Talk:2011 AFL season

Red links and GWS

Hey GPW, considereing it seems to only be the two of us who edit this article. I have added the info about GWS back to the article because you have to look at this from the perspective of the reader. They will see that this will be the only season with 17 teams teams, but if we don't explain why this is the case then they will be wondering why. Can you please explain here why you think it shouldn't be mentioned rather then just reverting me? Jenks24 (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sponsored Venues

Hello All,

Since the AFL page lists the venue names without the sponsors' names, should we change the names of the venues in this page (and possibly previous year's pages) to make both pages more consistent. Hope to hear all of your views on this. Cheers, Lindblum (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wherever possible we should avoid commercial names. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The AFL does use commercial names for stadiums. For the 2009 season, the only stadium the AFL did not use a commercial name for was Etihad Stadium due to a sponsorship conflict between Qantas and Etihad Airlines and as such, the AFL only referrred to the stadium as Docklands Stadium. Since this has been resolved, the AFL and every other media outlet refers to the stadiums by their naming rights sponsor. I believe this article should do the same, not as an advertising vehicle, but because this is what they are called. Thankyou Merlin Wiese (talk 2:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably the most reliable broadcast source for anything to do with the AFL is the ABC. It goes out of it's way to avoid the commercial names, on the basis that it should not be promoting commercial organisations. Nor should Wikipedia. The non-commercial names are just as real, and in many ways, more correct than the commercial names, because they are "permanent", not changing on the whim of a marketing person. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with everything HiLo and Lindblum have said. Wikipedia isn't an advertising vehicle. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I believe that we should use the commercial names because most people know then better by they commercial name rather that the permanent venue name e.g. Many people wouldn't know that York Park is Aurora Stadium, so I suggested that we use the commercial names so that people know the extact venue of the match.

Many Thanks,

McAusten (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That may work for young folks not used to the traditional names and brainwashed in commercialisation, and it may work for some venues, but please tell us what is any less clear about the name York Park than the name Aurora Stadium? And I seem to have been aware of a Telstra Stadium and a Telstra Dome and a Telstra something else. Where are they? Do they still use those names? All very unclear. Oh, and that brings to another point. Back to York Park. I suspect that name has existed for 100 years. Aurora Stadium is a current name that could change on the whim of an administrator and/or commercial arrangement. The permanent, non-commercial names are the stable ones. If a game is played this year at a venue that has a new sponsor next year, do we change our article to give the venue its new name? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Titan uranus (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with the opinion that the page should have generic, non-sponsored names. The stadia are known to the majority of supporters as their sponsored names. Almost no one refers to York Park as York Park. This should be kept in line with the 2010 season's references, which were to the sponsor names. Also, the argument that we should follow the ABC is ridiculous. That view is out-dated and impractical, especially given that advertising is seen repeatedly on their television broadcasts of VFL matches.

Related to this issue, I am sure that our fellow Wikipedians are smart enough to click on the links provided if they are not sure what each ground is, or where they are located. Also, with regards to the ABC, I am very sure that during every AFL radio broadcast, they air no commercial advertisements. I am certain this is what HiLo48 was referring to when they mentioned the ABC. Lindblum (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My two cents worth - As the commercial naming rights are subject to change, and therefore the commercial name of the stadia are going to change also, would it not make more sense to refer to the stadia as the non-sponsored names? If the MCG or SCG was to be sponsored in the future, what would most fans (or people visiting this site) refer to the stadia as? MC Rocks (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I know the ABC radio coverage has no ads, but they attempt to do the same thing on their TV coverage (also their TV news). It's impossible of course, and ads and references to the commercial names come up all the time. The simple fact, one that HiLo48 chooses to avoid, is that people generally refer to these stadiums by their common name, and that is their commercial one. Yes, Geelong people say 'Kardina Park', and many haven't yet recognised that Subiaco is now 'Pattersons Oval'. But most people (most, not everyone) refer to Etihad Stadium, AAMI Stadium, Aurora Park and Telstra Stadium as those names. And like I said, Wikipedia has done so in the past. Titan uranus (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Our major map sources (Google Maps, Melway) don't show the commercial names. See my 21.48 comment below.) If someone wants to find a ground they need the permanent name. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, it is an encyclopedia that should accurately reflect the stadiums name at the present time. If any other organisation or even individual changed their name, Wikipedia would be expected to reflect these changes. The stadium pages clearly show the 'current' name, and both the AFL and stadiums themselves market these venues under their sponsored names. Whilst we may not all like, or agree with the sponsored names, virtually every other Wikipedia page for any sport will reflect the sponsored name, and I feel the AFL should do the same. We're not in the 1960's anymore, and personal feelings on the matter shouldn't inhibit article accuracy. For example, Kardinia Park is the area that hosts Skilled Stadium. The stadium itself is no longer known as Kardinia Park, and hasn't been for some time. I suggest somebody get hold of an AFL press release which shows the official names that the AFL expects to be used. This is not the ABC, and contrary to individual beliefs, Wikipedia is not against using corporate names if it enhances article accuracy.

Brad 191919191 (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2011 (AEDT)

Temporary names are a problem for anyone who doesn't have a map showing the short term name for the relatively short period a commercial name exists. Let Wikipedia be the place where encyclopaedically sound long term, permanent names are recorded. Those names haven't gone away. We have no need to pander to short term marketing goals. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Like it or loathe it, the commercial names are the official stadium names. I don't call you MiLo48 when your name's HiLo48. Wikipedia should reflect accurately the name of the stadium at the time. Years down the track when Etihad Stadium is Qatari Oil Stadium, the user will still be able to click on the stadium name and see where that venue is. This isn't about pandering to marketing goals - it is about acknowledging fact from fiction. Etihad Stadium is the official name, Docklands Stadium is the unofficial name. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be displaying official names. Brad 191919191 (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2011 (AEDT)

Please define "official". And Wikipedia has policies about using common names. The poor old Docklands Stadium in Melbourne has changed its name so often that it has around four or five of those. Docklands is the one consistent name recognised by everybody. HiLo48 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I would define "official" as the names referred to by the governing body of the sport as well as the stadiums themselves. In instances such as Olympic Games and Asian Cup Soccer, where the governing body refuses to recognise the sponsors names (this also occured with the AFL and Etihad in 2009), then it is appropriate to refer to the venue by its generic name. But when the AFL in this instance chooses to acknowledge the sponsored names, then Wikipedia, being an accurate encyclopedia, should reflect this. You say Wikipedia has policies about using 'common names'... I think most people in this day and age refer to venues by their sponsored name, and hence that would be deemed common. I suggest you check out the 2010/11 NRL, Super Rugby, A-League, EPL, NFL season pages and you will notice that they all use sponsors names. Fair enough, AFL fans don't have to comply with other codes/sports, but we also don't have to be different for the sake of being different. This is only my opinion and I respect yours entirely, but it's one which I personally feel reflects the present situation most accurately. Brad 191919191 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you go to Geelong one day and ask the folks there where they go to watch their footy. I don't live there but I have a lot of relatives who do, obsessive Geelong supporters, and it's Kardinia Park all the way for them. If you've known a place under a particular name all your life, you do not change your usage just because some sponsor turns up for a year or two. The name is part of the geography of your town, not a business deal. Also, I just checked Google Maps and the Melway (Victoria's favourite street directory). Both display ONLY the traditional name. So to use commercial names here achieves little but helping advertisers. That's not our goal. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think venue names should be kept as their sponsored names for the appropriate season(s) in which they are so named, and kept as their usual name for other purpose eg. for club's home grounds or for lists of venues. For example for an article on say, the 1933 VFL season, the term Princes Park would be used, but for an article on the 1995 AFL season, Optus Oval would be used.

Just a thought - considering the AFL is the governing body for this competition, and the AFL's [afl.com.au website] uses sponsored names - see AFL venues on the official AFL website. This would seem a logical reason to use sponsored names where the AFL uses it. Also, the use of Docklands Stadium instead of Etihad Stadium would seem to be in violation of WP:COMMONNAME - "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." A simple Google test for sponsored venue names as opposed to their non-sponsored names appears to be in favour of sponsored names (I used speech marks around each name):

• Etihad Stadium (201 000 results) vs Docklands Stadium (29 000 results) (Colonial Stadium [68 800 results] and Telstra Dome [809 000 results], former names of the stadium, have even greater results).
• TIO Stadium (45 600 results) vs Marrara Oval (11 300 results) vs (2630 results)
• Skilled Stadium (52 900 results) vs Kardinia Park (21 500 results)
• Subiaco Oval (93 400 reults) vs Patersons Stadium (31 000 results)
• Football Park Adelaide (122 000 results) vs AAMI Stadium (110 000 results)
• Aurora Stadium (118 000 results) vs York Park Tasmania (44 100 results)/York Park Launceston (33 800 results))
• ANZ Stadium (195 000 results) vs Stadium Australia (260 000 results) vs Telstra Stadium (283 000 results)

Excluding Patersons Stadium, whose name has only just changed, and Football Park, which may have had some results added due to its somewhat generic name, all other sponsored names have more hits than their unsponsored names. I cannot find any Wikipedia policy that is against using sponsored names, and as far as I can see, most other sports league, particularly in the US, but also in New Zealand and Europe, use sponsored names, which are generally the more well-known names. Unless someone can come up with a good argument as to why these names should not be changed (besides having friends who call a stadium only by its old name, as above), I would like to hear it, and if not, these names should be changed. Bozzio (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, those who have presented arguments for a view different from yours actually believe they ARE good arguments. To constantly just ignore them is not even good manners. This is a discussion. We respond to the content of each others' comments. Well, some of us do. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please (re)present these arguments? As far as I've seen, the arguments against is that non-sponsored names are more common, which is not verified by a search engine test or by any source that I have seen on this page besides saying friends call it by a certain name, which by no means makes it the most common name used; and that stadium names change too much, so the original name should be used, although stadium article names could just be changed, like with most other stadiums in other sports leagues, as they gain new sponsors or revert back to their original name. I am not ignoring either of these arguments, I have rebutted them as they seem to be incorrect, not supported by any WP policies or by WP:COMMONNAME. I would be happy to hear feedback on my comments, too. Bozzio (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the ABC's website does sometimes use commercial names, even though, like Wikipedia, they are not meant to be an advertising vehicle 'Skilled Stadium' used, not Kardinia Park.Bozzio (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably mu biggest concerns arise because of the ephemeral nature of commercial names. I like to think of an encyclopaedia as having some sort of timeless quality. One should be able to look at content and get as much meaning as possible at any time. To suggest using different names for the same ground in different seasons, when it's not necessary, frankly seems nonsensical to me. I like the idea of being able to logically connect from Wikipedia to other documents, maps and sources, old and new. Obviously the best approach is to use the permanent names, not a name that could change tonight. I pointed out above that my two favourite map sources, Google Maps and Melway, both use the permanent names for the grounds I looked at. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason that there has to be any "all or nothing" policy here - would you agree that Aurora Stadium, AAMI Stadium, ANZ Stadium, Etihad Stadium and TIO Stadium could be changed to their sponsored names in this article, as they are the more recognisable names? As to your point above, it would seem to me to be incorrect to refer to anything by its old name. The SCG is not referred to as the Association Ground. The names of things change, and Wikipedia will document these changes, but should always use the current name. Bozzio (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I have no idea where AAMI Stadium, ANZ Stadium, and TIO Stadium are. And that's part of the problem. As for being the most recognised names, who says so? Got a good source? As for current names, in many cases there are clearly two. Why not use the more permanent one? HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Search engine test above? Almost all media sources and the AFL official website use commercial names.

Oh, by the way, I changed things that were not related to the stadium names in my last edit, so be a bit careful before reverting willy-nilly :) It doesn't really matter. Bozzio (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hilo, this really has to be changed. I respect your opinion, but as myself and others have stated, Wikipedia articles need to reflect the official and most common name for the venue at the time. The governing body, and most supporters, will refer to the sponsored names. They appear in newspapers, matchday programs, event tickets, tv, radio (except ABC who account for a limited amount of AFL listeners) etc. You told me I should head down to Geelong... well I go down at least once a season and hear Skilled used often. In any case, I don't think the unverifiable views of the good people of Geelong should have bearing on this matter - it isn't a popularity contest, it's a matter of fact. This is a wider issue, and as stated, the pages for virtually every sporting organisation in the world reflect the current sponsored names. If we have to go down the 'he said, she said' path, I assure you that most people I know refer to venues by their sponsored name. If you don't know where AAMI Stadium is, I suggest you actually start watching and reading about some AFL, instead of listening to the ABC 24/7. Brad 191919191 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's time for some good faith to be shown here. That last post shows little. Your response is one of a person who is frustrated that not everyone is seeing things their way. I encounter that sort of thing every day, and have no trouble dealing with it. I intend to step back for a bit, recommending that you too await contributions from a few other editors. Bozzio has damaged your case by making a sweeping change when clearly no consensus existed to justify it. It may in a few days. Show some manners, both of you, and you're more likely to persuade others. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've shown more then enough manners - I've stated numerous times that I respect your opinion and you're more then entitled to it. I can actually see where you're coming from. I'm not frustrated I'm not getting things my way - I'm frustrated that an online encyclopedia will not accurately reflect the stadium names at the present time. I never said sponsored names sit well with me 100%, but they need to be acknowledged. Anyway, if the consensus is against my views, well I'll cop it on the chin. I don't think Bozzio has damaged 'my' case, and I also feel that we're both (you and me) recycling arguments like a merry-go-round. I think you're right that we should wait a few days and hopefully more people will chip in with their 2 cents. But I don't think we need the teacher-schoolkid retorts of "show some manners". The arguments to date have been reasonably civil and I don't think anybody needs to be spoken to in a condecending manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad 191919191 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I really MUST make one more comment. One reason I have repeated arguments is to desperately try to get you to respond to some of them. Maps would be the classic example. That you repeatedly ignore points I make is very frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The manners thing goes both way, HiLo48. You removed my entire edit apparently without even looking at it, removing some content that was not related to the stadium names.

I'm not sure if you are unable to see that your argument that it is easier not to change names of stadiums even if they are the common name of the stadium does not satisfy any Wikipedia policies, including WP:NOTADVERTISING (stadium names are not biased towards a particular product or company; they do not promote a company other than its name - it is not FLY ETIHAD Stadium or BANK USING ANZ Stadium) or WP:COMMONNAME (most of the commercially-named stadiums are most well-known by that particular name, especially where the same name has been used for a number of years). Basically, you are proposing to use names for articles that are neither the common name, as shown by a search engine test and from most media sources; nor the official name, as written on the Australian Football League's official website. This does not make much sense. I am sorry if you think I am not showing "manners" or using good faith, but I cannot see a logical reason why these names should be kept, except as a historical reference. I am happy to hear some other users comment besides yourself and Brad191919191, but if a consensus cannot be reached in a few days, I think it would be best if we submitted this for a third opinion. Bozzio (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be two separate issues here - firstly the actual article name, which is what WP:COMMONNAME actually refers to (it does not apply to use in other articles), and unless we are discussing changing 2011 AFL season to something else, should not be discussed here. Whether the actual article name is Subiaco Oval or Pattersons Stadium has a pretty clear consensus that we keep the article at the non-sponsored name. If you want to debate that, then go to each venue's page or to WT:AFL and start a discussion there. For the older grounds, with well-established names, it's an easy decision. For newer grounds that only ever had sponsored names, it can be a problem, but generally there is a name in use prior to the sponsorship arrangement being made.

For use in pages like this, however, I am leaning towards using the name in use at the time. ie, a Geelong home game on 1975 VFL season would have [[Kardinia Park (stadium)|]], in the mid 90s or whenever it was, [[Kardinia Park (stadium)|Baytec Stadium]] or [[Kardinia Park (stadium)|Shell Stadium]] and recently it would have [[Kardinia Park (stadium)|Skilled Stadium]]. The name of the ground at the time should be retained FOR historical accuracy, despite how commercial or advertising-like it may seem at the moment.The-Pope (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think The-Pope has summed it up perfectly: if an article is making reference to a particular year or season, use the name of the stadium that was used in that season; if the stadium is being listed for example as a home ground or in a list of venues, the COMMONNAME should be used, whether it is a commercial name or a non-commercial name. The three grounds I would have issue with using a non-commercial stadium are Docklands Stadium/Colonial Stadium/Telstra Dome/Etihad Stadium, Football Park/AAMI Stadium and York Park/Aurora Stadium

• Docklands Stadium has never been officially known by the AFL as Docklands Stadium, and is generally more recognizable as one of its commercial names. Although Telstra Dome has more hits on a Google test, I think it would be better to use its current name.
• AAMI Stadium has been known as such since the middle of the 2002 season (source: Austadiums article, which coincidently is called AAMI Stadium). Football Park is also a bit ambiguous; most sporting grounds in Australia could be described in one way or another as a 'Football Park'.
• Aurora Stadium has been known as such since the middle of 2004 (source: "New name for York Park"). York Park is not generally used by any major media or non-media sources (excluding sometimes the ABC), and is slightly ambiguous.

In particular Docklands Stadium definitely needs to have its article name changed. Bozzio (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really commenting on this debate, but I think The-Pope makes a good point about the name of the ground vs what it is called in a given season. But just on one of the above, Football park has been known by that name since 1974, and only as AAMI Stadium since 2002. You'll find that the two names are used interchangeably by everyone involved (from the general public to the SANFL management), and that for historical reasons I would continue to favour Football Park. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as a quick aside, previous consensus was pretty much in line with The-Pope: use the non-sponsored name on the article, but in articles about leagues you use the sponsored name at the time, linking to the non-sponsored name for the article. - Bilby (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

One further argument: why do corporations bother spending millions of dollars on naming rights? So that the stadiums they buy the rights to are referred to with a reference to the corporation. As has been said above, it's not 'Fly Etihad Stadium'. By writing Etihad Stadium Wikipedia is not imploring readers to fly Etihad. It is simply honouring the rights of Etihad to have that stadium known as Etihad Stadium. The page is ridiculous the way it is. Titan uranus (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You really don't understand advertising. I saw the boss of Etihad explaining that he bought those naming rights years ago precisely so that people WOULD think of flying Etihad when the airline became more active in Australia, which it now has. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting the snide put-down to one side, of course Etihad purchased the naming rights to get people to fly with them. But by calling it 'Etihad Stadium' Wikipedia is not suggesting to people that they should fly Etihad. It is simply honouring the fact that Etihad Airways paid to have the stadium named after them. That would be the right thing to do. Furthermore, as Bozzio has suggested, your logic extends to re-naming the NAB Cup the Pre-season competition. That is what the ABC does, and if you truly believe Wikipedia should not refer to stadia by their commercial name, why are you happy to refer to the NAB Cup as it is? Titan uranus (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48: Do you think we should change the article 2011 NAB Cup to "2011 Australian Football League pre-season competition"? I would hate to think we are promoting the NAB. Bozzio (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a constructive nor relevant comment HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, of course its not, because it doesn't benefit your argument. It's actually a really good point that I didn't think of. Isn't it complete double standards if we can acknowledge a competition sponsor but not a stadium sponsor? And your right, sponsors pay for stadium naming rights to increase exposure of their brand (and hopefully revenue), but it still doesn't say "Fly with Etihad" or "Insure with AAMI". It's simply just mentioning the company name. Looking at the numerous posts from myself and others above, it seems as though the only one putting up any resistence to the change is your good self. And when you look at the pages for every other sporting competition in the world, not to mention past AFL seasons, it's not hard to see why. Perhaps you are a traditionalist Gen X-er who can't handle change? It's time to start acknowledging the fact that the sponsored names are the official stadium names, recognised by the stadiums themselves and the AFL, the competitions governing body. This should be good enough for encycolpedic purposes. The fact we still have 'Docklands Stadium' listed is frankly embaressing when you look at other sports codes pages. This isn't 1964 anymore. The only ones who refuse to acknowledge the names are the Tobin Brothers on ABC (whoops, I just mentioned a company name). I suggest the change be made tomorrow (AEDT). Brad 191919191 (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

When the your argument becomes more about me than the topic at hand, you have really stopped being a productive contributor to Wikipedia. Maybe you should take your embarrassment and abusive style somewhere else. HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ok guys, the personal attacks are getting us nowhere. I think everyone has made their points and that some of you need to disengage from this conversation for a while. If we really need to, we can call in an uninvolved user to determine the consensus of the discussion, but the unambiguous personal attacks are getting this discussion nowhere and are weakening some people's arguments. Jenks24 (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything that The Pope and Jenks24 have typed in this section. It is time for everyone to stop these personal attacks and have a look at this in a constructive (and non-violent) manner.

- Firstly, just because other sports pages on Wikipedia refer to stadium names in a specific way doesn't mean that it should necessarily be used in this page or others. I have personally found out the hard way, making changes on a (non-AFL) sports page to match those on another sports page isn't a good thing if certain users (most likely the ones you helped create that particular page) will not budge under any circumstances and didn't hesistate to use harsh statements directed towards me. This taught me that the best thing to do is not to change all of it, just a part that I feel needs changing, which involves compromise.

- Secondly, any sponsorship contracts that are signed with a stadium to change the stadium name does not impart any direct legal (or any other) responsibility on Wikipedia to change the way that stadium is referred to on this (or any) page. It is the way the stadium is referred to by other impartial sources that raises the issue of whether the name of the stadium needs changing to reflect the present (and not the past or the future).

- Thirdly, any requests for Docklands Stadium to change its article name should be moved to that page, not this one. AFL isn't the only entity that uses this particular stadium.

Now that I've got that off my chest, to achieve consensus on this issue I believe we could do the following:

• Use the current (sponsored) stadium names in the 2011 AFL Season page
• On the AFL main page, list the stadiums by their original (unsponsored) name, then show the current (sponsored) name (and the previous names if the urge overcomes anyone) beside it in the next column, so that anyone can instantly see what the stadium was referred to in the past and what it is called in the present. Lindblum (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would once again like to voice my opinion that the stadium names should reflect the current sponsored names. This article should reflect the current names of the stadiums used and if they are commercially sponsored then so be it. Bozzio raises a good point that this article is called the "2011 AFL NAB Cup", a commercially sponsored competition at the time of which it is/was conducted so should therefor be known by its sponsored name. The same should apply for the "2011 AFL Toyota Premiership season". I also agree with Lindblum's last point to use current venue names for this season, but to list original stadium names with current names on the main AFL page.

I am a Geelong Football Club member, go to every home game down there and have done so for the last 10 years. Myself and the many others who call that stadium home refer to it as Skilled Stadium. When it was called Shell Stadium I refered to it by the naming rights sponsor. Before that, when it had no sponsor, I called it only Kardinia Park. Don't get me wrong, people still call the ground Kardinia Park (or better the Cattery), but it's the traditional name, not the official name and most people are happy to refer to either one, but for history's sake it should be known as Skilled Stadium in 2011.

I believe it is also worth noting that of other sporting competitions and their sponsored names, both of stadiums and the competition itself. In every major sporting competition article on wikipedia, every stadium (if it has a naming rights sponsor) is listed by its naming rights sponsor. For example in the 2011 Super Rugby season, the Melbourne Rectangular stadium is called AAMI Park, it's official name. Vodacom Park is used instead of Free State Stadium to reflect its name during the 2011 season, these were the names of the stadiums used. Another example - the 2011 ANZ Championship season is named after its sponsors the ANZ, it is not called the 2011 Trans Tasman netball season. It's stadiums too are known by the sponsored names - Hisense Arena, ETSA Park, TSB Bank Arena. Internationally, every major sporting league lists its stadiums by their naming rights sponsors. Track the Super Bowl venues - Super Bowl XLIV was played at Sun Life Stadium, referring it by is sponsored name. In the UEFA Champions League and English Premier League, Arsenal has their home ground listed as their naming rights sponsor Emirates not as Ashburton Grove.

The only time naming rights sponsors should not be used are when organisations don't use naming right sponsors, i.e. the Olympic games and FIFA World Cup. I believe there is nothing wrong with using the sponsors names to highlight points in history, because wikipedia should represent an accurate portrayal of names including naming rights sponsors. For most stadiums, if they have had a naming rights sponsor, they will list on the wikipedia article at what point in time sponsored names were used. Again I refer to Sun Life Stadium, home to the Miami Dolphins of the NFL. It lists under its former names the years in which the stadium was known by different names.

Whilst I understand that just because other sporting leagues on wikipedia use this method doesn't mean the AFL has to, I believe that it should. This article and wikipedia has an obligation to be true to history and to the time of the competition. In 2011 Docklands stadium will be known as Etihad stadium and if wikipedia is to be an accurate representation of history it must use the sponsored name. If people are unsure of where Patersons Stadium is, they merely need to click on the link and they can find out that in 2011 it was the naming rights sponsor for Subiaco Oval. I don't believe that venues or stadiums need to change the name of their article each time there is a new sponsor. I'm fine with Docklands Stadium not being called Etihad Stadium in the article. However any other article that refers to Docklands Stadium in a particular point in time - i.e. for anything in 2010-11 should refer to it as Etihad Stadium.

Sorry if I've repeated a few things, but I think I've covered all the main points I wanted to discuss. And yes lets please put an end to all the personal attacks and constant changes to both 2011 AFL and NAB Cup articles. If we can agree on something soon, whether it be an unbiassed opinion or a majority consensus then great. For the time being, I am in favour of Lindblum's last proposal. Merlin Wiese (talk 1:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And there's a pure, self-admitted POV argument. YOU call your home ground Skilled Stadium. You admit that others call it Kardinia Park, but demand that what YOU do should be reflected in the article. No logic there. And what makes a sponsored name "official"? Surely the permanent name, as defined by a local municipl authority, and being the one on the most common maps, is more "official". HiLo48 (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Every other AFL/VFL season page from 1897-2010 has used the name in use at the time the season was played. There was already a consensus on this matter in previous discussions (sorry I can only find one example here, but I have seen three, just not sure where to look), which means that you or another user has purposefully gone against an existing convention for your own personal means, without discussion in regards to the previous convention. If you do not believe a consensus, as in the majority of editors participating in the discussion, has been achieved, shall we vote on it? Bozzio (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, we won't vote on it. I strongly recommend that you learn a lot more about how Wikipedia works. And while you continue to condemn other posters, and ignore valid points that they make, you really are destroying any credibility your case has. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oop, found the previous discussion here (first discussion December 2007), here (second discussion June 2008) and here (third discussion April/May 2009). As far as I can see the previous discussions reach a consensus whereby neutral names would be used for example at VFL or List of venues but an article about for example, the 2010 AFL season would use the names that were in use for that year]]. Not sure why this season's regular season and NAB Cup articles were changed? Can you explain why the previous convention was not used. Bozzio (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Change was made here here by User:Lindblum. It appears the change was made due to a discussion in the talk page, where according to your definition no consensus was reached. A bit hypocritical, don't you think? Bozzio (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] No. I only became a seriously active editor here last year. I followed the lead of others. (Who obviously also disagree with you.) It seemed right to me. I still cannot see the logic of using constantly changing names when a perfectly good, long term permanent name is available. And, after all my hints for you to pay attention to what others actually post, can you actually think about the map issue? Why do we list venues? Maybe one reason is so people can find them if they're interested. I haven't yet seen a map that shows Skilled Stadium. As for Patersons... (or whatever you want Subiaco called), I truly doubt that it is on any map at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How will having a different name on one page matter if it redirects to the same page? Also, Google Maps and Google Earth refer to Etihad Stadium and AAMI Stadium, while Maps calls Subi Oval "Kitchener Park" and Earth calls it Subiaco Oval. I don't think any of these cartographic sources are really relevant, seeing as they are referring to the use of grounds by all sports. It is my understanding that several of these naming rights agreement are only made for AFL matches; for example, cricketing sources such as CricketArchive and Cricinfo have always referred to Docklands Stadium and Football Park, while Cricinfo uses ANZ Stadium and CricketArchive uses Olympic Park, but these sources could not be considered relevant because they are for a different sport entirely. On a similar note, a search of the online version of your oft-quoted Melway Street Directory shows Etihad Stadium being used ([1]). The same source (if you zoom in on Geelong) refers to Kardinia Oval as its major heading, with Skilled Stadium and Geelong Football Ground underneath as alternatives. Perhaps yours is out of date, or Melway need to be more accurate concerning their online and "offline" publications. Bozzio (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how we are both being stubborn and unreasonable, how about we just submit this to WP:3 and accept the decision made there? Are you okay with this, seeing as this appears to be going around in circles? Bozzio (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Take it wherever you like, but I strongly suggest that you first properly engage in discussion. That means reading, thinking about, and addressing ALL the points that others make. (e.g. maps) You cannot convince others if you refuse to consider the points they make. In saying this I am definitely NOT being stubborn and unreasonable. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

All of this edit-waring is getting rediculous. The consensus clearly leads to using stadium names, as does every other AFL season/major sporting bodies page. HiLo - this is not 'bullying', this is fact. What makes a name official comes from the name the stadium chooses to call itself and what the particular sporting body refers to. As I've stated before, I don't call you MiLo because that is not your name. If you don't wish to conform to modern times and sponsored stadium names, thats entirely your call, and one that I respect. But you don't need to FORCE your views down other peoples throats when the majority of people disagree with your opinion. Look through the discussion - the majority of active participants in this discussion have been for the introduction of sponsored names. And before you come out with your predictable "answer my point before you respond", how about you answer mine - why does every other major sporting page/past AFL seasons use sponsored names? Shouldn't we strive for consistency and accuracy, following the precedents that have been set in the past? I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend?

PS - I think the AFL website, Stadium websites, AFL Record, AFL 2011 season guide, AFL media releases, tabloid/broadsheet news reports, online press reports, television broadcasts/news bulletins and radio broadcasts/news bulletins are a greater source then an online maps website, where the information for the specific venue may not have been update for some time. This is the AFL page, not the Melways page, so we should reflect their views on the matter, not Melways. 60.224.170.95 (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. There's a lot there about me. ("predictable", MiLo, "If you don't wish to conform to modern times...", "FORCE your views down other peoples throats", "I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend?") Please just stick to discussing the topic. Once you make other editors your target you lose all credibility. And you won't convince me or anyone else of anything. Again, it's not majorities that decide what goes in Wikipedia. It's consensus based on sensible, thorough, mature, respectful discussion. Oh, and it's Melway, not Melways. (You wanted precision.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And here we go again - refusing to acknowledge points the writer has made in an effort to defend your opinion. Answer the questions that were asked - "why does every other major sporting page/past AFL seasons use sponsored names? Shouldn't we strive for consistency and accuracy, following the precedents that have been set in the past?". The point about sources is also a valid one, or did you choose to skim over that as well?

Sorry. If there were any valid points there, they were buried among the personal abuse. Must have been a bit distracted by that, and missed them. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But having made that point... I agree that we should aim for consistency, across both articles and across time. Since commercial names change so often, the only sensible way to do that is to avoid using them so that our naming remains consistent. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And some of us disagree with the and across time when it applies to season specific articles. Names rarely change mid season, but they do change. We do make the Kangaroos and North Melbourne and Footscray and Western Bulldogs season specific so why not these? When female sportspeople change their names from marriage we generally change the article name, but pipelink the old name when she competed under that name. I don't like Pattersons Stadium, and will continue to call it Subi, but this year Freo will be playing at Pattersons. In 50 years time, when they are playing at "Mars Explorer Weekly Shuttles Stadium", I'd like to think that the 2011 AFL season article would directly show the name at the time, but when I click on it, it goes to the one, unmoved page, Subiaco Oval.The-Pope (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. I think we should make it easier for those Martian explorers. If a cursory reading tells them that Freo played at Subi in 2010, then Pattersons in 2011, an obvious first impression will be that they changed their home ground. It shouldn't require an ultra curious extra click, for no apparent reason, to discover that those ancient places were one and the same. I'll again ask a question I asked earlier. Why do we include the ground name at all? I reckon the answer to that question will help us decide what form we should use. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe we need to clarify a few points to determine if we need to change anything. Firstly, the main argument is whether or not, for this article only, the names of internal links to stadiums on wikipedia should be named by sponsored or non-sponsored names. Changing the article names of stadiums to reflect current naming rights sponsors is another issue and one that should be discussed elsewhere. This article needs to decide whether or not to use the current sponsored names e.g. Etihad Stadium, Skilled Stadium ect. or Docklands Stadium, Kardinia Park ect. These names are to be used only to link to the stadium article on wikipedia. The second main issue is what is wikipedia's policy regarding the usage of sponsored names in wikipedia links (not article names). Any arguments about what other organisations call stadiums i.e. the ABC, Melway, Google Maps are irrelevant; the same apply's for a general consensus. This is about wikipedia's policy, not others policy. I have been doing some research on wikipedia's policies regarding this and so far have not found anything conclusive regarding this issue - for or against.

This is the main point regarding wikipedia's stance on advertising:

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

5. Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."

What Wikipedia is not

Interpret the above how you wish. My interpretation of this statement is that so long as it is unbiased and verified that a stadium is known by it's sponsored name, then it is ok to use in an article, provided it is relevant to the topic. As I said before, I have not come across anything on wikipedia and it's policies specifically regarding the use of sponsor names in links to other wikipedia articles. If someone has found something or knows how we can find this out, then please provide a link or quote and we can then determine what should be used. Merlin Wiese (talk) 4:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting post. Coming just after I had given my opinion that asking why we list the stadium names would be a valuable direction setter, you took an entirely different tack. While neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your proposal at this stage, this just highlights to me how this is nothing like a clear cut discussion. As you say, Wikipedia isn't guiding us much at all. We must find our own way, and that's not easy to agree upon. HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement about whether commercial (sponsored) or non-commercial (neutral) names should be used for Australian Football League season pages. ):

After reading the discussion above, 3O may not have been a good option, as others in the past had stated their opinion, and were responded to in a manor by some other editors in a manor that does not reflect WP:AGF and possibly WP:CIVIL. As for the requested comment regarding naming within this article, follow WP:COMMONNAME here in this article; those interested in the official or formal name can find such information on that location's specific article page.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Thanks for the input, but I'm not sure that helps all that much. Much of the difficulty here has been about agreeing on what the common name is. The WP:COMMONNAME article gives examples like Bill Clinton vs William Jefferson Clinton. To me, the choice of common name is obvious there. Only one of those is in common use. The same applies to the other examples in the article. It's not so obvious when deciding between Kardinia Park and Skilled Stadium. Both usages are reasonably common and easily recognised by most readers. (Unlike William Jefferson Clinton) The debate here is more an ideological one about whether short term commercial names should replace traditional permanent names. If a third opinion is going to be useful here, it needs to be from someone who understands that situation but can be demonstrably shown to have no preference for either usage. Could be difficult ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And in another thought on judging the commonness of a name, we should not place much weight on the name used by those who are being paid by an advertiser to use that name. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well after reading the 3O, I would have to say that WP:COMMONNAME would agree with using the current name of the wikipedia articles in question (eg Docklands Stadium as opposed to Etihad Stadium, which is a redirect). Therefore it would suggest that if people want to use the commercial names in this article, they should first gain a consensus to move the stadium articles in question, to prove they are the common name. Jenks24 (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

GWS/WS

Just a query: is the correct name for the new football team based in Western Sydney, Greater Western Sydney, West Sydney or just Western Sydney? Or does it matter?Bozzio (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure our article Greater Western Sydney Football Club is correct on this one and they should be referred to as Greater Western Sydney in Wikipedia articles (the majority of the time). Jenks24 (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Change, or not?

We have had a week-or-so-long discussion, and HiLo48 has the only objection of those whose have participated in the discussion to using the names the AFL recognises as correct for season pages, and I stress this, only for season pages i.e. the name used officially, whether commercial or not, during the 2006 season, would be used in an article about the 2006 season. I think tomorrow (27th Feb) would be a good time to change the names, if no more reasonable objections with a reasonable argument and a reliable source. Bozzio (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is what the consensus has shown we should do, though to be fair to HiLo he wasn't the only objector to the change (I think both Lindblum and myself were for using the non-sponsored names at the beginning of the discussion). I also agree that, unless more objections spring out of the woodwork, it would be agreeable to make the change tomorrow. My only concern with all this is that, although I would easily be able to tell what [[Kardinia Park (stadium)|Skilled Stadium]] means, I think I would have to actually click the link in an old article when it's showing [[Kardinia Park (stadium)|Baytec Stadium]]. Jenks24 (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note on that, Kardinia Park was only known as Baytec Stadium for two months before the start of the 2001 stadium, before the stadium deal with Baytec collapsed and was replaced by a deal with Skilled Engineering, during which no regular season AFL matches were played. Not sure if any Wizard Cup games were played, though. [2] Bozzio (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for the link and for clarifying that for me. Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A simple suggestion. Show both names. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So will this change be occuring? 218.185.10.126 (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it will be, but it will take a fair amount of time to do. If anyone wants to start they should feel free to do so... Jenks24 (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Collingwood v St Kilda match in round 11

From the article: "Collingwood and St Kilda meet for the first time since last year's drawn decider." Wouldn't this be INCORRECT as they met the week after the drawn decider, in the Grand Final Replay? Suggest re-wording to "Collingwood and St Kilda meet for the first time since last year's drawn grand final and subsequent replay" or similar. Because they have met since the drawn Grand Final. It was 7 days later. Sem boy (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You are completely correct and I have reworded accordingly. Please feel free to improve upon what I have done and if you see any other instances like this, where something is simply wrong, you can just fix it yourself (though you should give a reason in the edit summary). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Attendance table

Would it be possible to add an attendance table charting total and average attendances? The following is taken from the A-League page and is a perfect template for what I think should be added to the page.

Team	Hosted	Average	High	Low	Total
Melbourne Victory	15	15,234	32,321	8,287	228,517
Adelaide United	15	11,552	21,083	7,370	173,286
Brisbane Roar	15	9,279	20,831	3,522	139,182
Perth Glory	15	8,488	16,019	5,576	127,322
Newcastle Jets	15	8,429	13,463	3,114	126,439
Melbourne Heart	15	8,312	25,897	2,754	124,680
Wellington Phoenix	15	7,981	14,108	4,700	119,716
Central Coast Mariners	15	7,713	12,409	5,373	115,695
Sydney FC	15	7,656	12,106	4,012	114,834
North Queensland Fury	15	4,245	7,195	1,003	63,681
Gold Coast United	15	3,434	14,783	1,658	51,505
{{{T12}}}	0	0	0	0	0
League total	165	8,393	32,321	1,003	1,384,857

Updated to the end of season.

The only problem is I have no idea how to set it up so if people think this would be a useful addition, if somebody who knows Wikipedia a little better then myself wants to set it up, that would be appreciated. Cheers. Brad 191919191 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Gamenotes

To stop this from getting out of hand, can I propose that EVERY single note added at the base of the results is referenced, preferably to a news website, but AFL/club or stats sites are also ok. If we start now, then it isn't too onerous, compared to trying to do it all at the end of the year or when some WP:V stickler comes along and wants to delete the lot. It also means that the obscure "first time since XXXX" type of notes should be excluded, unless you can find a source that a) proves it is correct AND b) indicates that it is notable enough to make it into print. Also note that it doesn't have to be an online source - if the AFL record, printed newspapers or other offline source prints it, then you can use that as a source too. Trying to use radio or TV commentary as a source though is tougher as there is no official record of it, so Dennis/Bruce's statisical gems will probably have to be ignored unless someone in the papers picks up the same stat.The-Pope (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Something definitely needs to be done to rein in the quantity of uncheckable trivia here. HiLo48 (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Offical Crowds?

Hey Guys, I just wondering how you manage to find out the crowd before the report comes out on the official AFL website, let alone before the match finishes? Thanks, McAusten 05:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The official crowd of each AFL game is displayed on the scoreboard at the ground during the 4th quarter, and it is displayed during the TV broadcast and also announced on the radio soon after. Hope this helps. Lindblum (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Results table

Does anyone think that a results table similar to the one at 2008-09_Premier_League#Results would be useful and informative? The problem is that I think we'll have to create our own style, as the football one doesn't quite seem customisable enough to cover AFL. Ideally, I'd love to see it look something like the following. It will be a lot of work to create, even more if we try to create something "universal" like {{Fb r}} rather than just a once-off table. To me the main benefits are that you can see instantly who you have left to play, home and away, and with our uneven draw, it makes it easier to see who gets to play bottom teams twice, or just once.

	Away Team
Home Team	Adelaide	Brisbane Lions	Carlton	Collingwood	Essendon	Fremantle	Geelong	Gold Coast	Hawthorn	Melbourne	North Melbourne	Port Adelaide	Richmond	St Kilda	Sydney	West Coast	Western Bulldogs	Bye	Bye
Adelaide		Rd 10			Rd 17	Rd 3	Rd 21	Rd 8	105-85	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Rd 2	Rd 16
Brisbane Lions	Rd 20		Example	Example	Example	92-94	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Carlton	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Collingwood	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Melbourne	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	84-84	Example	Example	Rd 5	Rd 15
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example

So is it worth spending the time to create this sort of table?The-Pope (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think it is worth spending time on creating and maintaining a table like or similar to the above. It is an improvement on the current results table, as this table shows for each club the points scored for and against each team, each team they played or have yet to play, and where they played the team. The only detail that is missing from the above table is in which round each team played another team, but not everything can be covered before the table become too large.

I am very happy to help in this project. Lindblum (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You haven't got much of a response here mate, so I thought I'd say that I think it would be useful to the article and I would very much appreciate it if someone went to all the effort of creating it, it probably isn't something that I would be interested in doing. Sorry, Jenks24 (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm weighing into the debate a little late, but I'm not a fan of this table format. For me, the results table that we already have, as displayed in chronological form is much more informative and intuitive than the head-to-head table format, particularly now that we have identified the opponent in the chronological table. This format is much too unwieldy for a league this size, and works better for smaller rounds-robin (no more than five or six teams) Aspirex (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Round 4

Hey Guys, I just wondering about Round 4 as it claims to be the only round of THIS season where Etihad Stadium doesn't host an AFL match. I just thinking if it was the ONLY round where Docklands haven't hosted a match since it opened in Round 1, 2000? Many Thanks, McAusten 02:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Could be, but I think you would need a good source to tell us that. I'd be wondering about times when other sports were played there, like rugby, soccer and cricket. And pop concerts. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi HiLo48, In response to your answer, I was generally after the AFL hosting matches at Etihad. Basically seeing if there are any rounds (excluding finals) with NO matches at Etihad ever since the 2000 season. McAusten 03:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think what HiLo is saying is that it may have occurred before if there was an event, such as "rugby, soccer and cricket. And pop concerts" at the Phone Dome, during the AFL season, then this might have happened before. HiLo's first point however, is the important one; please do not add this to the article unless you can find a reliable source which verifies it. Jenks24 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look at Docklands Stadium#Attendance records, where a number of other sports are listed. Some of these clearly occurred during the AFL season and would almost certainly have led to AFL matches being scheduled to be played elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Just looked back at other AFL season results and found that Round 14, 2008 was the last time that there was NO AFL matches at Docklands. I don't see what rubgy, soccer, cricket and concerts got to do with the AFL. Many Thanks, McAusten 04:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If the ground is set up for a Soccer, Union or League match, or has a stage in the middle, it's unlikely to host an Aussie Rules game within a couple a of days either side. Just trying to apply a bit of logic here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The only other one was Round 8, 2001.

What's your source for that piece of information? If it's true, and we can reference a reliable source for it, it can be added to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Round 8, 2001 was the first time Docklands didn't host a match; the second time was Round 14, 2008. This will be only the third time Docklands will not host a match. This is according to http://stats.rleague.com/afl/afl_index.html - you can check all matches at Docklands here: http://stats.rleague.com/afl/venues/docklands_gm.html and for Round 8, 2001: http://stats.rleague.com/afl/seas/2001.html#8 and Round 14, 2008: http://stats.rleague.com/afl/seas/2008.html#14 Merlin Wiese (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's impressive. Thanks! HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

3 draws in the first 4 rounds

Hey Guys, Me again; Is it the first time in V/AFL history that they has been 3 draws in the first 4 rounds?, McAusten 00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Just looking through the records (might be good to keep this in mind if we have another):

• Three draws in the first two rounds of 1911. Round 2 of that season was the first to have two draws in the same round (also Round 6, 1944; Round 7, 1977)
• Three draws in the first four rounds of 1914.
• Four draws in the first five rounds of 1921.
• 1914, 1944 and 1977 had four draws for the season. 1921 had five draws. This is the first season since 2003 to have three or more draws.

Good luck, IgnorantArmies 09:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I did some looking on this website and found these seasons with 3 or more draws:

5 draws - 1921 (Rd 1, Rd 4, Rd 5 [2 draws] & Rd 17)

4 draws - 1914 (Rd 1 [2 draws], Rd 4 & Rd 12); 1935 (Rd 2, Rd 7, Rd 11, Rd 16); 1944 (Rd 6 [2 draws]; Rd 9 & Rd 15)

3 draws - 1909 (Rd 1, Rd 16 & Rd 18); 1911 (Rd 1, Rd 2 [2 draws]); 1952 (Rd 11, Rd 12 & Rd 14); 1961 (Rd 8, Rd 12 & Rd 18); 1977 (Rd 5, Rd 7 [2 draws]); 1980 (Rd 3, Rd 8, Rd 22); 1995 (Rd 4, Rd 12 & Rd 15); 1996 (Rd 4, Rd 6 & Rd 10); 2003 (Rd 3, Rd 11, & Rd 20); 2007 (Rd 10, Rd 18 & Rd 20)

This is also the 7th season to have 3 draws during any 4 round period. Lindblum (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Gamenotes - notability

I saw the brief discussion above about making sure all stats and comments in the game notes are verifiable, which I generally agree with. I want discuss notability. In particular, there are a lot of comments about winning or losing streaks under specific circumstances (e.g. round one games over a few years), which when you look at it more closely don't add up to more than a three-game streak - which adds a lot of needless information to the article.

I drafted the following as a starting point, which reflects what I would personally like to see. We can argue about any or every point, or whether this is even worth codifying. These are general guidelines rather than hard-and-fast rules, so there would be flexibility in application.

Highest or lowest

Any records such as: highest score, lowest score, greatest winning margin, greatest losing margin, highest score in a quarter/half, highest score by an individual player, highest crowd, lowest crowd, should be noted for:

• Best or amongst the top ten in league history
• Best in club history
• Best in venue history
• Best in club history at a venue
• Best in club history against another club

However, this should only be applied as deemed sensible; e.g. any 'highest score' below 150 points is not high enough to be notable. I'd propose the following criteria:

• Highest score - 150 or above
• Lowest score - 40 or below
• Greatest winning margin - 80 or above for club vs club; 100 or above for others
• Highest score in a quarter/half - 60 or above for quarter; 100 or above for half
• Highest score by a player - at least 9 goals
• Highest crowd - at least 90% of capacity
• Lowest crowd - less than 30% of capacity

Highest or lowest for the season

The highest score, lowest score, etc. in each season should be acknowledged. This should only be done once in the year - i.e. when the season is done, the article should not be full of "this is the highest score so far this season" comments.

Similarly, the eventual winners of Goal of the Year and Mark of the Year should be noted in the games in which they occurred.

"Highest or lowest since..."

Any records based on a highest score, lowest score, winning margin, etc., since a certain previous date, needs to have a minimum duration for it to be notable. I suggest:

• League-wide - 3 years
• Individual club - 5 years
• Individual venue - 10 years for the major venues only (the ones which see at least 20 games per year); never notable for venues such as Aurora Stadium, Manuka Oval, etc.
• Individual state - 5 years for Victoria, SA, WA; 10 years for Queensland, NSW (to be revised to 5yrs when the new clubs have existed for this long); not notable for Tasmania, ACT, NT.
• Individual club against another club - at least 20 games.
• Specific type of game (e.g. finals, Grand Finals) - at least 20 games, or 5 years (whichever is longer).
• Individual club at a certain venue or in a certain state - at least 20 games.
• Individual club against a certain club, and at a certain venue or in a certain state - not notable unless it is the highest or lowest ever.

Streaks

When reporting a winning or losing (or winless or unbeaten) streak, there is a tendency to include an update every time the streak is extended by one. This clogs up the system with unnecessary comments. As such, I firstly suggest the following for reporting streaks:

• A record-breaking streak is commented upon when it breaks the record (not when it equals it). Within this comment, the final length of the streak should be mentioned when the information is available. (e.g. "Jim Stynes played his 203rd consecutive game, breaking Jack Titus' record; the streak would ultimately be broken at 244 games")
• A notable, but non-record-breaking streak is only commented upon when it is broken.
• Winning or losing streaks under specific conditions (e.g. consecutive losses at the MCG) must be specified in terms of both time and number of games. It is very misleading to say, for example, "West Coast hasn't won at Launceston since 2006" if they've only played three matches there in that time.

The following streaks are notable for consecutive wins or losses:

• Any overall winning or losing streak - 10 games or longer.
• Any winning or losing streak against a specific opponent - 10 games or longer.
• Any winning or losing streak at a specific venue or in a specific state - 10 games or longer.
• Any winning or losing streak against a specific opponent and at a specific venue or in a specific state - 10 games or longer.
• Any winning or losing streak in a specific, high-profile game (e.g. Western Derby, Round 1, Anzac Day, or any other game attracting a special trophy) - 5 games or longer.
• "Near-streaks", e.g. "Hawthorn has won five out of its last six games against Collingwood" - generally not notable, but to be determined on a case-by-case basis; should be assumed to require at least 90% of games over longer than 15 games to be considered.

Firsts

Generally speaking, any 'first' which can also be described as a streak (e.g. first win by a coach, first win by a club at a certain venue) should follow the rules of a streak; a coach getting his first win in his tenth game is notable, but in his second game it is not. The sorts of firsts which are worthy of comment are:

• First game by a new club
• First game at a new venue
• First interpretation of a new rule
• First match on Good Friday (if/when this occurs)

Commentary of games

The results of every game are already in the table, so unless there is a specific reason to re-state it (because a record is set or a streak is extended), the game commentary should avoid doing so. The following things might normally be considered notable enough to mention:

• An after-the-siren shot for goal
• A massive come-from-behind victory (generally assumed to mean greater than 40 points, or at least four goals in time-on of the final quarter)
• An incident resulting in a suspension of at least six weeks.
• A major melee.
• Ten goals or more by a player.
• 45 disposals or more by a player.
• Any other controversy which is obviously widely-enough reported for comment (e.g. the 19-men-on-the-field controversy which led to the change of interchange rule)
• Any special once-off theme (e.g. the Adelaide vs Hawthorn match in Round 1 2011 to commemorate Adelaide's inaugural game). In general, a rematch of the previous year's Grand Finalists, or a first match by a player against his old club, is not a special theme in its own right.
• The mere occurrence of a draw is not worthy of comment, although there could be ancillary information (such as the high frequency of draws recently) which is notable.

Commentary of future games

The following is worth mentioning in the game notes before the round is played:

• Games with a once-off theme
• Games with a predictable 'first', e.g. first game at a new stadium, etc.
• Unusual fixture occurrences which have not happened for more than 10 years

The section should not be used to recap an existing active winning/losing streak (e.g. "Fremantle will be trying to win its sixth game in a row against Adelaide...").

Individual milestones

• Games played or coached: 200th, 300th, 400th, etc.; breaking the club record; or passing any member of the league top five. Where several players reach such a milestone in one week, it is better to combine all of them into a single bullet point, without bothering to re-state the result of the games.
• Goals kicked: 500th, 600th, 700th etc.; breaking the club record; 100 goals in a season; or passing any member of the league top ten. Again, where several players reach the milestone in a week, combine them all into a single bullet point.
• Mid-season retirement (or sacking), or a pre-announced end-of-season retirement with a farewell game in the final for player with more than 200 games experience or a coach: again, combine into a single bullet point.
• 100th, 200th, etc. game for an individual club should normally not be considered notable.
• Consecutive games played - at least 150, or breaking the club record (see "Streaks" for guidelines on when to comment)
• Consecutive games with at least one goal - at least 70, or breaking the club record (see "Streaks" for guidelines on when to comment)

Season progress

It is worthwhile commenting on:

• When a team clinches the minor premiership or wooden spoon - making mention of the last time they won it; or, how many times they've won it in the last x years.
• When a team clinches a finals spot - if several teams clinch a finals spot in one week, list them in a separate bullet point without discussing the match results. If they extend a streak of finals berths to longer than five years or break a finals drought of more than five years, comment on this.
• A team having mathematically lost any chance of making the finals is generally not notable unless it breaks a long streak (> 8 years) of finals appearances.
• "Best start to a season" or "worst start to a season" should generally only be described once for the year, similar to streaks. It takes up unnecessary space to comment after every round "This is their worst start since 1972" every time they lose another game.
• "First time at the top/bottom of the ladder since..." - notable only after round 5, and only if the time is longer than 10 years.

Aspirex (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, very comprehensive. Read through it all and can't find anything I disagree with. Thanks for your effort, Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, overwhelmingly comprehensive. The only problem I see is in their overwhelmingness. I won't remember the detail above, and even if we find somewhere practical to publicly record those guidelines it will just be too big a task for most editors to find the detail they need every time. I cannot criticise the effort that's gone onto creating those guidelines, but I really don't think they will be able to be practically applied. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think with this here, if we are unsure if something you should be in the article, we simply have a quick read of the appropriate section on the talk page and then either keep it in the article or remove with an edit summary such as "removed, non-notable per guideline on talk page". Jenks24 (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And here is an example. I couldn't remember off the top of my head whether this was notable per Aspirex's guidelines, but I simply looked it up and found it wasn't. It took about 20 seconds at the absolute max. Jenks24 (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing game

Where is the Lion vs Roos game in round 9? HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Accidentally (I assume) deleted by McAusten in this post. Not sure what happened there, I'll restore it. IgnorantArmies 08:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC

Hey Guys, can this post pleased be DELETED, it's unnecessary to discuss about it and people make mistakes all of the time so GET OVER IT! McAusten (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It would seem as if you are the one who needs to "GET OVER IT!" Every acknowledges that mistakes do happen, and it was fixed, so there shouldn't be any problem there. Ignorant Armies^? 01:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ladder Progression - Round 1

Round 1 - Melbourne drew with Sydney - as a result, both teams are equal on points, percentage and for/against. Since alphabetical order is not a tie-breaker, both teams are in equal 8th place and should be both 'in the top 8' in the ladder progression. I keep changing this, McAusten keeps changing it back.

Can we get a ruling?? Bevstarrunner (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My recollection of the time was that the AFL website, the Herald Sun and The Age all used alphabetical order as the tie-breaker and had Melbourne effectively 8th and Sydney 9th (but then I would say that as a Dees supporter!). Seriously though, it seems a pretty silly thing to be edit-warring over, surely you both have better things to do with your time? But if you do still want a definitive "ruling", it would probably be better to get an opinion from someone who wouldn't be seen as potentially biased like me. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, obviously a trivial issue for the end of Round 1, but I do wonder if the AFL has any ruling for two teams exactly tied in equal 8th spot at the end of the final home and away game? HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The tie-breakers are Points, then percentage, then points scored (I think) - I think after this they draw lots or flip a coin.

The whole point of the ladder progression is to show who would have made finals had the competition ended after that particular round. Since they can not be separated, either both or neither should be listed as being in the 'top 8', but not only one. 110.174.144.17 (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

But it's a meaningless, arbitrary hypothetical. It doesn't matter at all. Counts for absolutely nothing, ever, anywhere. It's having such a table that's the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Round 10

Hey Guys, has there even been a point in VFL/AFL history that all of the AWAY teams won? I since to notice as a trivia for this round that Collingwood was the only HOME team to win this round. Should that be a good point to mention? McAusten (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's happened 16 times, R1 1980, R20 1978 & R10 1947 all had 6 games. With 9 four game rounds and 4 two game rounds.

Yeah, thanks mate but I'm more keen to see it there is a round where NO HOME TEAMS (ALL AWAY) have won! Thanks for the info. Whenever you post anything on talk pages, PLEASE have you signature and timestamp at the end. You can inserted it by clicking the signature (pencil) icon which is the fifth one on top. Many Thanks, McAusten (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

16 instances as mentioned, the 1980 one most recent. 7 away teams winnings is equal most, with two other rounds. And I know how to sign, I choose not to.

I don't know if there has been a round where every away team has won and, to be honest, I can't be bothered checking. Moving on to the crux of your question, I do think it would have been a good point to mention if all the away teams had won, but seeing as (unfortunately) the Pies did win, I don't think it's notable enough to add. Other opinions are of course welcomed and they may differ from mine. On a slightly related note, we should not be trying to add "trivia" to the article (see WP:NOTTRIVIA), but instead add things that are actually notable. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that in Melbourne the concept of home teams and away teams has become totally arbitrary due to all the teams sharing only two grounds for games and training elsewhere, it's a very pointless area of trivia. Don't waste time on such a meaningless statistic. HiLo48 (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

McAusten's instructions to other editors

I've tried to word that section title as diplomatically as possible. McAusten is in the habit of using what might be descried as somewhat bossy language in Edit summaries and in hidden comments in the article itself.

I and others have asked him to ease up on the wording of the Edit summaries on more than one occasion, with little success. But I see those as transient things that just portray him in a less than ideal light, so more of a problem for him than for the rest of us.

However, his hidden comments, embedded in the article itself, are another matter altogether. Those currently in the article (over which we've just had a minor edit skirmish) are "Hey Guys, Please keep this up-to-date!!" and "Seriously Guys, keep it updated!!!". He has just restored these after I removed them, asking him at the time to raise the matter on the Talk page. He didn't, choosing instead to "growl" at me on my Talk page. (I scored 12 exclamation marks!). So, I've chosen to raise this here myself.

I've never seen anything like those hidden comments in another article in Wikipedia. I find them abrasive, aggressive, unpleasant, and just plain inappropriate. I doubt if they will achieve his goal of regular updates to the parts of the article he is most concerned about. They are more likely to discourage other editors from improving the article.

Can we please try to reach some consensus about whether this stuff belongs? HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't belong. Talk page comments should be there to help, not to instruct or berate. See WP:HIDDEN. The whole issue is a furphy - we should not be doing WP:OR by adding up the total ourselves - we should be using a reliable source that does it for us - such as this one. The-Pope (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey HiLo, I do apologize if I'm being bossy or anything. In my perspective, if we going to have a "2011 AFL season" article on Wikipedia, I suggested that either Wikipedians like you and me help each other to keep the article correct and up-to-date or to delete the article. While I'm here, I might suggest with each club's season overviews. I much appreciate that with the rounds of the season to be in a simple list (i.e. Collingwood) rather that having every match in Template:AFLGameDetailed form (i.e. Adelaide) as this is more time-consuming. It is possible that we could have ALL of the teams' seasons overviews to have all rounds in a simple list rather that using the AFLGameDetailed Template for every single round? I basically going to be overseas soon and mainly unable to update Wikipedia for a couple of weeks, let alone find out the AFL scores. I don't know if you tried to update an AFL Wikipedia article while in somewhere like London for example but I suspect that I would be really difficult to do due to major time differences. So I hoping when I get back to Australia, it should be well and truly up-to-date and that I don't have to update 2 weeks worth of information. Many thanks, McAusten (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We all want the same outcome - accurate, complete, up to date, verifiable articles. If the articles fell really out of date, or you need a hand, then by all means ask for help either here, on WT:AFL or on our talk pages. We have no problem with that. The constant shouting and borderline abusive edit summaries are just excessive and very annoying. Enjoy your holiday - and keeping up to date with the footy isn't too hard - internet cafes or wifi hotspots are very widespread, and if you are in Asia, you might even be able to view the Australia Network, that definitely would have footy on the news, and may even show a game or two. The AFL international page might help too. The-Pope (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of time or web access could be a problem in updating while travelling, but I cannot see that time zones would be an issue. You can still access all the media websites and the AFL site when OS. If it's a few hours later than you usually manage, the world won't end. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Carrara Stadium

User IgnorantArmies wants to change "Metricon Stadium, known non-commercially and long term as Carrara Stadium" to "Metricon Stadium, otherwise known as Carrara Stadium", justifying it in an Edit summary saying "seems to be marginally WP:CRYSTAL - we can't predict the long term name of Carrara". To me, that's just silly. Metricon IS the commercial name. Carrara is the non-commercial name, has already been the long term name for many years, and remains the non-commercial name for the forseeable future. This seems to be an attempt to put the temporary commercial name on an equal (or even higher?) footing than the long term name. It's word play, pushing a commercial name. That's not Wikipedia's role. HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Might be a bit picky but I though Carrara is now known as Gold Coast Stadium. Obviously its now Metricon Stadium but if you were to refer to it by its non-commercial name I think it should be Gold Coast Stadium. The last time AFL matches were played there in 2009 the stadium was officially known as Gold Coast Stadium. Also Austadiums.com, which is a main reference source for stadiums on wikipedia, still refers to said stadium as "Gold Coast Stadium (officially Metricon Stadium)". In regards to how to refer to the stadium, I can understand that saying "formerly" or "otherwise known as" may place the original/non-commerical name in a lesser manner. However I also think that "known non-commercially and long term as" is quite a mouthful and unnecessary. In this instance I'd be happy just to say "known non-commercially as" or "also known as". Merlin Wiese (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that information re the "Gold Coast Stadium" name. That needs to get into the article. One of my concerns is that we need to explain that Metricon is definitely only a temporary commercial name, lasting only as long as the connection with that sponsor lasts. The one thing that is certain is that the Metricon name will change at some time. HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the AFL used Gold Coast Stadium in fixturing before the whole Metricon deal was sorted out, at least on their website. We really need to have a note on stadium names somewhere - whether it be on the AFL page or on this page. On one hand, commercial names change so often it might make sense to just use one name (ie. the original). On the other hand, it could be argued that Metricon and similarly sponsored names are more often used, at least in reliable sources, per WP:COMMON. I don't really think its necessary to use Carrara in this instance, as the rest of the article uses Metricon, and Metricon is a redirect to Carrara anyway. IgnorantArmies^?! 12:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Attendance

Hey Guys, just with the attendance, why would it be considered original research if I just manually add the total up myself? Beside, it just mathematics so there's no point to wait until a "reliable" source (I put reliable in quotes because I believe that that it can be possible that the source can be inaccurate and mess-up the AFL statistics) to show the attendance for this season. So why brother to wait rather than keeping the 2011 AFL season Wikipedia article well and truly up-to-date with helpful mathematical skills? Many Thanks, McAusten (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, please stop removing references without noting that you have done so in the edit summary and marking the edit as "minor". For the reason why it's OR, see WP:SYNTH. Instead of adding it up yourself, which is synthesising sources, wait for a reliable source to add up the attendances. I mean no disrespect, but a reliable source is far less likely to make a mathematical error than you are. Jenks24 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For the total, if you just add each new game to the old total then propogation of errors is the biggest issue - ie make a small mistake today (or the AFL might revise an official attendance), then the whole total will be out from then on. Relying on another site that works from a automated calculation avoids this problem. And if I see another !!!!!!! in an edit summary I will call for a temp block on you for repeated poor wikiquette. If you were apealling to us to help out days after the event, then maybe, as a once off we'd accept it, but the game had barely stated on WA TV when you were appealing us to keep it up to date!!!!!!!!!!![sic] Stop it. The-Pope (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

'the AFL might revise an official attendance' Which definitely happens. In addition, the match reports at afl.com.au appear to be "hand written" - attendance typos can and have occurred in these reports, which are never corrected.

Yes, I vote for a ban on aggressive Edit summaries, especially if they contain exclamation marks. They add nothing to Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this link would be suitable for reliable updating of the attendances part [3], i know when i tried to add it up manually i came up with different figures each time...Trex21 (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just been going over attendance figures and I believe there are a few mistakes with the total figures. I normally use stats.rleague.com/afl/ as a guide, however their total attendance differs from another similar site in www.footywire.com/afl/. At the end of round 15 the totals are 4,246,255 (stats.rleague or AFL Tables)[4] to 4,246,233 (footywire)[5]. After reviewing both totals against the official attendance from the AFL match reports I believe that both websites are incorrect, each having reported the wrong attendance total for one match. Footywire lists the round 1 West Coast vs. North Melbourne crowd of 35,855[6] compared to the AFL and AFL Tables' 35,878[7][8]. In round 3, AFL Tables lists the Richmond vs. Hawthorn attendance as 46,368[9] compared to the AFL and Footywire's 46,369[10][11]. Going off these inaccuracies, the true total at the end of round 15 should be 4,246,256, or +1 for AFL Tables or +23 for Footywire. I should point out that it could be possible that afl.com is wrong and in their match reports the author/editor has simply listed an incorrect attendance figure. Does anyone know if the AFL keeps a list of its attendance so we can compare figures, or even just another source to compare the totals? I'm not going to change the total for the moment, though I am more inclined to use AFL Table's figures as a guide rather than Footywire. Merlin Wiese (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am AFL Tables, so to speak :). My figures synch with the good folk at Footystats Diary They in turn have a line to the AFL, ergo their figures are as close to the horse's mouth as you'll likely get. Apparently the figures undergo an auditing process and can and do subsequently change e.g. the Rich. v Haw. Rd 3 game only recently underwent that single figure adjustment. So whichever source you use, bear in mind past attendances can change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.117.139 (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

File:AFL Premiership Logo 2011.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:AFL Premiership Logo 2011.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Collingwood-Carlton rival

Hey, I just thinking that I heard on the radio that Collingwood has defeated Carlton five consecutive times for the first time in 60 years (since 1951). Is that correct? McAusten (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

For questions like this, the stats.rleague.com tables are your best source of info. For Carlton, you'd go to this link http://stats.rleague.com/afl/teams/carlton_idx.html and click on "All Games - by Opponent", then just search through the table. In this specific case, the last time was between 1953-1955.Aspirex (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Consecutive 100+ point victories

Hey Guys, I just thinking that about Geelong, if they are the first team to win two matches over 100 points in a row since St Kilda in 2004? McAusten (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can figure out, yes, but the only sources I can find are fan forums, which probably aren't completely reliable as a source. I've added it to the article. Geelong are probably odds-on to make it three-in-a-row next week against Adelaide, which would equal the competition's record, also set by Geelong in 1989. IgnorantArmies^?! 04:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Collingwood vs. Geelong war

Hey, me again, do you recon that Collingwood and Geelong are fighting each other in order to get the minor premiership, especially this week were both teams have victories well and truly over 100 points against the two bottom teams (Gold Coast and Port Adelaide)? McAusten (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote the coaches, like every team, they want to win every game, by as much as possible. But, as per the opening line of WP:TALK, The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Join bigfooty or similar if you want to have a general chat about the game. The-Pope (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A question

OK, why it is that this discuss page is at a low importance?— Preceding unsigned comment added by McAusten (talk • contribs)

Firstly, this isn't a bar, schoolyard or the outer. Keep it civil. The importance is really unimportant, but it's used by the WP:Wikipedia 1.0 team as part of an algorithm to determine which articles should go on DVDs etc. Other than that it shows up on some bot runs and reports, but not much else. It doesn't mean it should be edited less, it doesn't mean that it is more likely to be deleted, it doesn't mean that it can't reach featured status - see Talk:Hamersley, Western Australia for a low importance article that made it to the main page! Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment#Importance_scale describes what each level means - and a single season article is almost always at low. Being the current season, I'm willing to bump it to mid for WP:AFL, but it really isn't that big an issue. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"their" vs. "its"

Hey guys, I just thinking about the grammar in this article and I tend to believe that when we're referring to teams that it is better to use the word "their" rather that "its". e.g. "Collingwood have their biggest ever win in AFL history." instead for "Collingwood have its biggest ever win in AFL history." I mean that you don't call people "it" over "he" or "she". So want do you guys recon? McAusten (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It really comes down to whether football clubs are perceived as a singular or plural entity. For example, most football club articles use the singular form eg. "the Hawthorn Football Club is" rather than "the Hawthorn Football Club are"; "the Camberwell Football Club was" rather than "the Camberwell Football Club were". There are, however, exceptions to this where the club name is a plural: "the West Coast Eagles is" is nonsensical. I think the current terminology is probably the more correct, though an argument could be made for both sides. IgnorantArmies^?! 13:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think its is chiefly US English, whilst their is favoured in Commonwealth English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.52.75 (talk • contribs)

To me, as an Australian educated here in the 1950s and 1960s, the ONLY correct usage is to treat teams as singular items, so, it's "its" rather than "their". It's not a US thing. And it's quite valid to say "The West Coast Eagles is a team...." If it bothers you, just leave out the "Eagles". It's only a recent convention to add the animal or whatever all the time. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to me to be a problem with the Western Bulldogs. "The Western Bulldogs is..." seems a bit unnatural to me, but it might just be me. They should've just left it at Footscray! - IgnorantArmies^?! 12:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. The marketers at North Melbourne tried to deny their roots for a while, then came to their senses. I hope Footscray does too. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, with the above statement, I would say it as "The Western Bulldogs are..." rather than "The Western Bulldogs is...", same for West Coast Eagles. However I think something like "West Coast is a team" sounds perfectly normal to me. It really pretends on what wording and context you are using. McAusten (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In British English and traditionally in Australian English as well it is considered more correct to use "their" etc for an entity with multiple members (such as football teams and music bands etc). Therefore it would be considered more correct to write that "St Kilda have won THEIR last six games" than "... ITS last six games." However, if referring to the suburb of St Kilda it would always be correct to use "IT" etc. American English doesn't usually use "their" in these kinds of instances. I would strongly encourage "their" when it's appropriate and have edited Australian and British English articles accordingly. Afterwriting (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What's interesting here is that you and I have made effectively opposite claims about traditional usage in Australian English. I don't think I'm going crazy yet, and I can distinctly remember being taught that a team is always singular, long before American TV overturned our language. Just curious. I'm in my 60s. You? HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey IgonorantArmies and HiLo48, It is possible that you can remove the small text or make it biggest as I'm unable to read what your opinions are. McAusten (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You can make all the text bigger by holding down the Ctrl key and pressing + (the = key) as many times as you need. HiLo48 (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with HiLo48 here. I'm 10+ years younger than him and I was taught the same thing. I currently work at a local primary school and we have discussions about English all the time in the staff room. Kids are still being taught the same thing, albeit in a different way, as I was taught in the '60s and '70s. In Australian English, "their" traditionally refers to a group of people, not an entity. If the focus is an entity comprising a group of people, "is" is used. If the focus is the group of people, "are" is used:

• The West Coast Eagles is playing in Botswana this Thursday.
• The West Coast Eagles team members are flying to Botswana this Wednesday.

Even though "Eagles" is plural, "The West Coast Eagles" is the name of a singular entity so "is", not "are" is used. Singular = "is", Plural = "are". The same rules apply to "has" and "have":

• St Kilda has won its last six games.
• St Kilda team members have been extremely lucky that their opponents have been so hopeless.

To the original poster, "Collingwood has its biggest ever win in AFL history" is correct because the team (a singular entity) is the focus, not the group of people in the singular entity. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So Aussie, you reckon it should be put as "Collingwood has its biggest win in AFL history." rather than "Collingwood have their biggest win in AFL history." or "Collingwood have its biggest win in AFL history."? McAusten (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're talking about the team, it's "has its". If we were talking about the people it would be "have their". --AussieLegend (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Birds fly; a flock flies. I am strongly in favour of the use of the singular form 'its' to describe clubs; and to take it a step further, we should be deliberately phrasing sentences in a way that avoids the ambiguity. For me, it is correct to say "In Round 21, Hawthorn had its greatest ever win against Port Adelaide", and incorrect to use 'their'. For the case of "In Round 9, the Western Bulldogs suffered its/their greatest ever loss against the West Coast Eagles", I personally think we are better off rephrasing this sentence as "In Round 9, the Western Bulldogs suffered the greatest ever loss in the club's history against the West Coast Eagles"; it's a bit more cumbersome, but grammatically it is unambiguous and therefore preferable. Aspirex (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that we have a pretty strong consensus (not necessarily unanimity) that teams are singular. Can we run with this? HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow this, particularly if, as Aspirex suggested above, we specifically word sentences to avoid any awkward sounding phrases. IgnorantArmies^?! 08:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a problem. McAusten is unilaterally changing "its" to "their" in the article, despite the seeming consensus above. He participated above, but hasn't posted here for a while. I've asked him to pay some more attention to what others think here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Failing to keep everything up-to-date

Hey Guys, I seem to notice that we I'm absent, NOT all of the stats, season summaries for teams, etc. are staying up-to-date. Take for example Richmond, their season summary has not been update even since I been overseas in Europe. I mean that I feel stressful that I'm the only one updating Collingwood's season summary and nobody else. Also with season summaries, I want to discuss with all of you about how if we should have ALL of the season summaries in either a list or Template:AFLGameDetailed form (I might already dicuss this here). Another problem is that Wikipedians has been updating articles in various formats in which it really annoys me when I update stats myself. e.g. With the Win/Loss table, I seem to notice that some Wikipedians have NOT bold the margin e.g. "Port Adelaide 138" rather than the preferred format "Port Adelaide 138". I notice that one lazy Wikipedian has decide to only update the Win/Loss table for their favorite team (Adelaide) rather that both teams (Adelaide and Brisbane Lions). I mean the whole idea is to keep the article up-to-date, it is? Speaking about updating in various formats, I seem to notice the ladder progression gets messy and untidy all of the time. I mean that we should discuss this problem together on this page and settle down on ONE simple format that all of us Wikipedians can follow. One Final thing I want to talk about in this is NOT changing/removing that already occurred in the past, I mainly notice that with the Win/Loss table were vandals keeping removing the bold text with home teams and sometimes with the Ladder were people make up they own stats. Its drives me insane and people must start looking at the Ladder on the offical website here in order to update the Ladder on Wikipedia. I hope that you fellow Wikipedians take me seriously on this issue as I am finding it stressful enough updating many stats myself. Thank you for your attention. McAusten (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess the reality is that we're all volunteers, using our own time to do this, and nobody else is quite as keen as you on keeping AFL information completely up to date. It good that you're back! We can't really push editors do more than they currently do. One perspective is that the demands of the page in its current form may be too high. Maybe we need to reduce the demands of the page. It doesn't have to be a news page. As for following particular conventions, your post seems a good start for discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Most 100+ point margin-matches

Hi there, I just thinking that they have been 10 matches so far this season where the margin has been over 100 points (Gold Coast vs. Carlton, Essendon vs. Gold Coast, West Coast vs. Western Bulldogs, Richmond vs. Carlton, Collingwood vs. North Melbourne, St Kilda vs. Adelaide, Geelong vs. Melbourne, Geelong vs. Gold Coast followed by Port Adelaide vs. Collingwood in the same week and Hawthorn vs. Port Adelaide) Is that a record for most 100+ point victories in a single season? I wouldn't be surprised! McAusten (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

1991 also had 10, which is the record. afl.allthestats.com has a season margin spread page. The-Pope (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

McAusten and "their" vs. "its"

McAusten is choosing to ignore everything I and others have written here and on his Talk page. Where do we go from here? I don't want to confront the three revert rule. My view is that by ignoring proper Discussion he is vandalising the article, but I'm not wanting an Edit war. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Having looked through McAusten's talk page history, it is clear that we have all had the same experience: any attempts to open dialogue being ignored and immediately removed without reply (or, occasionally, with an offensive edit summary). I reported McAusten to the edit warring board in September 2010 over a disagreement with the AFL finals series article (link to diff). I don't remember the exact result, but I think it was a short ban (one or three days, something like that). Has anyone else has reported McAusten for other disagreements in the past? I can't see any other way to get traction. Aspirex (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And again. Not really sure there's much we can do – his recent block hasn't really changed much. I'd just advise McAusten to tread carefully if he wants to keep editing here. One thing that really bugs me is his tagging every thing as minor edits – not sure if he's got his preferences stuck on that or what, but quite a few edits definitely aren't WP:MINOR. IgnorantArmies^?! 13:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never reported anyone for anything. I've been reported several times myself for quite frivolous matters that went nowhere. I don't want to appear to be reporting frivolous matters myself. I much prefer negotiation locally. But this is ridiculous. We can't discuss it with him because he won't discuss anything. It's quite strange behaviour. As I said in my now deleted comment to him, I would dearly love to understand his behaviour. So, because I've never reported anyone, I have no idea how to do it. Anyone? HiLo48 (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The article history now shows McAusten as having made an edit here this afternoon, but nothing seems to have changed. What's going on? I'm busy, and don't really have the time to follow up this silly behaviour right now. Can anyone else do it? HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

He did make an edit to this talk page this arvo. He changed a "*" to a ":" in this thread. Nothing that really needs to be followed up on, but a bit strange that he made that minor edit yet didn't actually comment on this thread which is about his behaviour. For what it's worth, I've also given up trying to communicate with him and I agree with IA that his constantly marking edits as minor is irritating, especially when he's making obviously controversial edits. Jenks24 (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The adult thing to do would be to just ignore it. It's not factual dispute, and it cannot be argued that it introduces any confusion, and thirdly it's not some esoteric usage e.g. Adelaide's team page uses it in the majority, probably some of the other teams' pages do to.

Yes, possibly. My personal problem is that my high school English teachers would have failed me for using "their" for a team. I'm brainwashed. I know there can be different usages elsewhere, but I truly think that in Australia such usages are just sloppy. But that's just me. I will never be able to ignore what will always look wrong to me. The important difference is that I'm willing to talk about it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue of McAusten's behaviour has been resolved by him being blocked indefinitely. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

would it be amiss of me to say "Good Riddance"? Trex21 (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Round descriptors in headings

Just a thought: would it be better if we gave each round just its most simple heading? e.g. Round 5 instead of Round 5 (Easter and Anzac Day). It makes it much easier for a few years time; i.e. if we want to include a link to 2011 AFL season#Round 5, we won't have to go back and check whether or not it has a bracketed comment hanging off the end of it. Then we can describe the theme of the round in the AFLGameHeader template. Aspirex (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. It would simplify things. There have been some editors here with too much of a love affair with fancy names and the AFL's (now fading) habit of giving rounds "special" names. At least one of those editors is no longer an editor. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Also agree and thank God that the AFL finally appears to be giving up on the whole "every round must have a special theme" idea. Jenks24 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Awards

There are two awards sections and both say pretty much the same thing

Also, under 'controversy' shouldn't Kim Duthie be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• I see the two Kim Duthie controversies as occurring chronologically during the 2011 AFL season, but not being relevant to it. I'd include it in a separate article about her, but not in an article about the season. Aspirex (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Article size

WP:SPLIT would suggest that as an article over 100KB that this article should or could be split into separate sections. The article is quite large, which might reduce readability or make it harder for people with slower computers. 2011 NRL season has done this quite well IMHO by creating 2011 NRL season results, which a lot of larger sports seasons/competitions do, probably for the same reason. Any thoughts on a split? IgnorantArmies 04:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• The main benefit to a split would be that we could have a much more selective list of game-notes and list them in the main season article, like we used to up to 2008 AFL season, and then leave all of the excessive, semi-notable comments to take up space in the results page. Other than that, I have no strong preference either way.

But, the first thing I'd split out is the "Team changes" section; that's a list that doesn't need to be in the main article, and that the average reader would have very little interest in. In fact, I'd argue that the relevant information should be put into the individual club season summary pages only, and that only the retirements of players with more than 300 games experience or some other particular notability be mentioned in the main article. Aspirex (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Requestor asked to make splitOp47 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I was intending to reformat the page in a style similar to 2011 NRL season and 2011 NRL season results, but I really don't have time for a project like that right now. I might consider some time later, but for now I'll remove the notice. Thanks, I♦A 12:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Op47 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2011 AFL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010165520/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/121473/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/121473/default.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/afl-probes-betting-leaks/story-e6frg7mf-1226061498601
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/dean-bailey-sacked-as-melbourne-coach/story-e6frg7mf-1226105585751
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010121320/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119828/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119828/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010165520/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/121473/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/121473/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 97 external links on 2011 AFL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/afl-probes-betting-leaks/story-e6frg7mf-1226061498601
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/dean-bailey-sacked-as-melbourne-coach/story-e6frg7mf-1226105585751
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110327193859/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110027/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110027/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007172704/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110052/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110052/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007172550/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110118/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110118/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110405051452/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110704/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110704/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110404012255/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110698/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110698/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110406122325/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110739/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110739/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110405205559/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110764/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110764/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412121453/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111225/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111225/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412121448/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111220/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111220/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412121501/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111236/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111236/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412121537/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111252/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111252/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110413065347/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111267/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111267/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110419072320/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111802/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111802/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110419093438/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111820/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111820/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121008124437/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111862/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111862/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424114646/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112235/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112235/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425225310/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112282/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112282/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425232614/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112295/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112295/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425211142/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112330/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112330/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427205207/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112359/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112359/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427205237/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112371/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112371/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427205323/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112406/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112406/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501233542/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112739/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112739/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501233557/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112751/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112751/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505060230/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112784/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112784/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504142423/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112790/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112790/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110507220343/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113242/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113242/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512135943/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113399/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113399/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121008192901/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113849/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113849/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518131815/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113898/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113898/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522031517/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114391/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114391/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524143428/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114442/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114442/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525071720/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114466/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114466/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110530172056/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114898/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114898/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531113705/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114964/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114964/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110530034947/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114980/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114980/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110601004259/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115007/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115007/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110601004254/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115004/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115004/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605025222/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115469/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115469/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607034652/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115493/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115493/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607033943/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115504/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115504/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607034702/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115530/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115530/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609034922/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115548/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115548/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608133724/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115556/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115556/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613042326/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116054/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116054/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613042417/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116076/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116076/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613042459/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116101/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116101/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110619051818/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116532/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116532/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110621025652/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116561/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116561/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622115913/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116584/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/116584/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110627044524/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117036/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117036/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110627094401/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117064/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117064/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110627204557/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117079/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117079/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110627204602/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117095/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117095/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703081222/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117606/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117606/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703081318/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117639/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117639/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704210601/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117698/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117698/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711110333/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118142/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118142/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711193558/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118155/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118155/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712031354/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118193/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118193/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718031212/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118686/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118686/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718084843/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118713/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118713/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720115156/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118740/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118740/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010071104/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119265/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119265/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010071141/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119291/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119291/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010071150/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119302/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119302/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010071416/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119753/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119753/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010071537/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119790/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119790/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010121320/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119828/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119828/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010121717/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120334/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120334/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010121725/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120342/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120342/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010121847/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120376/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120376/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010122013/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120399/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120399/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120801084917/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120835/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120835/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010122627/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120888/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120888/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010164820/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120916/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120916/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010164856/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120944/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120944/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010165339/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/121453/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/121453/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010165520/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/121473/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/121473/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010165722/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/121548/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/121548/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010204559/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122009/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122009/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010204623/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122023/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122023/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010204724/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122086/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122086/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010204804/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122097/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122097/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010204901/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122561/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122561/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010204929/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122578/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122578/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011011204/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122641/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122641/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011011453/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/123096/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/123096/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011055723/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/123170/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/123170/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420044932/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/123147/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/123147/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011060634/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/123590/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/123590/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110923155419/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/123638/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/123638/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924071046/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/124014/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/124014/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925072959/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/124055/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/124055/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002021842/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/124477/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/124477/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)