Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL/Archive 4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Archive
Archives
  1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL/Archive 1 (1 November 2005 - 7 April 2006)
  2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL/Archive 2 (8 April 2006 - 24 August 2006)
  3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL/Archive 3 (25 August 2006 - 29 October 2007)
  4. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL/Archive 4 (29 October 2007 - )

Contents

[edit] Infobox Taskforce

Hey there, I'm currently in the process of converting player pages infoboxes to the new template - Template:Infobox afl player NEW. This is a slow, tedious task, but I think the end result will be worth it. So I think if any of you fellow editors out there want to help, please do, because it would help so much. I'm currently working on Geelong Players and will work club by club for all the current players. So if you want to work on certain clubs to save me the time, please let me know, or show your support by listing your name below. You can also try and go onto the massive task of past players.

For lists of players see either Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL/Players or List of current AFL team squads.

THANKS EVERYONE! Allied45 (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • UPDATE: All current Geelong players have now got the new infobox. Feel free to go over them to correct and add details. Allied45 (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you are in some way connected with all of the pointless problems, trouble and and issues of information concealment, totally anachronistic descriptions, and removal of the exceptionally relevant (pre-the-days-of-draft and pre-the-days-of-full-time-footballers) player debut information that are described at [1]? :Or, perhaps, it might just be that an over-zealous somebody, unaware that there was an entirely different state of affairs in an earlier era — whan, for example, players needed to have a day job, and often played as amateurs, etc. — has mistakenly applied your "modern-21st-century-afl-infobox" (apparently agreed upon as appropriate to all players on the 2008 playing list) in an inappropriate fashion to what is, by contrast, and "earlier-era-article", which requires an "earlier-era-VFL, etc.-infobox"? Anyway could you please comment on the questions I have raised at at [2]? Thanks heaps.Lindsay658 (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you noticed that the "cricket people" have been able to get by with two sorts of info box? If you look at Jack Worrall, you will notice that they are using something that they term "Infobox Historic Cricketer". Lindsay658 (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been using the new infoboxes on the articles I create, but I've added a total for games and goals. Have a look at Charles Zinnick for an example. I think it makes it easier to see a players efforts over their career, but feel free to change it back if others dont think so. Terlob (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Players with no pictures

Just an idea for players where we cannot find pictures. Maybe we should place their jumper number in the image area instead. It would make the pages a lot more professional looking. And as we find pictures then we can replace them. Thoughts?!?InsteadOf (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, without seeing what this would look like, I'm not sure it would add much to an article. I could stand corrected though. --Roisterer (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
made a test at Aaron EdwardsInsteadOf (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that it is annoying that we don't have free photos of many players, but I don't like this at all. It distracts attention from the main part of the article - the prose - and does not convey any new information. Images are for displaying pictures, not oversized coloured text. Remy B (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats a good argument. Ill remove it. InsteadOf (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Club Songs Page

I think there should be a general page about the nature of the club songs. How they are used (with banners, post-match renditions, etc.), the history of their use, and so on. It doesn't have to have the lyrics to the songs, as I'm aware they are most likely copyrighted to the authors. There seems to be very little mention of club songs anymore, apart from the titles appearing in infoboxes. Thoughts? Morstar (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Premiership Players Templates

Over the past few days, I've been busy converting all Premiership templates (found here), to a standard navbox. They include all relevant team colours (though some may need to be modified), they also are more uniformed and take up less space. I have also begun creating templates for Grand Final years that don't currently have any. So if you would like to help, please see here, and begin creating new templates that use the new navbox style. Thanks!! Allied45 (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, good job on standardising the Premiership templates, but are the Grand Final sides (e.g. Port Adelaide of 2007) really necessary? I would argue no. Taking a leaf out of other sports, navigational boxes are only really used for significant awards/achievements - in the context of AFL, being the losing Grand Finalist doesn't really merit much here in my opinion. Cheers Boomtish (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with that, there is no need to have the runner-up Grand Final sides - it's a bit too much. I think we ought to delete that particular template, and just stick with the winning premiership teams. Allied45 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I made a thread here a couple of months ago when that template first appeared on Port player's pages, complaining that it was overkill and we agreed to remove the template. Although it is no longer on anyone's page is it worth deleting it and if so anyone know how to go about that? Nice work with the templates by the way Allied, I was the original creator of them (except the Richmond ones) and agree that they look much better this way. Crickettragic (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I've requested speedy deletion on the Port Adelaide GF 2007 Side template page under the proposal that it is a largely insignificant achievement to warrant use of the navigational boxes and results in overcategorisation Boomtish (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Player Infobox

I've just added a show/hide option to the Career Highlights section of Template:Infobox afl player NEW, I think it fixes the problem of extremely long infoboxes (for example the fully extended version of Jonathan Brown).

But there is a problem in that all the text in this section is now centred, would someone please fix this up so that the text is back to normal. Thanks, I hope you all like it. Allied45 (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to leave the infobox the way it was prior, and in the cases of extrememly long honour rolls (perhaps such as James Hird, for example) simply create a separate header in the main article to document all the players' highlights/awards. The infobox can then be shortened to include only major awards (such as the Brownlow Medal, but perhaps not his most recent AFLPA awards) Boomtish (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Managed to align the text left!! - Allied45 (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SANFL clubs

Is there any reason why some club's page are not using 'Football Club' as the page name? For example both Central District and North Adelaide use their nicknames while all the others use Football Club. I can understand why Port Adelaide's page is entitled Port Adelaide Magpies for example because they need to differentiate it from Port Power's page but for the other two there is no reason that I am aware of for them to break away from the naming conventions. Would anyone have any objections if I were to change their names? Crickettragic (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I always wondered the same thing myself. The two clubs' articles I created; Woodville Football Club and West Torrens Football Club, are in the style you recommend. I have no objections. --Roisterer (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I imagine it would depend on the branding the clubs chose to use.Hack (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Game Reports links

As you've probably noticed, all of 2007's links to AFL.com.au game reports are broken and the reports no longer exist. So for this season I would like to make a suggestion of instead of using the official site, we use links to the new Herald Sun Superfooty site, where each game has an independent match report which are much more detailed than the current AFL formats. And they are most likely going to be kept on the sites archives, as every story is, accessible for years to come. An example of the Superfooty match reports are here. - Allied45 (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are the game reports for 2007? Remy B (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, It only began this year, I meant from this season's games we start using the Superfooty site. - Allied45 (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you certain they archive their stories because if they don't we're only creating the same amount of problems for ourselves. Normy 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well here is a match report from Round 16, 2005 of Geelong vs Port Adelaide that I found in the Herald Sun archives. Its not the same detail as the new match reports, but shows that they do archive these reports. ANd we know that the AFL site does not after the season ends. - Allied45 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Asian footballers

The quiz question about the earliest Asian VFL/AFL player led me to think that we could create a List of VFL/AFL players of Asian background page (or similar). Any thoughts? --TheGrantley (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I struggle to see how that's a notable topic. What does being Asian have to do with playing in the VFL/AFL? Remy B (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability aside I don't think the list would be big enough. Apart from Peter Bell and Wally Koochew have there been any other players who have had an Asian parent? Crickettragic (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sudjai Cook would be one but unless it is part of a greater article then it may not be notable enough. --Roisterer (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
We already have a List of VFL/AFL players by ethnicity which covers all players mentioned so far so unless over the coming years the AFL starts recruiting players on mass from Asia I don't think it warrants it's own article. Crickettragic (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
hadn't realised the players by ehnicity existed. Obviously not an exhaustive list but it was interesting to see how many players of Croatian background there have been. --Roisterer (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, List of VFL/AFL players by ethnicity pretty much covers what I was looking to cover with my earlier suggestion. Thanks for the feedback everyone. --TheGrantley (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
And on the topic of footballers with Asian backgrounds, I have now created an article on Wally Koochew, the first known VFL footballer of Asian background. --Roisterer (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VFL/AFL Season "Footy Fixtures"

There seems to be quite an outstanding omission from all of the work on Aussie Rules. There is no article dedicated to what might be called "History of the VFL/AFL home-and-away system".

In 1897, the VFL's set of footy fixtures was very simple. Team A played seven matches, against B (at home), C (away), D (at home), E (away), F (at home), G (away), and H (at home) in the first half of the season and, in the second half of the season, played another seven matches against B (away), C (at home), D (away), E (at home), F (away), G (at home), and H (away), the "mirror image" of the first half season. Gradually things became more and more complex; for example, the 1931 changes to the Finals system gave the VFL, for the first time, a set date for the last match of the season, and thus made it possible to link the Grand Final with the Melbourne Show (thus, the last Saturday in September).

I believe that the article should deal with the manner in which the "fixtures" were set up in in 1897, and then listing every change that has been made to the structure of the home-and-away season (the Finals series has already been adequately dealt with — see Early VFL Final systems plus McIntyre System plus McIntyre Final Eight System plus AFL finals system).

Whilst it would be time-consuming, it is not very complex task; however, is far beyond the references and other VFL/AFL resources that are available to me.

Such an article, in its sequential account of the changes over the years, would also need to declare the things that have been fixed (such as there must be a game at stadium Y on date X, or that Essendon must play Collingwood on Anzac Day, or that the Grand Final must be on such-and-such a day, at such-and-such a location, at such-and-such a time of day) and those which are just a matter of the luck of the (random, rather than stacked) draw.

All of these increasing-over-the-years complications to what was once a simple matter of having two matching halves of a season have a detailed history.

Each experiment/innovation was introduced either to meet a particular need or to create a certain opportunity.

Each of the changes, and the reasons given for those changes, and the benefits and/or problems they brought in their train, or the weaknesses they revealed, are all a matter of record, and should be included in such an article. I believe that this account of precisely how the past explains and justifies the (otherwise confusing) present would very significantly embellish the manner in which the Wikipedia deals with Aussie Rules. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly be gappy to help write such an article. --TheGrantley (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Very good idea for a new article. Remy B (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, what I have just written at VFL home-and-away matches (1902-1930), based on VFL statistics, might provide some sort of starting data set for you to begin your work with? Lindsay658 (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VFL Team Names

I am presently trawling through the sequence of VFL "year pages" and have come across an enforced mechanical anachronism that, due to the fact that it now seems to be established, seems to need some sort of discussion to change.

I refer to the fact that, just for example in the 1922 VFL season, The Melbourne Cricket Club Football Club, known either as "The Red-Legs" or "The Fuschias" (from the colours of their uniform), is referred to as "Melbourne Demons", The South Melbourne Football Club, known as "The Bloods" as a contraction of the term "Blood-Stained Angels", is referred to as the "South Melbourne Swans" (they were not called "Swans" until the influx of Western Australian players in 1933), The Fitzroy Football Club, known as "The Maroons" (from the colours of their uniform), is referred to as "Fitzroy Lions" ("Lions" was not used until 1957, when Fitzroy decided to abandon its unfortunately equivocal nickname "The Gorillas" that it had worn since before World War II), and The Essendon Football Club, most generally known as "The Same Old" or "The Same Olds", are referred to as the "Essendon Bombers" (a name they did not acquire until 1940).

Then, to further compound these factual errors which continue to appear, we find in 1925 VFL season, that The Footscray Football Club, known as "The Triclours" (from the colours of their uniform), is referred to as "Footscray Bulldogs" (the name "Bulldogs" did not appear until 1928), The Hawthorn Football Club, known as "The Mayflowers" (from the colours of their uniform), is referred to as "Hawthorn Hawks" (the name "Hawks" did not appear until 1942), The North Melbourne Football Club, known as "The Shinboners" (from the Pannam-like propensity of its players to kick opponents in the shins?), is referred to as "North Melbourne Kangaroos" (the name "Kangaroos" did not appear until 1954).

I could go on, but I hope that you get my point. Given that these nick-names change from time to time, and that it may or may not be clear which nickname had greater currency at any particular time, it would seem sensible to name the teams for what they were: viz., The South Melbourne Football Club, The Essendon Football Club, The Footscray Football Club, The North Melbourne Football Club, etc. However, such extended names would take up an enormous amount of page space unnecessarily. The conclusion would seem to be to name them far more simply, as South Melbourne F.C., Essendon F.C., Footscray F.C., North Melbourne F.C.. Yet, given that they are all "clubs", and that all of the "C's" also have the common property of being devoted to "F" (football), it seems that the best way out of all of this abominable mess is for the templates being used to be removed and replaced by what ought to be termed a VFL set, in addition to and separate from the current AFL set to continue to operate, which shows the Club's names as follows: Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Fitzroy, Footscray, Geelong, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Richmond, South Melbourne, and St Kilda. This would also encourage factual, realistic writing, in accordance with the ever-increasing proliferation of peacock terms (Wikipedia:Peacock) within AFL articles.

I am certain that, with somebody sufficiently specialized in such a task -- and given the global nature of the extent to which these distressingly anachronistic intrusions have been made into the records of earlier eras of Aussie Rules -- it would be a relatively easy task to construct a "bot" to make a global search and replace of such a specific nature in the limited population of the series of VFL year articles (i.e., from 1897 to 1989).

In the absence of a "bot" I am not certain how such a task might be accomplished; but, it seems certain that the longer these errors remain, the more pervasive their contamination of historical fact will be. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, I've changed the templates for the Victorian clubs by removing their nicknames. I think this is the best solution until a bot can be used to install a seperate template because obviously for recent seasons clubs like Port have their nickname but Richmond, Melbourne etc won't. Cheers Crickettragic (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well done on knowing where to go to turn off the 2008 switch! Quite apart from the fact that each of these pages is now, thankfully, historically accurate, I also think that they look at least 300% better now that they are so much less cluttered. I think that the pages in their new form visually emphasize the data that the pages contain, rather then what it was doing earlier: emphasizing the competing clubs. In almost every sense of the expression, the names of the competing clubs is the "given data" and, therefore, does not require emphasis.
It also has an additional advantage. In the earlier format my eyes were so assailed and diverted by the swathes of blue colour that swept across the page that, certainly in my own case, I did not recognize that an additional convention was operating: that of coding the match winner in bold. Having looked at these pages continuously over the last two weeks, I have only just been able to notice this embedded convention on looking at the far more (visually) simple new format a few minutes ago. It really has made a substantial difference. Thanks for that. Lindsay658 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Players numbers

There is a photograph taken during a match between Fitzroy and Colingwood that was played at the Sydney Cricket Ground on 23 May 1903. All of the players clearly have a number on their back. I have not been able to find any photographs of numbered players before 1911 (one from 1911 shows that Collingwood players wore numbers whilst their Essendon opponents do not). Another photograph (from 1914) shows both the Collingwood team and its opponents (? Essendon) with numbers. As I have not been able to find any mention of the history of players numbers throughout the Wikipedia (meaning that there is either no mention, or that a mention is extremely well-hidden), I would suggest that it should appear under whatever part deals with playing uniforms; and, also, that players (at least for the last 70 years) have been reported on the basis of the umpire taking their guernsey number -- leading to a number of famous incidents where players have removed their guernseys. Anyway, I have isolated six questions that I feel need to be answered, and for which I can find no information:

(1) Given that it would seem logical that the numbers on the backs of the 1903 players would have been there to assist the Sydney crowd, how were the players numbered? (according to position? According to location on the playing field? according to their Family name?)
(2) If there was a gradual introduction of player numbers within the VFL competition, which team first introduced the custom and why did they introduce it? (e.g., they might have sold team-lists to raise funds for the club).
(3) Whenever such a custom was first introduced how were the players numbers match-specific or position-specific (as in today's Rugby Union and Rugby League)?
(4) Was there any connection between the universal application of player numbers -- by this I mean every player of every team on any one particular Saturday having a designated number -- and the introduction of the Football Record in 1912?
(5) When was it that it became the widespread custom for a player to continue with a specific designated number for all of their career?
(6) Did the nomination of a guernsey number for each selected player eventually become part of the standard process of delivering over the names of the selected teams to the VFl on a Thursday evening? Or was it that, as part of a player's registration, they were "registered" as, say, "Player 31 for Melbourne" and that the name "Ronald Dale Barassi" was placed beside that number, or was it the reverse, or was it two separate registers, one "seasonal" for the player, the other "weekly" for the number? (The events at the end of the 1958 VFL season emphasize the importance of this issue.)

Also, slightly connected with the above, I can find no reference to the practice of umpires offering two footballs to the visiting captain, as well as checking boots of all players for protruding and checking hands of all players to see that no rings were worn, before the matches. Anyway, I thought that I should raise this matter. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have my references in front of me but I seem to recall reading that numbers were not introduced until 1913 or so. This may have been for specific designated numbers so it is possible that temporary numbers were used prior to this. I will see if I can chase an answer of sorts down. --Roisterer (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Just come across something that seems to strongly indicate the 1912 introduction; and given that, I think that it is 100% certain that it is, somehow, deeply involved with the VFL trying to enhance its income stream through the 1912 publication of the Football Record. Compare the left-hand column at [3] and at [4] with the left-hand column at [5]. This seems to confirm the adoption of numbers in 1912.
This, however, still leaves the questions of the numbering system unanswered -- although, it certainly appears that the player, regardless of where they played, carried the same number throughout the season, and that at least one, Frank Caine of Essendon (17 goals on the list) carried number 27 (Frank Caine played his first senior match in round 3 of 1912).
Using Maplestone's Flying Higher (1996), list of player numbers (pp.413-417) and comparing that with the list of players who actually played each game in 1912 (p.455), the numbering seems a little random. However, if you then look at pp.81-82, some of the mystery disappears, at least in Essendon's case. There is a photograph of sheet with "[Copyright]" printed at the top left hand corner, the sheet has the title "Official List of Player and Numbers", and it goes on to list 21 players for the Carlton and Essendon teams for the 1911 Second Semi-Final (although, of course, only 18 took part in the match). There seems to be no relationship between the numbers and the players' family names, or the positions in which they played (same for Carlton -- see [6]).
Each of the 21 numbers listed on that sheet matches those that are supplied by Maplestone at pp.413-417 -- so, from this, we can certainly state that however the 1911 numbers were determined, they stayed with the Essendon players throughout their careers. Mapleston states (a) that this is the fist time that numbers had been used in a finals match, and (b) that the Essendon players wore a small red number under their sash. On the basis that Maplestone was writing a history of Essendon, I would strongly speculate that, despite his apparent assertion, the South Melbourne and Collingwood players had also carried numbers in their First Semi-Final a week earlier.
It also interesting that one of the photographs on Maplestone p.82 shows one of the special boards that were erected at the two ends of the ground to display the players' names and numbers. The names seem to be at least as large as the names of the cricketers were on the old MCG scoreboard.
All of this, I suppose, raises another question: In that first year (1912), were the player numbers:
(a) issued by the VFL to all of its registered players; in other words, was the notice of the allocation of a particular number, however that number may have been determined (alphabet, position, seniority?), part of the VFL's formal acknowledgement of that player's registration for that season, or
(b)specified by the player's club at the time the application for registration was lodged. Lindsay658 (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You no doubt already have seen this but "The Complete Book of AFL Finals (2002) lists 1912 as the first year numbers were used, coinciding with the introduction of the Record. The book adds: "The experiments with numbering had been tried a few times before, first in the 1911 final between Essendon and Carlton, and also in the grand final. In the former match Essendon had small red numbers under their sash and Carlton wore small white numbers."

As an added piece of trivia, apparently the first goal kicked by someone wearing a number on their jumper was by Vin Gardiner of Carlton. --TheGrantley (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My first article

Well, after months of minor edits and trying to not make a fool of myself on the quiz, I have finally got around to creating an article from scratch. Stan Reid played for Fitzroy in the first season of the VFL, played in their 1898 premiership and then became the first VFL player to die in a war. He was also a great, great uncle of mine. Unfortunately my family don't seem to have any photos of him. Anyway, I'd love to get feedback on the article. --TheGrantley (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks good, well done. I notice you mention that he was considered Best on Ground at the 1898 GF. If you haven't already checked, you may want to look at Jim Main's book "When it Matters Most", which covers all the players he retrospectively awards Norm Smith Medals to. Reid may get a mention in that. The important question to ask is, did you inherit his skill and, if so, are you actually an AFL player secretly beefing up his own article? --Roisterer (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, he seemed to have gotten all the football skills in the family. --TheGrantley (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Charles Moore of Essendon was the first VFL player killed in the Boer War. He died 12 May 1901 and there is a memorial to him in St Vincents Gardens, South Melbourne. Reid died 29 June 1901. Phanto282 (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Boer War Nominal Roll: Charles Moore Lindsay658 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all this. I had only been told that he had died in the War and it wasn't until I read the article on "Fitzroy Firsts" on the AFL website that I saw that he was apparently the first to die on active duty. Now, I see I shall have to tell my Great Aunt that Great, great Uncle Stan wasn't actually the first VFL footballer to die on active duty. --TheGrantley (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No free image

User:David Gerard has just used a bot to add Image:Replace this image male.svg to literally hundreds of VFL/AFL player's infoboxes. Does anyone else agree that this makes the pages look ridiculous? Furthermore what is the point of adding it to Carl Ditterich for example, is it really realistic to think that a Wikipedian will have a free image of a footy player from the 1960s!? Anyway I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts, if we can get a consensus against this then maybe we can go about removing the image without too much hassle from David. Cheers Crickettragic (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like the look of it and I can't see it being a benefit to the page. I think there was also a discussion about it in the Cricket project with the consensus being that it wasn't liked there either. --TheGrantley (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think it is just awful. Wikipedia articles should not treat the reader as an editor. I think it's a clear case of crossing the line from Wikipedia being written by editors for readers to being written by editors for editors. If there is no image then just dont have one - it's not that bad of a sin to have a biographical article without an image. We shouldn't litter Wikipedia with requests for more images when the vast majority of readers of the articles are not interested in contributing. Remy B (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
How do we go about reverting back these edits? By my estimate David has added this to almost 500 articles so he's ensured that it's too big a task to do manually. Anyone here have this AWB thing? Crickettragic (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
At first I agreed with you all, but with a bit of a thunk, I reckon lets leave it for a while to see if it does prompt some new pics. I know I'll go through my pics when I get some time, to try to fill in some blanks. We just have hope that the quality of the photos are OK. As for the AWB, any established user can get it, just go to Wikipedia:AWB & follow the instructions. I have it, but won't be using it for this... yet. We should remember the 1955 rule as well for old Aussie photos too. The-Pope (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VFL and Wartime

I have just removed a large section from The VFL during the World Wars and placed it within a newly created article VFL/AFL players who died in active service. I think it makes much more sense to do it this way; and, also, having the article on those who died in active service as a separate article might result in some additional contributions from those oriented to military history. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Were there no players who died in the Boxer Rebellion/Korean War/Vietnam War etc.? There were certainly players being called up in the Vietname War draft. --TheGrantley (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Given the two criteria of (a) having played at least one senior VFL game, and (b) having lost their lives, Main and Allen (Main, J. & Allen, D., Fallen — The Ultimate Heroes: Footballers Who Never Returned From War, Crown Content, (Melbourne), 2002. ISBN 1-740-95010-0) in their introductions (p.x) assert that "no VFL footballer was killed in any wars other than the Anglo-Boer War and the two World Wars", They also note that at least one VFL player (Geoff Collins) served in the Korean War (he was a fighter pilot), and a "number of VFL players" were servicemen during the Vietnam conflict; however they only identify one player, Wayne Closter and, given that fact, it may be that they were gently and implicitly indicating that he was the only VFL player to serve in Vietnam. Lindsay658 (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debuts

Here's a list of debuts for use in info boxes. It's tersely formatted to reduce the page size http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_AFL/Debuts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.211.104 (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Where was it sourced from? --Roisterer (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
http://stats.afl.com.au/public/statistics/player_roundbyround.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.211.104 (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Most grateful for the tip. The database also lists the players who played for each team on a round by round basis for each year. This has allowed me to complete the 1924 round-robin Finals' South Melbourne and Fitzroy playing squads at [7]. Thanks. Lindsay658 (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Cheers that is going to be very helpful. Previously I could only find debut information for Carlton players, thanks to Blueseum.com and nothing for players from other clubs. Much appreciated. Crickettragic (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the same source that I used to make the jumbo todo list that some of you have been reducing in size recently. More current, though, can I have some assistance in keeping List of 2008 AFL debuts up to date. Thanks The-Pope (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with "Fremantle" in the 1995 tables

There is some sort of intermittent formatting problem associated with the rows in which the Fremantle matches appear in the tables at 1995 AFL season -- see, for example, [8]. I have done everything that I can possibly think of to correct it without having any effect. Is there someone with a bit more skill than I have than can have a look at it and set it right? Thanks. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it now but I can't guarantee anything. Normy 05:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed it but it should be only temporary (as I've written in the edit summaries) until something is worked out. It definitely has something to do with the spacing between each of the column entries. Some of them were like Fremantle||Score when it should be Fremantle || Score. I don't know. My concentration isn't good enough to deal with such a problem as this. :D. I'm sure somebody will know how to solve it. Normy 05:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Fremantle template was edited, which introduced the problem. Unintroduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.212.217 (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Players who died in active service

I have just finished the final bit of the tables that contain all of the relevant information on VFL players who are known to have died as a consequence of their active service (see [9]). The list also includes the only VFL field/boundary/goal umpire known to have died in active service. I thought that it might be handy for users as ANZAC Day approaches. Lindsay658 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I wonder if we can get a DYK out of it for ANZAC Day? --Roisterer (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be wonderful; however, I have no idea how to go about such a thing.Lindsay658 (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article notability

While doing a review of B class Australian article AFL team rivalries is unsourced and lacks assertion of notability. IMHO in its current form it wouldnt survive at AfD. Gnangarra 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that as it's an AFL endorsed round (probably need a ref or two to their official positive view of it), coupled with the generally negative refs I just found should make it safe as an article as a whole. Each individual section, however, really should have some references. It can't be that hard to find a match report that says "Foo vs Bar is the latest chapter in their great rivalry" or a coach saying "we really respect team X and the rivalry we've built up over the years". The intro could be expanded to explain that unlike some other major sporting rivalries we don't have to segregrate crowds and maybe some figures. The year by year rivalry round results should probably go, maybe just a summary of annual attendances with the comparison/ranking compared to other rounds. The-Pope (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree the article is keepable, but gee it needs a lot of work. There are some blatantly uninteresting rivalries, some seemingly based on the fact that they faced in a Grand Final, and some because once something interesting happened in a game between them. It makes the article seem like a bit of a soapbox, especially when it's not referenced. Someone needs to go through and be brutal in culling the silly "rivalries" and leaving the genuine rivalries. If there is no way to back up a rivalry by reliable sources then it's probably not interesting enough to stay. Remy B (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inter rules question

Australian Football World Tour says the tour was in 67 which is supported by Meath winning the All Ireland in 67, However International_Rules_Football would seem to imply it took place after 67. It's quite unclear can anyone help clarify here Gnevin (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the Galahs played Gaelic Football (that is, with the exception of being permitted to bounce the ball, instead of toeing it, the matches were played as if they were Gaelic football matches) on their first tour in 1967.
Whether they played under standard, "blended" rules (that is, the same rules for both teams) in 1968, I am not certain.
However, I am supposing that the difficulty you seem to have identified may simply be that one article refers to the privately sponsored Galahs playing Gaelic football (Australian Football World Tour), whilst the other refers to matches played by an AFL sponsored team according to an established set of "blended rules" (thus the name International_Rules_Football).
Perhaps a look at Burke, P., "Harry and the Galahs: Remembering the Meeting of Two Football Codes Thirty Years On", Australian Society for Sports History Bulletin, Vol. 29, (1998), pp.9-17.[10] might help you clarify the issue. I would suggest that there is no connexion between the two articles (that is, except for the historical connexions of the two separate endeavours). Lindsay658 (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that i managed to find a reference as you can see from [11] the tours where listed backwards Gnevin (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can somebody please help with photographs

I have just finished adding lots of cross-references, relating to military service and football careers, to the section on the 1916 "Pioneer Exhibition Game" that was held in London between teams of Australian servicemen, the majority of whom had played senior Aussie Rules in their home states (see [12]).

The Australian War memorial has two photographs in its collection that were taken on the day of the match and show each of the teams lined up before the match had started:

(1) The "Australian Training Units Team", which lost the match — photograph at [13]; and
(2) The "Third Australian Divisional Team", which won the match — photograph at [14].

(By the way the date supplied by the War Memorial is wrong; the match took place on Saturday October 28, 1916.)

I think that the article would be greatly improved if a copy of each of these two photographs were placed next to the section for each of the teams. The information with each photograph says that they are free of copyright.

Is there anyone who has the time, knowledge and skills to be able to perform such a task? Lindsay658 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I can do this once I get home from work. Nice find. --Roisterer (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of past and present Geelong Football Club players

I have been working hard at completing the list of Geelong players. I have managed to add all players from 1980 to present to the list, but it is still a long way off from completed. Please feel free to help complete, or even maintain the list (i.e. player's stats, links), it is also a useful tool for editors wishing to create new player articles, choose from the list. It will alos need constant maintaining of stats, and anyone who does this should update all stats at once, and state when all the stats are updated too. Please note: The only stats currently available for players pre-1991 season are the games and goals, but any player who debuted since then has all stats available. This is a tough job, it takes a bit of hard work to compile the list of players (who aren't listed in chronological order on the official site), and also to add all stats for all players in. So Good Luck to anybody who helps.

LINKS:

Allied45 (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a similar one for Fremantle at List of Fremantle Football Club players, and I think we should try to standardise on the article names and styles - is "past and present" really needed? I only put in details of their debut... should probably add games and goal tallies, but keeping up to date would be difficult. I don't think any other stats are needed. Obviously it's a lot easier for the more recent clubs. Once we get some more it should probably be linked to each other by a template or similar. Search for Excel to Wiki translators to help to automate table generation. Good luck. The-Pope (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice work there mate, keep it up! I have to agree with The Pope though in regard to the article name, something like List of Geelong Football Club players would be better. The list of Geelong coaches is called List of Geelong Football Club coaches so they should probably match up. All the other coaches lists have been standardised as well and are called List of ---- Football Club coaches. I also suggest someone makes up a template for players similar to Template:AFL club coaches which can include Geelong and Freo. This may encourage some editors to create pages for the other clubs which have redlinks. Crickettragic (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with title change, it's unnecessary, i've changed it to simply List of Geelong Football Club players. - Allied45 (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just made the Template:AFL club players template and added it to the five or six pages that exist. Need to work on a few more titles and work towards a consistent style and content. The-Pope (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Players with the same name

I know that if there are two people with the same name you just chuck (footballer) or (Australian rules footballer) on the end. I'm not sure what to do however when there are two or more AFL players with the same name, for example there are 3 Charles Youngs and 2 of them played for Melbourne. Terlob (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know their middle names? So if one of their names is Charles Paul Young you can make the page Charles P. Young. If their middle names are not provided and two of them played for the same club then next best bet would be to go by their DOB, so Charles Young (footballer, born 1936) for example. Hope that helps. Cheers Crickettragic (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing something like that, but some players dont have their birthdates available. For example, there are 6 William Jones'. 2 of them played for Geelong, and there is no information I can find that has birth dates or middle names for either of them.Terlob (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done an analysis of the 2900 odd players categorised under Australian rules footballers and all the subcats. 335 have (footballer), 157 have (Australian rules footballer), 14 have (Australian footballer) and 35 have some other variation of AFL/Football/player and 17 are listed under some other field (cricketer, umpire, administrator, politician etc). I'm going to try to move most of the 35 "something elses" to either footballer or Australian rules footballer. I think we need to add a line to the AFL style guide on the main project page choosing either (footballer) or (Australian rules footballer) as the preferred disamb style, if middle initials aren't known. We don't seem to have any (born 19XX) ones yet. The only team related one was Matthew Campbell (Kangaroos footballer), but I've already moved him to Matt Campbell (footballer), so I think we should avoid that unless we have no option, especially for the current players as they can move teams. If you look on the ToDo, Someone Else, Disamb, Debuts lists, which were extracted from the AFL website history section, it has a heap of middle initials for the duplicate names. And Messers Jones are listed under Bill, not William, and are listed as
JONES, Bill F. CARLT: 1931-32; KANG: 1935-36
JONES, Bill J. COLL: 1954-58
JONES, Bill Henry younger FITZ: 1941
JONES, Bill D. GEEL: 1915
JONES, Bill Herbert GEEL: 1920
JONES, Bill Henry elder RICH: 1911-12
I'm not sure if I just did the younger/elder myself to avoid a duplication (as opposed to a snr/jnr which implies father/son, which I have no idea about)... but if they are notable enough, we'll split them some other way! The-Pope (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In regard to the (Australian rules footballer) vs (footballer) debate I've grown quite fond of (Australian footballer). Australian rules footballer is arguably too long and footballer often isn't enough to properly disambiguate from other sportsmen. I think it's a good compromise .. thoughts?Crickettragic (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I always preferred Aust rules footballer, but I think Australian footballer is probably better... from now on. I know there are bots now to do mass renamings... but I think we'll leave the almost 500 (footballers) and (A.r.f) alone for now and just start from now. If there is some consensus we should add something like the following to the style guide on the project page.
When you create a new article and an article already exists for the player's name for someone else, the preferred format to use is John Citizen (Australian footballer).
If there are two Australian footballers with the same name, attempt to identify a middle initial such as Mark L. Williams and Mark M. Williams.
If one player is much more commonly known than the other, then it is acceptable to have Kelvin Moore and Kelvin W. Moore, with the appropriate hatnotes to facilitate easy switching in case someone ends up at the wrong page by following an ambiguous link.
If a disambiguation page already exists, please add the new page to the list. Please remember to also check the What links here link for each page and update any incorrect links.
or is that just too wordy and prescriptive? I think we need to get agreement on the (Australian footballer) descriptor first, then maybe just some links or copy/paste from other projects or WP guidelines. A quick look at the soccer/football one doesn't seem have any. The-Pope (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I prefer (Australian rules footballer), mainly because it uses the sport name that we have for the sport's article. Breaking that consistency to save on length isn't really all that important (eg. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb). Remy B (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Champion of the Colony dispute

RossRSmith is currently in the process of adding -

 The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

to the pages of every player to have been awarded a Champion of the Colony/Season. I thought this has all been resolved? Considering after discussions he is still the only person on Wikipedia who seems to dispute this award does this template need to be added to every page? Crickettragic (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of assembling further evidence to allay the fears of RossRSmith. Once I have the last piece I will rewrite the head of the article, and request that RossRSmith removes all of his tags. For a start, Ross, J. (ed), 100 Years of Australian Football 1897-1996: The Complete Story of the AFL, All the Big Stories, All the Great Pictures, All the Champions, Every AFL Season Reported, Viking, (Ringwood), 1996, page 161 has a photograph of Jack Dyer, with a Champion of the Season trophy in his hand, being congratulated by a representative of The Argus newspaper.Lindsay658 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to remove the disputed tags if I am made aware of evidence that the Champion of the Colony award existed in one or more of the seasons claimed for it. The Dyer photo you mention appears to relate to a Player of the Season award made by The Argus newspaper. I know of a few similar awards made by that paper in the 1890s, however, please note that about half of them are different names to those reputed to have won the Colony award. Perhaps a list should be created for each of those major media awards. I can help with details of the Bunton Medal (Sporting Globe) which lasted for about 30 years 1955-1985 or so. RossRSmith (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Australian rules related Featured Articles

I note with some concern that there are still no Australian rules related Featured Articles, and in fact only two Good Articles. The casual observer would think that Joel Selwood and Tom Hawkins are the two most important figures in Australian rules football.

I would suggest Australian rules football as the logical article to put forward as our first FA. I think the biggest problem with the Aussie rules article is that some of the prose would be difficult to understand for a non-Australian rules fan so we need to just polish it. I am going to list it on the Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight page, so if people want to vote for it we can work on it and then put the page forward to Featured Article status. --Roisterer (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Been there, failed that. Have we improved the citations? Once I'm finished with my player page crusade, I'll dig around in my library to get some better/other sources for some parts. First recorded game was on Aug 7 1858... maybe we should aim for a FA by then to get on the main page! but we need to get to Good first. And remember FA does not equal importance... Hamersley, Western Australia was a main page article, but most people in Perth, let alone Australia wouldn't know where it is located! The-Pope (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that it would be nice to get some more notable pages toward FA status. I've worked hard so far on the Selwood and Hawkins articles (moreso Selwood in recent times), to get them up to GA status, and I'm also continuing to edit the Gary Ablett Snr article to get it up to standard. Hopefully once I'm happy with the quality of all three, I'll help touch up what should be the major articles for this WikiProject, such as Australian rules football and Australian Football League.Boomtish (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If the project is looking for potential featured content perhaps a list might be an easier way to start. List of Australian Football Hall of Fame inductees would be a good one to start with. I would break it into two lists; one a basic list of the inductees with some context on each inductee (club, games played, years active etc.) and then a "legends" list with more detailed information, an image etc. The current list needs some work as it looks full of OR and doesn't quite meet NPOV but I am sure it could be done quickly. I would also rename the article Australian Football Hall of Fame inductees removing the superfluous "List of". Just a thought. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of sportspeople by nickname

Hi WikiProject AFL. You may or may not be familiar with List of sportspeople by nickname, which I notice contains relatively few Aussie rules footballers. I added a couple (Dipper and Plugger), but I'm sure there must be plenty more. I would recommend only adding people who have an existing article. DH85868993 (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See List of nicknames used in Australian rules, which would appear to be the more suitable list for such nicknames rather than adding to a potentially massive list of sportspeople in general. -- Longhair\talk 09:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to the existence of that article. I have raised the topic of duplication between lists at Talk:List of sportspeople by nickname#Duplication. DH85868993 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

I have just proposed the following "Did You Know" at [15]:

=== Articles created/expanded on April 30 ===

I am hoping that the fact that it includes references to two separate articles may be given some weight. Lindsay658 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrantley (talk • contribs) 05:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the "Modern Game"

Reviewing the article on Adam Goodes the lead has He is regarded as one of the greats of the modern, faster game.... While I realise its a term thrown around in the media all too frequently but what is it referring to, when did the modern game start, what was before it...maybe it needs an article or do we need to consider our usage of the term. Gnangarra 05:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I always considered "the modern game" as being the last decade or so. So when I first heard the phrase back in the late 70s, the modern game would have started in about 1970, while using the term today would refer to probably either the start of the AFL in 1991 or 1997. Others may have wildly differing understanding of it. --Roisterer (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Therefore under that analogy the use of the description He is regarded as one of the greats of the modern, faster game... shouldnt be used as the term itself leaves the player behind. Gnangarra 00:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All-AUstralian templates

I was just doing a routine search when I found that several 2007 All-Australian squad tempaltes have been created. It looks like Template:2007 All-Australian Team is the accepted version, but there are alos at least two more. These two tempaltes should be deleted and the accepted version kept. The other versions are:

Allied45 (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Player page naming standards

I think we need to get something agreed on and published on this.

  1. Disambiguation qualifiers: I am happy to leave it up to each page creator/editor to have Joe Bloggs (footballer), Joe Bloggs (Australian footballer) or Joe Bloggs (Australian rules footballer). But, as per the naming conventions, I think we should avoid using AFL in the () section, as the say to avoid abreviations. (football player) seems to have been claimed by the NFL, other sports such as ice hockey are trying to switch to the sport's name ie (ice hockey) to avoid the less natural (ice hockey player), but I think it should describe the player, not his sport (I also prefer (musician) to (music) and (politician) to (cane toad) (politics)). Avoid capitals for anything other than Australian - do not use (Footballer)
  2. Junior/Senior: Crickettragic has been doing some good work on the Junior/Senior issue... Bill Bloggs, Jr. and Bill Bloggs, Sr. is the preferred format throughout the en.wikipedia (comma, space, Jr or Sr then full stop).
  3. Initials or middle names: Where you have two or more AFL players with the same name, middle initials are preferred to using (footballer) for one, (Australian footballer) for the other or similar. H. C. A. Harrison is the only "initials only" page we have. (the spacing is as per the wikipedia standard) Should he be Henry C. A. Harrison? What is the common name for a guy who died in 1929? Is it just matching the "quaint politeness" of yesteryear that we use the initials, or was he called "HCA" by his mates?
  4. Nicknames: Should it be Mark "Jacko" Jackson, Mark 'Jacko' Jackson or Mark Jackson (Australian rules footballer)? I'm leaning towards the no-nicknames one, as although the overriding rule is "use the most commonly called name", I think he was called "Mark Jackson" just as often as "Jacko" and probably a lot more than "Mark 'Jacko' Jackson". In a similar vein, I've already moved George "Blue" Johnston and Reginald "Old Boy" Wilmot to their no-nickname equivalents, as I don't think they were ever referred to in that way... but Wilfred "Chicken" Smallhorn, Frank 'Checker' Hughes, George 'Jocka' Todd, Henry 'Ivo' Crapp and William 'Nipper' Truscott I'm not sure about. Should they be Chicken Smallhorn, Ivo Crapp etc or Wilfred Smallhorn, George Todd like we have Graham Farmer and Tony Lockett, not Polly Farmer and Plugger Locket. If we decide to keep the nicknames, should it be in single or double quotes - as you see above we have both? How do we determine what was the "common name" of a guy who lived 100 years ago? I've tried to find other pages with both the real and nickname in the titles... even most of the professional wrestling pages are either real name only Randy Savage or nickname only The Rock (entertainer), not a mixture (although there is Stone Cold Steve Austin without quotes at all!)

Opinions?

Changing (politician) to (cane toad) seems reasonable so be Bold as for the players, using (AFL) would be wrong for dabs in cases like;
someone from Polly's era or earlier -- they was in the VFL not AFL
for a player like Stephen Micheal -- as he only played WAFL
or for someone like Hayden Bunton -- who played sanfl,wafl
That leaves the full (Australian rules footballer) option.
For the Nicks names Im less inclined to have a standard format, article should be at the more commonly used name ie Polly Farmer with redirects from Graham Farmer and Graham "Polly" Farmer, etc. Though would prefer to see "Nick" rather than 'Nick', where there isnt any certainty that the nick was more common then at the person actual name is the way to go. Jacko IMHO should be at Jacko rather than Mark Jackson, likewise Gary Ablett should be at God rather than that religious/mythological Icon or at least make it a dab with links to God(Gary Ablett) and God(Religious Icon) even then one could be excused for getting it mixed up. Gnangarra 17:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In regard to the nicknames I think we already have problems with consistency. For example Lance Franklin is almost always called Buddy Franklin so if we're going to have a page called Frank 'Checker' Hughes then technically his page should be Lance 'Buddy' Franklin. It's a tough one but on official VFL/AFL records for many of the early players guys such as Hughes and Smallhorn are listed as their current page name states so we should probably go with that.Crickettragic (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question re Hall of Fame tribute match

Was it considered a State of Origin encounter? I'm trying to work out whether or not the 20 odd Victorians would be eligible for Category:Victorian State of Origin players. Crickettragic (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest not, because if so what about those who played in the Dream Team? What do we do with them? Especially if this game ends up being a once off? AFL-Cool (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you could make a case for it being a State representative honour. The team selections, after all, were concerned about players representing the state of Victoria or any of the other seven states (comprising the "Dream Team"). So indirectly, I would certainly argue that this 'accolade' is a state representation honour, but whether you want to then pigeon hole into the State of Origin cat is another thing. The Victorian players would definitely fall into the Victorian State of Origin players cat, but whether or not you consider the Dream Team players as 'representing their respective states under the unified jumper of the dream team' is debatable. Blame the AFL. Boomtish (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah but they do all fit into a Category:Hall of Fame tribute match, that could be considered a subcat of "State of Origin" in principal it is a VIC SoO team, with about 50 players in the cat its an ideal size. Gnangarra 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to review the entire Category:State of Origin players category... I'm surprised the NRL boys have let us have it (I know we invented the concept, but common name use etc... they win, but they use Category:New South Wales Rugby League State of Origin players etc for their guys). As we have it now, I think the Vics should go straight into the Category:Victorian State of Origin players cat, the Dream Team needs it's own cat, we need an Allies cat and we need to decide if we are going to split up the State team reps (ie before 1977) from the SOO reps (1977-2000ish) from the recent WAFL/SANFL/QFL/TFL/VFL state team reps. And how do we make a worldwide appropriate, unambiguous no acronyms label Category:Western Australian Australian rules football state representative players is a bit of a mouthful and Category:Western Australian Australian rules football State of Origin players isn't any better. Category:Western Australian State of Origin players doesn't state which sport (ie Hockey/Basketball/Swimming/Judo could start up a SoO comp and want to use that cat, Category:Western Australian (AFL) State of Origin players has an acronym and is incorrect for pre-1990 VFL era, likewise (VFL) would be wrong for the post 1990 players. The whole cat misses all the pre-SoO players such as Polly, EJ and Jezza. Not sure what the answer is. Just don't think we've found it yet, but we should start getting prepared incase it ever gets CfD'd. The-Pope (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Gold Coast Team

Do we have an article about the proposed Gold Coast team (or for that matter, the proposed Western Sydney team)? With the amount of ink already spilt about the teams, they could make solid articles. Also, could an article like Australian rules football on the Gold Coast, covering the old Carrara Koalas and the current developments, be a goer? --TheGrantley (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See GC17. -- Longhair\talk 03:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Player Category Titles

Currently, in contradiction to our style guidelines, the player categories are of the style Category:Carlton Blues players rather than the more correct and preferred Category:Carlton Football Club players. Before I or others nominate this at WP:CFD is there a general agreement to do this for all bar Bris (both Bears & Lions), Eagles and Swans?The-Pope (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You have no arguments from me. --Roisterer (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No brainer obviously club name is the best, though I'd make Fitzroy players as a separate cat and a subcat of Brisbane lions dont waste time at CFD be a pair of boots, "Just do it". Gnangarra 11:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll get it done... but the last one just help me up a touch... Category:Western Bulldogs players or Category:Footscray Football Club players or both? Category:North Melbourne Kangaroos players to Category:North Melbourne Football Club players is obvious... but the doggies, not sure. I'll ask Pip.The-Pope (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Tough one. Not many may know, but they are still legally Footscray Football Club Limited (trading as Western Bulldogs). I have to confess, I really don't like the idea of splitting it up, afterall, they are meant to be the one ongoing club (the entity never changed, just the name). What have we done about South Melbourne/Sydney? I would have thought that that is the exact same situation. On the whole, I much prefer the sound of "Carlton Football Club players", "Collingwood Footbal Club...", etc, however, with the Bulldogs, they now do go under the name "Western Bulldogs", so it is possible to argue that what we have now should remain. It's harder to argue that everyone, including the modern day players should come under Footscray Football Club because of the confusion that might cause (would we put modern day Sydney players under South Melbourne?). On the other hand, it is possible to argue that everyone goes under Western Bulldogs, afterall, the Western Bulldogs have won one flag in the record books, even if it was under another name a long, long, long, long time ago.... (reaches for a tissue) --πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 13:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
My reasoning for what I am about to say is flimsy, but I reckon that the following categories can stay as is (all modern names, 1982 onwards): Adelaide Crows players, Brisbane Bears players, Brisbane Lions players, Fremantle Dockers players, Port Adelaide Power players, Sydney Swans players, West Coast Eagles players, and Western Bulldogs players. The others ought to be changed along the lines of University Football Club players. Why? Because in the modern era the above names are used regularly and they don't grate, but the combination of names like Carlton Blues, St Kilda Saints, Melbourne Demons, etc - they absolutely grate and no self-respecting Australian football fan would ever be caught dead using those combinations. Having said that, I understand that they might have to be used as names of articles for disambiguation purposes, but if we have the liberty of using the correct terms in the categories, let's take it! πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said on the CFD page I support the move but suggest we keep Category:Port Adelaide Power players as Port Adelaide Football Club is ambiguous and could also refer to the SANFL club's players. I know it's been discussed before but I am still a little uneasy about saying Bob Skilton for example played for the 'Sydney Swans'. For some of the US sports where team relocation is fairly common they have different cats for each city. Eg. Category:Vancouver Grizzlies players is used even though the club still exists after relocating to Memphis.
So maybe Category:South Melbourne Football Club players could be used for the pre-1982 club and for cases where a player's career took place on both ends of the relocation then just have the two categories. Crickettragic (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What you say about Port Power is consistent with what I have written about all the names post 1982. I understand what you are saying about the Sydney Swans, on the other hand, they do remain the same sporting entity, in the same way we would describe the Swans as having won 4 flags (3 of them as South Melbourne eons ago). Perhaps the top of the category page can make it clear that the name Sydney Swans also includes those players who played for South Melbourne? Needless to say, Brisbane Bears, Brisbane Lions and Fitzroy Football Club are different again because they do represent three separate entities. I note that scattered throughout Wikipedia we find precedents for the one article existing for an item that has undergone a myriad of name changes. One example I am familiar with is Akragas (ancient Greek name), Agrigentum (ancient Latin name), Girgenti (latinisation of Arabic name), Agrigento (modern Italian name). πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 02:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
We have to be a bit careful about the pre/post 82 distinction. Fremantle aren't allowed to use Dockers officially, so it shouldn't be used here for a title. Port also HATE using Port Adelaide Power, just as much as Hawthorn Hawks or St Kilda Saints. Looking at their website it says the nickname changed from Port Power to just Power. Maybe we need Category:Port Adelaide Football Club (Power) players and Category:Port Adelaide Football Club (Magpies) players. The Weagles, on the other hand are NOT the West Coast Football Club. But Freo, Adelaide and Port ARE their respective FCs. Brissy is actually the Brisbane Lions Australian Football Club I believe. As for the name changes (and yes same applies to Sydney/SM) I have no problems with having a comment at the top of the page for the Category:Western Bulldogs players explaining the former name. The issue is should pages like EJ Whitten's have Category:Western Bulldogs players on it? The-Pope (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just noticed that our bible: Holmesby, R. & Main, J. (2002) The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers, splits players into Foot, WB or Foot/WB, ditto for South/Syd. As I already wrote, there appears to already be a precedent in Wikipedia that you stick to the one article for something with mulitple names - but should that principle apply to categories as well? That's the question for me. If someone can answer it adequately, I guess it's only a very short step to doing what Holmesby and Main already do. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 12:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the pre 1982 names should just be crossed categorised ie south melb into sydney swans and vikkyverca, with an explanation at the top of the category page highlighting the distinction. Like wise the brisbane and fitzroy incantations also with the doggies and the North Melbourne canberra goldcoast Kangaroos football club. Gnangarra 14:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
So are these changes going ahead? I think at the very least we are all in agreement that Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Fitzroy, Geelong, Hawthorn, Nth Melbourne, Melbourne, Richmond and St Kilda should all have their nickname replaced with Football Club. Crickettragic (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australian rules football article status post ACOTF

People may be aware that Australian rules football was the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. Looking at the article now, I would say it is getting closer to Good Article status, although there are probably still a number of statements that need to be referenced. If people could have a look over and see where more references are needed, that would be great. --Roisterer (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E.E. Gunn ?

I'm working on the article for Aurora Stadium and have a question that people here may be able to answer. Was there a famous player from Tasmania called E.E. Gunn? One of the stadium's stands appears to be alternatively known as the "EE Gunn Stand" (I presume named after a person) or the "Gunns Stand" (I presume sponsored by Gunns). Two problems - I don't know which one is correct, and I don't know who E.E. Gunn is - the only google hits I can get appear to refer to an "E.E. Gunn Reserve" in Ormond, Victoria. Can anyone shed any light on the subject? -- Chuq (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

Im thinking it might be a good idea to start a weekly collaboration/review of an Australian-rules football related article. It could be a bit like WikiProject Australia's Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. It would be an oppurtunity for everyone to review and add their opinions on what should be done to the selected article. I believe this would greatly improve the quality of AFL articles, and hopefully get some feature articles out of it!

Please have your say about this below. - Allied45 (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to Port Adelaide Football Club or Port Adelaide Magpies

For articles on people who played for Port in the SANFL prior to 1997 which article should we be linking to? When I made pages for some of Port's Magarey Medalists a while back I linked to the Magpies article but have since changed the link to Port Adelaide Football Club as it has a more detailed section on their history. Thoughts? Crickettragic (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My rule has been to link to the Port Adelaide FC article for any pre-97 SANFL and then the Magpies for 97 and beyond. I know the Port Magpies page (or at least the last time I looked) makes it sound like the Magpies preceded 97 and that is an issue that I once attempted to tackle but merely sigh in a resigned way about these days. --Roisterer (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but aren't the Power and the Magpies two separate clubs? πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 07:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they are. The Pre 97 Magpies and the Power are the same club while the club now participating in the SANFL was formed in time for the 1997 season. --Roisterer (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
So pre 97 maggies became the Power, and a new SANFL club was created with the traditional name and colours? I can recall 11 years ago that Cunningham was trying to distance the new AFL club a bit from the SANFL club to broaden its appeal. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 10:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it can be confusing to the uninitiated. Just remember that pre-97 there was a Port Adelaide Football Club. Post-97, there is the same Port Adelaide Football Club which, like Hawthorn, Footscray etc. before it, joined the VFL/AFL (but without the same colours, unfortunately) and a Port Magpies Football Club.--Roisterer (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Taking into account what has been discussed here it seems that the Port Adelaide Magpies page needs a complete rewrite. There is barely anything on the club post 1997 and the article focuses on the history of the Port Adelaide Football Club. Crickettragic (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)