Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

AFL season article naming convention

The 2006 season article was originally named Australian Football League season 2006, before I renamed it to 2006 Australian Football League season after noticing that it is customary on the majority of Wikipedia sport annual articles to put the year at the start (my examples were 2006 NFL season, 2004-05 NBA season, 2006 English cricket season, 2006 Commonwealth Games, etc.). The 2006 season article has since been named back to the original name because that is the standard for the other AFL season articles (see Category:Australian Football League seasons). I think it would be a good idea to get a decent consensus on how we should name the season articles, especially before anyone starts doing decent work on the previous seasons (which are fairly barebone at the moment).

Which format do you prefer - the year at the start or the end of the season article name and why? Please sign your name at the end of your vote with ~~~~. Once it is clear which one is preferred, we can either leave it as is or rename the articles. Remy B 12:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Update - It might also be a good idea to get votes on whether we should have 'Australian Football League season' (long) or 'AFL season' (short) in the article name, so feel free to add votes for that option as well. Remy B 13:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Result - OK it seems reasonably clear that the consensus is to format the articles in the style of 2006 AFL season. I'll rename the existing articles and make some sort of navigation template like Template:Australia at the Commonwealth Games to put at the bottom of the articles. Remy B 08:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• start, short. For the reasons I gave above. Remy B 12:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• start Per Remy B. Also in the middle of an article, it sounds better. Eg. They performed well in the 2006 AFL season, rather than they performed well in the AFL season 2006. Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but we're talking about article titles, not what's in the middle of the article. -- I@n ≡ talk 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• start... same reasons as Remy B and DaGizza. Seth Cohen 13:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Start- consistency across Wikipedia is a good thing. Makes it easier to search too. The El Reyko 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment- have redirects for the other option. The El Reyko 04:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• End - When using the go/search bar, I don't put in 2006 xxxxx, I put in xxxxx 2006, as it will get a closer hit. IMHO, people think what am I after, rather than what year am I after. It is only once they find what they are after, that they then go to the year they are after. Anubis1975 22:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • that can be solved with a redirect... Rogerthat ^Talk 04:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. In fact that has already been solved with redirects, so that you can type in either and you will still end up at the same article. Remy B 06:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Start- it it the format used in most wikipedia articles and that's how I always type it in from the start, but I dont get a result. Jasrocks 22:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• End - Same reasons as Anubis1975. Normy 00:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Start - Everything should be uniform across wikipedia (BTW, shouldn't it be called "2006 AFL season" or is there another competition elsewhere in the world called that?) Rogerthat ^Talk 04:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That is true, I would prefer 2006 AFL season than 2006 Australian Football League season. As far as I know there is no conflict, as I have already made the 2006 AFL season article as a redirect a couple of weeks ago. Remy B 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Start for all of the reasons stated above. Grant65 | Talk 05:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• End, per Anubis. As a far as cricket goes, most season articles seem to be end (see Category:International cricket competitions or Category:International_cricket_competitions_in_2005-06, but is admittedly inconsistent. I'm sure I've seen this issue referred to specifically in WP:MOS but for the life of me cannot find it now. -- I@n ≡ talk 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Those examples are different to a fixed season like we have in the AFL. Those cricket examples are simply about the national team's activity in that time period, rather than their activity in a particular annual event like the AFL and my other examples have. Remy B 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed to Start after reconsidering arguments, but would defer to MOS if a reference located. -- I@n ≡ talk 13:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Start mainly for consistency, I also prefer 2006 AFL Season, I think it reads better as a title, and we can always spell out the full Australian Football League in the opening paragraph. Brendanfox 07:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Start As per what I've seen for other associations season write-ups. Redirects would surely be used anyways. I'd also put my support in for shortening to 2006 AFL Season. It would seem to fit more into Wikipedia standards in my books. Raider2044 ^{Bio • Talk • Contribs} 09:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Start and redirects across the board. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• StartYou know it makes sense--Hack 02:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Start, Short. Just looks cleaner than any of the other alternatives. Thehalford 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Red links to small country clubs

Should red links to small country footy clubs (for example Moulamein Football Club be cured by replacing them with piped links to the town (as Moulamein Football Club) or by putting a redirect at the club article pointing to the town article? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally use the name of the town alone as the main link. This seems to be the way to go while there remains much doubt as to whether small footy clubs should have articles of their own. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also wait until I saw a clear standard for eligibility of article for a football club before I started to make these sorts of assumptions. If they are eligible, it would be counter-productive to redirect the article to something else which would put off to-be editors. Remy B 14:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed nine links to country town clubs in Golden Rivers Football League to link to the town instead, and still got seven red links—no way those town articles will get too big to not have the footy club in the same article! Most already had at least one other link (from list of postcodes). --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How about having the links like so: "Dandenong Football Club"? The thing is once there are enough links to a club (eg Dandenong Football Club) all those players could be listed under a section of "players to come from this club"... Rogerthat ^Talk 11:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that having two different links in the same phrase is very confusing, and unorthodox within Wikipedia articles, so I disagree with that idea. If there is no article for a club, and there is very little likelihood of it ever being notable enough to have one made for it without being deleted, then it shouldnt have a link at all. Remy B 11:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Remy. When the bulk of the incoming links to a town are about the football club, it will be obvious to regular editors of that town that their football is important. Using my example above, there are seven towns that nobody has yet thought are important enough to write an article about. If the football team is the most important thing about that place name, it will be obvious when the place article is written. For example Macorna, Victoria is somewhere trains don't stop, a closed school, and not much else these days. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, we'll just redirect Dandenong Football Club to Dandenong, Victoria for now. Rogerthat ^Talk 03:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well take Osborne Football Club, for an example. There isn't even a town. The football club is Osborne. And it's worth it to write at least a few sentences about Osborne because Adam Schneider came from there for a start. Plus you can also put dates (of flags, league changes, mergers and that) and venues there if nothing else. I probably will try to endeavour and do small articles on all the small clubs around Albury (where I am) at some point, because this stuff is interesting to some people, plus it'll probably encourage other dabblers to do the same. Even if someone else will have to hit the articles with the NPOV stick later. Graham 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Osborne football club the last remnant of a former town/locality of Osborne, Victoria (in Shire of Mornington Peninsula), or was it always a club based either in a larger town, or on its own separate from the towns it drew players from? If it was from the town, it seems reasonable that the town and club history could stay together until both articles can stand alone, as their history and current status are intertwined. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Osborne, the "town" is basically a football oval and a grain silo in the southern Riverina, in the midst of a farming community. The thing is, having tackled a couple of the small clubs (such as Walla Walla Football Club, which is in the same league as Osborne) some of these are running really close to the blurry line between notable and not-notable. (For instance, long-defunct clubs could just remain as footnotes in other articles). But then look at English football league system, see how far down the "tree" those blue links go. The leagues with articles start at tier 11, and most of the tier 9 leagues have stub articles for all their clubs. Getting back to Aussie Rules, to be roughly equivalent since we don't have the same strict promotion-demotion hierarchy (which actually makes things easier because the makeup of leagues is more static, making for briefer histories), if the AFL is 1, the state leagues cover 2-4, the strongest suburban and country leagues cover 5-6, then the ones I'm talking about probably do rank around 7-9. With club articles, basic information about club location, premierships, league memberships, nicknames, jumper designs, and notable players (be they notable for playing football or for other reason) isn't all that hard to find if you know where to look, given that there are at least a few websites already dedicated to this aim. Similar deal with leagues, most leagues have at least a few notable players from their midst, lists of premiers aren't hard to find, and listing admissions, explusions and mergers of clubs isn't much harder if you can find a source.Graham 10:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with anything you have said, but there is a more important overiding principle that is generally accepted in this field, and that is, the article on the league itself (regardless of tier) should be a comprehensive in its own right before considering whether clubs merit an article - it there is nothing much to say about a particular league - then that might well answer the question as to whether a particular club is notable enough to warrant an article in its own right. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably the way to go, then. Graham 10:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Popularity of Aussie rules revisited

This issue has drawn a lot of attention over the past 9 months or so. In this morning's The Australian newspaper, Patrick Smith, a regular columnist, writes:

Vigorous administration will chase its vision at rapid pace

COMMENT

Patrick Smith

April 27, 2006

THE AFL is doing very nicely, thank you. It is not just the 91,234 crowd that turned up for Tuesday's Anzac Day match that is the undeniable indicator. The AFL commission has recently viewed a 67-page document that says the competition is in health so rude it is borderline boorish.

Look every which way, for it doesn't matter. The AFL is the dominant national sport. Here's a snap shot:

• • The league draws the largest weekly TV audience;
  • It generates more than double the income of any competing code;
  • It is the most affordable sport;
  • It has the highest total audience;
  • It has the richest broadcast deal;
  • It has the biggest following;
  • It leads sport in total TV audience;
  • It dominates participation (a player must be registered and played minimum six games) and talent nationally;
  • It leads sporting industry in brand recognition;
  • Print coverage nationally doubles exposure of other sports;

I understand that this is neither here or there, and that the article isn't about a popularity contest. At the same time, we do get a lot of ill-informed criticism (and out and out vandalism) in this article, and so it's not a bad little extract to keep up our sleeves for the next time this argument flares up again. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Participants may wish to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames used in Australian rules. -- I@n ≡ talk 00:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 Ladder

I've moved the 2006 ladder at this location: {{2006 AFL season/Ladder}}. Anyone got any thoughts on possible additions to the ladder? There might actually be a reason for people to view it ahead of The Age's ladder if we include stuff like "Interstate wins/losses", "Wins under/over 7 pts" "Wins under/over 40 pts" etc. Rogerthat ^Talk 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when are we competing with The Age? Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopedia of notable material, not getting publicity. That said, I would prefer the ladder as it is, if we start putting in arbitrary stats it will become a mess of relevant and irrelevant information. Remy B 05:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

HELP!

The Australia page has made it look like Australian football is as lowly supported as soccer and that Rugby and cricket are more popular. Please everyone go there and try to make it look fairer. Re-word it.

I don't think there is any rewording necessary. I think it covers the situation very well. AFL really isn't an international sport, so it can't really be covered in that section. Intl Rules isn't big enough to warrant a mention. That only leaves it as a national sport. Which is where it is. There is a link to the AFL article, so anyone who is more interested can get the true picture by going to the link. Does the AFL article give the true picture? Anubis1975 12:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just something short like saying it is the biggest winter spectator sport in the country might help.Anubis1975 12:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

But - it is mentioned under the sub-title "Culture" - so whether aussie rules is international or not has absolutely nothing to do with it. Is it an important part of Australian culture? - clearly it is! but you wouldn't think so from the way it is currently worded. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Tried that, anubis, they can't accept it. They must have rugby first and afl stuck with soccer. Just shows how obviously Sydney-based that section is becoming.

I have tried to argue the case in both the talk page and in the Aussie noticeboard, with little success. I am not really satisfied with the responses I am getting, and I agree it is because people unfamiliar with aussie rules are acting as guardians for that article. My proposition is simple: sport is an important element of Australian culture, and it's hard to imagine any sport as important to Australian culture as Australian football. It's not just the media coverage, the crowds, the TV ratings, memberships, merchandinsing (although that by itself should almost be enough), but it's also the long history of some clubs, the pervasiveness of it all in the lives of many Australians, and the cross-over that has occurred in the arts, in terms of literature and exhibitions. No other sport comes close. So if sport is an important element to Australian culture, why does it not even hint at the importance of aussie rules. I invite you to add your views to both Talk:Australia and the aussie noticeboard. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sliat, (please sign your posts), I think you must be kidding yourself. The fact that they rugby codes are in one sentence and then football is in the next with soccer only says something about about what is more important if you forget to read the rest of the words in the two sentences! And the same people who reverted your edits are the ones who stopped a crazy rugby league fan trying to say (our) football is a "regional game". Peta has suggested a good idea - mention that it is the most popular spectator sport in the image caption. JPD (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I now support Peta's and JPD's suggestion. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I know many struggle to understand the prime position aussie rules has in Australian history and her culture, perhaps this quote from today's Age, by John Harms, will assist in a small way: As I clicked through the turnstile at the MCG...I was reminded that the battles on Corio Oval during the 1880s, when Geelong won half a dozen premierships, weren't just footy matches, they were about Geelong people righting injustice (that Melbourne had connived to become the capital city of Victoria over Geelong). Similar tales can be told about most senior clubs in Australia, they all have a similar tale to tell, and invariably they take us back to pre-Federation days - even in Sydney, which has a few clubs dating back to the 1890s. More often than not, the tales, the folklore, the mystique, of certain clubs take us back to the 1860s and 1870s (1859 in the case of Melbourne). Now, apart from the Melbourne Cup and cricket, both extremely important in terms of Austrlian culture, what other sport in has left as large a footprint on Australian history, folklore and culture as Australian football? It is this sense that I fear has been lost completely from the section that supposedly covers the importance of sport in Australian culture. (I know I sort of promised to leave this bugbear alone, but, well, I couldn't help myself...) ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Australian rules football competitions

Everything in that category seems a little disorganised. Anyone have any suggestions on how we can separate all the competitions? I'm thinking along the lines of competitions within each country. Rogerthat ^Talk 07:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What about two categories: Domestic Australian rules football competitions and Overseas Australian rules football competitions, both being a sub-category of the above? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be possible to even have a category below the Domestic one, especially for the main footballing states, but that could end up just as messy, perhaps better to simply leave it under Domestic etc. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Domestic and overseas categories sound good. It might also be worth having Victorian, SA, WA, etc categories. However, I don't think the SANFL, VFL categories should be subcategories, as the things they contain are not competitions. JPD (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Logos

Please remember that logos tagged with {{fairuse}} can't just be used anywhere. Fair use is strictly forbidden in templates and outside the main namespace. It is also not permitted to use it for decoration (e.g. of a table or list). Please read WP:FU. For sports logos, the only required use should be on the team's article, and perhaps an article about the history of the team in which the logo is discussed. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 10:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to keep some decoration you could make some boxes alluding to the guernseys instead of using the logos. --ThirdEdition 01:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Great Idea! And since i was bored, I've made them and they can be found at AFL Club Icons. Seth Cohen 07:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:ACOTF

Well the Australian Football Hall of Fame is up for the Collaboration of the Fortnight but needs 2 more votes by tomorrow to stay in contention. Vote now, quick! Rogerthat ^Talk 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I voted but it seems noone else has bothered :( TheRealAntonius 23:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Club songs

The lyrics to culb songs are the copyright of the author (unless the author has been dead for over 50 years), and as such cannot be reproduced in Wikipeida - it is Ok to quote a small section of the song is discussed in the article. Please remove full lyrics from articles where they occur.--Peta 02:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The newer clubs aside, most lyrics do go back to more than 50 years ago, not only that, they nearly all represent a rewording of existing army songs or Broadway show tunes, or in the case of the Geelong song, an (extremely) old opera tune. Often the redone lyrics go back so far that no one would know who the original lyricist was - from that point of view, they almost take on the attributes of a folk song. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is definaelty not the case for the newer clubs. The lyrics don't need to be 50 years old, the author of the lyrics needs to have been dead for at least 50 years. To be one the safe side, the full lyrics should not be included.--Peta 02:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents on this issue: I don't think any AFL club songs meet this criterion. Most club songs date back no later than the 1920s (as an example I understand Fitzroy's was devised in the 1940s), it's extremely unlikely that the creator/s of the songs have been dead for 50 years. I have to concur with Peta; it's much safer to exclude the full lyrics of club songs. --The Brain of Morbius 00:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that most of the official club sites would have the lyrics there so we could include a link in place of quoting the full text. Graham 09:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Tasmania and Western Australia

Currently they are not acknowldging that Australian Rules Football is the most popular sport there. They say we need more stastistic on the other sports there. They must be delusional if they think it isn't. Funny how they can say rugby is the most popular in QLD, NSW and ACT (where union is) without stastistic, but we have too.

who is "they"? Anyway, a quick squiz at the appropriate articles seems all is in order. Graham 10:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably rugby league fanatics who can't stand the fact that those states play our game, not theirs.

Give it a rest, Sliat 1981. Graham 11:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Age of reason

There have been two articles that have appeared in the sports section of The Age newspaper over the last two days that are of great interest to us. In yesterday's edition, I read that Australia Post is about to release a series of stamps to celebrate the Socceroos' attempt to embark on the impossible dream (not meaning to be disrespectful, simply an honest assessment). This new series of stamps is entitled "Soccer in Australia". When the General Manager of Australia Post was asked why use the term "soccer", he simply said that it was Australia Post's view that that is the name used by the majority of Australians, and that the word football is saved for the more dominant code of a particular area, i.e. aussie rules or league.

In today's edition, there was a great article about the proposal to heritage list the Melbourne Football Club, the oldest football club in Australia (in any code) and the third oldest in the world (in any code). It was formed in 1858, the year in which we have the first recorded game of aussie rules, the game being codified in the following year, making the game older than Association Football. Interestingly, it was once thought that the Geelong Football Club was the second oldest club in Australia (formed in July 1859), but there is now new evidence indicating that the Castlemaine Football Club was in fact formed in June 1859. That makes it the 5th oldest club in the world, and Geelong the 6th oldest club in the world. I thought to myself as I read this: How appropriate that a club evocatively called "Castlemaine" (part of a gold mining region in central Victoria) should have such an honour. It is possible that the Football article may need to be reviewed, but I mention it here just in case: 1. I run into difficulties (as I undoubtedly will), and 2. Someone out there has access to a better (or simply another) reference than this Age article. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume this is the latter article you refer to [1]. --ThirdEdition 06:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of Logos.

The wikipedia foundation, through OTRS, has received a response to an enquiry sent to the AFL regarding the use of their logos. I have not been able to determine who initiated this enquiry, or for what purpose, but the response from AFL is:

You would definitely require approval to use any of the AFL and AFL Club
logos and these are the intellectual property of the AFL.  We would need
to know what they are being used for and for how long. 

I am responding to them now, explaining that the logos are being used under Wikipedia "fair use" guidelines, and pointing them to this project page and the main AFL page. Thank you. Bastique▼^parler_voir 14:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep it should be alright. The AFL seems to be cracking down on all websites that use their brand in some way. I'm sure many AFL fans would know of the AFLVideo controversy, where someone was linking to streaming videos on the AFL.com.au site that are only available to BigPond users but due to weak protection by the site, anyone could link to them and access them. The site ran for about a year before the AFL shut it down. Rogerthat ^Talk 12:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with a follow-up email, whereupon the AFL have sent us official club logos, I have done an automated upload of the "official" club logos, as sent to us by the AFL. These are all available in category 2006 Official AFL Logos. These are available to replace the logos you have (they are smaller--thus more likely available for Fair Use purposes). It's all yours to decide. Thanks! Bastique▼^parler _voir 15:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the same fair use rules apply to these images as to the logo images that were already on Wikipedia? Remy B 16:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Great work from Bastique there. I've updated those that I felt needed updating due to poor quailty (Hawthorn, Collingwood), size (Richmond), colour (Fremantle, Kangaroos, West Coast) or they just weren't right (Carlton). Seth Cohen 06:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I've asked about this once before, and I think it is worth asking again: how is it possible that the only photo of aussie rules we have, in the whole of wikipedia, is something that looks like one of those old Sun spot the ball competitions? Let's find something that really shows our game - please!! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha yeah that photo is a shocker. I will try to remember my digital camera next time I go to the footy. Remy B 13:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh. It looks like it's from one of the recent Heritage rounds, hence the old-style jumpers. Graham 13:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course there's the photo of Russell Ebert (even if I'm not sure that it legally should be on the site) --Roisterer 14:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Season summaries

Apologies if this has already been discussed. For the VFL/AFL season summaries, are we only going to include end of season stats, ladders, etc., or can we also include a few brief paragraphs detailing notable or important happenings of each season?

If it does not become to unwieldly, I would have thought the latter. It can only enhance the article if it includes such a description with quality writing. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see some history of the seasons in the articles. Remy B 08:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The only summary that exists of a season's notable events, amazingly, is the 1900 VFL season article. The person who started the season summaries about a year (or more) ago on this site was just establishing a framework of statistics that haven't been expanded, which is why people may be reluctant to add any other information. But by all means, include any notable events and/or matches. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the season articles need the following: The Grand Final result, the pre-season result, an end-of-home-and-away-season ladder (or as recent as possible), as many awards as possible, a link to and possible summary of the All-Australian Team of that year (if their was one) and any NOTABLE matches. I think this is the real problem with the 2006 AFL season article. I don't feel we need to list every single result that happened, just the notbable ones i.e. Richmond beating Adelaide, the ANZAC Day clash, the Derbies and the Showdowns. Apart from that I don't think anything else belongs in there. Normy 06:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to see results at all (except for the grand finals). Notable events (ie major player achievements, some off-filed stuff)and games should be mentioned. Blackmissionary 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think game results are a primary set of information on a season. By all means go into detail on the notable games, but I think the game results tables are a very handy reference. At the least compare it to the cricket articles where there is full blown commentary on each test match and ODI. Remy B 09:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

Just a reminder that Australian Football Hall of Fame is the Australian collaboration of the week, and could do with a bit more work. Also, there are a few legends that deserve much better articles than they currently have. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Footy Wikia

Just want to get the word out there about a project which I think complements WikiProject AFL - Footy Wikia. I understand there are some things that belong on there that don't belong on Wikipedia, and vice versa. I have added some information on many of the previous VFL/AFL drafts. If this is considered "advertising" let me know, but I would object to that as I would consider these sister projects. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Images and copyright problems. Something needs to be done

The lack of pictures able to be used is really limiting the quality of AFL footballer articles. Most sportmen articles seem to have that problem, with images only up a short time before they are removed by Wikinazis. Now I'm not blaming the rules, Wikipedia has to cover themselves legally, however we need to find a good source of pictures for use. AFL.com.au and the club sites primarily run by Tesltra Bigpond are currently the best source and the only half decent source. I suggest we send emails to the AFL asking for permission to use the images on their site. We could also take it up with Telstra bigpond but them being a corporation they are unlikely to cooperate.

To quote from the AFL.com.au copyright policy: "1.3 You must not otherwise reproduce, transmit (including broadcast), adapt, distribute, sell, modify or publish or otherwise use any of the material on the site, including audio and video excerpts, except as permitted by statute or with Telstra's prior written consent.".

A nicely worded letter to the AFL, stating that this would help promote the game in the world's biggest online encyclopedia may appeal to them. It is a longshot but perhaps it could work.

This has probably been done before though.

Jabso 13:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether the AFL are likely to give such permission, but Wikipedia policy does not allow use of "by-permission-only" images anyway, as Wikipedia content is meant to be able to be reused under the GFDL. JPD (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how committed you guys are to this project and this site but would anyone want to go for trips to the clubs and try and take photos of the players themselves? Normy132 13:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. Depending on how dedicated we are to this project, if we could find some people in each state willing to visit each club, we could organise with the clubs to set up a Wiki-photoshoot for the 2007 season and beyond, for use on here. It'd probably start costing money though, if you wanted professional shots. Orichalcon 20:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there is very little chance that they would let you do a free photo shoot. Taking photos close to the boundary of most games on a relatively good digital camera would probably look more exciting for the articles, and require less effort since surely at least a few of us also go to games. Remy B 02:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts Remy. I've been unable to take photos due to mainly forgetting to bring the camera :o. I've taken it on a couple of occassions but I've been up on Level 2 where the clarity of the players' faces isn't great (at least with my camera). Anyway I'll try and grab some photos in the next few weeks - hopefully everyone else can chip in as well. Rogerthat ^Talk 03:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Seth Cohen found/uploaded/otherwise compiled a table of uniform colours. The article it was in is up for deletion, so here it is. I'll leave one of the project members to put it on the main project page (but not in the article space).

These icons represent the main/home jumpers of each of the 16 Australian Football League clubs, as well as the past clubs. These can be used for 'decoration' to represent the clubs or their players/officials instead of the official club logos, which wouldn't be allowed under the fair usage policy. Also available in .png format.

—C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• All of these images are most likely derivative works of material that the associated clubs retain rights to. These are not free of fair use restrictions here. A number of these have been retagged. More will follow, I'm a sure. --Durin 14:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently under terms of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9, "the use of fair use tagged images is not permitted on templates." As a result, currently there is no club log on Template User Sydney Swans (or whatever the Swannies user box is). Can somebody do something about that please - it is making my user page look crap and I'd rather have it there with a nice logo than take the user box off, but I'm not the person to make a professional-looking logo... is the image itself a copyright problem, or only if we copy it from their website (ie, if we make something that looks like theirs does, do they still own it even though someone else made it?) Garrie 22:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 7 of these images are simply three stripes and I'm sure no club owns copyright on that. The Essendon, Melbounrne, Richmond, South Melbourne and University designs are also simple geometric patterns, which several (hundred?) other clubs also use. I can see why the Carlton image was removed as it was almost the club logo and maybe the Brisbane, Western Bulldogs and Fitzroy (defunct) images should be removed as well. I'm not sure about Fremantle, Port Adelaide and Sydney. Most of the images should be okay, though, and in the cases that are not simpler images could be used. For example, Carlton are the (Navy) Blues, so why not a blue square? (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer) --ThirdEdition 05:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Players by position

What are everyone's thoughts on having a category of Category:Australian rules footballers by position or Category:VFL/AFL players by position? Would this be too hard to manage since players seem to play any number of positions these days? How would we manage it etc? Rogerthat ^Talk 04:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah probably too hard to manage. So many players are used in many different positions for it to be accurate and/or useful. Remy B 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't do it. In cricket, we had categories like category:Australian batsmen, category:Australian bowlers based on their specialist skills, but the reality is everyone bats and many non-bowlers bowl, so the distinctions get blurred and the next thing you know you've got an edit war. The cat's were subsequently deleted. I'd predict the same thing would happen here. Only use categories of they're totally unambiguous. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As per I@n. Especially that allrounders category is annoying. And then the All-rounder article is difficult as well, because some guys keep on getting inserted and removed.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everyone's thoughts on this. Maybe you could include the major positions like full-forwards (Lockett, Fevola, Lloyd, Lynch etc) or even separate it into Midfielders, Defenders, Forwards. That is the only way it would work and I'm just throwing up ideas, but otherwise I'd say leave it alone. In American Football quarterbacks don't stray from their role much do they? TheRealAntonius 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

An article/articles is/are the appropriate place to record this type of grouping, not a category. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Not that I trust my judgment on AFL at all, because I didn't follow it, but as an Adelaidean, I remember everyone raving about how Malcolm Blight reversed everything around in the Grand Final and put - can't remember his name - some guy from fullback into full forward and apparently it was regarded as a masterstroke. Then Silvagni gets switched around from FF ro FB a lot, and sometimes Andrew McLeod plays in a whole pile of places so that's not such a good idea. I guess more so in soccer, the players need to be much more specialized and they can't swap strikers into defense and vv, but even then - although you get some strikers who sit in the penalty box all day like Ruud v Nistelrooy, and can be safely categorized as "striker" - you will also get some strikers like Thierry Henry who often run from halfway in midfield to score goals, as well as people like Harry Kewell who plays left-wing, striker, attacking midfielder, and is also sometimes put on right-wing as a gimmick tactic, etc. Then there will be some days when some defender flukes a couple of goals when the whole team is at one end for a corner and wins the game. As I noted before, AFL positions seem to be even more prone to putting people in different positions etc, so the ambiguity increases even more.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

True, you'd get players put into a position based on even one game. The guy you are thinking of Nguyen is Shane Ellen (who kicked 5 goals for Adelaide in the 97 Grand Final). TheRealAntonius 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Football Quiz

I'm a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Quiz and thought that a similar quiz on Australian Rules football could be interesting. What do others think? --Roisterer 09:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, but I just came here to ask the exact same question. Prompted by listening to the quiz on ABC radio on Saturday. I support the idea. (I setup the cricket quiz BTW!) -- I@n ≡ talk 01:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm all for it as well. Are we looking at statistics-minded questions? TheRealAntonius 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Any type of football related question would do. --Roisterer 12:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, AFL sucks. JRA WestyQld2 11:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

AFL quiz is now open for business!

The quiz is at Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL/Quiz. I hope my opening question isn't too hard! -- I@n ≡ talk 13:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fitzroy merger

I think we should get to work on the 1996 Fitzroy-Brisbane merger article - one of the biggest events in VFL/AFL history deserves an article, maybe include the members of the last Fitzroy side among other things. There's a series on the 10th anniversary of their demise starting today in the Herald Sun, which got me thinking. Rogerthat ^Talk 12:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom Wills

Does anyone have a good primary source relating to the birth place of the above? See talk:Tom Wills. -- I@n ≡ talk 14:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Australian National football team

Im trying to find the location of the consensus which meant when you search for "Australian national football team" it goes to the soccer team. I have found several discussions on this issue but none come to a consensus. I am beginning to think that the soccer mafia had more time to put into the discussion, and maybe had more people with the adminastrator tag. I firmly believe that it should be a disambiguation page. This is not because of the All-Australian team, but more because of the rugby teams.

Speaking purely as an aussie rules afficionado, this is one occasion when I am happy to let the soccer mafia have their way. I believe all the other teams have a particular name, maybe a couple of names - the socceroos can have this one if they want it, I'm not fussed. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Idea to get photos

The AFL club sites update the profiles for their new list each year. Do you think it is possible for someone to write off to the clubs and request to use the players photos on wikipedia once they have updated their profiles in the new season. I know we cant get all the players this way, but at least it is a huge start and we will be able to keep the profiles at least one year in date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.139.223.135 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You would need to ask the holders of the photos' copyright to release the photos into the public domain, under GFDL, or something like that, as Wikipedia does not use images by permission only. I would be surprised if they agreed to such a request. JPD (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Club names in results and ladders.

I'll admit that this is something that bothers me outside of Wikipedia as well, but anyway, here goes. I don't really like sides (especially the Victorian sides who still maintain their original name) being listed as "Collingwood Magpies" or "Essendon Bombers". I don't think that "American style" of sports naming is appropriate for australian rules football, and you'd never hear a person ever call them that in public. I'd rather have sides listed as just "Collingwood", "Essendon" etc. in results and tables. What are other people's thoughts on this? Blackmissionary 01:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Whole-heartedly agree with you. I think it would be better if the non-Victorian teams referred to just as "Adelaide" or "Sydney" rather than with their nicknames attached. Normy132 01:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone who follows aussie rules would agree with you 100%. However, in a Wikipedia environment, having the title of an article for, say, Collingwood, show up as Collingwood Magpies gets around a lot of problems. However, when writing a piece, you can certainly write: Bob Rose was a great player and coach for Collingwood - thereby you have the best of both worlds. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't about article titles (especially considering they are simply redirected anyway), but more so for within articles. Like in 1917 VFL season, i cringed when i saw "South Melbourne Swans" and "Fitzroy Lions", because apart from the factual error in the names (Swans and Lions being adopted as nicknames later on), i think it's misleading in the way it presents the team names, in the sense in which nicknames were acquired and used in australian rules. So it's a cultural, "information correctness" (poorly phrased, i know), and formatting issue from where i stand. Blackmissionary 10:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Collingwood Magpies redirects to Collingwood Football Club so at least the official name of the team is known. However, the categorisation of players under Category:Collingwood Magpies players is something that needs to be looked at and voted on. In the early days of this project (6-8 or so months back) when I was setting up all the categories for players, I went with the "American" nicknames due to noone really caring or having a say in what they should be called. I then made the categories for coaches like Category:Collingwood Football Club coaches because I thought it would be better to use the official name. But it's created a conflict and without much input from others in the past, now that we have a few people interested in the project we should look into getting a consensus on the naming of categories. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point, once we start adding additional words like players, coaches, etc - there is less need to qualify Collingwood with Magpies (for example). In relation to referring to a club within an article, I agree that one should never read Fitzroy Lions, etc. - we have the solution there and we should simply always use it - where we find it, fix it. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, my position is as above, that the change should be made to "standard" australian rules usage. This is to reflect the culture from which aussie rules came out of, which provides a more accurate picture of the game/topic as a whole to readers who are not familiar with aussie rules, especially possible overseas ones (even if it is largely subliminal). So if i;m right inhow i how read it, i guess we have the go ahead to use Pippu's suggestion of going aheafd and fixing it? Blackmissionary 10:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything that is obviuosly incorrect should be corrected, definitely. Replacing "Collingwood Magpies" with "Collingwood Football Club" or simply "Collingwood" is also a good thing. We probably need to keep "Brisbane Lions", and maybe even "Sydney Swans", and probably the terrible "Kangaroos" for recent seasons, but everything else should be fair game. JPD (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest adopting a style guide (similar to what's in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket). I've drafted something at User:I@n/Sandbox2. -- I@n 11:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that seems pretty good to me, easy to follow, and exactly as has been put in the discussion above. As for how we are to refer to certain teams: not sure what the Sydney Swans situation is in regards to how the name is used, but Brisbane Lions is officially like that, and enforced as such on scoreboards, and so should be used the same on wikipedia i think.Blackmissionary 11:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the style guide explicitly mention that in tables of results or ladders the appropriate short form of the official name as used at the time should be used? JPD (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you all saying that in the ladder and results articles, that the team names like "West Coast Eagles" and "Essendon Bombers" will be shortened to "West Coast" and "Essendon"? If so, I dont really like that idea. What is wrong with the longer naming? It clearly distinguishes teams from the actual places. I think an even worse idea would be to add "Football Club" on to the end of places to distinguish them as names... nobody refers to teams that way, but they certainly do with their nicknames. I woud at the very least hope there is a longer discussion than a few hours before someone starts writing up a style guide! Remy B 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, discussion before finalising the style guide is a good idea, but it doesn't hurt to start writing it first - that way it attracts more comments. Yes, the original suggestion by Blackmissionary was that in results lists "Essendon" should be used, not "Essendon Bombers". The longer naming is definitely inappropriate when modern nicknames are used for the 1917 season, for example, or for categories containing players/coaches from that era. Apart from that, it isn't normal even now for the longer names to be used for results or ladders in official or serious sources. Brisbane, the Kangaroos, the Bulldogs, and to a lesser extent Sydney and WC are special cases. In the context of list of VFL/AFL results or a ladder, it is not necessary to distinguish the team from the places, as it is obvious that we are talking about football teams. JPD (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(moving tabs back to the start...) I've looked at it a bit more carefully and I agree with what you're saying. I'm happy for the change to be made. Remy B 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, so if someone edits an article in the way we've been discussing, what should they put in the edit summary? and also, if we agree to this, and we have a style guide ready, we should make it known reasonably soon that it exists, as there seem to be a few results lists and ladders with the "offending" style in use. Blackmissionary 10:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

i think people should also keep an eye out on naming appropriately in eras, eg in calling Princes Park, Optus Oval when talking about the 1940's, eg in List of Australian Football League premiers. Blackmissionary 10:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be quite easy to do for the season articles because of the team name templates (I knew there would one day be a reason I made them!). As for edit summaries - I would highly recommend referring to this discussion (eg. "Change team name format per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL consensus") (note: the link is bold because this is the page itself), otherwise people will think someone is pushing their viewpoint on the articles. Remy B 11:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, the link was what i wanted most, in order to avoid exactly that which you mentioned, the perception of pushing viewpoints. Blackmissionary 23:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Aboriginal flag/State flags on club pages

In the current squad areas of the club pages there are Aborignial flags next to the names of Aboriginal players, and then some of the clubs have the flags from the state of origin of the other players. I think there needs to be something done about this. I don't feel that it is right to have Aborignal flags next to the Aboriginal players names, and then the state flags next to other players. The Aboriginal flag does not represent a state and therefore those players with a state flag are being represented as something different.

I think it has just been somthing that some people decided to do upon seeing other soccer club pages where they have the flag of the country of origin for their players. This is appropriate, as many soccer clubs around the world have players from different countries. AFL generally has just Australian people, with the odd Irishman, Brazillian and New Zealander.

Now look at this page List of overseas-born AFL players and see that the AFL has 2 Irish (up to 4 on rookie lists), 2 New Zealanders, 1 Papua New Guinean, 1 Fijian, 1 South Korean and 1 Brazilian, plus 10% of players are Australians with Aboriginal heritage. These players add important diversity to the game and should therefore be highlighted. For instance Freo has often heralded as being the most Aboriginal club in the AFL. --Rulesfan 05:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we can do to improve it, but I certainly don't think it should continue in its current form on some pages. Seth Cohen 09:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the flags should be removed. There is no reason to racially identify players in the lists (no problems with the individual's article). Remy B 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Individual pages ok of course, but on team pages, when practically every player is Australian, irrelevant in my opinion, same as state flags. Blackmissionary 23:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Many rugby league pages current squads feature the flags, despite the following overseas born player counts

• Canberra Raiders (0)
• Canterbury Bulldogs (2 = 1 Samoan, 1 Lebanese)
• Brisbane Broncos (1 PNG - same claim to flag as Mal Michael)
• Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles (1 - Tonga)
• Melbourne Storm (1 - Tonga)
• Newcastle Knights (1 - Ireland - former Gaelic Footballer just like Tadhg Kennelly, Setanta Ó hAilpín, Aisake Ó hAilpín and Colm Begley)
• North Queensland Cowboys (0)
• Parramatta Eels (?)
• Penrith Panthers (0)
• St George Illawarra Dragons (1 - Fiji - just like David Rodan)
• South Sydney Rabbitohs (?)
• Sydney Roosters (2 England, 1 Tonga)
• Gold Coast Titans (1 England)
• Wests Tigers (1 - South Africa - does not represent RSA)

Having 3 countries where the sport is played professionally does not really justify flags on all but 2 club pages. My point is that there it is typical to find flags for squad members on almost every other sport in Wikipedia ... why should Australia be any different ? There are almost as many people from overseas in Aussie Rules and the list will only increase as more players from non-Australian backgrounds filter through the system ! It will not be long before there are Sudanese, Indian, Lebanese and other such countrymen playing the game at the top level. Multiculturalism is something to be proud of not ashamed of. It is not POV, it is just plain fact. Latest statistics show a very high take up of non-English Why not have multiple flags on their player profile ? One for the country, one for the state, and an optional one for Aboriginal heritage ? --Rulesfan 05:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Aboriginal flag should obviously not replace a state flag, even if flags are used at all, which I tend to think is a bit silly. JPD (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are going assign flags to players will we be adding American, Korean and Australian flags for Peter Bell or Austrian flags to Alex Jesaulenko? There could be an argument that the Aboriginal flags could be appropriate but it's not really the role of this place to make that sort of determination. It should be, if not the national flag, the state flag given that all professional Australian rules football is played in Australia.--Hack 13:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The current squad section of just about every team page (eg. Brisbane_Lions#Current_squad) has little flags next to each player, presumably denoting his country of origin. This all seems a bit silly because a) 99% of players are from Australia; and b) Indigenous Australian players have the Australian Aboriginal flag 20px|Indigenous Australian which is not a separate country, therefore making the list misleading. If its important to anyone, a players ethnicity can be seen by clicking on his article, where it presumably will be spelt out. I'd like to see these removed. -- I@n 05:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that this flag business strikes me as a bit silly too. Maybe we can revisit the idea in 10 years time (but only if more than 10% of all players are actually born overseas). πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

See two talk sections up... I dont think anyone really agrees with it. Remove at will I say. Remy B 08:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I had't spotted that thread. Thanks, and I have. -- I@n 08:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, following the soccer model it is about representation. Representation is not always professional. Players of aboriginal descent qualify for the Aboriginal All-Stars a representative team against AFL and SANFL clubs and also at other levels, for instance the touring U19 Aboriginal side against the South African Buffaloes in Potchesfroom. 10% of all players in the AFL are of aboriginal heritage. This is a significant contribution to the game of Aussie Rules and is officially recognised in the Dreamtime at the G match. It is therefore appropriate to identify players that can qualify for this as they wear and fly this flag at All-Star games. It should also be fine to identify Irish players such as Tadhg Kenelly, who represented Ireland against Australia in the International Rules series. New Zealand born players qualify for the Falcons national team and PNG born players qualify for the Mosquitos. Hence Mal Michael was invited to represent PNG at the last International Cup. Damian Cupido conceivably could play for the Buffaloes. The flags should not be removed, they represent the burgeoning internationalisation of the game. --Rulesfan 02:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You make a reasonable argument, and I too have sympathy with the view that indigenous representation in aussie rules is something worth highlighting. I guess my real beef is with: 1. seeing a long list of Australian flags in a sport that is almost exclusively Australian (that I do find a bit on the silly side); and just as importantly, 2. as someone said earlier, being the immigrant country that we are, there are stacks of players who have played the game that may have been born in another country (Italy, Greece, Holland, etc.) but who immigrated as very young children - and they may not necessarily appreciate seeing, say, an Italian flag next to their name when they may only have ever really known one country. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I just feel that its not encyclopaedic enough to be listed in the club article. I also have sympathy with Rulesfan's arguments but, IMO club articles should include only information such as history, important milestones/records/players etc. We currently have Indigenous Team of the Century and Aboriginal All-Stars, and maybe a Indigenous Australian rules football players List of Indigenous Australian rules football players would be a worthwhile new article for someone to tackle. This could give specifics on the Aboriginal players present and past and their disctribution amongst the clubs. Club articles aren't there to highlight each players ethnicity. On a minor note, I sometimes wonder if these little flags aren't being used as a quick and easy way of prettying up the articles. -- I@n 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rulesfan is completely correct that the idea of flags in other sports lists is to indicate which representative teams the player qualifies for. However, at this point in time, representative football, both international and interstate, is not a significant part of the sport. I wish it was, but until it is, it seems a bit silly to have all these flags. On a side note, if and when state-of-origin comes back into fashion, pictures based on the jerseys might look better than state flags. JPD (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Style guide

Per the above discussion and aparent consensus on club names and useage in Wikipedia, I've added my draft style guide to the project page. -- I@n 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it Ian, good job. I am going to add an addition which I dont think should be too controversial. There are many many links in AFL articles to Australian Rules Football, which is a redirect to Australian rules football. I'm going to indicate that we should be using Australian rules football as that is the correct capitalisation of the article name. Remy B 11:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. -- I@n 14:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite like the categorisation of South Melbourne as a "former club", when it is actually a former name of the club. In fact, I have suggested at Talk:South Melbourne Football Club that having a separate article is pointless, as the Sydney Swans article clearly includes the full history of the club, but noone has discussed the issue. JPD (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree 100%. South is not a former club, it is the same club that is now playing out of Sydney. It was a founding club of the VFL, it moved its home games to Sydney in 1982 (with the other formal changes in name and domicile occurring after that first season) and it has won 4 premierships - it's the same club. The same applies to North Melbourne/Kangaroos and Footscray/Western Bulldogs. Just to clarify further, it's a different situation for Brisbane Lions. Fitzroy and Brisbane Bears are former clubs, and must have separate articles. The Brisbane Lions was a new club coming into existence in 1997, it has won 3 premierships. Fitzroy had won 8 before it ceased to exist. Two separate clubs. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree but cannot see that it's a big issue. The title on the separator was for convenience only. I've removed the heading anyway. -- I@n 12:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's worth keeping a separate page is a bit more of an issue. I tend to think any mention of the club should be piped to Sydney Swans, and South Melbourne Football Club changed to a disambig or possibly redirect. I also jsut realised that the table doesn't deal with the issue of anachronistic nicknames. JPD (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Americanisms

I just saw Category:Australian rules football player rosters. Why not say playing lists or squads? Is it just me? -- I@n 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (grumpy old man!)

I agree - it sounds totally foreign to me, but it was created by an Australian! JPD (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Which makes it doubly bad. We need to resist this creeping tide. The other one that gets me is rookie, but I suspect that that may be too entrenched now. -- I@n 16:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to resist the tide, but report (and use) normal usage; rookie is used officially by the AFL (as in "rookie list"). I don't know where "roster" came in though. JPD (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with JPD, rookie ok, but roster?!! In 40 years of following the game, I have never heard it used. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. I removed the roster terminology from Adelaide a while back and replaced it with playing list. Seth Cohen 08:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Its now listed for renaming here -- I@n 09:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I started that category - the reason I named it that was that I saw on each club's page that someone had put up "Current roster". Not really hearing the term much in Aussie rules but not having a problem with it, the category was named so. Good that someone's come across it now and we can get some consensus on the name :) Rogerthat ^Talk 02:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Disam pages

Hey. Im just wondering what the concept when a page is a disam page. Is it (footballer) or (Australian rules footballer) or what. Cheers, Jasrocks ^(talk) 08:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Biographical articles are generally disambiguated as much as is necessary. In other words, if there are no other footballers with that name, (footballer) would be ok, although there wouldn't be anything wrong with (Australian rules footballer). If there is a soccer/league/union/gridiron player with the same name, (Australian rules footballer) would probably be appropriate. Of course, when there are two aussie rules players with the same name, we need to disambiguate further. JPD (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's when we get to the point of Peter F. Bell and Peter R. Bell... Rogerthat ^Talk 10:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Finals template

I've created a finals diagram template that can be used on season pages, etc. It is at Template:AFL finals system. Example usage can be found on Template talk:AFL finals system. I'm not really an AFL follower so I'm not sure if it is 100% correct - please take a look at let me know. -- Chuq 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some display issues with that template, although I do like the direction you are heading. It worked well for the FIFA World Cup articles (and probably others) and I think it will here too. Remy B 15:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any display issues with it, but I do prefer something like this. JPD (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! I like JPD's version better! So much I have copied it into that template :) Do you know how much I googled for images so I could base I diagram off it :P -- Chuq 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm getting rendering issues on that one as well, using Firefox 1.5.0.6. I've put a screenshot of it up here. Remy B 05:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What issues do you mean? That appears to be how it is supposed to look. It looks the same as that for me, I'm still on Firefox 1.5.0.5. If you mean the fact that some of the horizontal lines are thicker than others, I think that is on purpose - it is to show the winner of one match goes to a certain game, and the loser of the match goes to a different game. -- Chuq 06:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you are saying now. It just looks convoluted in the middle but I guess that is unavoidable. Remy B 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the thicknesses were deliberate - only one mistake, which I will fix. I think it's the system that's a bit "convoluted". I see three ways of doing it:

1. With a line disappearing at the top, going to the bottom, as in Chuq's first version,
2. With lines crossing, as in my version,
3. Not having all the games from one week in the same column but working from both sides into the middle.

Of the options, my personal taste says that the second works best here, and since at least one other person likes it, I'm happy with it. Of course, this system has only been used since 2000. It is actually impossible to represent the 1994-1999 system (current NRL system) in this sort of way. JPD (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for yours as well JPD. I wonder if it is possible to make some of the lines a different colour, to signify the "loser" of the game. Anyway, my next challenge is the 1994-1999 system - I might leave that one until later on :) -- Chuq 12:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you thinking some sort of grey? Oops... I originally left out the word "impossible" in my previous statement. The 94-99 system (and the 92-93 one) require a different approach. JPD (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In my sandbox, I now have a version with some grey lines. I'm not sure I am either for or against this one. I have also had a couple of attempts at a 94-99 system. The other thing I thought of was whether there should be some sort of standard for which team is placed on top in each game. We could set it out so that it fits in with the rest of the table, or so that the "home" team is on top. As far as I can tell, the example at Template talk:AFL finals system was done to fit in with Chuq's original version, so I was going to change it to fit the current version. JPD (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Venues with sponsors names

One of my pet Wikihates for some time has been the use of venue names that include sponsors names, eg. AAMI Stadium instead of Football Park. Obviously, the majority of people refer to these grounds by their new sponsored monikers. However in the context of an encyclopaedia this is problematic. If the sponsor changes, as has happened several times at Geelong for example, then the article needs to be moved and every article amended to point to the new article (rather than point to a redirect which is against Wikipolicy) - a tedious and probably impossible task.

I'd like to put forward the suggestion that the official public name be used for the article titles of each venue (hence Football Park, Princes Park, Docklands Stadium et al), and the sponsored names (Football Park, Optus Oval or M.C. Labour Park or whatever, Telstra Dome) be set up as a redirect to the main article, so that someone searching on those titles will still be able to find the relevant article.

What are others' thoughts?--The Brain of Morbius 07:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is sound - doesn't the ABC have a similar policy? i.e. a preference for the official public name. Only one question - does the official public name continue to exist in a verifiable form somewhere, say, in road directories, the doomsday book, etc. - or do they simply exist in our collective hazy memories? If it is just the latter, that would present us with a problem. As an example, where will we find the name Kardinia Park? And given that the Docklands Stadium is private real estate, where will we find that name (apart from earlier media references)? Ultimately, that may will determine the extent to which we employ such a policy - apart from that one proviso, I would be all for it. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think you've answered it yourself. If the ABC uses those names (which it does) then that's a source we can easily point to as a reference. Plus many people still use the original names rather than the (in my opinion) crass sponsors names anyway.

If these non-sponsored names are specified in some sort of citable ABC guide then that would clearly be useful; the ABC is frequently cited as a reference for Australian English usage and I'm sure it's as useful in this instance also. I'm pretty sure they refer to the Dome as "Docklands" or (better) "Docklands Stadium" and the Sydney venue as "the Olympic Stadium".--The Brain of Morbius 06:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for the idea - but if we are trying to bypass linking to a redirect, then won't that mean replacing all the links in (say) 2006 AFL season? Maybe use templates named like {{Aus-Stadium Dockl}} and {{Aus-Stadium York}} (which expand to [[Docklands Stadium|Telstra Dome]] and [[York Park|Aurora Stadium]]) respectively, and then when the next sponsor comes up we can just change the templates to [[Docklands Stadium|Optus Dome]] or whatever! The follow on question from that being - should the links in 2006 AFL season always stay as "Telstra Dome", since that is what the venue was called at the time? Or to make myself clearer - are we discussing the article name, the named used in links to the article, or both? -- Chuq 08:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstand. There's no need for new templates. I'm proposing that sponsored venue pages be moved to their original names. So Optus Oval would move to Princes Park, AAMI Stadium to Football Park and so on. Then we create new articles for the sponsored names (eg. Optus Oval, AAMI Stadium) which are simple redirects to the full articles held under the original venue names.

This approach means that whenever one of these venues get a new sponsor (which is inevitable) we can create a new redirect page with the new sponsor's title and not have to change a single link in any pre-existing article. It also means that any existing pages which link to AAMI Stadium and Optus Oval and the like will not have broken links - and the links to redirect pages can be progressively fixed up, so that links to [[AAMI Stadium]] (which will still work regardless) can be changed to [[Football Park|AAMI Stadium]].

The reason I raise the issue is for discussion and a vote, you understand; I know this is a tad controversial and I wouldn't dream of making this decision unilaterally.

To answer your question a little more directly, under the approach I suggest, the links in 2006 AFL Season would stay as is until some user makes the decision to update them to the [[Original name|Sponsored name]] format, eg. [[Football Park|AAMI Stadium]]. Using templates would have the effect of suggesting that Carlton's home ground in 1970 was called Optus Oval, and so on.--The Brain of Morbius 06:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally like to use original names in this sort of context, but I think Wikipedia policy about common names probably suggests we don't do it. The ABC is not particularly helpful in this regard, as they have a policy to avoid advertising, whatever the common name is. JPD (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)