of our concerns.

If transclusions are updated before votes column is added to template
Season Team No. Games Totals Averages (per game)
G B K H D M T G B K H D M T
2003 Essendon 4 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0
2004 Essendon 4 7 6 2 37 42 79 23 16 0.9 0.3 5.3 6.0 11.3 3.3 2.3 0
2005 Essendon 4 5 2 0 23 32 55 14 5 0.4 0.0 4.6 6.4 11.0 2.8 1.0 0
2006 Essendon 4 21 6 7 203 276 479 114 69 0.3 0.3 9.7 13.1 22.8 5.4 3.3 0
2007 Essendon 4 19 6 5 193 249 442 85 62 0.3 0.3 10.2 13.1 23.3 4.5 3.3 5
2008 Essendon 4 19 4 8 193 265 458 54 68 0.2 0.4 10.2 14.1 24.1 3.8 3.6 5
2009 Essendon 4 22 10 10 221 322 543 73 98 0.4 0.4 10.0 14.6 24.7 3.3 4.4 10
2010 Essendon 4 21 10 1 209 363 572 77 91 0.5 0.0 10.0 17.3 27.2 3.7 4.3 16
2011 Essendon 4 17 15 11 237 208 445 77 65 0.9 0.6 13.9 12.2 26.2 4.1 3.8 15
2012 Essendon 4 22 20 8 343 295 638 106 105 0.9 0.4 15.6 13.4 29.0 4.8 4.8 30
2013 Essendon 4 19 16 18 259 264 523 74 60 0.8 1.0 13.6 13.9 27.5 3.9 3.2 17
2014 Essendon 4 15 10 2 185 226 411 70 70 0.7 0.1 12.3 15.1 27.4 4.7 4.7 8
2015 Essendon 4 12 6 6 124 163 287 45 53 0.5 0.5 10.3 13.6 23.9 3.8 4.4 7
2016 Essendon 4 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0
2017 Essendon 4 20 2 6 194 278 472 97 84 0.1 0.3 9.7 13.9 23.6 4.9 4.2 0
Career 220 113 85 2421 2985 5406 901 848 0.5 0.4 11.0 13.6 24.6 4.1 3.9 113

Anyway, to clarify (and summarise all of my points made thus far), these are the changes that I am proposing:

Hopefully this all makes sense, anyway. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with the suggested changes, although I'd still prefer to have the legend with votes (and if there's going to be newly created start templates for women's, wouldn't it be the same amount of work adding the women's legend and therefore there would be the same amount of transclusions?). As for the implementation (and we're just discussing trying to do the best process, I don't see it as arguing), I don't think either of the above examples (If votes column is added to template before transclusions are updated or If votes column is added to template before transclusions are updated) should be how the change is implemented as that will create mass amounts of incomplete tables. There's a couple of ways it can be done so there aren't mass amounts of incomplete tables, [1] [2] this was how it was done a couple of years ago when the ruck stats table was reordered, or the implementation I've already alluded to which will be much easier to do than the ruckman way that was done a couple of years ago
I'm happy to do the first update so you can see it in practice in an actual article rather than the sandbox. In addition, I'm happy doing the other work to make it all implement properly, all you'd need to do is add the votes in the actual column. Any way this change is implemented, it's going to be a big job. Flickerd (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Whatever works, in terms of the approach. To address your first point, though, that's exactly why I suggested have the "Votes" column heading and link, so that it would not need to be used in the legend. Only one legend would be required, and it would only need to be moved to a more neutral title (my first point), and thus a second (women's) legend would not need to be created. I'm strongly for "Votes" over an abbreviated form for that reason, because it looks neater, and because the women's award still doesn't have an official name. I'm sure we can always just implement the suggested changes and then discuss legends/abbreviated forms in the future, perhaps once the award is given a name. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

But yes, to summarise, I'm happy with that plan, and with the overall change. I've completed the moves, and I've also created the women's start templates – updating the women's players will obviously be easy, as you can just change the template names and add the votes in one go, as the new templates don't exist at any articles yet. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry for the late answer... was on a uni trip in the desert). I agree with adding the votes to the stats, especially as it appears in the AFL Tables. Having it in a separate table was the real issue as it doesn't have that much notability. I agree the implantation will be a bit of a nightmare and unfortunately I don't think I'll have much free time to help out, but I agree with the outline laid out above. --SuperJew (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'll add two points: 1. I think the title should be "Votes", but rather a shortened version like the rest (BR or BV), 2. I don't see the problem of having average votes per game as the source AFL Tables does that. --SuperJew (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've created and implemented the new template (per above) and updated tables at Nathan Jones, Christian Petracca and Max Gawn (ruck). So basically as has been said, once all transclusions have been updated then the original start template will be updated. I'll try and help out as much as I can with updates, but I'm also a bit busy so may be a bit sporadic. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help so far. I think that the votes for the current season should be left blank (rather than "TBA") until after the Brownlow ceremony, like at AFL Tables (which I changed at Petracca's article), but that's something that we haven't thought to discuss yet. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. We should never feel shy about leaving table cells blank rather than putting TBA in them if the information doesn't exist yet. Aspirex (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
TBH I agree with leaving it blank, I was a bit unsure when I was doing it last night which one to do and originally had it blank but the added TBA, but probs better to have it blank. Flickerd (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Why not just use a dash ( - ) as we do with other not applicable entries such as when a player hasn't played a game that season? Having it empty makes it look like it's been forgotten about. BTW, though it seems like I'm too late to the party but I personally disagree with adding votes to the stats table. For a vast majority of players this will be a pointless as very few players actually record votes in any one year. That's the justification I can see for having it divided into a separate box in the first place as most players will just have 0 votes in most years. DustyNail (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2018 (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.

Templates

Key

  • H – home-and-away (first colour)
  • F – finals (second colour)
  • S – season (home-and-away and finals; third colour)
  • P – premiership (fourth colour)
  • B – Brownlow (fifth colour, VFL/AFL only)
  • W – Women's (AFL Women's best and fairest; fifth colour, AFLW only)

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)

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)

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)

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):

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)

Zebra stripes on statistics tables

Hey guys – hope everyone's doing well. Yes, it's back to that old topic again... some of us love them, some of us love to hate them... statistics tables. But don't worry, this one's a fun one.

The way that AFL/AFLW statistics tables are currently formatted, we have manually-added zebra stripes that bunch up and look all messy when you sort a column, so long story short, I went in search of a solution (after trying JavaScript) and was eventually presented with Template:Alternating rows table. All we would need to do is change the format at the AFL player statistics start templates and remove the manual stripes from all of the existing tables, and voilà, we've made yet another accessibility-related improvement to these tables. Take, for example, Tony Lockett's table, as it's currently formatted:

Season Team No. Games Totals Averages (per game)
G B K H D M T G B K H D M T
1983 St Kilda 37 12 19 17 76 26 102 44 — 1.6 1.4 6.3 2.2 8.5 3.7 —
1984 St Kilda 14 20 77 44 146 19 165 108 — 3.9 2.2 7.3 1.0 8.3 5.4 —
1985 St Kilda 14 21 79 22 146 32 178 112 — 3.8 1.0 7.0 1.5 8.5 5.3 —
1986 St Kilda 14 18 60 29 119 36 155 85 — 3.3 1.6 6.6 2.0 8.6 4.7 —
1987 St Kilda 14 22 117 52 226 49 275 164 16 5.3 2.4 10.3 2.2 12.5 7.5 0.7
1988 St Kilda 4 8 35 19 65 19 84 44 6 4.4 2.4 8.1 2.4 10.5 5.5 0.8
1989 St Kilda 4 11 78 24 122 18 140 92 5 7.1 2.2 11.1 1.6 12.7 8.4 0.5
1990 St Kilda 4 12 65 34 112 16 128 84 11 5.4 2.8 9.3 1.3 10.7 7.0 0.9
1991 St Kilda 4 17 127 51 190 33 223 140 7 7.5 3.0 11.2 1.9 13.1 8.2 0.4
1992 St Kilda 4 22 132 58 214 30 244 157 12 6.0 2.6 9.7 1.4 11.1 7.1 0.5
1993 St Kilda 4 10 53 12 85 26 111 63 7 5.3 1.2 8.5 2.6 11.1 6.3 0.7
1994 St Kilda 4 10 56 26 100 16 116 76 7 5.6 2.6 10.0 1.6 11.6 7.6 0.7
1995 Sydney 4 19 110 44 176 42 218 139 16 5.8 2.3 9.3 2.2 11.5 7.3 0.8
1996 Sydney 4 22 121 63 212 45 257 168 21 5.5 2.9 9.6 2.0 11.7 7.6 1.0
1997 Sydney 4 12 37 21 65 23 88 50 7 3.1 1.8 5.4 1.9 7.3 4.2 0.6
1998 Sydney 4 23 109 36 167 41 208 121 9 4.7 1.6 7.3 1.8 9.0 5.3 0.4
1999 Sydney 4 19 82 38 141 27 168 112 15 4.3 2.0 7.4 1.4 8.8 5.9 0.8
2002 Sydney 46 3 3 0 5 2 7 1 3 1.0 0.0 1.7 0.7 2.3 0.3 1.0
Career 281 1360 590 2367 500 2867 1760 142 4.8 2.1 8.4 1.8 10.2 6.3 0.7

Here is what the table would look like with the start template reformatted, the manual stripes removed and the other changes applied that we've discussed here but haven't yet applied to this table:

Season Team No. Games Totals Averages (per game) Votes
G B K H D M T G B K H D M T
1983 St Kilda 37 12 19 17 76 26 102 44 — 1.6 1.4 6.3 2.2 8.5 3.7 — 0
1984 St Kilda 14 20 77 44 146 19 165 108 — 3.9 2.2 7.3 1.0 8.3 5.4 — 7
1985 St Kilda 14 21 79 22 146 32 178 112 — 3.8 1.0 7.0 1.5 8.5 5.3 — 3
1986 St Kilda 14 18 60 29 119 36 155 85 — 3.3 1.6 6.6 2.0 8.6 4.7 — 1
1987 St Kilda 14 22 117† 52 226 49 275 164 16 5.3† 2.4 10.3 2.2 12.5 7.5 0.7 20±
1988 St Kilda 4 8 35 19 65 19 84 44 6 4.4 2.4 8.1 2.4 10.5 5.5 0.8 3
1989 St Kilda 4 11 78 24 122 18 140 92 5 7.1† 2.2 11.1 1.6 12.7 8.4 0.5 10
1990 St Kilda 4 12 65 34 112 16 128 84 11 5.4† 2.8† 9.3 1.3 10.7 7.0 0.9 3
1991 St Kilda 4 17 127† 51 190 33 223 140 7 7.5† 3.0 11.2 1.9 13.1 8.2 0.4 16
1992 St Kilda 4 22 132 58 214 30 244 157 12 6.0 2.6 9.7 1.4 11.1 7.1 0.5 10
1993 St Kilda 4 10 53 12 85 26 111 63 7 5.3 1.2 8.5 2.6 11.1 6.3 0.7 5
1994 St Kilda 4 10 56 26 100 16 116 76 7 5.6† 2.6 10.0 1.6 11.6 7.6 0.7 7
1995 Sydney 4 19 110 44 176 42 218 139 16 5.8† 2.3 9.3 2.2 11.5 7.3 0.8 7
1996 Sydney 4 22 121† 63† 212 45 257 168 21 5.5† 2.9† 9.6 2.0 11.7 7.6 1.0 14
1997 Sydney 4 12 37 21 65 23 88 50 7 3.1 1.8 5.4 1.9 7.3 4.2 0.6 1
1998 Sydney 4 23 109† 36 167 41 208 121 9 4.7† 1.6 7.3 1.8 9.0 5.3 0.4 15
1999 Sydney 4 19 82 38 141 27 168 112 15 4.3† 2.0 7.4 1.4 8.8 5.9 0.8 6
2002 Sydney 46 3 3 0 5 2 7 1 3 1.0 0.0 1.7 0.7 2.3 0.3 1.0 0
Career 281 1360 590 2367 500 2867 1760 142 4.8 2.1 8.4 1.8 10.2 6.3 0.7 128

Would everyone be onboard with this? I know some might look at it as "another thing to add to the list" when it comes to these tables, but it's a necessary and pretty straightforward change, to the point that I'd be surprised if anyone opposed it; nevertheless, keen to know people's thoughts – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Someone needs to really get through to Johnny Stormer, again, about highlighting career-high statistics in bold, basketball-style – it should just be a flat no, as we already highlight key statistics in bold (like above), but they keep ignoring me.

Seems like an obvious improvement – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Fantastic idea! Anything which automates formatting to be more consistent and less of a drain on the editor (wow do I hate copying the stats line from the previous season and then having to manually change the bg colour), is to be blessed! --SuperJew (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Awesome – glad you guys like the idea. I updated the formatting last week and updated some statistics tables accordingly; if anyone comes across any tables with outdated formatting and would like to help fix them, that would be awesome – thanks, guys. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_rules_football/Statistics_tables&oldid=1123145458"