Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Cricketers who played Australian rules football (and vice versa)

Wikipedia doesn't seem to do well with sportsmen who played both football and cricket - and there were a lot of them: see List of Australian rules footballers and cricketers. So we have Max Walker who played 85 VFL games, but that fact doesn't appear in the article. There are people like Walker and Simon O'Donnell, who are far more notable for playing cricket, while others like Craig Bradley are far more notable for football. Some are most notable for neither - Jim Wilkinson (Australian politician) is most notable for being President of the Tasmanian Legislative Council. But it seems to be that we could still improve coverage of these players' minor sports. Can we have an infobox that includes both football and cricket? Should we have two infoboxes in the article (as we have with Keith Miller, which is a GA)? I am posting a link to here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. St Anselm (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Clark (sportsman) and Doug Gott are two more articles with two infoboxes, although some might object that the articles are too short to warrant that. St Anselm (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen an article with the two infoboxes combined into one. I think it used a parameter called module, or something similar. For the life of me, I can't find the article in question, but it looked a lot better than having two individual infoboxes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Walker's article used to go into his footy career more, someone must have trimmed it. I agree that having two infoboxes generally looks poor, I was actually considering removing it from Miller's article when I edited it the other day. In general I've always tried to pick whichever they're more notable for and just use that infobox, but of course there are borderline cases. I think to embed one in another you can use the module parameter of Template:Infobox person, but I've never tried it to confirm. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Just added the combined infobox at Todd Breman. I think the colour of the Aussie rules section may need some tweaking. Hack (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the combined infobox is the best solution. For another sort of example, albeit one combining cricket and association football, see Brian Close. Jellyman (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I worked on the Miller GA, but I like Jellyman's approach. Where a sensible independent person would say that one of the careers was more prominent, it'd make sense to put that infobox first. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Single game award navboxes

Looking through Category:Australian Football League awards navigational boxes I'm seeing quite a few navboxes that are unnecessary at best. I'm planning on TfDing a few, but thought I'd bring it here first to see what others think. Surely Template:Archer-Hird Medal, Template:Ian Stewart Medal, Template:Jason McCartney Medal and Template:Rose-Sutton Medal can go as short-lived medals that most have never heard of, aren't given out any longer and were only awarded for run-of-the-mill games. I'm also a bit unconvinced by the need for navboxes for other individual game medals, e.g. Anzac Day, Dreamtime, intrastate rivalries (Showdown, Derby, etc.). Your thoughts? Jenks24 (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Those three are now at TFD, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 30. Still interested about what people think of the others. Jenks24 (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd delete the others as well (although that will probably surprise nobody, since I've been pushing an unsuccessful barrow to delete the whole article pages for Showdown Medal, Marcus Ashcroft Medal, Glendinning Medal etc. into the main game articles). I believe they are being afforded a level of coverage out of step with the actual notability and wider coverage of the awards. Aspirex (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't see the need for the best on ground articles and templates (obviously apart from the Norm Smith), at the moment, the rivalries seem to be the only BOG awards with pages and the only ones that are met with any opposition when it comes to merging/redirecting. There's no point in TfDing the rivalry templates while the pages still exist. I do vaguely remember a merge was attempted for the rivalry medals and the discussion didn't really go anywhere, is there any worth in AfDing them to try and move the discussion along and try reach a result? As there seems to be a greater move recently to tidy the project and remove unnecessary pages/templates. In terms of the Anzac medal, it does not have a page therefore that one should meet NAVBOX #4 and I'd nominate that one. Flickerd (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Australian rules football stubs

Hey folks. I recently combed through the articles in Category:Stub-Class Australian rules football articles as part of researching whether we're failing to classify articles into appropriate stub categories in the mainspace even though they've already been identified as stubs by WikiProjects. Turns out we are. There are around 4,500 articles in that category (out of a little over 13,000) which aren't tagged with any stub template despite being under 1,500 characters (including infobox source code, etc, so these are unambiguous stubs). Is there any objections to me running a bot through and placing them within the Category:Australian rules biography stubs category tree using appropriate stub templates? I can automate this based off of the birth categories they're already in. Any input would be appreciated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Aidan Parker notability?

I was wondering what people's views are on Aidan Parker's notability, he fails WP:NAFL and I'm not sure if he meets WP:GNG. There are two links on his page to the Subiaco website and one to the WAFL website, which aren't independent, and three to footy goss and hotmag which aren't reliable sources, I'm thinking of redirecting him to List of Adelaide Football Club players as has been the case for drafted players who do not play a match (even though there isn't a section for delisted players who didn't play match, it can easily be created for Adelaide). I'm unsure if he is notable in WA and it is just a poorly referenced article, or if he does lack notability. Thoughts? Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all notable as far as I can see. St Anselm (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is an article I created almost five years ago; it's interesting to see how much my editing style has changed. It's probably not an article I would create nowadays. I think there is probably enough media coverage of the WAFL (and SANFL for that matter) to allow for articles to exist on top-level players (i.e. those who don't expressly meet the VFL/AFL one-game requirement). The West Australian (the major daily paper in Perth) generally has one or two articles per day during the season, and the two weekend papers (The Weekend West and The Sunday Times) both have two or three pages. Given Parker was a club captain and premiership player, I would imagine that he has been profiled in those papers a few times during his career (for milestone games, retirement, etc.). Running his name through Google News I found a couple articles from earlier this year where he is mentioned (which suggests some sort of enduring notability/interest, given he retired five years ago): one where he is mentioned as "[one] of the best WAFL players of the past 25 years", and another where he was interviewed in regards to his amateur coaching career. If you throw in the brief stint on an AFL list, I would probably argue for keeping if it came to an AfD, but I wouldn't be too upset if the consensus was otherwise. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree with IgnorantArmies. We set a low bar of notability with the one AFL game rule, and the level of WAFL coverage and AFL list coverage Parker has received should be enough to surpass that bar. Aspirex (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd also agree with IgnorantArmies. On a separate note, is redirecting retired players to a club they never played for an appropriate move? I can understand it happening for listed players who are yet to play a game. But in Parker's case, he spent two years in Adelaide and never got a game. After that he returned to Subiaco, won three premierships and captained the club. So surely Subiaco would be a more appropriate redirect target. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

List of Port Adelaide Football Club players

Just wanting a bit of help from people on here. A bit of back story, I've been trying to improve the List of Port Adelaide Football Club players and believe that the page should be representative of Category:Port Adelaide Football Club players, which is a subcategory of Category:VFL/AFL players. In addition, before my contributions the page was very large (WP:TOOBIG) and I saw a reasonable split by having the SANFL listed players (before 1997) at List of Port Adelaide Football Club players (before 1997) which is also representative of Category:Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL) players, and a subcategory of Category:South Australian National Football League players and the AFL listed players at List of Port Adelaide Football Club players. In addition the navbox at the bottom of List of Port Adelaide Football Club players says VFL/AFL players, and it seems logical to me to have that page as just VFL/AFL players, the SANFL players do still have representation, and I made sure not to just delete them all. There are multiple other issues with the page, such as the stats haven't been updated since 2012, the cap order is out of whack as some debutants have been added and others haven't (i.e. Jimmy Toumpas is listed as the 152nd player, when he in fact is the 158th player). I have also updated the debuts and ensured they were in correct order.

Thejoebloggsblog has been reverting my edits to the way he last had it, this brings up the obvious issues of the stats being out of date, a whole lot of debuts are missing, and the three players that have debuted since are just being deleted. I have explained my edits on Thejoebloggsblog's talk page, and he just completely ignored it and reverted it back to his last edit. I know there have been problems before where Thejoebloggsblog will not discuss and will continue reverting back to their preference, so I'm asking for help on here so I don't WP:3RR as I'm unsure if it can be constituted as vandalism. As I previously said, I believe there is a logical split in the page due to the large page size and representing the correct categories so if anyone does have feedback and can help the discussion process, please comment, but there shouldn't be reverts of updated stats and debuts. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Josh Kennedys move discussion

I've put in a move request to have the two Josh Kennedys disambiguated by initial rather than by date of birth, feel free to weigh in. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding statistics table

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

Personally, when adding stat tables, if the player plays as a relief ruckman occasionally, I use the ruckman table. Many if not most players have two or three hitouts a season, but when there are about 20 or more, use the ruckman table for mine. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 23:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why they're in a different order and why the template creator changed the order. I have noticed this, and it's in my long list of stuff to fix, but there are over 60 transclusions of the template, so just reordering the template will stuff up all the transclusions, so it's unfortunately a bit of a job to fix. As for the non-ruckman, I have attempted to fix it and have done so for about 20 or so players, unfortunately there was a period where nearly every addition of the stats table was the ruckman one. My rule of thumb is looking at their career average, if it's around the 5-10+ hitouts, then I would keep it as a ruckman, there may be a season where a player has 20 hitouts, but there overall average is less than one hitout, so I'd get rid of it in that case. It's a bit of a case by case basis, if they aren't known as a ruckman (i.e. Swan and Toovey), I'd keep the normal stats even if there are hitouts in their AFL tables stats. A clear example is Elliot Yeo, he is often the third man up, but he isn't known as a ruckman so that stats table wouldn't be approriate. Flickerd (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

ignoring my preference that we don't have any stats at all outside of games and goals in the infobox, and without having looked at the template, generally the order presented in the table doesn't have to match the order entered. That's the benefit of using templates, one change can automatically apply to hundreds of transclusions.The-Pope (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the template only applies to the header (below) and each season has to be manually ordered, so it's easier to reorder the ruckman template as it's 54 transclusions vs. 628. Flickerd (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

normal

Season	Team	#	Games	G	B	K	H	D	M	T	G	B	K	H	D	M	T
Season	Team	#	Totals								Averages (per game)

ruckman

Season	Team	#	Games	D	K	H	M	T	H/O	G	B	D	K	H	M	T	H/O	G	B
Season	Team	#	Totals									Averages (per game)

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

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

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


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

Amazing, great job Flickerd! --SuperJew (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox colours

Is it all possible to introduce team colours into infoboxes for current players? I've noticed the NBA pages have them but poking around the code behind the template leaves me none the wiser on how it's done. Does anyone have expertise that could get this done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerman2612 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Tom Hawkins (footballer)

Tom Hawkins (footballer), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability of women's football

So top-level women's football is up and coming as the All-Stars match this week showed. Does anyone know where they stand in regards to notability? Seasons, club seasons, players?
And another question, should we have separate pages for the women's team (as for example the W-League has) or should they be all in one club's page (like the VFL/reserves teams)? And if separate should there be individual club season pages for men and women?
I feel we should start working on this (unless it's already begun and I'm unaware, in which case please point the way), as clubs' have started signing for their lists etc. --SuperJew (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

In my view, we treat the women's competition exactly as we treat the VFL reserves teams. The overall season gets a page (e.g. 2016 VFL season), and we should aim to include everything there (i.e. no separate pages for the draft, or for the women's Brownlow, etc.). I'd say that the club seasons should form a sub-section of the parent club season page, similar to the VFL subsections on season pages for clubs with reserves teams in the VFL (e.g. 2015 Geelong Football Club season#VFL season). I wouldn't make separate articles for the women's teams as a whole; I'd have a two- or three-paragraph subsection on the parent club's page, similar to the 'Reserves team' subsections (e.g. Geelong Football Club#Reserves team; I've already started this section at Carlton_Football_Club#Women.27s_team, but it's thin on information at present until more info is released). Until such time as the women's league becomes a fully professional self-sustaining competition, I think this is the appropriate amount of weight to apply.

Regarding players: As a starting point, I'd say the marquee signings and the senior coaches would automatically meet notability guidelines (once they play their first game); for all other players, notability would need to be established on a case-by-case basis under the usual "significant coverage" WP:N guidelines. Aspirex (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The link between AFL and VFL teams is obvious, as players move between the two teams during the season based on form and injuries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe it is possible for any women players to be called up into the AFL team. So as long as general notability requirements are satisfied (which they should be once the season starts) I think the women's teams should have their own article in the same way as the women's soccer teams do (i.e. Perth Glory FC (W-League), Melbourne City FC (W-League), etc.). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In my view, those two example articles illustrate exactly why they shouldn't have their own pages. Both articles are very brief stubs, padded out with things like "current squad" which are ever-changing and not encyclopedic in nature. It will be necessary to have "women's team" subsections on the parent club anyway (since the parent club article covers administrative structure and senior on-field history), and I'm confident that there is not sufficient extra content to bother with distinct articles. Aspirex (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The state of those articles is a problem of lack of attention, not lack of notability. It is too soon to say whether women's AFL articles will suffer the same fate, but I do not think we should assume that will be the case. The parent club article does not need to cover the on-field history in detail if a properly curated article exists; a brief summary and link would suffice. On the other hand, with an eight-week schedule in February-March (not exactly footy season) a cynic may say the league has been created merely to fill the gap after the cricket finishes. So let's wait and see. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Your opinions, cynical or otherwise, on the women's competition itself are not relevant to this discussion. Let me expand my answer by saying that I have little doubt that unlike the reserves teams which have fully inherited notability, the teams in the NWL will meet the definition of WP:N. I merely put forward a style preference not to fork stubs out of otherwise well-balanced articles. Aspirex (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not say it is my opinion, but it is relevant to the discussion. Plenty of other sports do not have articles about short, semi-professional leagues played outside of a normal season, be they men's or women's sport. But given the local media's thirst for all things football it is going to receive a lot of coverage, so I agree that the teams will likely satisfy the notability requirement. As for your last point, whether to fork will ultimately depend on the volume of the content. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I've only just become aware of this dicussion but have already put significant work into page creation and planning for the league. I think it should be clear the league meets notability requirements though I agree that if pages become static (a problem at the best of times for many AFL pages) it could be a bit of a silly exercise. For now though, I've already begun working on planning for navboxes and category pages as well as club pages that could be linked from the AFL teams pages as I think it's difficult and cluttered to provide the necessary information within the Clubs' main pages. User:Tigerman2612 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I share concerns that, at least initially, articles about the Women's league teams will be little more than brief stubs, and for that reason should be part of the the main club article. Having said that, I would also like guidance on if there is a uniform style guide we should be following (as I have also been putting a bit of work into the current AFL Women's articles). Now that the player draft has been completed we know most of the players and coaching staff, would it be appropriate to add a AFL Women's League team subheading to each club's article and populate the section with a brief para about winning a licence and marquee/priority players, and a table of players/coaching staff? ColonialGrid (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the directly above comment regarding teams, having sole club pages for the women's teams will be brief stubs as there is just not enough information at the moment separate from the history of each club. I think, for the time being, information about the women's team should be a subheading within each club that was awarded a license. Flickerd (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

What would be your preferred timeline for full pages? I'd think by the end of the season (and awards season) we'll have enough info to make them worthwhile. I think by the time guernsey numbers are announced we should at least have squad templates made, even if these only slot into the parent club page. In any case, the sections within existing club pages is a good temporary solution. tigerman2612 (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hard to say, I can't really think of a definitive timeline; the other thing we don't want is just a summary of each season in the history section as that will fall into WP:Recentism. I think it'll be a judgement call, but once it becomes too much info for the main club page and there is an appropriate split. Flickerd (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There is not, and should not be, a timeline as such. Articles for Women's league teams (these are teams, not clubs) should be split out when they become large enough to be self sustaining, or the main club page becomes unduly large (see WP:WHENSPLIT). This will be different for different AFLW teams. However, even after a split I would suggest a few hundred words of prose and a table of the current squad to be left in the main club article, so wouldn't really advocate a split unless the new article were at least 1000 words. I think the far more pressing issue is that there are currently a number of AFL Clubs with AFLW team licences, where neither the AFL Women's league or the club's team are not mentioned at all; this surely has to be addressed first. I suggest we decide what the title of the teams is, then set up redirects to a section of each of the eight clubs' main article. My suggestion is XXXX Football Club Women's team or XXXX Football Club Women's. Thoughts? ColonialGrid (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

XXXX Football Club (AFL Women's) is more than appropriate for new page titles from my perspective. As for subsections of existing club pages, I think they should be standardised to AFL Women's team. Tigerman2612 (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with those naming suggestions. Unless there are objections, we should set up redirects, and populate the club pages with sections for the women's teams. Are there any objection, or alternative proposals? ColonialGrid (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So, does this mean yesterday's women's draft fits into 2016 AFL draft or does it have a separate page? --Roisterer (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It has a page at 2016 AFL Women's draft Tigerman2612 (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

As this is a "major amateur league" it will reach the general notability standards of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) as far as I'm able to surmise. We have to codify it there that players have automatic notability in the specific sub article there, do we not?
Tigerman2612 (talk) 1:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Finals articles

All,

I've done some renovations to our finals articles. We had information strewn a little haphazardly across the old Early VFL finals systems and the current AFL finals system articles, which sort of tried to cover tournament brackets and some on-field and ground management history. So, what I've done is the following:

New article: AFL finals series is the article about the finals as a competition. I've filled it with the grounds management history, drawn games rules, etc.. This is the appropriate place for onfield finals records, cultural impacts, etc., and we can write in general about the full 120 years of finals history.
AFL finals system – I've stripped it back to be strictly about the tournament bracket system.
I've retired Early VFL finals systems (redirected it) and put the information from it into 1897 VFL finals series, 1898 VFL finals series and Argus finals system. This is again because the finals systems involved were used outside the VFL, but the history was written in a VFL-specific way, so it was difficult to effectively demarcate.

I have a bunch of article links to rectify now. Aspirex (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I moved AFL finals system to AFL final eight system? Aspirex (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems strange to me, but what's the reasoning behind it? Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 11:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a much more suitable name; the article is about the current final eight system (with the prelim crossover) which was implemented as a replacement to the McIntyre Final Eight System, not about the finals series in general, so there is a degree of ambiguity with the current title. I think the proposed name is much more WP:PRECISE and creates less ambiguity. Flickerd (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

My reasoning is mostly because AFL finals system and AFL finals series are too similar in name. AFL final eight system makes it clearer that it's an article about the tournament system and not the history of AFL finals in general Aspirex (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok. That makes sense. Only thought that "final eight system" wasn't a very common name, but it seems like the best option. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 05:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, that's now done as well. Aspirex (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Player changes on season page

In the current season there's a section named "Player changes". It contains a list of players who retired or were delisted. The players who join clubs can be found on the draft page. Therefore I think the name "Players changes" is misleading as I would expect to find there player movement in both directions. Based on the template it seems the section was previously named "Retirements, sackings and delistings". This seems a better name for what it describes. What do people think about changing it back? --SuperJew (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

How about deleting it altogether and just letting the individual club season pages cover their own club's delistings and retirements? I still think it's an incredible failing of our AFL season pages that we clutter it up with tables like this. The delistings/etc. table is easily the worst feature of the page, given a large percentage of delistings are of players with only a few years experience, who or not notable and maybe even unknown beyond club level. Aspirex (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I completely disagree with completely deleting the table due to the fact that the individual pages are so poorly managed that only half of them have the changes from 2015 alone, and four pages haven't even been created for the 2016 season at all. While it's all well and good to say they need to be on the individual club season pages, the pages need to be up to scratch before we delete a whole table and have more than half of it disappearing into obscurity. In addition, it's the only spot on Wikipedia where all of the retirees and delisted players are together with references, which makes it much easier to see it as a whole rather than going onto 18 different pages. Also, the player changes have been on the main season page since 2006, which raises further problems of just having it on the individual seasons due to lack of created pages since 2006.

I have issues with the current table on the draft page due to its lack of references, it is rarely completed after the draft and just feels like duplicate information; the only thing that I can think of is moving the table from the season page to the draft page, which will nullify the current table on the draft page, as there will be a table for all trades, all free agents, all delisted players/retirees and all draftees, and I think is probably the best course of action so all player movements are on the same page. As for the header name, I'm not overly fussed with the change. If there is some sort of move, (whether it be a header name change or moved to a different page), then the navboxes per season will need to be updated to match the new link. Flickerd (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The "Changes by team" subsections on the recent AFL Draft pages also display all delistings and retirements, and do so in a much more compact manner, a more topic-appropriate location, and in a more sensible order (by club instead of chronologically). A more temporally sensible location, as well, since it's pretty standard for end-of-year list changes to be considered more relevant to the subsequent season than the current one. If you do see a dire need for all of these list changes to be retained in one location, that's by far the better location for it. Aspirex (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The main point I was making about the two different tables is the references, and the table does have the sorting option which allows by club too, I don't really see the need for it being in chronological order but seems to be the way it's been done with trades, free agents and so on. I'll start making the moves of the tables all into the one place. Flickerd (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Aspirex: @Flickerd: Awesome guys! Thanks so much, and just let me mention how fun it is that this project has great and constructive discussion happening. --SuperJew (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

New 5000 Challenge for Australia

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge and the wider Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Australia and Oceania like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Australia but fuelled by a contest if desirable to really get articles on every state/territory and subject mass improved. After every 100 articles done for Australia this would feed into the main Oceania one. I will start a smaller challenge for your field of focus if there is the support. I would like some support from wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start anyway with some articles to make doing a Destubathon for Australia and Oceania worthwhile! Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara Donnellan

Input needed, please, Cabayi (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 7 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

AFL player template no longer linking properly

It seems the Template:AFL player base template isn't linking properly anymore, in the past, it seemed to work with just {{Adelplayer}} for example, but the template capitalises the names in the url link and the links don't work properly anymore unless the parameter (link=firstname-surname) is added and only in lower case, does anyone know how to fix this in the template so the name in the url is just lower case without having to fix all the transclusions? Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Neil

Editors may wish to weigh in at the above discussion. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Does he actually exist? I thought it was an elaborate joke. Hack (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer review for Tom Wills

G'day, the article about Tom Wills, an Australian cricketer and footballer, has been nominated for a peer review. The review has been open for several months without comment, so if anyone is interested in reviewing, I'm sure that the nominator would be greatly appreciative. The review page can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom Wills/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fia Tootoo

Editors in this project may wish to contribute to this discussion. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming change to Template:Infobox AFL biography

Please see this discussion for information about an upcoming fix to {{Infobox AFL biography}} which will change the parameters for teams/years/goals(games/wins). To address an accessibility issue which currently causes AFL infoboxes to be unreadable to those using screen readers, the following parameters will be replaced by numbered variants. Going forward, all entries of teams in the infobox should utilize the numbered parameters, with one number being used for each team. New parameters for total goals/games/wins have also been added. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Changed parameters:

years → years1, years2, ...
clubs → club1, club2, ...
games(goals) → games_goals1, games_goals2, ...
sooyears → sooyears1, sooyears2, ...
sooteams → sooteam1, sooteam2, ...
soogames(goals) → soogames_goals1, soogames_goals2, ...
nationalyears → nationalyears1, nationalyears2, ...
nationalteams → nationalteam1, nationalteam2, ...
nationalgames(goals) → nationalgames_goals1, nationalgames_goals2, ...
coachyears → coachyears1, coachyears2, ...
coachclubs → coachclub1, coachclub2, ...
coachgames(wins) → coachgames_wins1, coachgames_wins2, ...

New parameters:

games_goalstotal
soogames_goalstotal
nationalgames_goalstotal
coachgames_winstotal

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Automatic WikiData Sources for the Infobox

Recently I've been playing around in WikiData, and all 12486 VFL/AFL players, and quite a few non-VFL/AFL players, now have AustralianFootball.com and AFL Tables IDs in WikiData. Tonight I added code to {{AFL Tables}} and {{AustralianFootball}} so that if no parameters are used, then the value from the wikidata property (d:Property:P3547 or d:Property:P3546) is used automatically. I've tested those two templates on Tommy Hughes (Australian footballer). Note that I've used a direct parameter link to the properties, as used in {{IMDb name}} rather than a Lua module as in {{sports-reference}} or the #invoke term as is used in this template for images, mainly because I don't understand what the difference is, and this seemed simple and works. If this isn't ideal, then please improve - I'm not a coder and just learn by copying and experimenting.

I've tested the code below in the {{Infobox AFL biography/sandbox}} and have tested it in Tommy Hughes (Australian footballer) and previews it in other articles (as you need a live wikidata link for it to work, you can't test it in a sandbox). I've not included the option to manually provide a source to override the wikidata one. If people feel that there is a need, then it could be added, but whilst AFL Tables is solely VFL/AFL only, AustralianFootball does cover notable players from other leagues too. And of course, we've lasted this long without any sources in the infobox, having some players without an auto link isn't the end of the world.

The "below" style that I've used is from the {{Infobox cricketer}}, which I'll be proposing to add an automatic WikiData driven source link to CricInfo and/or Cricket Archive next, if WP:CRIC are in favour...

If anyone has any comments, improvements or things I've missed, please make them at the Infobox template talk link above. The-Pope (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hampson-Hardeman Cup

Hi all, just wanted to get a gauge on whether people believe Hampson-Hardeman Cup should have its own page. The reason I bring it up is because of the similar discussion we had with the AFL matches of a similar nature a while ago and were redirected to List of individual match awards in the Australian Football League. The Melbourne-Western Bulldogs matches are probably the most notable of the matches in AFL Women's and did receive coverage during the exhibition series era or is the article WP:TOOSOON considering the AFL Women's league just started and do we redirect the page to AFL Women's. Thoughts? Flickerd (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It definitely meets WP:GNG. There's significant coverage of it as an actual event rather than just a single match from several of Australia's largest media outlets, and it has received this coverage for several years now. Even that alone would make it notable in my eyes, but I definitely feel that the additional facet of it being an integral part in the formation of the AFLW puts it beyond any doubt.

It's also worth noting that although the notability guidelines have fairly high standards on sports rivalries, they explicitly mention "All-star or similar exhibition games" as being notable, and the Hampson-Hardeman Cup is certainly more of an all-star/exhibition game than a rivalry, considering its history as a precursor to the AFLW and predominant amount of marquee players for future clubs. Sellyme^Talk 13:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't have its own page. Like all of the individual match awards already discussed, it does not meet WP:GNG, as all coverage that I have found falls under WP:ROUTINE. Discussion of its existence and the role of the exhibition series in general in the formation of of the AFLW is valid content for the AFL Women's history section; that alone isn't a reason to make a listcruft article full of results. Not averse to including it in the List of individual match awards... page, though. Aspirex (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:ROUTINE regarding sports events is talking about results coverage, not general news - note the 'However, if an article goes into detail about the event it is not necessarily "routine" coverage'. A few paragraphs about the match mentioning the cup with the results wouldn't count as noteworthy, but many of the articles about the Western Bulldogs v Melbourne games are talking about it as a distinctly newsworthy event, rather than following the stock formula of just writing a few paragraphs on every match that happens that week. Here's some examples of news articles that are clearly distinct from what would be considered routine coverage - ABC News, Herald Sun. Additionally, the AFL refers to the Bulldogs v Demons matches (prior to this year of course) as "All-Star games", something that's explicitly mentioned in WP:GNG as being notable.

In summary, the Hampson-Hardeman Cup as it exists now wouldn't be notable, but because it was notable as an exhibition series means that it still is, as per WP:NTEMP. Sellyme^Talk 20:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the "all-star game" clause. Although the games pre-2017 do meet the functional definition of an all-star game, it has to be remembered that the league from which the all-star players were drawn was the VWFL – an amateur suburban competition which, prior to its co-branding with the VFL in 2016, received no more media coverage than any other suburban comp like the EDFL (and receiving coverage roughly on par with the VAFA from 2016 onwards). To argue that the Hampson-Hardeman Cup, as an all-star match for a competition with such a low level of coverage, meets the threshold to gain inherent notability under WP:SPORTSEVENT ignores the common-sense application of that point. (e.g. I could use the same clause to argue that the previously annual VFA Thirds match between North-of-the-Yarra players and South-of-the-Yarra players was inherently notable, but the SPORTSEVENT clause was not intended to be used in this manner).

The rest of your arguments can be equally well applied to all non-Hampson-Hardeman matches in the AFL Women's Exhibition Series: all of them received sufficient coverage, individually and collectively, to be considered notable. What I would suggest is to break out the entire 2013-2016 Exhibition Series as a new article (last time I checked, that content was part of the AFL Women's), rather than just the H-H games. I would then stand by the last statement in WP:SPORTSEVENT – "For a games or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page;" given the main claim to notability of the H-H matches is in the Exhibition Series' role in the AFLW history, I think this statement holds entirely true here. Aspirex (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I can agree that breaking out the exhibition series as a whole would serve as a functional replacement of the H-H article, but it is worth noting that the Dogs-Dees matches 2013 through 2016 received far more coverage than the other matches, as the exhibition series only started including other teams in 2016, and those teams lower priority picks from the talent pools. In a hypothetical AFL Women's Exhibition Series article the H-H Cup would certainly be a focal point. As for the validity of a lesser-covered All-Star game, there's an important difference between the Yarra VFA Thirds and an event which was the lead-in to a nationwide professional competition and provided many of the marquee players. Sellyme^Talk 16:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a consensus to me to create AFL Women's Exhibition Series as an article. The only remaining question would be where to redirect the Hampson-Hardeman Cup title – to a sub-section of the Exhibition Series article, or to the List of individual match awards in the Australian Football League. Aspirex (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

AFLW All Australian team

Was wondering if initial 40-woman squad of the AA team is notable enough to create 2017 All-Australian team (I'm thinking have the AFL and AFLW AA teams on the same page, any other thoughts?)? If not, will the final 22 (TBA Tuesday) be notable enough? --SuperJew (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There's been enough coverage of the initial squad from independent sources Seven West Media, Fairfax Media, News Corp, so I don't see a problem with notability. I have had some thoughts since the announcement of the squad and I've been unsure whether it should be included on the 2017 All-Australian team page, but I think it's probably the best way to go (as long as the distinction is made clear in the intro) as I'm still unsure whether the AFLW team should have its own page, especially considering most players are redlinks. Flickerd (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree that it's best to have them in the same article at the very least until an AFLW-specific article would be more than a collection of redlinks. Sellyme^Talk 18:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be created. I'd be inclined to have them on separate pages, rather than adding an AFL one to the same page after six months of having a list that would cover only the women's team. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest putting the Women's All-Australian team in the 'Awards' section of the 2017 AFL Women's season page, rather than putting it into the 2017 All-Australian team page. It would be much more relevant to the surrounding subject matter if it's with other AFLW content than if it's mixed together with men's content. I don't agree with the notion that individual Women's All-Australian Teams are sufficiently notable for their own article, as all coverage of the team falls under routine; but an article like All-Australian team which becomes a repository for all AFLW All-Australian Teams would be a reasonable outcome. Aspirex (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd wait until the actual team is announced. The squad is kind of nomination-level. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this be in the 'Awards' section of the 2017 AFL Women's season page, and add a template similar to Template:2016 All-Australian team to aid navigation between player pages. If anyone has time to complete this, please wikilink them all, as it's a reasonable project to create an article for each All-Australian player. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Articles still to be created for all-Australians Nicola Stevens and Courtney Cramey. Defenders get no respect! Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, be our guest :) --SuperJew (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

One done, one to go! Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

All done. Jack N. Stock (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

breakout standalone article?

for Women's team?, see Talk:Adelaide Football Club. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the article will need to be split at some point (probably at the start of the 2018 season so that we have enough content to truly justify it and fill out the new article), but I don't think that winning a premiership is any kind of tipping point in that regard. If and when it's done it should be done for all teams, regardless of success. Sellyme^Talk 09:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it needs to happen (and should have already, for all of them). It's not like there aren't tons and tons of sources at this point. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

links not working in AFLGame template

Does anyone know why links to SportsTG or to Northern Blues don't seem to work in AFLGame template? I tried linking them in the 1st round of the VFL season and it's not showing up (you can see them in source code, but no link in viewing). --SuperJew (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

leading goalkicker parameter

In season articles, (such as 2013 Collingwood Football Club season), is the leading goalkicker parameter meant to reflect the leading goalkicker of the regular season or regular season+finals? --SuperJew (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

In club articles, I would say home and away season plus finals. As a comparison, clubs include finals in their best and fairest counts, so finals are a part of the clubs whole season, so I'd include finals in the count. Flickerd (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. Could you perhaps add an appropriate note about it in the template documentation or perhaps a footnote for the infobox itself (like soccer have a footnote mentioning counted for the domestic league only)? --SuperJew (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

And I guess this would be the same case with the attendance numbers? --SuperJew (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Though AFL Tables group regular season and finals attendances separately. --SuperJew (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

For crowds I think listing finals separately makes sense. There's going to be an obvious difference between a team's H&A crowds and their finals crowds, and if you're looking at attendance numbers you're probably not expecting a hypothetical GWS v Brisbane grand final of 80k people to be included in a listing of those teams' average attendances. For goal scoring on the other hand, there's not really any inherent bias one way or another by including or excluding finals, so I see no reason not to include it. Sellyme^Talk 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't think a footnote should be necessary for goalkickers. It should be commonly understood that club leading goalkicker would represent the completed season. Aspirex (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Commonly understood by whom? You? All AFL fans (diehard and casual)? Casual viewers who wish to learn more about AFL? --SuperJew (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, by all of those people. Aspirex (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure.. I'm quite a diehard Collingwood fan and have been editing their season pages since 2013, and I myself wasn't sure what is usually done (hence the question here :)). I doubt a casual viewer would know, especially if they're used to leagues (such as the A-League) which have a finals series which isn't included in the majority of stats. --SuperJew (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Style-wise, we shouldn't be filling small infoboxes with excessive clarifications and footnotes when we have unlimited space in the article for such clarifications. If you see the need to clarify, then do it in the "leading goalkicker" section of the article (or the awards section, or wherever the leading goalkicker happens to be discussed in the article itself). If that section doesn't exist, then make it exist, as there shouldn't be any content inside an infobox that isn't repeated somewhere in the main text. Aspirex (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I don't think a footnote is overly necessary and I personally wouldn't include one; but in saying that, I don't think it hurts having it in the footnote section at the bottom of the page (not in the infobox because then it would become too crowded). Having the {{Ref label}} template, similar to what is used on Copeland Trophy for the note about WWII, and then having the note something along the lines of "Leading goalkicker includes finals" is an example, even a breakdown wouldn't hurt i.e. "Leading goalkicker includes X kicked during the home and away season and X kicked during the finals series". I don't think it's something that needs to be added to every club article already in existence, but I'm not opposed to editors including it in the future at their own discretion. Flickerd (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I can point out another example in soccer: at Roar's current season there is a parameter for league topscorer and a parameter for season topscorer. It's unfortunate that some editors on this project seem to not want to make the information more readily available to people who are not already in the know and not help grow the sport --SuperJew (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What I've just suggested and what Aspirex's suggested makes the information readily available, just because one WikiProject does it one way doesn't mean every other has to. There's genuine concerns about having a footnote in the infobox, it doesn't mean that people are opposed to the whole concept, there's already been two different suggestions to a solution. There's no need to take a swipe when people have made a different suggestion/outcome to what you were looking for. Flickerd (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I've currently opened a discussion for players in the AFL Women's competition as there is no guide in WP:NAFL for this competition, feel free to contribute. Flickerd (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The RfC has been closed as it was unmanageable and non-specific to have it there, I think it's worth moving the discussion in relation to notability for AFL Women's players here so people have the opportunity to voice their opinion. I've copy and pasted what has already been discussed so the whole discussion is on the same page, feel free to contribute further below. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

There's currently nothing in WP:NAFL in regards to players in the AFL Women's competition and the only guide at the moment for these players is GNG. I'm of the opinion that playing at least one AFL Women's match should meet NAFL similar to what is the requirement for players in the VFL/AFL. The reason for this is the level of coverage during the season is much higher than state leagues (requirement for NAFL #3) and very similar to the AFL (all games were broadcast on TV and radio, every game was covered by multiple media outlets, such as AFL, News Corp, ESPN etc., and there were many opinion articles during the season too). In addition, the AFL has treated AFLW very similarly to the AFL comp in regards to awards, i.e. league best and fairest, All-Australian, AFLPA awards and so on. Some discussion I saw during the AFLW season was that editors were saying that player articles would be eventually created (i.e. assuming players already meet notability). Also the amount of players editors redlinked meant that there was the assumption these articles would be created. Flickerd (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - just add "or AFL Women's" and problem solved. AFL Women's players are, if anything, more likely to be notable at this stage than many sportspeople in minor sports with established guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. The current notability guidelines don't distinguish between male and female players, and that is how it should be. All AFL players, whether men's AFL or AFL Women's, are notable. They are going to fulfill general notability guidelines anyway as each game is reported by every major Australian media outlet. This is the highest level of competition for this sport. I don't understand why this has even been raised as a question. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Just in response, on Wikipedia there needs to be a distinction based on parent pages and so on. If there was no distinction then the Australian Football League page would be about both the AFL and AFLW, but each league has its own page, in addition to categories such as Category:VFL/AFL players and Category: AFL Women's players. Even if outside of Wikipedia, the women's players are referred to AFL players (even though I've nearly always heard AFLW player) procedurally a distinction needs to be made, and currently there's nothing in NAFL for the AFLW league players. I'm not sure if you're asking why the question has been raised is in regards to the whole RfC or my initial discussion, if it's my discussion, then the reason is because at the start of the year, notability of AFLW players was briefly discussed at WT:AFL and it was determined only marquee players should have a page, but there was never a strong consensus, since then non-marquee players have been created and creations have had to be justified through GNG, having something specific at NAFL makes it clear, just having NAFL the way it is now is ambiguous for the women. Flickerd (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I have found numerous articles about every AFLW player who I have researched (including several with no WP article). There are only 216 selected players plus a handful of injury replacements, so this is a very exclusive group. I don't see any problem with extending WP:NAFL to AFLW, which is what I considered implied. Having said that, just because of limited time, I personally have looked for additional qualification before creating AFLW player articles — e.g., marquee player, priority player, featured as "player of the week," or all-Australian. Right now, I'm waiting to see who gets signed for a second season, as being re-signed seems to be adequate to make it worthwhile to create an article. Hundreds of thousands watch AFLW, naturally some will look to WP for info on individual players. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree, makes sense to have the same notability guidelines for women's and men's AFL leagues, for the reasons stated by Flickerd. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Strong support of Flickerd's suggestion to include AFLW players in notability guidelines. As stated, the media and Aussie public treat AFLW the same as AFL. --SuperJew (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with basically every comment above - no reason to distinguish the two leagues in terms of notability. Just expand the notability guidelines as they already are to explicitly cover the AFLW too. Sellyme^Talk 19:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Strongly disagree At this stage, I would maintain the current course of using the GNG to individually determine the notability of players. Notwithstanding the coverage of the games themselves (which speaks to the notability of the games, not the notability of the players), I would say that bottom-level/fringe AFLW players do not individually receive anywhere near the extent of third-party coverage that bottom-level/fringe AFL men's players receive; thus making a blanket rule to include all capped AFLW players would be inappropriate at this time. The notion that every player should be automatically notable because the games meet a notability guideline goes against the WP:INHERIT principle. Aspirex (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm pretty sure that Abbey Holmes (a redlink at time of writing) has already received far more coverage than, for example Tom Lee, for whom the only reference in his entire article is to a book that just listed every player that has ever been in the VFL/AFL. The argument that the least notable AFLW players have received less coverage than the least notable VFL/AFL players is simply not true. As for inheriting, WP:SPORTSPERSON explicitly says that participating in "a major amateur or professional competition" is inherently notable, so there's no real issue there. Sellyme^Talk 09:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

One example is not going to convince me to support a bad blanket rule. Aspirex (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for over a week now, I think it's pretty safe to close it as the consensus appears to be to treat the AFL Women's notability the same as the AFL players with six editors supporting adding AFL Women's players to WP:NAFL and one opposing. I think The Drover's Wife's suggestion to add "or AFL Women's" to the existing guidelines is the best way to go. Flickerd (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 7/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Australian rules football.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Australian rules football, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Port Adelaide Football Club logo

There's currently a discussion at Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club regarding the logo used in the infobox for the Port Adelaide Football Club. The discussion is currently not really going anywhere to reach a consensus due to the limited amount of people involved, it may be helpful to have some more editors involved to bring some new ideas/reach a consensus. Please feel free to join the discussion. Flickerd (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the The Encyclopedia Of AFL Footballers?

In the Cameron O'Brien article, it claims that he is the son of former St Kilda player Jim O'Brien (Australian footballer), giving the reference of our old friend The Encyclopedia Of AFL Footballers (2007 ed.) by Holmesby & Main. This father/son combo is not listed in Hillier’s (2004) Like Father Like Son (as far as I recall). Does anyone with access to the Encyclopedia confirm whether they are related? --Roisterer (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Ency lists under Cameron O'Brien's entry - "Son of Jim O'Brien, he played for his father's club St Kilda in the Under 19s ....". That said, if it's not in "Like Father Like Son" it's probably worth looking for a second source to confirm. Maybe try looking on Trove. Jevansen (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Roisterer (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Club lists of players

I am concerned that in seeking uniformity of the club player lists the project is ignoring players from clubs who made senior appearances when the clubs senior side was playing in a different competition. For example, as all Victorian clubs played in the VFA prior to joining the VFL, those players are ignored. Significant players who fall into this category include:

It seems odd that we would have a page called "List of Carlton Football Club players" and have dozens of people who played 1 senior game for the club but leave out George Coulthard. It seems absurd.

I realise there has been much effort in including VFL/AFL "Cap" numbers. This does not need to be lost. We could simply have the heading read "AFL Cap" or in earlier years "VFL Cap" or "VFL/AFL Cap" ect. Then for those players who played senior games for the club outside the VFL/AFL (1897 for VFL founders, 1908 for Richmond, 1925 for Footscray, Hawthorn and North, 1997 for Port Adelaide) we could leave the column blank or start a new section.

Thoughts? Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that non-VFL/AFL players should be included, although I'm not sure whether complete and verified records of players exist for non-VFL/AFL era. Sub-sectioning with the appropriate "this list is incomplete" tag can easily resolve that. Aspirex (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What about disambiguating by the then-league instead of "by [date]"? The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason it was initially done for Port Adelaide is because the club still competes in the SANFL and would therefore be ambiguous having List of Port Adelaide Football Club players (SANFL) as it's just pre-1997 players on the page. The above suggestions was just done for consistency. If we do List of Richmond Football Club players (VFA) (for example), then there may be the issue of current VFL listed Richmond players being included on the list (considering it's essentially the same league). I'm not overly fussed either way, and there could easily be a note in the lead, but it's just mainly for consistency with Port. Flickerd (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The above list titles aren't ideal, I'd prefer (VFA), but I doubt that a complete list will ever be able to be compiled. Probably a better interim solution is to include a Notable VFA players section with an explanation that the club played in the VFA between 18XX and XXXX prior to joining the VFL. Then any notable player - either due to being a captain, winning awards, lots of games, premiership players or even notable outside of football as a cricketer, politician etc. The oldest teams have around 1000 players, a list of notable players would only be maybe 100 players max, so it's impact on article length is minimal. BTW, I've added a list of AFLW players to the List of Fremantle Football Club players, as well as a full list of drafted players who never played. I don't think it has to be AFL only.The-Pope (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we do this for example...

== Carlton Football Club players pre VFA (1864–1876) ==

=== 1860s ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:70%;"
|- style="background:#87cefa;"
! Debut Year !! Player !! Games !! Goals !! Years at Club 
|-
|1866||[[John Conway (cricketer)]]
|?||?||1866–1971
|}

== Carlton Football Club players in the VFA (1877–1896) ==

=== 1870s ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:70%;"
|- style="background:#87cefa;"
! Debut Year !! Player !! Games !! Goals !! Years at Club 
|-
| 1897||[[Bill Ahern (footballer born 1873)|George Coulthard]]||?||?||1876–1882
|}

=== 1880s ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:70%;"
|- style="background:#87cefa;"
! Debut Year !! Player !! Games !! Goals !! Years at Club 
|-
|1887
|[[Geoff Moriarty]]
|14||1||1887
|}
=== 1890s ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:70%;"
|- style="background:#87cefa;"
! Debut Year !! Player !! Games !! Goals !! Years at Club 
|-
|1896||[[Wally O'Cock]]
|||||1896–1901
|}

==Carlton Football Club players in the VFL/AFL (1897–present)==
===1890s===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:70%;"
|- style="background:#87cefa;"
! Debut Year !! Player !! Games !! Goals !! Years at Club 
|-
| 1897||[[Bill Ahern (footballer born 1873)|Bill Ahern]]||1||0||1897
|}

Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Naming convention for players

I've seen so many different ways that Australian rules footballers are disambiguated. For example, there are some that are *name* (footballer, born ____), others are (Australian footballer), and others (Australian rules footballer). I am just wondering if there is a consensus on what the names should be, and if there is, it should probably be added to WP:NCSP. Cheers, EvertonFC13^(talk2me) 16:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the guide within the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football/To do#Article naming. There seemed to be a period where nearly all creations with dabs were Australian rules footballer, but I've seen people try to make them more precise since. Flickerd (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Club season pages

Sorry if this has already been brought up, I can't find it anywhere, but there's a lot of inconsistency with club season pages. I want to help by doing work on some of them, but I'm really unsure if there's a specific way they're supposed to be written. From looking at them briefly it looks like each one is worked on by a different editor who has their own preferred layout. I was wondering if there's a particular way they need to be written or if they're just whatever. TripleRoryFan (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There isn't really any guideline to how it's done, just basically as you said, there's differences based on the editors. Just as long as the basics are the same and a similar sort of layout such as team list, list changes, pre-season, H&A season and finals results, awards and so on. Having prose is also desired to give a bit more of feel of the season and so the pages don't fall into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus to ignore MOS on navbox colours

I've changed colours on a number of Essendon-related navboxes to make them comply with WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. I've been reverted by User:Flickerd on the basis that there is consensus to ignore these guidelines. Could someone advise if there is the case? Hack (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Just adding a comment linking to the previous discussions regarding this (I think the most recent was 2011) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 5#Our garish colourful navboxes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 5#Colour in AFL club navboxes, with the second thread being the consensus since then. I don't think there's been anymore discussion since then though. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'll just add another thing, I don't think the current colour usage ignores MOS per WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR point 3 which allows an "appropriate, representative" color, when intended to identify with an organization's logo or branding, should use the most prominent accessible color in the logo. Changing the navboxes to black and white (which was the initial edit) is not representative of the brand (if anything it's Collingwood's). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me standard across sports in general over Wikipedia to have navboxes related to a specific team be in colours of that team. --SuperJew (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi all,

So in November is starting the Women in Red World Contest, which target is to create more articles about notable women. Going through our AFLW squads today I noticed that for most teams all (or almost all) the players were created, but Collingwood, GWS, Bulldogs and Carlton are missing. (Reminder: according to WP:NAFL footy players are presumed notable if they played a game in the AFL or AFLW).

I've put together in my sandbox a list of footy players who have played a game but don't have an article yet, and I'm hoping to work on them over the next month. I would like to invite you to join and help me tackle some of the articles. If you do create an article (either directly in the mainspace, or first in userspace to be published into the mainspace in November so it can count for the above contest), I'll thank you for it, and would appreciate you letting me know (can do this by messaging me or just deleting it from the list in my sandbox with a note). Also, if I missed anyone, you're welcome to let me know that too. Hope that by the end of the month all these articles will be created :)

(pinging editors who I've seen very active in the AFLW editing @Jacknstock, Tigerman2612, and Flickerd:) --SuperJew (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Would love to, but won't save them for the contest. Already done Sarah Last and Lauren Brazzale of Carlton as stubs. I've actually got pics of a few Collingwood and Carlton players I have yet to upload to Commons so I'll make that a priority too. Tigerman2612 (talk) 8:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Either way Tigerman2612 :) As I understand, the contest is purely to create more motivation for it. --SuperJew (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

AFL Women's coaches' infoboxes

In AFL Women's coaches inbox, how should we denote that they are coaching the women's teams, and not the men's? In Bec Goddard's article, for example, it just reads "Adelaide" with no "(women's)," presumably as she is mainly involved with women's football. It's the same for Michelle Cowan's page, but what about for someone like Alan McConnell, who has mainly been involved in men's football, even coaching an AFL team? Or someone like Craig Starcevich, who has dabbled in both? Starcevich's article currently reads "Brisbane Lions (women's)," but he has been heavily involved in women's football, should the assumption be made it's the women's team, like on Goddard's or Cowan's pages? (Cowan has also been involved in men's footy.) Or should we include "(women's)" in every infobox? I think we need consistency across the project on this. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 02:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest that where it isn't obvious whether the team refers to the AFL team or the AFLW team, it might be appropriate to have the league in parentheses following the team name, as is done with the clubs players are recruited from in player infoboxes. So in the case of McConnell, refer to him coaching "GWS (AFLW)", as he is primarily notable for being an AFL player and coach. In Goddard's case there is no need to refer to AFLW as the league as she is primarily notable for her role in the AFLW and, provided the wikilink directs readers to a section on the club's AFLW team, there is no ambiguity. Kb.au (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Creating an amateur league club notability guideline

I've been going through a lot of articles in the project this year and have come across a large number of club articles that have been created which are literally an infobox, one sentence and a link to the website (here's an example Doveton Football Club). Whether this club is notable enough for Wikipedia or it's just a poor quality article, I'm not sure, but I think it'd be worth as a project to create a guideline for these type of club pages that get created. Obviously AFL and state league clubs would all be notable, but from then on, I think we need some sort of guideline. From what I've seen in AFDs, the Victorian Amateur Football Association seems to be premier division clubs are notable enough for a stand alone page and lower divisions get redirected to the VAFA main page. I'm not really knowledgeable about a lot of leagues outside of the NT (where I live), so I think it'd be good to have some input from other editors to create some sort of guideline. Thoughts? Flickerd (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Local footy clubs are such an important part of their communities and often have long histories, you'd think they'd be able to find some local press coverage at least, and perhaps some mentions in a book or two, and thus rely on WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG. I searched for Doveton Football Club and found a few mentions in the major Melbourne newspapers. Many of them aren't entirely amateur, though, so I'd stay away from that term. For example, coincidentally I was browsing the Murrumbeena Football Club article and saw it mentioned that they got into financial trouble with their player payroll in the '80s. Plenty of suburban clubs and country clubs are paying at least a few players. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Tough one. As Jack says, most country/suburban football clubs that have been around for decades (or over a century in plenty of cases) probably are notable. But the problem is that very few of the hundreds of articles we have on these clubs demonstrate that. They are mostly bare bones articles only referenced to nonindependent or unreliable sources and are a nightmare to maintain, constantly being edited to e.g. change the coach which is often difficult to verify whether it's a good faith edit or vandalism by someone who plays ressies editing it to say he or his mate is the coach. I wouldn't object to redirecting any club article to the league they currently play in unless they have reliable third party sources referenced in the article. Jenks24 (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  - Thanks for the input, the main thing I was after was to try and get a gauge from other editors and have a discussion which can be referred to in the future if a specific guideline couldn't be finalised. I've started a table in my sandbox going through the Queensland leagues and I'm finding a commonality between a lot of the club pages whereby most don't have reliable sources and there are numerous pages created by the same user. I think it's going to be a lengthy process, but what I'm planning on doing is notifying editors on their talk page who created the page to try and add some reliable sources as the creators will have a much greater knowledge of the club than I do (but if it's a club I can add input to, then will go down that path too), then after a while if the pages still don't have reliable sources to satisfy GNG, then they can be redirected to the main league article per Jenks24's comment. Like I said a bit earlier, I don't have a great knowledge of minor leagues in other states, so I've written notes for each club in my sandbox table, and any input from other editors will be helpful. I think the QLD teams will be reasonably straight forward, but it will probably become a bit more tricky with SA, VIC, WA clubs etc. per Jacknstock's comments so any additional input/advice is helpful. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Notable supporters

Would anyone object if I culled these from every AFL club article? IMO they add nothing, are a pain to maintain and have no real inclusion standards. Jenks24 (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No objections from me. Written well, it could be a meaningful section, but invariably it becomes an uncontrolled list, so removing is probably best. Aspirex (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- disagree. keep them if they are proper long term fans, not one of promotional appearances (ie Hollywood stars given a jumper) & references. The-Pope (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  - I suppose I don't see what they add to the article. Notable person supports football team, what does that add to the reader's understanding of the club? It might be relevant to the biography article though. I'm OK with listing number 1 ticket holders like a couple of club articles have though, as a quasi-official position handed out by the club. Jenks24 (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    - That makes sense. If a notable person supports a football team, it is a significant part of their biography and there are reliable sources, that might be appropriate in the article for that person. I can't see how it is part of the football club article unless they are number 1 ticket holder or have a position in the club, in which case it is better in prose rather than a list. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      - And then there's Joffa!. -- Longhair\^talk 04:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
        Yes, there are always exceptions, as there should be! Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely no objections. To explain the issue another way, for those that seem to miss the point about the complete lack of appropriateness and, indeed, relevance. . .

While it may be extremely important to note the extremely significant, historical fact that the former Collingwood footballer, Collingwood captain, and Collingwood coach Murray Weideman was not a Roman Catholic, a fact that lodged deep within one of the footnotes to his Wiki-article -- i.e., "See for example, his brother's [viz., George Weideman, MLA] contribution to the 1990 Victorian Legislative Assembly's debate on the Collingwood (Victoria Park) Land Bill (and his interchange with former South Melbourne footballer, Bill McGrath, also a MLA), on 21 November 1990, at pp.2208-2218 of the Victorian Government Hansard of November 1990." -- but, obviously, a list of "important non-Catholics in Collingwood's history" is beyond the remit of any article dealing with the Collingwood football club.

Or, further, again for similarly important and significant historical reasons, whilst it is 100% relevant to note, in any article dealing with Wally Lovett that he was, after more than 100 years, the first (known to be) indigenous footballer to play for Collingwood (he did so in 1982), it would be just as absurd to have a long list of "Indigenous footballers rejected by Collingwood", within an article on Collingwood football club. Lindsay658 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

AFLX

Hi all,

Was wondering what you all think... Should we include the pre-season AFLX games on clubs' season pages? --SuperJew (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say there's no rush. Let's wait until we have an idea of how much interest the news sources take. If it's successful, then I'd say yes. If viewers and reporters turn out to think it's a bit meh, then leave it out. There's enough clutter as it is. Reyk _YO! 17:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I see Jono52795 added them to Collingwood's page. @Jono52795: Could you please weigh into this discussion? --SuperJew (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It's self-evident they are pre-season games, as they'll occur in the month before the regular season starts, and so it seemed appropriate to add them to the Collingwood 2018 season club page. Their inclusion, or lack thereof, isn't a big deal. My opinion though is that they improve, albeit slightly, the breadth of the article. If every other AFL-sanctioned competition (JLT Series, AFLW, reserves league) is included, why not this? Only reason I haven't added AFLX to other club articles is because I care little for clubs other than Collingwood :P Jono52795 (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Only reason I haven't added AFLX to other club articles is because I care little for clubs other than Collingwood Totally understandable! :D <3 --SuperJew (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox compatability

I've been running through some AFLW player's profiles and merging infoboxes under (infobox person) for those with existing ones from other sports. However there is an issue where the AFL biography embedded section carries an old infobox photo with it despite none being listed in the code. This can be seen on the latest version of Becchara Palmer for example. Can anyone with experience working on the infobox clarify why this is happening and possibly fix it? Thanks in advance. DustyNail (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You just need to add the image parameter and leave it blank and that will fix the problem (| image = ), I don't know what happened when I merged the two infoboxes on Becchara Palmer as I was already aware of this, but I've since fixed it, hope that helps. Flickerd (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, easy fix then. Thanks. DustyNail (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Linking season in infobox

[moved from Talk:Jasmine Garner to reach more project members for discussion]

To me, it looks as though SuperJew is only doing this at Collingwood player articles – if this is something that's used project-wide, then I wouldn't have a problem with this. It's not a massive deal anyway, but it can't just be done at certain articles; there needs to be consistency. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree with 4TheWynne that the linking of the season is unnecessary and edges towards WP:OVERLINK as all seasons are linked in the statistics table section where the link is more appropriate. I'm echoing 4TheWynne that if this format was used consistently across all player articles (and there are over 10,000 player articles which would need updating) then there would be no problem. The linking does not have any consensus, and many, many people update statistics without the linking of the season. I'll wait for SuperJew to respond, but IMO the seasons should be delinked as there is only one editor who is persisting with this format vs many who do not, and there needs to be consistency across the project. Flickerd (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, there is no linking of the season in the template doc at Template:Infobox AFL biography, therefore, that further shows that persisting to link the season in statsend on certain pages is further against consensus. Flickerd (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

With that, I'll remove the link – I don't see why we have to wait. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

When it says a year, the common expectation unless otherwise mentioned is that it refers to a calendar year. Yet in the infobox this refers to the season year. Therefore the phrase "Playing statistics correct to the end of 2017" would mean to the default end of December 2017, when actually for AFL player it means 30 September 2017, and for AFLW it means 25 March 2017. Linking to the season page, removes this ambiguity as it makes it clear it means for the season. I see a few ways to solve this ambiguity: (a) linking to the season page, (b) adding the word "season" (so it'll say "Playing statistics correct to the end of the 2017 season"), or (c) having the actual update date, as is done on soccer player infoboxes. As it is without linking is problematic though. And BTW, consistency is important across a project, but is not an acceptable reason for why to revert things if there is no discussion and consensus on the actual issue. --SuperJew (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This is really something that should be discussed at the project talk page, not here (I don't see why ambiguity in this case is that big of a deal, anyway) – until a consensus is reached, it should be removed from all relevant pages. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I too don't see an ambiguity, but in saying that, it doesn't mean no one else will because we should be editing for the sake of the readers. I think it is reasonable to have the b suggestion but for the end of season only and that provides more clarification, i.e during season is just statistics correct to the end of round 1, 2018, whereas end of season is statistics correct to the end of the 2018 season. So for now, the 2018 season in the AFLW pages should be delinked as there is zero ambiguty if the round is stated, but at the end of the season it can be statistics correct to end of 2018 season. If other editors object to that addition, then it should be taken to the project because that's when the change will be implemented from the long term consensus. Also, just as a side note, if something is edited the same way for a very long period of time (i.e. this is something that has been edited the same way for 10 years or so), then that is a consensus and if no specific discussion has occurred then that doesn't mean no consensus has been reached. Flickerd (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

To add, I also see (b) as being the only logical solution (and also only at the end of a season), but linking isn't going to solve the problem, and it should be removed for now (as I mentioned) and discussed at the project talk page in the meantime. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

[end moved part; further discussion begins here]

@4TheWynne: why is (c) not a logical solution? As mentioned, it is used in infoboxes of all soccer players, and this actually gives you the quickest most reliable information (reader doesn't have to look up the season page to see when the round/season was). --SuperJew (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC) @Flickerd: When I started editing and updating footy pages on Wiki, the Collingwood players' pages weren't being updated and I was the only editor for a while, so not entirely sure what you're on about. --SuperJew (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Just in response, I'm talking about the updating of statistics across the whole project (not a select few pages belonging to one team) and the way the statsend section has been in infoboxes for a long period of time and has a long-term of consensus of not linking to the season, i.e. I won't, but I could link multiple, multiple times where different editors have updated the statsend and not added in the link to season. Flickerd (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

SuperJew, I don't see how having a specific month/date in the infobox when having the round/season is most appropriate is going to benefit readers – I mean, is anyone actually going to look that up? AFL obviously works differently to soccer, tennis and other sports that have pages using that format. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Look what up? You don't need to look up the month/date, it is common that almost all readers will be familiar with it when reading. How does AFL work differently in this aspect? You think other sports' leagues don't work with rounds? --SuperJew (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

But what's the point of changing something that doesn't really need to be changed after it's been a certain way for nearly a decade when there is no ambiguity? Also, nearly everything is referred to in WP:AFL by round, not date, i.e. debut in infobox, debut in prose, any reference to a game in the prose, statistics table update, milestones in season pages and I could go on. Media articles written about the AFL at the end of season and anything with an overview refers to the round, not the date. We should be editing for the readers and nearly all AFL fans would refer to a game by the round, not the date after a period of time. Flickerd (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said, there is ambiguity as to if the year is calendar year or season. Wikipedia is for the readers yes, not only AFL fans. --SuperJew (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is why both 4TheWynne and I have said suggestion b is a good solution... having a date for one aspect creates inconsistency when nearly everything (referred to in my above comment) is referred to by the round. Every single project treats articles differently, not every single project needs to be exactly the same. WP:AFL has referred to statsend as a round for many years now, and every games/goals stats update in the middle of the season is by round which has been done by many, many different editors. Like I said, there is already a long term consensus regarding the statsend parameter for player pages across the whole project and considering no other editor has commented on this thread for nearly four hours, I think it's going to be difficult to find a consensus to make such a big change to the statsend parameter (by which I mean doing by date). Flickerd (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I'm not arguing against (b), just saying I think (c) is slightly better as it better serves more people. I also find it funny that you want consistency, but only so long as it's in your project. When more is brought in (like other sports) you go "but we treat it differently".. Can I argue on that basis that Collingwood editors treat it differently? 🤔 --SuperJew (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother anymore because it's starting to get ridiculous, if you want every single project to be exactly the same, then bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council or WT:SPORT and when there's a WikiProject:Collingwood Football Club, then Collingwood pages can be edited differently. So yes, I too can make up ridiculous hypotheticals. Flickerd (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

actual brilliant idea mate.. Can we call it WP:SIDEBYSIDE? --SuperJew (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

(yes I am just ribbing you now)

I'm of the general opinion that when giving a last updated data for statistical information, it should be presented with a specific date when mid-season, and with "end of the yyyy season" during the off-season. For any statistics/information pertaining both to the AFL and the AFLW (is this the case anywhere?), "end of the yyyy AFL[W] season" would be preferable during the off-season for disambiguity. It's worth noting that while the AFL is certainly much more consistent with round scheduling than many other sports, this is not a guarantee of round continuity. There have been VFL/AFL rounds in the past played out of order, and more importantly, it's a fairly common occurrence in smaller leagues. There are problems with the greater specificity, but accidental double-counting can go years without ever being noticed, and preventing that is vital. Sellyme^Talk 04:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Captions on Infobox photos

It is my understanding that the project standard has long been that photos are captioned as such:

Where a player has played for only one club: (Player) in (Month, Year).

Where a player has played for multiple clubs: (Player) with (Club) in (Month, Year).

The changes that SuperJew has been making over the last few days have been to add the club detail to all infoboxes despite that detail being unnecessary. The standard I've outlined above is most certainly the standard in other sports codes including NFL, NBA and professionsal association football and I see no reason to break from that. DustyNail (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Why does the amount of clubs a player has played for relevant? The infobox photo is one of the first things a reader sees, so the caption should describe it concisely without need for background information. --SuperJew (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"(Player) with (Club) in (Month, Year)" seems fine to me. Where is "(Player) in (Month, Year)" stated as the standard? It seems to me that it's simpler to label them all the same rather than differentiating between players who have played for one club and those who have played for multiple clubs. Also, it's worth considering that virtually no professional Aussie rules player has played for only one club, they've all played for multiple clubs over the years, just not all in the same league. Nick Larkey (random example) wasn't born playing for North Melbourne, he previously played for Oakleigh Chargers, and Oakleigh likely recruited him from some previous junior club. So, if I had a photo of Nick Larkey playing for Oakleigh, I might caption it "Nick Larkey with Oakleigh Chargers in August, 2016." In the same style, if I had a photo of Nick Larkey playing for North Melbourne, I might caption it "Nick Larkey with North Melbourne in August, 2017." What's the problem with that? Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the use of month as, in the context of a season, it's irrelevant. If the infobox image is from off-field or during a pre-season match, that's different. Personally – and I know that this probably isn't going to be a popular idea, but I see the benefits of this – I prefer to include the opponent and the round/finals series if the infobox image is during the season proper. In other words, "[Player] playing against [opponent] in [round, year]/[year finals series]". This tells the reader exactly what they need to know to identify the image, and not just basic information that can be deciphered from the rest of the infobox anyway – I don't see why it's unnecessary or how it "clogs up" the infobox. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:CAPTION; even if information is somewhere else in the infobox, it can still be in the caption, as (quoting WP:CAPTION) "different people read articles in different ways.... (some) readers, even if the information is adjacent in the text, will not find it unless it is in the caption." To me, the photo and caption in the infobox would ideally be a very brief summary of the article, as it may be all someone will read. I agree that the month might be considered superfluous, but so is the opponent. The identity of an opposing team is not usually notable in the context of an article on a specific player. However, a club for which they have played is notable. So I would support "(Player) with (Club) in (Year)." If it's a final, that could be mentioned because it is useful information about the player as it is an additional accomplishment to appear in a final, but not if it is only a round in the regular season. For readers who are less familiar with the AFL season, the round number wouldn't mean anything. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Jacknstock, I see where you're coming from, but I'm thinking more about what is important to the image itself rather than the article (which, I understand, isn't necessarily what we're discussing). At the end of the day, that's all fine, except for the month, which I still think should be removed. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to add more detail about an image, how about editing the description at Commons? For example, c:File:Daisy Pearce.3.jpg. Anyone who is interested in an image rather than the article can see more information about the image there. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

AFL Tables templates for coaches and umpires

Hi all,

I just created templates for the AFL Tables profiles of coaches and umpires, with linked Wikidata properties (coaches and umpires). Hopefully, in the future, all VFL/AFL coaches and umpires will have these templates in their external links sections, along with those for playing statistics, if those also apply. I'm not sure if anyone would like to help me, as I plan to add the values on Wikidata, then add them to the external links pages... eventually. Nonetheless, I thought I'd notify those who are creating new pages or editing coaches' and umpires' pages of the templates' existence. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 01:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

AFLX in templates

Wanted to get your thoughts. Do you think we should add the AFLX series to the pre-season competitions template? (and on a side-note that template name might be needing re-naming.. sounds weird to me) --SuperJew (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's where it belongs. Was it successful enough that they'll do it again? Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't successful enough to warrant that, but they might elect to regardless, who knows. Either way I don't think that should affect its inclusion in the template. The template isn't "AFL pre-season events that occurred 5+ times". Sellyme^Talk 10:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Haha cause the JLT series, is successful enough? (yet they keep bringing it back) --SuperJew (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jacknstock and Sellyme: Ok, I added the AFLX to the template. What do you think of a name change? I think to move it to "Template:AFL pre-season competitions" would be more correct. --SuperJew (talk)

I support the move, it's both unwieldy and unclear at the moment. Sellyme^Talk 12:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment. 50% of the competitions in the template aren't preseason competitions. It's a catchall template for preseason, night and lightning competitions which occurred pre-, mid- and post-season. The name should reflect that. Aspirex (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

AustralianFootball.com Links

Hi there,

Not sure if the right section to post this but someone here might be able to help.

My name is Oliver Gigacz I am a researcher and editor for AustralianFootball.com and have noticed some linking errors in Wiki articles.

Our site links for players includes the name of the player in the link as an example the link for AFLW player Kim Rennie is...

https://australianfootball.com/players/player/Kim+Rennie/20237

For Wiki articles such as Kim Rennie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Rennie) the Source: AustralianFootball.com link in the "player box" area of players leaves out the name in the respective links...

https://australianfootball.com/players/player//20237

While the External Links link uses the correct link with the name included...

https://australianfootball.com/players/player/Kim+Rennie/20237

For some reason the link without the name...

https://australianfootball.com/players/player//20237

Removes the "Advanced Stats" box/dropdown from our page. So people clicking these links are missing out on seeing player data. I have noticed the same accros all AFL/AFLW players that I have checked over the past month or so.

I am not sure why this happens and I am seeing if we can do something on our end but it looks like nothing can be changed easily without code changes to our site.

Is there anyway to change all links on Wiki to include the player name? Or at least make sure all future changes include the name in the link and removing the option of submitting a link without the player name.

Kind Regards

Oliver

Lonelyape94 (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the template documentary it seems to be related to the wikidata. It should be fixable (as the AFL Tables links is by alpha characters), but I'm not sure who works with it. --SuperJew (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look at the wikidata item and updated it for Kim Rennie. It's a pretty easy fix, but I'm unsure how many wiki profiles have just the numerical link versus name+number link, so anyone that can help out with updating wikidata items, that would be great. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems most if not all of them (I just looked and all the Collingwood players are just numerical link). I'll help out when I have more time. --SuperJew (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oliver. There are 3 main ways in which links are generated in Wikipedia, either entering a complete URL between single square brackets - [https://australianfootball.com/players/player/Kim+Rennie/20237] generates [1], or the link can be changed by adding a space - [https://australianfootball.com/players/player/Kim+Rennie/20237 Stats link] generates stats link. Or we often use templates to standardise the links with pre-defined parameters. You use double curly brackets to use them. In this case {{AustralianFootball|ref=Kim+Rennie/20237|alt=Kim Rennie}} is how we initially used them to create Kim Rennie at AustralianFootball.com, but in October last year, User:Thierry_Caro made a change to allow just the ID number to be used, not the player's name. I'm guessing that he tried it out, and to him https://australianfootball.com/players/player//20237 looked like a fully valid page, so he thought that the name part of the URL wasn't needed.

And that brings us to the third method, which is actually a subset of the template method. WikiData. EVERY single article here has an associated wikidata page, and part of those pages for EVERY single VFL/AFL/AFLW page, and lots of WAFL/SANFL/other league players has a property called "AustralianFootball.com ID". 13052 of them. And all of them, now, only contain the number, not the name. It is that number, that drives the coding that produces the "Source: AustralianFootball.com" link in the infobox on most footballers' pages.

So, changing 13,052 instances of WikiData isn't going to happen. What could happen, and I'll have play with it soon, is that the template code that produces the link, may be able to be modified to include the article name into the URL. But, I'm not sure if it can replace the space between the names (Kim Rennie) with a + symbol (Kim+Rennie) - but I think your site auto changes spaces to +s, so that might be the answer. I'll try, but if you could try to see if the website can accept the nameless URL... that would be much, much easier! Sorry about this, but automation is great, when it works. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've made some mods to the 2 templates, and I think it is working correctly now. However, I noticed that even if the page name doesn't match - ie Evangeline Gooch is Evie Gooch at AustralianFootball.com, the auto-generated Evangeline Gooch link seems to work ok. In both the {{AustralianFootball}} and {{Infobox AFL biography}} templates, the code allows for a manual setting of the URL via the "ref=evie%2Bgooch/20227" or "source= [https://australianfootball.com/players/player/evie%2Bgooch/20227 AustralianFootball.com]" parameter respectively. The-Pope (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I am the one who moved all the Wikidata entries to numerical IDs. I did not notice the small difference. I'm sorry. I can move back all the IDs to what they were before but it is going to take some time and effort. Do we want that to happen? I have the feeling that the website would benefit from working only with numbers so are we sure they won't be able to fix it there before we change everything again? Thierry Caro (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Module:Sports table now supports SANFL-style percentages

We've already been using this module for ladders for most leagues, but up until now we've had to custom-make wikitables for the SANFL because the module didn't have support for the 0-100 percentage style. That's now been patched, by adding |use_point_percentage=y to the header paramaters instead of |use_goal_percentage=y you can get the correct output. You can see an example of this in action at the newly updated Template:AFL Ladder/2017/SANFL. We should use this going forwards into the 2018 season rather than the old method. If anyone wants to update all the old tables to use the new format that would be amazing, but that's not a hugely pressing concern at the moment. Sellyme^Talk 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Some extra eyes at Australian Football League

Hi all, we may need some extra eyes at Australian Football League with a couple of IPs (although I'm pretty sure it's the same person) trying to re-write history and persistently changing the most premierships parameter in the infobox. @HiLo48: and @Jevansen: have already been helping out, but some extra help would be great. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been opened that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Specifying_the_code_of_football_at_first_reference_in_team_articles --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Specifying_the_code_of_football_at_first_reference_in_team_articles. Apparently it's "not an RFC"; I haven't followed up the link to find out why it's not. --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Problem with article on Footscray's "Wally Donald"

Over and above the generally non-standard writing, and all of the exaggerated and laudatory language that the article Wally Donald contains, and the complete lack of section headings and section breaks, it would ever so strongly seem to me that the gigantic lump of text that was inserted by some anonymous individual nearly two years ago — namely, see HERE — was taken holus-bolus, without any amendment, from some other source.

What can be done? Lindsay658 (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I did a few different plagiarism tests and it appears to be all original text and not a WP:Copyright violation. Just having a quick look at the text, it definitely needs a lot of clean up just from a writing standard and to meet the WP:Manual of Style. I've tagged it with a few clean up tags, otherwise, I think it's just going to be a situation of copy editing/rewriting the page. Flickerd (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Anzac Day / Queen's Birthday title change discussion

Click on the link for a discussion on changing the title for the Anzac Day and Queen's Birthday matches. Any input welcomed. Jono52795 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:2018 AFL season#2018 Attendances - Home state games against interstate opposition

There is currently a discussion at Talk:2018 AFL season#2018 Attendances - Home state games against interstate opposition about whether a new column in the attendance table called 'Home state games vs. interstate opposition" should be included. Thejoebloggsblog and I are requesting additional comments; please add your support or opposition with a !vote at Talk:2018 AFL season#2018 Attendances - Home state games against interstate opposition. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability of umpires

Hi,

In my opinion, field umpires who have officiated in one or more VFL/AFL games are notable. I've created a few umpires' pages recently, and it struck me that they should be mentioned at WP:NAFL. The only discussion I could find on the topic happened a while ago, and Richardcavell (and maybe The-Pope?) agreed. Thoughts? Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 02:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why - they're not really public figures. They may well pass the GNG on an individual basis, but there's absolutely no basis to assume that even most of them could do so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit on the fence, but probably leaning towards not including them in WP:NAFL as they aren't public figures in the same way players and coaches are. I think GNG is a good guide at the moment, but the notability requirement is something probably better discussed at WP:Umpire, however, I'm not sure how active the wikiproject is (perhaps raising it at WT:SPORTS is more appropriate to get a general notability requirement for umpires, not just specific sport umpires). Flickerd (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that umpires at the highest level of the AFL are notable - they may not warrant much of an article, but their participation is comparable to that of an AFL player. They've reached the highest level in a national game. I'm not as convinced about VFL umpires, especially in the early days. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no such thing as automatic notability for sportspeople, or umpires for that matter. They're notable if the sources demonstrate it, and I suspect that most modern AFL umps will meet that standard. Guys who blew the whistle a couple of times in the 1920s might be a different matter though; proper biographical information may well be lacking, and it might even be impossible to discern their full name. A stand-alone article would be a bad idea in such cases. Reyk _YO! 14:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reyk: There isn't automatic notability, but there is presumed notability (see for example WP:NAFL and other sections on the page). I assume that was the intention. --SuperJew (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

As long as this doesn't lead to a proliferation of microstubs saying "J. Bloggs (first name unknown, dob unknown, date of death unknown) was a VFL umpire who officiated the Round 3 1919 match between Geelroy and Carltingwood. Geelroy won by 14 points." just because we have a scorecard for the game. That is a disservice to everyone. Reyk _YO! 16:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@SuperJew and Reyk: Yes, that was the intention. Sorry; it probably should have been worded more clearly. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 04:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say no to a rule of presumed notability, and stick with WP:GNG. If the AFLUA's page or an AFL stats page is the sole reference, then they fail GNG and shouldn't have an article. If there is any reference outside of those stats pages which adds additional content, then treat that as a low bar for meeting GNG. Aspirex (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that a rule of presumed notability probably isn't wise, but how about presumed notability for those who officiated some minimum number of games (I'm thinking 100)? That seems like it would have pretty few false positives. Sellyme^Talk 10:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

What about those who have umpired a VFL/AFL Grand Final? Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

In the days that there was a single umpire in charge of an entire match, it seems that there are a number of VFL umpires that were notable for various reasons, including:

“Bunny” Nugent: see [2] -- served in Boer War, World War I, and World War II.
“Froggy” Thomson -- Australian test cricketer.
Henry "Ivo" Crapp – perhaps, in the entire history of Aussie Rules, the most influential field umpire ever.
Beitzel the jailbird – who, apart from his heartless exploitation of naïve Soccer Pools winners, was regarded as the best umpire of his day. Lindsay658 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Stats box, alignment

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

I've just noticed this in the stats tables too, it's definitely aligning differently whereby the ! parameters are now aligning left rather than centre, this is probably something that's happened in the wikitable module. These things usually correct themselves after time as the wikitable template is highly visible so I'm hoping it will be fixed soon (as I have no idea how to fix it in the module). Flickerd (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There's still no fix. Is there something we can do on our end to fix it assuming the parent module never gets fixed? DustyNail (talk) 5:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

DustyNail, I can't really see anything that can be done from our end as it's just the ! parameter in a wikitable, it's not a template where the issue is happening. I'd recommend bringing the issue up at Help talk:Table and explain the aligning issue. Flickerd (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

We will know the player didn't receive any votes by omission, much like after Richmond won the premiership last year we didn't add a sentence to every non-Richmond player in the league saying "X didn't win the premiership in 2017". To compare to your statistics table comparison, if a player doesn't play a single game they shouldn't have a statistics table. --SuperJew (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

My view is that although the Brownlow and AFLW equivalent are the highest honours, the reality is that it's top ten placings that are notable, not the gradual accumulation of votes by fringe players. Imho, a standalone table which for example itemises a ten year fringe player's Brownlow record as 0-0-4-1-0-3-5-6-2-1 isn't improving his article; stick the Brownlow votes by year in the stats table if the player has one, and put placings in the honours section. Aspirex (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

It should probably be on the far right of the table, not next to games. No source I've ever seen gives Brownlow votes second billing after games. Aspirex (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand that, but I've done it this way so that it stays under totals and doesn't go on the far right of the totals section of the table, splitting the playing statistics. Either that, or games and votes both don't come under totals and can go on the left and right of the playing statistics, respectively (see below). 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

That justification re totals vs non-totals makes sense. But I do prefer this more recent version to keep the onfield and off field stats apart. Aspirex (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I do as well – I also think it looks neater this way. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Really not a fan of the tables - it's unnecessary and doesn't provide useful information for the amount of clutter (or, in the case of losing best and fairest, not useful at all). Also don't see the point of having yet another column in the stats table to record trivial amounts of votes. Easy enough just to mention the Brownlow votes in the article text if it's significant. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

To which table are you referring? I honestly don't see how the votes are trivial – this could just be me (which isn't uncommon), but I personally think that the votes are just as important as any of the other statistics in the table, and that calling them trivial would be like calling the rest of the statistics trivial. I also disagree with your second point – it's even easier to just record the votes exactly as they're presented in the sites that the section is sourcing, which is exactly what the most recent version above does. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Example

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

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

I'm comfortable with the inclusion of Brownlow/WomB&F votes in the stats table and think it is far cleaner than the current Brownlow Votes table. The only thing is I would prefer if it is in the legend as having just a "Votes" column heading is a bit ambiguous IMO (even though there is a link, I'd still prefer to have it in the legend). I think having the column heading as BV and then the legend as Brownlow Votes and WBFV or BFV for the women's with the legend as Women's best and fairest votes (but this means there would be separate templates for AFL and AFLW). The only other issue is a procedural one, as there are 901 transclusions for the basic table and 85 for the ruckman one. This is going to be a mammoth task to update all the tables and the votes column can't really be added to the template until all transclusions are updated. I'd suggest creating a new template with the Brownlow column option just while it's all being implemented and then the created Brownlow template can be redirected to the existing template with the added column once all stats tables are updated. Flickerd (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with shortening from "Votes" to an abbreviation while the women's award still doesn't have an official name – I think our task will be made easier by not having to have two different legends as well, which is why I thought having two different start templates, both with a "Votes" column (with the men's linking to the Brownlow Medal and the women's linking to the AFL Women's best and fairest), would be the best solution. All that making the changes to the start template(s) will do is add an extra blank column – would it not be easier to do that first before updating every article that includes the table? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Then you would have nearly 1000 articles with an uneven table and unexplained column (see below) and how realistic is it going to be that they're all going to be updated in a very short amount of time (it will probably take over a month if done efficiently, so it will probably take even longer). I am strongly against having that amount of pages with a table that has a blank column like that. With the aforementioned suggestion of having a seperate template that is then redirected, no further updates will need to be made after that and it eradicates the issue of having large amounts of pages with blank columns. Flickerd (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If votes column is added to template before transclusions are updated

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

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

If transclusions are updated before votes column is added to template


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

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

Move Template:AFL player statistics legend to Template:Australian rules football statistics legend, and otherwise keep it the same.
Move Template:AFL player statistics legend/ruckman to Template:Australian rules football statistics legend/ruck, and otherwise keep it the same.
Move Template:AFL player statistics start/ruckman to Template:AFL player statistics start/ruck.
Add the "Votes" column to Template:AFL player statistics start and Template:AFL player statistics start/ruck, with "Votes" linking to the Brownlow Medal.
Create separate start templates for AFL Women's players, Template:AFLW player statistics start and Template:AFLW player statistics start/ruck, with everything the same including the "Votes" column, but instead linking to the AFL Women's best and fairest.
Abolish the Brownlow votes box (including the AFL Women's-equivalent that I've added to a few articles – one of which was reverted, which brought about this whole discussion in the first place).

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

I'm fine with the suggested changes, although I'd still prefer to have the legend with votes (and if there's going to be newly created start templates for women's, wouldn't it be the same amount of work adding the women's legend and therefore there would be the same amount of transclusions?). As for the implementation (and we're just discussing trying to do the best process, I don't see it as arguing), I don't think either of the above examples (If votes column is added to template before transclusions are updated or If votes column is added to template before transclusions are updated) should be how the change is implemented as that will create mass amounts of incomplete tables. There's a couple of ways it can be done so there aren't mass amounts of incomplete tables, [3] [4] this was how it was done a couple of years ago when the ruck stats table was reordered, or the implementation I've already alluded to which will be much easier to do than the ruckman way that was done a couple of years ago

original table
step 1; add column with new template name
step 2; once all have been updated to the new template (User:Flickerd/sandbox/Template10 in this example) is then redirected to the original start template
step 3; the start template then has the votes column added

I'm happy to do the first update so you can see it in practice in an actual article rather than the sandbox. In addition, I'm happy doing the other work to make it all implement properly, all you'd need to do is add the votes in the actual column. Any way this change is implemented, it's going to be a big job. Flickerd (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever works, in terms of the approach. To address your first point, though, that's exactly why I suggested have the "Votes" column heading and link, so that it would not need to be used in the legend. Only one legend would be required, and it would only need to be moved to a more neutral title (my first point), and thus a second (women's) legend would not need to be created. I'm strongly for "Votes" over an abbreviated form for that reason, because it looks neater, and because the women's award still doesn't have an official name. I'm sure we can always just implement the suggested changes and then discuss legends/abbreviated forms in the future, perhaps once the award is given a name. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've created and implemented the new template (per above) and updated tables at Nathan Jones, Christian Petracca and Max Gawn (ruck). So basically as has been said, once all transclusions have been updated then the original start template will be updated. I'll try and help out as much as I can with updates, but I'm also a bit busy so may be a bit sporadic. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help so far. I think that the votes for the current season should be left blank (rather than "TBA") until after the Brownlow ceremony, like at AFL Tables (which I changed at Petracca's article), but that's something that we haven't thought to discuss yet. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. We should never feel shy about leaving table cells blank rather than putting TBA in them if the information doesn't exist yet. Aspirex (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

TBH I agree with leaving it blank, I was a bit unsure when I was doing it last night which one to do and originally had it blank but the added TBA, but probs better to have it blank. Flickerd (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not just use a dash ( - ) as we do with other not applicable entries such as when a player hasn't played a game that season? Having it empty makes it look like it's been forgotten about. BTW, though it seems like I'm too late to the party but I personally disagree with adding votes to the stats table. For a vast majority of players this will be a pointless as very few players actually record votes in any one year. That's the justification I can see for having it divided into a separate box in the first place as most players will just have 0 votes in most years. DustyNail (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Norm Smith Medal

Hi all, I've recently returned to editing after a bit of a hiatus for the past few years and I've been working on cleaning up the Norm Smith Medal article over the last couple of days (I'm trying to get another WP:AFL featured list to join our lonely one!). If anyone would like to have a look over it for me (or make some changes themselves) that would be great. Also, if anyone is keen to help with a potential FL process, that would be appreciated as I have never done it before in all my years on here! Thanks, Allied45 (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I've stripped out some of the excessive trivia - especially from the lead - which would have hindered the article's chances of being featured. Aspirex (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, it's a lot cleaner - Allied45 (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and listed this as a FLC, please feel free to contribute at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Norm Smith Medal/archive1 — Allied45 (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yet another bid for soccer to be called football in Australian articles.

We currently have the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). It basically says that in Australian articles the four main football codes in Australia are to be known as Soccer, Australian rules football, Rugby league and Rugby union in Australian articles . This guideline was established after some very difficult and confrontational debate, and I would rather it never happened again. However, there is yet another proposal on the table to change it so that soccer is called football in some Australian articles. It's at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Looking at practical usage here. Interested editors, feel free to join in. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

And Barassi Line is under attack too....

...by the same editor who wants soccer to become football. (See above.) He is already effectively edit warring at that page. Won't go the Talk page. Those pointing out differences in usage of the word football around the country use it to explain where those differences occur. So it doesn't suit those arguing for soccer to become football for all of Australia.

I have had major conflicts with this editor in the past, and would dearly love someone else to pick up the ball here please. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Player games totals

Hi all, I'm in need of some help! We all know it's widely accepted that player game totals only include home-and-away and finals games (and that a player only "debuts" for a club if they play one these games), however I have been searching high and low to try and find a reference for this consensus. Does anyone know where I could find something that essentially outlines that pre-season/practice/representative etc. games are not generally considered in a players' overall games total? Thanks in advance, Allied45 (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a greyish area, because "official" is an unclear concept. We know, for example, that qualification for AFL life membership includes interstate, preseason and IR games (http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-07/ten-to-be-awarded-afl-life-membership). But, we know by convention (AFL Tables, AFL hall of fame citations, banners, etc) that senior premiership games is the number that matters and should be reported most prominently. We also know that a player's statistics for his club could exceed those recognised by his primary league due to night premiership games being considered (quite validly, as they were for the club but not in the main league - see the records for Fred Cook as an example). But ultimately any time non-premiership games are included, it is by exception and that exception is clarified. Net result is that the consensus for using senior premiership games only is not in any single reference but comes from the conversation final usage across the bulk of the literature. Aspirex (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I think the example where SANFL or WAFL players of old who had an illustrious career in their respective league and had a short stint in the VFL at some point in their careers should be the only sort of case where an exception is made – otherwise, VFL/AFL premiership matches (not pre-season, practise or reserves matches) should be the only number listed, as that seems to be the way things have always been. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there are two alternatives, but once consensus is reached then whichever format is chosen needs to be maintained in a consistent way.

(1) The infobox to allow all competition premiership, finals, night and representative matches to be included from all major leagues, OR

(2) The infobox to restrict to premiership/finals matches in major leagues, and the general article text be allowed to include a "SENIOR CAREER" section which succinctly summarises a player's career including matches in other leagues and night and representative matches.

The VFL introduced a "200 Club" in 1961 and as an article on page 12 of the 1962 Grand Final Record points out "The 200 Club was formed last year and membership is restricted to the small band of players and ex-players who have completed 200 or more League games. Four new members were admitted this year: Ted Whitten (Footscray), who has played more than 200 premiership matches; and Allan Aylett (North Melbourne); Jack Clarke (Essendon) and John James (Carlton), each of whom has reached the 200 mark with interstate and night matches." http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/118960

RossRSmith (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, this is pretty much what I thought, being there's no clear definition (even within the AFL). I guess for my purposes, I have used the term "premiership competition" (as defined here) to distinguish home-and-away and finals matches from pre-season or representative games. – Allied45 (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Image copyright

Does anyone have a good understanding of Australian copyright laws and whether certain photographs are in public domain? As far as I can tell, these photograph collections of the 1937 and 1952 Geelong premiership teams would be in the public domain (with the exception of the WEG cartoon?) as they were taken prior to 1955, and can therefore be uploaded to Commons/used on Wikipedia indiscriminately. If so, they would make great historical additions to several player/club/season articles . Can anyone on the project help ascertain this? – Allied45 (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Allied45, in order for photos to be published on Commons it needs to be in the public domain in both Australia and the USA as Wikipedia/Commons goes by US law. So basically per the URAA date, photos published in Australia prior to 1 January 1946 is considered in the public domain. For photos (both anonymous photographer and known) published prior to 1923, use the license templates PD-Australia and PD-1923, for photos (both anonymous photographer and known) published between 1923 and 1945 use PD-Australia and PD-1996|Australia. There are rules for other types of works which are detailed in PD-Australia, but basically, keep to the rule that anything published after 1 January 1946 is highly unlikely to be in the public domain for both Australia and the US. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are examples of both before 1923, between 1923-1945. Flickerd (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarity Flickerd. So using that logic, 1937 would be okay, but 1952 would not? Also there are examples of images on Commons that are in the Australian public domain, but don't seem to be in the US (such as this and this) so I'm a little confused by that part - the examples you used do make sense though. – Allied45 (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct, 1937 is fine but not 1952. I think there are quite a few people who upload images to Commons who don't fully understand that it has to be in the public domain in the US as well, ie. only before 1955 is fine, and I was definitely like that when I started uploading photos, before realising about the URAA date. There are a lot of photos on Commons so a lot of them fall between the cracks, but Commons:File:Ray Lindwall, late 1940s.jpg should be nominated for deletion as it's not in the PD in the US. Commons:File:Ian Johnson.jpg is a bit more tricky as there isn't a specific date, but considering his Australian Test career didn't start until 1946, I'd say per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, it should probably also be nominated for deletion. Flickerd (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for clearing that up! – Allied45 (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

AFL era only records article

User:Thejoebloggsblog has created Australian Football League records and statistics, as distinct from List of Victorian Football League/Australian Football League records, covering records only since the VFL to AFL name change in 1990. He has attempted to justify it on the talk page stating "Created in line with Premier League records and statistics. English football has two records pages, one dedicated to the top flight of football in the country, Football records in England, and one dedicated specifically when the top level was renamed the Premier League."

I don't think that there is any reason to separate out post 1990 records because:

No reliable reference does that. The AFL, all the major stats sites, radio, TV, all treat VFL/AFL records as one continuous stream.

Former AFL Chairman Mike Fitzpatrick in his own words "Hawthorn enhanced its reputation as the powerhouse of the

AFL era by adding the 2015 Toyota AFL Premiership to the premierships it had won in 2008, 2013 and 2014. We congratulate the ::Hawks who have played in six Grand Finals in the AFL era."^[1]Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing changed other than 1 letter in the logo between 1989 and 1990. The Premier League teams "resigned en masse" and created a new league. That's completely different.
Yes, the term "in the AFL era" is used colloquially at times, and records are sometimes presented restricted to that, but I'd say it's just as often as they are restricted to "in the 2000s" or "since XXXX's last flag", whatever best emphasises the point the person is trying to make. Why not have articles for records since 1908 (Rich/Uni join), 1925 (Haw/NM/WB join), 1982 (Sydney relocation), 1987 (WC/BB expansion), 2012 (current 18 teams), or any of the numerous rule changes around scoring, free kicks or numbers of players on the bench/interchange/substitutes?

I propose that rather than go through a formal AfD or PROD process, we get a consensus here, and then either keep it, or rather than delete it, redirect it to the VFL/AFL records page, as it is a viable search term. The-Pope (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

~~Redirect~~ Undo the move and return to status quo with "List of Australian Football League records" as the main article and "List of VFL/AFL records" redirected to it. For all the reasons you've listed. It's well established across all common usage that VFL and AFL records are combined and that any other representation is a SYNTH. Aspirex (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Redirect to the VFL/AFL records page.Lindsay658 (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to the VFL/AFL records page. The-Pope has presented the reason well. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Redirect. None of the sources on the page make this distinction. Jevansen (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've now added many that do including former AFL Chairman Mike Fitzpatrick (footballer) in regards to Hawthorn.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirect despite agreeing with the concept of the stats from when "AFL" started as an entity thats not how the stats are recorded, used, or propagated the redirect is logical for those who have only known the expanded VFL as the afl.... Gnan garra 10:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Redirect – the AFL isn't a separate entity from the 1897–1989 VFL; it's the same league, just with a name change. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Redirect. The article is primarily statistical and sources for stats e.g. afltables do not make the distinction between VFL and AFL statistics and records. Also because of this lack of distinction in statistical sources and the number of unreferenced figures in the article it looks like a lot of it is WP:OR where the information's been extrapolated from sources that don't actually make the distinction. TripleRoryFan (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is pretty clear (and includes editors self-identifying as both Victorian club fans and non-Victorian club fans), so I'll make the redirect. I'd still like to get views on whether the article should be reverted to its old name 'List of Australian Football League records' or left at its new name 'List of Victorian Football League/Australian Football League records'. I favour reverting. Aspirex (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

This is an arbitrary decision. Both pages should be able to exist side by side. I have cited Mike Fitzpatrick (footballer)'s comments but I'll leave this debate with a comment of Rohan Connolly "Who are the kings of football's castle? For Victorian fans, it remains Carlton and Essendon, with 16 premierships, Collingwood close behind on 15. But for the sizeable army of AFL clubs and supporters beyond this state's borders, those figures are largely irrelevant, with only five of those collective 47 flags won under the AFL banner." The VFL and AFL records page should remain explicitly titled as such.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Based on the article List of National Football League records (individual) including records from when the NFL was called the APFA in its first two seasons, I think it should be named just 'List of Australian Football League records', though I'm not sure if the comparison is entirely relevant since the NFL has had that name for all but two seasons whereas the AFL was the VFL for almost a hundred years before being renamed AFL. Are there any other cases where a league's been renamed that we could use to gauge what the title should be? TripleRoryFan (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

List of National Rugby League records is the closest analogue I can think of. Also the AFL records talk page had a brief move discussion (a 2-1 split, no true consensus) last year to move from VFL/AFL to AFL. Aspirex (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Most other articles and lists in this field use "Australian Football League" in their titles, but if each of them span the length of the VFL/AFL competition, then I would be in favour of changing all of those, including this one, to include "VFL/AFL" instead of "Australian Football League" or simply "AFL". I think that we need to be consistent here; a couple of prominent examples include the player-related lists List of VFL/AFL players to have scored 500 goals and List of VFL/AFL players to have played 300 games. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe that some of this "within-Wiki" issue is being seriously confused by the equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') that lies within the current, wide "outside of Wiki" imprecise (and therefore ambiguous) application of the term AFL.
In some cases (A), driven by the commercial/media/corporate/advertising/trademark forces, the ideal (and historically accurate) term for the game itself, "Aussie Rules", is being displaced by the term AFL -- in the same way that, driven by the commercial/media/corporate/advertising/trademark forces, the ideal (and historically accurate) term for the game itself, "Rugby League", is being replaced by the term NRL.
In others (B), the term AFL is being used to denote the top level competition that (historically) is an extension of the (earlier) VFL competition, centred on Melbourne (in the same way that the term NRL is being used to used to denote the top level competition that (historically) is an extension of the (earlier) New South Wales Rugby League competition, centred on Sydney).
It is important that all within-Wiki applications clearly disambiguate this equivocation.
I (reluctantly) suggest that cases of (A), "Aussie Rules", be referred to as "AFL".
In cases of (B), I (strongly) suggest the use of the term "VFL/AFL; and, of course we already have the precedent where we now speak, within-Wiki, of "VFA/VFL" to describe the top level Victorian competition, now labelled the Victorian Football League (VFL) that (historically) is an extension of the (earlier) Melbourne-centred Victorian Football Association (VFA), within which, for example, Port Melbourne Football Club has played continuously since 1886. Lindsay658 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Most places in the world, Australian football is not known as AFL. It is known as Australian football. Also, referring to the sport as "AFL" causes confusion between the sport itself and the top level competition (an example is the phrase "Bob Smith played AFL"). Your suggestion (A) would create ambiguity and lacks precision. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Jacknstock your point is well made. I find the widespread reference to the sport as "AFL" abhorrent. I agree with you entirely. Lindsay658 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

^ Fitzpatrick, Mike (2015). 2015 AFL Chairman's Report (PDF). Melbourne: AFL. p. 18.

Template nominated for deletion

Hi WikiProject Australian rules football. FYI, Template:1884 Port Adelaide premiership players has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to comment at the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We need a spring clean...

Hi all, I've just been poking around a few of our AFL categories and have stumbled across a large number of non-notable, unnecessary and/or redundant articles (IMO). I appreciate we have a group of passionate editors who largely would have good intentions, but I have come up with quite a list of articles that I believe warrant discussion. This is not aimed at anyone or anything like that (I think I even have developed some of the articles I've listed!), I just think we need to clean it up a bit and ensure we are not unnecessarily broadening our scope with coverage of trivial entries.

Potential merge/redirects (→ article that it could be merged/redirected to)

North Melbourne Grand Final Breakfast → AFL Grand Final
Dream Team (Australian rules football) → AFL Hall of Fame Tribute Match
AFL Dream Team / AFL SuperCoach → Fantasy football (Australian rules football)
AFL Coaches Association awards → AFL Coaches Association (I would also say a few of these awards are not that notable, such as the "Support Staff Leadership Award")
AFL Draft Combine → Australian Football League draft (remove testing records tables etc.)
List of players drafted to the Australian Football League under the father–son rule → Father–son rule
Friday Night Football (AFL) / Saturday Night Footy / Sunday Night Football (AFL) → content could be merged into Seven Sport, Nine's Wide World of Sports etc.
List of Brisbane Bears coaches / List of Brisbane Bears captains / Brisbane Bears Club Champion / List of Brisbane Bears leading goalkickers → Brisbane Bears (some of these have two entries and it will never expand for a defunct club!)
List of University Football Club coaches / List of University Football Club captains / List of University Football Club leading goalkickers → Melbourne University Football Club (similar to Brisbane Bears)
Greek Team of the Century / Indigenous Team of the Century / Italian Team of the Century → Team of the Century (VFL/AFL) (maybe create one article to cover all these variations?)
Metro footy / Masters Australian football / Nine-a-side footy / Footy 9s → Variations of Australian rules football (not really familiar with any of these variations, but it seems like a right fit?)
Auskick → ?
Recycled player → Glossary of Australian rules football
Boundary rider → Glossary of Australian rules football
Rushed behind → Laws of Australian rules football#Scoring (there is not even an article for behinds...)
Coast-to-coast goal → ?

Potential deletions

Individual season pages for Mark of the Year, Goal of the Year, AFL Army Award – these are messy and I don't think round-by-round nominees are notable.
Category:Australian Football League Awards Seasons Voting
AFL Umpires Association
Gods of Football
Naked for a Cause
Squiggles AFL
List of Australian Football League season disposal leaders – unnecessary statistical listing
Golden Gate Australian Football League – doesn't appear notable enough to warrant an article
Mascot Manor
Name A Game
AFL Heritage Round – themed round only in existence for six seasons
Australian Football International

Other

Colliwobbles
Australian rules football injuries (whilst the below are well-written, I don't really see the point?)

This list is not definitive, and I am expecting there will be various viewpoints on the way forward for at least some of these items!

P.S. I also have a new FLC listed for List of Gold Coast Football Club players, if anyone would like to check out :) – Allied45 (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Well worth discussing. As I scan all of those articles, I'll say the following:

North Melbourne Grand Final Breakfast probably just meets WP:GNG – even though it's not really notable thesedays, i remember it being a much bigger thing in the 90s, and if it was notable then, it would still qualify under WP:NOTTEMPORARY.
Dream Team - agree with merge. Probably even just redirect - the Hall of Fame Tribute Match page already has more information than the DT page.
SuperCoach/DreamTeam - agree. Even the NFL Fantasy Football leagues don't have individual pages (the bookmakers who produce them do, but the fantasy competitions themselves do not)
AFLCA Awards - I'd go the other way: delete the AFLCA page and leave the AFLCA awards page. AFLCA Player of the Year was big enough to attract back-page coverage this year, and the AFLCA itself doesn't really generate any press except for that award.
Draft Combine - agree. As a standalone event it's not really notable. Merge as about a paragraph of content on the AFL Draft page and remove the awards.
List of players drafted under father-son rule – disagree with merge, and would favour deletion outright. I had previously tried to get rid of this list from the main Father-Son page (see Talk:Father–son_rule#Notable_father/son_selections?), and ended up spinning it out into its own page as a compromise when others disagreed. The list was way too long for the page, and the fact that it's drafted F-S players only (ignoring any father-son from the residential era - i.e. the first fifty years of F-S rule history) makes it a totally pointless list imho.
Friday/Saturday Night Football – keep. There's enough broadcast history to pass GNG.
Sunday Night Football - delete outright. Not notable.
Bears/University - agree.
Greek/Indigenous/Italian team of the century – probably retain as is. The problem with a compilation article is that it doesn't really represent a single cohesive topic ('List of VFL/AFL Teams of the Century with race- or heritage-based qualification' doesn't really have a ring to it, and 'List of VFL/AFL Teams of the Century' would need all of the club teams included). We could consider deletion, but these teams seem to get enough coverage in their own right (i.e. they get mentioned regularly in their members' lists of career highlights) that they'd meet GNG.
'Variations of australian football' articles - merge anything shorter than two paragraphs, recognising that any of the variations would be valid to be spun back out into their own articles with more content.
Auskick - retain. It's a fairly fundamental junior program and would meet GNG pretty comfortably for me.
All proposed glossary redirects - agree.
For all articles listed under "potential deletions" - agree. Special note for Squiggles AFL, which has no third party sources and looks like it might be promotional (I've never heard of Squiggles AFL, incidentally)
Colliwobbles - it's Australian sport's only real named premiership curse, so it probably meets WP:GNG. (It's not a particularly good article, but its premise meets GNG)
Injuries articles – delete. These all popped up at a similar time (around August/September 2015), all written by editors with no other content of note. The leading theory is that there was a school project that resulted in these articles, since they weren't really written in a Wikipedia style. Overtraining of AFL athletes is another. There was another one around the same time called Drugs in the Australian Football League, although that one has been improved and restyled into wikipedia style since and is probably keepable.

My own laundry list of articles that need sweeping out are:

2014 NAB Challenge, 2015 NAB Challenge and all subsequent years (i.e. the pre-season results from after 2013, the last year that there was a pre-season premier) - delete them. Short lists of stand-alone practice matches cannot possibly pass WP:GNG once the preseason premiership was eliminated.
Coathanger (Australian rules football) - redirect to the glossary
Clanger (Australian rules football) - redirect to the glossary
Key position player - redirect to the glossary
One percenter (Australian rules football) - merge with the glossary
Snap kick - redirect to glossary
F. D. Book Medal - merge with East Perth Football Club
Australian football tactics and skills - delete. This lacks cohesion and is an unencyclopedic topic.
List of Australian rules football families - delete. Unencyclopedic list, better suited to a fansite than wikipedia.
List of Australian rules football clubs by date of establishment – highly unmaintained, no clear criteria for inclusion, and probably lacks historical rigour. Either delete, or make a "list of clubs from pre-1870" or something like that to preserve the old history and ignore the rest.
List of first kick/first goal kickers in the VFL/AFL – delete. We shouldn't have a statistical quirk as the basis for a list.
East Fremantle Football Club Hall of Fame - merge with EFFC, probably losing some content. (Much of what is there is better suited to EFFC website than wikipedia)
Sydney–West Coast AFL rivalry - delete. It was the zeitgeist when they were competing in close grand finals, but it's not a real rivalry.
List of umpire associations in Australia - delete. It's a directory of external links.
List of nicknames used in Australian rules football - delete. A pointless laundry list of random AFL players' nicknames.

I could keep going, but that's my thoughts from a one-hour scan of the categories. Aspirex (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Aspirex, and I agree with all your additions to the list too. The information in the "Challenge" articles can be found in most individual club season pages, which is a much better solution than just having an article listing practice matches. In regards to Australian football tactics and skills, some of this could be incorporated into the glossary article - the rest is largely unverifiable. It's amazing how many of these articles have existed for so long! – Allied45 (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and redirected the Brisbane Bears lists to the main article – Allied45 (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you go through these a few at a time before making redirects/merging? Many of these are good ideas (and long overdue) but there are so many that there are some potentially useful ones and it's impractical to try to discuss so many in one hit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the only one I have touched, as I believed it to be not a controversial move. I was not planning on actioning all these immediately myself, and I am more than happy to break it down to discuss. – Allied45 (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I really hate destructive "sweeps" like this. Never gives those who may think they are valid, useful, notable lists/topics to recommend that they are kept. It's been a long weekend over here. About to be school holidays. Don't have time to got through one by one and agree or disagree. But jumping out at me are the father son and families lists which are topics that ARE subject of books and many articles. Mark it for improvement or further cleanup if you wish, but they are clearly lists with a clear definition, and generally well referenced. The-Pope (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying that this is a lot to digest all at once. I am more than happy to break this down to discuss over a longer period, it does not all have to happen now. We can individually list articles as appropriate, and as a start I have listed Squiggles AFL for deletion to dicuss. – Allied45 (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree that we need a clean up but needs to be done over time and with reasonable discussion, i.e. I have had an incredibly busy month and only just saw the Brisbane Bears redirects which I completely disagree with per WP:NTEMP. I agree with others where it's probably better to break down page groups/categories etc. rather than a lump sum (unlikely to have much progress unless it's staggered). Flickerd (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see the Brisbane Bears lists as a matter of notability (of course the content is notable!), just of organisation because they're so short - because all the contents can and have been merged into Brisbane Bears with nothing lost. If they were longer and made a total merge into the main article unworkable, I'd be all for keeping them - but I feel like that works (as someone opposed to merges more often than not). The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct, it was never about notability, more about the fact that all the information can be incorporated into the main article without making it too large. For instance, List of Brisbane Bears captains consists of two names and the years. Since there will be no more additions to this, there is no need for an stand-alone list with just two entries... Also, I completely agree that we can stagger discussions (I guess my intention was more to garner people's overall thoughts rather than calling for immediate action) – Allied45 (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

As a general rule, when doing mass cleanup like this (where the articles share no significant similarity and can only be decided on a case to case basis), I'd strongly recommend only deleting content where it's both fairly trivial and absolutely unanimous that it should be deleted. For cases like the Brisbane Bears/University lists, a simple reorganisation is fine, but anywhere that content is going to be outright removed or significantly trimmed upon a merge needs to have a discussion on its own merits without being mixed in with a clump of other articles that could turn away genuine discussion. Including articles like Auskick in this list is just dangerous, I'd hate to see something as obviously notable as that get merged into another arbitrary article because people tuned out halfway through the list and didn't notice it. I agree with others here that it's better to group similar articles up (e.g., cultural Teams of the Century, BB/Uni lists, injuries, glossary entries), and then have individual discussions on the articles in those groups one at a time. Nothing here is egregiously bad, so we don't need to rush on improving things at the detriment of due care. My suggestion would be to tackle the glossary entry articles first, as they seem like a fairly uncontentious way to shorten the list by a significant margin. Sellyme^Talk 16:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a tiny observation... Been doing a bit of a cleanup on AFL Grand Final, and found a mention there of Colliwobbles (mentioned above). It wasn't linked. I linked it, because it's the right thing to do. I don't have any great feeling for it sticking around if consensus decrees otherwise, but just wanted to highlight that a more significant article does mention the phenomenon. (PS: Anyone else wanting to help with AFL Grand Final is very welcome. It's not in great condition.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's get the Grand Final on the main page

The 2018 AFL Grand Final should be on Wikipedia's main page as an In The News item. It's not, because it appallingly referenced. See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#2018 AFL Grand Final. There are two Australian nominations at ITN right now. {The recent death of Bob Jane is the other.) Both events look like not being posted for the same reason. Australian editors are gaining the image of not knowing how to properly cite their articles. Can anyone help please? HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Australian rules football season

Hi guys, I have just fixed up Template:Infobox Australian rules football season, in particular the wooden spoon parameter. If someone would like to go and fix up the all the AFL season pages as per this edit, that would be great. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Is wooden spoon really a parameter that we want in the infobox? Its neither an award nor an achievement, and probably should be dropped. Max attendance (which is usually the GF) should probably be dropped as well. Aspirex (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Dead links

I have noticed all the "Match report" links used in the game templates for older seasons (i.e. in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011) are mostly now all dead. This is obviously a concern, as there is nothing stopping links used across other season pages from suffering the same fate at any point.

Some of the links have already been replaced by archived versions from the Wayback Machine, which is a great solution (here is an example). However, potentially many of these dead links may not have archived versions that can be used. How do others propose we tackle this for future? Would it be best to use the Wayback Machine to implement these reports each round rather than the live pages on the AFL website? Or should we only replace links as they "die" (remembering that it may not be possible to attain an archived version once they do, and we would have to continually check older links)? — Allied45 (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is quite a widespread problem for all of Wikipedia, not this project specifically. --SuperJew (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

2017 AFL Rising Star is a Featured List Candidate

For those who are interested, I have nominated the 2017 AFL Rising Star page as a FLC (see discussion here!) This is a part of my own goal to increase the quality of AFL-related articles and lists (since August 2018 I have successfully promoted Norm Smith Medal, List of Gold Coast Suns players and List of AFL debuts in 2008 to FL-status). Please feel free to leave any comments and feedback, as it would be great to get more AFL editors involved! Allied45 (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Massive problem with lower half of "VFL year" pages

I haven't had time to do anything except check the 1965 to 1970 pages and, consequently I don't know how far back (or forward) the "problem" goes.
In my limited attempts to go back through the "history" of changes, I can't identify why it's happened -- although I strongly suspect it has something to with the insertion of the end-of-season table, on the grounds that, each problem page's "problems" only commence after that table, in each case.
I don't know what has generated the "problem", when it was generated, or how to fix it: the "problem" being that everything at the bottom of the six articles that I have seen is centrally justified -- rather than what it ought to be, that is, left-justified.
Can somebody, please, with greater skill, greater access to Wiki-internal mechanisms, and greater knowledge than myself, look into this matter ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10], and so on),and rectify it. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Good pick-up Lindsay658, the issue was in the Template:AFLLadderHeader markup. There were <center> parameters in use, which I have removed. The ladder tables no longer automatically align in centre of article, but neither does everything else! Allied45 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Well done. Lindsay658 (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Notability of Australian footballers who competed in the 1956 Summer Olympics demonstration match

You guys might be interested in this discussion I just started over at WP:OLYMPICS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#Notability_–_competitors_in_a_demonstration_sport

Cheers, Gibbsy^spin 10:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"AFLW=yes" in "WikiProject AFL" template?

Good evening all,
In Talk:Yvonne Bonner I included the as yet nonexistent "AFLW=yes" field in the "WikiProject AFL" template. Should this parameter be included in the WikiProject AFL" template?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure this would be very useful considering there is no subproject or task force for women's football. – Teratix ₵ 09:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Page in need of attention

Hi,

If anyone has the time, 2019 VFL season needs some attention ;) --SuperJew (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Time for AFLW clubs to have their own pages?

As far as I can see this was last discussed in 2016, before the AFLW began. From my point of view, the AFLW clubs now easily pass the notability test and should have separate articles. I created Adelaide Football Club (AFL Women's) and this got reverted on the basis that (a) I should not have done this without consensus and (b) all clubs should be done at once. My argument in response is that you've got to start somewhere, so why not just be bold and do it, starting with Adelaide. Thoughts? Adpete (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Adpete, that doesn't give you an excuse to just revert back. I'll reiterate my opinion from this discussion that if one club can have its own article, it should be done for all clubs, and that a consensus should be achieved first before doing so – this is more because I think it shouldn't just be done for one club, not so much that they should all be done at once, but that was just a misinterpretation. Personally, I'd love it if AFL Women's teams had their own articles, provided they all have enough coverage/sources – it's easy enough to say that Adelaide has had enough coverage when it's won two of the first three premierships and boasts some of the biggest names in the competition, but can the same be said for the rest of the clubs? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The main reason for the revert is that it removed added content on the 2018 and 2019 seasons. I don't think it is a satisfactory situation that Wikipedia has nothing about AFC Women's 2018 and 2019 seasons while this question is being settled.

As for the actual question, I'm sure there is enough for all clubs, especially since most individual players have articles. Anyway, I think the "real" question is notability, and I don't think it can be questioned that all AFLW clubs pass the notability test. Adpete (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think it's an "all or nothing" situation. There could be a case that Adelaide say are notable and have more media coverage about them due to being dual premiership winners and the rest of the clubs aren't. Secondly, I do feel that all of the clubs are notable enough for stand-alone articles. --SuperJew (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll also add that there are pages for each of the womens' clubs' best-and-fairest awards. Seems funny the awards have separate pages, but the clubs don't. --SuperJew (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think all AFLW clubs wold pass the notability test; AFLW players have articles so surely the clubs they play for are notable enough ... Roisterer (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I also agree, but don't think that this is a question of notability, just whether there is enough coverage for each club – I'd rather see articles created for all clubs rather than just one. The best and fairest articles – and all of the award articles, for that matter – are much smaller articles that are far easier to create and manage, but I understand what you mean. Does this mean that we just get to work on creating now – do we stop at the original eight clubs that have had three years in the competition (or in the case of Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs, a bit more history), go with this year's ten, or look at the new clubs as well? These are some of the things we need to consider. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: As far as I understand WP:GNG, notability is based on how much coverage something has. I'd say start with the original 8, and there's probably enough for the 2 recent expansions. Again, it's not necessarily a catch-all question, but rather each case to itself. --SuperJew (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a WP:GNG issue; I think enough coverage could easily be found for all teams. They would certainly have more sourcing than, for example, NAB League teams (we have an article on each). The issue is more about whether the content about women's teams can be adequately contained within the articles on their respective clubs. If not, their sections should be spun off into separate articles. There is a certain appeal to splitting all articles concurrently, which would ensure a pleasing consistency. However, given the differences in the likely coverage of each club (the relatively old Melbourne and Western Bulldogs and the successful Adelaide compared to the expansion teams Geelong and North Melbourne), it's not clear that a split would be suitable for every women's team.

The typical reasons for splitting, outlined at Wikipedia:Splitting, are an excessively large article or distinct topics covered on the same page. Club articles range from 60 to 80 kB depending on their age, which "probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". Club articles are a relatively broad topic considering the information on history, identity, honours and general details that need to be included. I would say a split based on size would be defensible, but not necessarily required. A more persuasive reason would be that women's teams are, to a certain extent, distinct from the men's, and accordingly have a distinct history, squad and coaching staff. If the teams are independently notable (which I believe to be the case), these are grounds for a content split. As the sizes of the main articles are already quite large, I think there is sufficient reason for the splits, providing a substantive amount of content can be written about the teams. I would support a split if a similar amount of content could be written compared to what is currently present in Adelaide Football Club (AFL Women's). – Teratix ₵ 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the question isn't whether they should have their own pages, but how much should be left on the men's team page. Obviously a brief mention and link to the women's page is a given, but should both AFL & AFLW captains/coaches be listed in the infobox? Should AFLW All-Australians be removed from the awards list? Commonname/primarytopic would rule out needing to rename the men's page to "XXX FC (men's)" or similar, but you can see on Fremantle Football Club how I've integrated the history, records and squads of the 2 teams into 1 page - as strictly speaking they are 2 teams in 1 club. I guess the best/cleanest outcome would be to remove all, but hatlink selected sections to easily switch between the 2 pages. The-Pope (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I am inclined to question why there would be a separate page for the women's team when they are part of the same club. If you have an Adelaide Football Club Women's Team page, do we also split off an Adelaide Football Club Men's Team page for consistency, with the current Adelaide Football Club focussing on the overall history of the club rather than individual team's performances? I note there is a page for the Reserves team (Adelaide Football Club (SANFL)), so logically there should be ones for the Women's and Men's teams as well. The current page is not the "Men's team page", it is the Adelaide Football Club page, of which the original AFL team is now only a component of (along with the Adelaide Bite and Legacy eSports). Screech1616 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If it's a matter of club/men's/women's in one article vs. separate club, men's and women's articles, I prefer the latter. Both the men's and women's teams are part of the same club, yes, and I do like what The-Pope has done in integrating information for both teams in the one article. If we were to have separate articles, perhaps the club article could have a greater focus on history (but still include the basic information in the lead/infobox) and the men's and women's articles could have a greater focus on statistics, awards, etc.? There might be the occasional overlap of little bits of information, but the smaller articles will likely be much easier to navigate, and this way {{AFL ___}} can link to the men's article and {{AFLW ___}} can link to the women's article, rather than one link to the whole club article and and the other link to just a section of that same article. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The trouble with a separate "men's team" article is that well over 99% of references to a club - both in common usage, and in Wikipedia links - refers to the men's team; if for no other reason than the men's teams have a much longer history. I think there is a good case for applying WP:COMMONNAME and leaving the club pages as the men's team pages. I also think there is plenty of WP precedent for that sort of thing; for instance, the Australian Labor Party article is mainly about the federal party, with separate articles about the smaller state parties. And besides, going through all the WP links and deciding whether to leave them pointing at the club page, or instead changing them to the men's team page, would be a huge job, to put to mildly. (p.s. Adelaide Bite is an even clearer cut case because it is owned by AFC, not part of AFC, at least according to its WP page). Adpete (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Adpete, that's why I suggested that the club article have a greater focus on history and the team articles have a greater focus on statistics, awards, etc. – yes, most of the "history" (particularly for the Victorian clubs and Sydney) would be around the men's teams, as they came well before the women's teams, but if we had a clear-cut purpose for each article, we might be able to avoid an overlap of a heap of information and have an appropriate place for each bit of content. Most articles across the project will have the {{AFL ___}} templates (which is also why I brought that up), so then it should just be a matter of changing where they direct you to (in other words, from the club articles to the men's articles, and same goes for changing the {{AFLW ___}} templates to the women's articles), and then we won't have as many links to change. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by {{AFL ___}}, but I can't find any. Going to a few random AFL pages (Ben Hart, Taylor Walker (footballer), Don Pyke, Australian Football League), all I see is raw links to the clubs (Adelaide Football Club, etc). So there are many, many links to update, and it will have to be decided on a case by case basis whether the link should be to the club or to the men's team. And then, while we're thinking about consistency, what about the 4 clubs which don't have a women's team yet? So I can see 3 objections to splitting out the men's teams' articles at the moment (1. WP:COMMONNAME, 2. consistency across all 18 clubs and 3. it's a huge amount of work); and I think the WP:COMMONNAME argument is also sufficient objection to the argument that we cannot split out the women's team articles without splitting out also the men's team articles. So can we at least get consensus to split out the women's teams articles, and delay the question over the men's teams, perhaps until all 18 clubs have a women's team? Adpete (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Same clubs. Should be one page.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thejoebloggsblog, we're not disputing that these teams are part of the same club. Adpete, by {{AFL ___}}, I'm referring to the AFL club templates you see used throughout Australian rules-related articles (for example, you brought up Walker, whose article is actually full of these – {{AFL Ade}} links to Adelaide, etc.). The idea is that all club articles at least get split into club and men's articles, and then women's as well if the club has a women's team (and all clubs which don't yet have a women's team will have an article created once they do get one, rather than just a tiny section added to the club article). You keep bringing up WP:COMMONNAME, but I don't know if that necessarily applies, as the article titles refer to the club, not its teams – if the club articles were split into three, the club articles would retain their current titles, while the team articles would be titled "<club> AFL team" and "<club> AFL Women's team>". Of course it's going to be a lot of work, but that's always going to be the case, and it's not a sufficient reason not to undertake a certain project, particularly if it has the potential to be of great benefit to the WikiProject. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Certainly no need for "men's team" articles. Either all in one article, or the articles for the women's teams are split from the main club articles. I would recommend simply building the women's teams' content in the main club articles, and then splitting them off into their own article if they are big enough. Absolutely no need to alter templates, move the existing articles, or create new articles for the men's teams. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, as I said, the team articles would have a greater focus on statistics, awards, etc., whereas the club article (with this information removed or summarised at most) would have a greater focus on the club's history. I know the men's teams came well before the women's teams, but why should the latter be separate from the club article and not the former? Nobody said anything about moving the existing articles. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Information about both the club and the team should be in the same article. Statistics can be split out though, not as "team articles" but just statistics about the club/team. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, I'm not saying that the club article shouldn't have any team information, just that the statistics/awards, season summaries and some of the club history (including how/when the team joined the competition) would appear in these split articles instead (which, yes, would essentially be "team articles"), and this can happen for both men's and women's teams. The main point that I'm trying to make is that it wouldn't be depriving the club article of any information that should be there, only information that shouldn't. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The team information can stay in the club article while the statistics are split out. Content about the team does not have to migrate along with statistics. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

[1] Fitzpatrick, Mike (2015). 2015 AFL Chairman's Report (PDF). Melbourne: AFL. p. 18.

[1]