Talk:Australian Football League/Archive 1

Infobox

I think it might be an idea to replace the template on the side of each individual club with an infobox. It'd be considerably more useful, anyway. Ambi 11:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just had that idea myself, although I've updated the team navbox to a template - it can still be changed to a footer template and the infobox go up the top. I'll try and come up with something shortly. Incidently, I assume that the team logos would be copyright? T.P.K. 05:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Australian_Football_League article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Australian_Football_League}} to this page. — LinkBot 01:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) Don't cha reckon Collingwoods the best of the best

Future Expansion

I have moved future expansion from the Aussie rules article. It may need editing to fit this article better. Bjmurph 09:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Aboriginal Team of the Century

Does this section really belong here? It's a notable team and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia but the selection of non-V/AFL players suggests it really belongs in Australian rules football or perhaps an Australian indigenous sport article.--The Brain of Morbius 11:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Team locations

Hi there. I just happened upon this page today, so please let me know if I stepped on any toes.

I have made 2 edits, as follows:

• I changed all of the "Melbourne" locations to their actual home town (for example, Footscray, Hawthorn etc) since they are actually based in those towns, not in Melbourne. St Kilda is an actual town. I also did the same thing for Port Adelaide.
• I added 2nd locations for the two teams that have had mergers - Sydney has a 2nd location of South Melbourne while Brisbane has a 2nd location of Fitzroy.

If anyone strongly objects to my rationale for either of these edits, I will not be offended if one or both of them are reverted. It really just depends on your perception.

I know that this then opens up a can of worms with things like "University" et al, who were historically other team names being included. But then again, well, there's only ever been 2 official mergers, as noted there.

The other issue is with Kangaroos and Western Bulldogs. Whilst historically they were based in North Melbourne and Footscray respectively, is it accurate to say that they are now? Kangaroos seems to be based in Canberra now, but really seems to be a bit indeterminate, while Western Bulldogs could perhaps more accurately be described as being Gippsland as a whole.

Anyway, that's my edits and rationale. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

For a start, Gippsland is actually East of Melbourne - not west ... and the Bulldogs also play games out of Darwin's Marrara Oval, so geography is not especially important for either they or the Kangaroos. -- Biatch

Beyond the name, very few of these clubs are actually associated with these locations. For example, Collingwood's old home ground and HQ was in Abbotsford. It now has nothing to do with Collingwood. Its HQ is at the Lexus Centre in Richmond and its home ground is the MCG in East Melbourne Carlton's ground is in North Carlton.... same with St Kilda (Moorabbin) and Hawthorn (Waverley) etc. --Rulesfan 22:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In a similar vein I note that Port Adelaide the club is not actually located at Port Adelaide the suburb - it's base is at Alberton and it plays it's games at West Lakes; and the club Adelaide is based & plays at West Lakes. I believe the same applies for the other "interstate"/non-Victorian clubs, except that Fremantle enjoys it's own "city" status - similar to Geelong. Based on Rulesfan's comments and the need to correct most of the non-Victorian locations, I am changing the location to the home city (ie Adelaide for the two SA clubs, Melbourne for all bar one of the Vic clubs). If someone disagrees then please discuss further. Pudgey 10:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing AFL draft info

Someone may want to explain how players are recruited and inducted into the league. Downwards 03:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And while you're there, a list of #1 draft picks (or full draft picks) would also be great. -- Biatch 30 January 2006

Help!

A few soccer fundamentalists are hijacking the term football in Australian articles. See, for example, [[Category:Football_in_Australia]]. We need concerted action to stop this. Grant65 | Talk 10:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Selective deletion

I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time.. Snottygobble 04:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete. Snottygobble 04:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

organization

I propose that the spelling of "organisation" be spelt "organization" in this article. Pnatt 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose that you read wikipedia:mos Xtra 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

ACK Xtra, strongly disagree. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You disagree with the official manual of style? I don't understand. Xtra 01:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

ACK = agree with, what they said, ditto. Strongly disagree with Pnatt's proposal. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I read wikipedia:mos and it mentions local language. Australian English spells the word "organization" according to Microsoft Word's spell checker. This is an Australian article. Therefore - I agree with Pnatt 61.68.134.98 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Word is an American application and its adherence to Australian idiom is weak at best, and besides it accepts "organisation" too. The Macquarie Dictionary is the most widely-accepted authority on Australian English and it prefers the word to be spelled with an "s".--The Brain of Morbius 04:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. The Macquarie Dictionary's preference towards "s" is frankly erroneous. It's the American spelling - bottom line - and American spelling frankly has no place in an Australian article. Australia is a Commonwealth country - not the 51st state of the "union". If we must argue about this - someone grab the Oxford Dictionary. 61.68.142.137 12:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The "s" is most definitely not the American spelling. It's also not the Oxford spelling, but it is the Australian spelling documented by the Macquarie and approved by the Wikipedia Manual of Style for this article. It's as simple as that. JPD (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe this is still going on!! Do we even live in the same Australia? Have a look at standard practice for yourself: [1] Can you z-pushers please get over it and find something more important to argue about? pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree entirely... Australian common usage is "s". American is "z". lets move on and make some active contributions. And get a user name Mr 61.68 etc. The-Pope 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I found NO mention of the Macquarie dictionary in the Wikipedia MOS. Are we turning American?? "S" is AMERICAN!!! "Z" is English AND Australian! I want to see links outside of Wikipedia before I'll believe otherwise. PFC - this IS important because it's about the Yank culture over running every other, and I'm bloody well sick of it! Yes, including the spelling! How many of us are dropping "u" from "our" words for example? And Pope - I will get an ID when I have time (October) and not before. Now I'll leave the article as is for now - but I want this sorted out! If Wikipedia is to have the integrity it deserves, even so-called "little" issues need to be clarified 100 percent. 61.68.138.242 01:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I quote from the Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers, published by the Australian Government, the official and authoritative guide to writing and usage in Australia, section 3.1:

Spellings recommended for use in Commonwealth publications are currently those given in the latest edition of The Macquarie Dictionary, published in 1991, as these relect common Australian usage.

The Macquarie Dictionary, 1991 edition, states:

organisation, n. 1. the act or process of organising. 2. the state or manner of being organised. 3. that which is organised. 4. organic structure. 5. any organised whole. 6. a body of persons organised for some end or work. 7. the administrative personnel or apparatus of a business, [..]

The argument as to whether or not "s" or "z" is American English is irrelevant. The question is, which is Australian English? The Style Manual and the Macquarie say it's "s" - and if that's good enough for the Australian Government and all professional technical writings produced in this country, it should be good enough for Wikipedia.

It's worth pointing out, I think, that Australian English is not a slavish copy of British English or it wouldn't be distinctive enough to require special consideration - and we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Nor is it completely divergent of American English. Simply saying one is American therefore it's not Australian is not a good enough argument. That doesn't mean anyone's going to be talking about football sox or the colors the teams wear either, because those words are not Australian English. --The Brain of Morbius 02:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, The Australian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 2004) spells it "organisation" too.--The Brain of Morbius 02:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

One last comment - if you still feel the spelling needs to be changed even in the face of this authoritative opposition, you're probably best taking it up further at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board as this debate obviously has far, far wider implications than just to the AFL page. If the wider Australian Wikipedia community agrees with you then no doubt a robot can be set to automatically find and correct the word where it occurs throughout the encyclopaedia.--The Brain of Morbius 03:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now, all I'm interested in is this "Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers, published by the Australian Government, the official and authoritative guide to writing and usage in Australia". Now I have two questions. One - where do I find this manual on the Internet? Two - who says it's "authoritative"? And don't answer "the government" because that's wide open to political implications. I need more specific information than that. My point is that everything that has been said so far contradicts everything I believe to be true and correct - so if I'm wrong I can't just sit here and take your word for it. I want visible and accesible evidence - and answers to the two questions I have put would be an excellent start. 61.68.140.26 09:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

To insist that everything be on the internet is ridiculous. Go to a public library and look up the Macquarie Dictionary and the Australian Oxford Dictionary, if you don't believe those quoting it. As The Brain says, American English is irrelevant, but I think you are very confused. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling), as well as being well sourced, matches my experience, which is that Americans invariably use z and and that while the OED uses z, most British people use s. If you look at the articles from pfctdayelise's search above, I'm sure you will find external links confirming that the official names of all these Australian organisations use s. JPD (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I never insisted that 'everything' be on the Net! Just like I don't have time to create an ID here right now - for the same reason a public library is also not an option. Hence the Net request. As far as American English being irrelevant - that's like saying spelling as an entire concept is irrelevant, and that's not true at all. On the confusion - I won't say I'm confused but rather you lot are confusing me. While your experience (which I respect whether I agree with it or not right now) may say one thing - mine says the opposite. Hence the confusion being created by others. Understand where I'm coming from? I'll see if I can find the articles you refer to from pfctdcayelise meanwhile. 61.68.140.26 12:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Mos#National_varieties_of_English:

If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.

With this being an article for the Australian Football League, would it not be written in the dailect of Australia, using the spelling of "organisation"? The Wikipedia page also goes on to reference Australian English as an accepted dialect of english. Yes, there are points to cover when words cannot be settled apon, but it also reads that if there is indeed a strong tie to a region, then that region's dialect overrides any dispute, so long as etiquette is applied to the situation. Raider2044 ^{Bio • Talk • Contribs} 12:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If User:61.68.140.26 isnt just User:Pnatt, then I advise User:61.68.140.26 to read User talk:Pnatt. There is no consensus whatsoever to spell it 'organization' in Australian articles. Remy B 13:25, 18 August 2;;006 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly that Australian English spells the word with an s. Therefore, stop wasting everyone's time by continuing to raise this issue. If you want to raise it further, do so on WP:AWNB where you can be shot down in flames by a different bunch of Australian editors. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Consensus" is such a subjective word! For example, if there is a consensus that all ducks are white - and one person says there is such a thing as a black duck, who is right? The one person, because he or she can prove it. I'm not saying that to be a smart alec - it's a fact. I'm also not saying that rule applies in this case. Bottom line - I'm not going to learn anything with you lot patronising me with what amounts to (at the moment at least) opinions. You've given me another link to check (Pnatt's talk page) as well as the other that I haven't had the chance to check yet.

How about just backing off, especially as I firmly believe I am NOT wasting anyone's time? Just give me a chance to check out those two links, unless you have some others for me to check out as well (not on this website BTW!) 61.68.138.23 11:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can't get to the Library and check either the Australian Style Manual or the Macquarie Dictionary, then try these links as examples:

• Elsevier Australia (Publishers): Style Guide [PDF]
  

http://www.elsevier.com.au/bookstore/uploadedfiles/style_guide_EA.pdf

(p.3)

-ise-, -ize-

The standard Australian spelling convention is to use the -ise- variant, not -ize- (organise, cauterise, empathise). If for some reason you particularly wish to use the -ize- version, please advise your editor.

• University of South Australia: Copy Standards
  

http://www.unisa.edu.au/staff/copystds.asp

-ise, -ize

In British and American English, the -ize suffix is used in many cases, depending on the origin of the word in question. Australian English prefers the use of -ise­ in all cases, with the one notable exception of capsize.

• Google search: "ise ize australian"
  

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=ise+ize+australian&hl=en

--The Brain of Morbius 22:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Brain! At least someone is prepared to help out instead of patronising me! And obviously a fellow Whovian judging by the user name! I'll check those out as well first chance I get! 61.68.134.165 13:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you realise that you've twice spelt 'patronising' with an 's'? GregP1 03:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is about organization - not patronising. Therefore - it's not relevant. And I didn't appreciate the reverse of the deletion, Brain, because the above comment is offensive to me. I ask that it be removed (along with this note of course when you do so). The last thing I need is moronics like that when I am trying to sort something out that has confused me. 61.68.129.34 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a lot of nerve complaining that we patronise you and then ask to delete our comments. If you want a reasonable debate you will have to cop what we have to say just like we are having to cop the things you have to say. By the way, are you the same person who had the account User:Pnatt? Remy B 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a lot of nerve ignoring my offence of said behaviour! The only person who has been reasonable in this is Brain. And I am not Pnatt. 61.68.131.46 23:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is about ‘organisation’, why on earth did you say ‘this IS important because it's about the Yank culture over running every other, and I'm bloody well sick of it! Yes, including the spelling! How many of us are dropping "u" from "our" words for example?’

I can't see what that's got to do with ‘organisation’. Sorry to have offended; it just seems unusual to prefer ‘z’ in one case and ‘s’ in another. GregP1 02:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK... how about we all just leave this alone, and go and find some more productive editing to do elsewhere? pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, PFC - if anything to give me a chance to check out the links that have been provided (of which I've only checked the User Talk page for Pnatt (sheesh - there's a great example of someone not taking a hint on several levels! And he's Canadian - I'm Australian just for the record).

Just to answer Greg's query (and the apology is accepted BTW), yes - if you look at it like that it is unusual. But I can't help it if I have such information that hasn't been contradicted until now. It is true however that Yank spelling is filtering into other cultures. That was a general observation of which I feel (at present anyway) organization was an example of.

Anyway - let's make my comment here the last until I've had the chance to check out the remaining links. OK? 61.68.131.59 08:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a great idea (from a fellow Aussie who totally agrees that Americanisms are filtering into other societies, probably no more than our own)! GregP1 09:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

General Flow of the article

I was just reading it, and I thought it didn't flow very well. A bit about the expansion, then the history, then the admin, then the clubs etc. I've shuffled it around a bit, still could do with some more editing

1. Clubs - it's what we are all about. Our clubs. Should be first. Very few of us follow the league... we are all club based.
2. Season/Tournaments - winning the flag is what we want our club to do.
3. AFL Strongholds - not sure if this belongs here, or in the Aust rules football article. Maybe just incorporated into history?
4. History - bit light on in pre 80s history
5. Administration - bit boring, but maybe suitable for an encyc - stick it in the info box? Move the tribunal details to it's own page?
6. VFL/AFL Records - move before history/Admin?
7. Team Rivalries - not sure about this section... it's own page?
8. Future - probably should be straight after history
9. Game Development - Had to check what this was.. possibly under Admin or Corp Relations?
10. Representation - probably needs to be here, it's a distinguishing fact of our league is that there really isn't a higher league/comp/national level.
11. Hall of Fame - combined into an awards section?
12. Team of the Century - combined into an awards section?
13. Corporate Relations - suitable for the end, bits and pieces.
14. See also
15. External links

Opinions? The-Pope 07:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh yes... I have been wondering if anyone else thought the same as I did. Basically this article is a complete hogwash of irrelevant and disproportional content. These are my thoughts, I'll help out with implementing them if other people agree with them:

• The history should be rewritten in a prose style rather than the current list.
• Legends of the Game should be removed since it is already in the List of Australian Football Hall of Fame inductees article.
• Records should be cut down to the really relevant ones (like largest crowd, most premierships, player with most games) and the rest in their own article, say List of AFL records.
• Administration section should be removed entirely - pointless list of names nobody really cares about. Obligatory reference to Andrew Demetriou and Ron Evans can be placed somewhere else in the article.
• Rivalries section has grown ever larger as time has gone by, to the point that it is starting to resemble all of the combinations of possible matchups. It has no sources and is mostly POV. I would rather it was in its own article, so that the blight of its unencyclopedic wording wont directly affect the AFL article.
• Corporate Relations is mostly a list of non-notable material that we can do without. Probably best to rename it to Broadcasting and cut it down to a more realistic size.
• The External Links section is a fantastic example of what Wikipedia is not about. A lot of inexperienced editors forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and instead treat it like a billboard. We should really only be referencing the official AFL website. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to point people to websites that the topic relates to, and if we allow it then it comes at the cost of making the end of the article look like a tacky place for people to advertise their site.

Remy B 09:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, well seems I'm looking to put this in the first publishment of Wikipedia, I have (or will) create User:Jasrocks/Australian Football League. Jasrocks ^Talk 09:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Clubs list

I think the clubs list should be set up like the one on NRL, with the table of team logos.

I disagree. This article is for factual information on the AFL - not a gallery of team logos. Presentations like that dont belong in encyclopedia articles. Remy B 12:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably displaying the logos in a table is a violation of fair use, anyway. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting The Logo's back

This arguement has come to my attention on the NRL site and it may help us get the logos back. What you see now is a copy of a person's view on it on the NRL discussion:

This ludicrous injustice has just come to my attention. In my opinion, the logos are not used in a decorative manner at all, but as the Fair Use guidelines state, should be used "for identification". Now of course, everyone has their own opinion, but if something does come from this issue then we can fight it all the way. --mdmanser 12:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy #8 of Wikipedia:Fair use says that The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.. This article is about the league in general, so the specific details of the teams belong on the team pages, which to me implies that in this article the team logos are serving a decorative purpose. What I would like to know is how we can get a definite answer on this particular case, because if it comes down to individual interpretation then we may as well switch back and forth between using them and not. Remy B 09:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find the general attitude towards logos and other fair use images is to discourage them as much as possible, because they undermine our status as a completely free content project, which is after all one of the core ideas. WP:FU says: This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. For this reason logos in lists and basically anywhere where they're out of context, is strongly being discouraged. I think you will be fighting a losing battle on this one. I would concentrate on (A) procuring free images to improve AFL articles and (B) improving the text content. Just my 2c --pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the logos there too, but they are copyrighted material and using them in this way is absolutely not fair use. The key to fair use with images is the text needs to directly refer to the subject of the image. If we take the West Coast Eagles logo as an example, it is fair use only when the subject under discussion is the West Coast Eagles logo, and your sole purpose in displaying the image is to show what the logo looks like. It is not fair use if the image is used to indirectly signify the West Coast Eagles club, or to show what an eagle looks like, or for any other purpose not directly related to the logo per se. For example, you can fairly use the West Coast Eagles logo in article West Coast Eagles, because that article is an appropriate place to discuss and illustrate the club's logo, and the purpose of displaying the logo is to show what the logo looks like. If you knew who designed the West Coast Eagles logo, you could fairly use the logo in an article about the designer, as an illustration of their work, again because the subject under discussion is the logo itself, and your purpose in displaying the logo is to show what the logo looks like. You could even make a fair use case for using it in article Eagle, not to illustrate an eagle but to illustrate a cultural reference to eagles in sports marketing, because the subject under discussion is the logo itself and the purpose of displaying it is to display the logo itself. But in this article, the proposed use of the logos is not to show what the logo looks like. The purpose is to provide an attractive visual cue that signifies the West Coast Eagles. The logo is not a subject of discussion in the article. Therefore not fair use. Snottygobble 11:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So how come the NRL page doesn't have to get rid of them> -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs).

I'd like to see a response on this. Rogerthat ^Talk 08:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My response is now on the NRL talk page. In short, they shouldn't be using logos either. Snottygobble 11:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Melbourne" in list of teams

Obviously it is not actually "necessary" to inlude "Melbourne" in the location for teams based in Melbourne, so I don't want to make a big deal out of it. However, it does seem to do nothing but remove information that could be helpful to a reader who does not know that these places are suburbs of Melbourne. The "Melbourne" (and "Adelaide") seem particularly appropriate given that the heading in the table is "city", and Hawthorn, Collingwood, etc aren't exactly cities. Is there really any need to leave the information out? JPD (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox sports league}}

I was planning to add {{Infobox sports league}} here but there's an infobox already... --Howard the Duck 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Feature Article nomination

I think the article needs a clean up so that a feature article nomination could hopefully go through and make the AFL a feature article. Things like historical records could be moved and linked so that it’s not as long and it’s a little cleaner. We should take a look at the FA Premier League page which is a feature article as an idea to how this page can be improved. AFL45 06:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Traditions

I want to make some points regarding the reversion I just did now.

1. Umpires are wearing orange uniforms instead of white uniforms in a number of metorpolitan and country football leagues so this tradition is NOT exclusive to the AFL.
2. Banners when teams enter the playing arena are regular fixtures on metropolitan and country grand final days and also show up at junior games for milestones so again this tradition is NOT exclusive to the AFL.
3. I am yet to see a local football club that does not have a club song.

I apologise for labelling the revert "rvv" (this isn't vandalism and I didn't realise I'd put two v's until after I'd clicked on 'Save Page') - but this stuff belongs on the Australian Rules Football page, not here. Curse of Fenric 06:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that banners and soings are traditional parts of football at many levels, and that they should possibly be mentioned at the other page, but that's not a reason to not have them here. As for orange umpires, however widespread the practice is, it's hardly been going long enough to call it a tradition. JPD (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

With the banners and the songs, fair comment. I was concerned with the way it was written (ie only the AFL do it - which is not true at all) and the fact that it had been removed from the other page. That's why I took it out here. Definitely agree with you about the orange umpires (or any other colour come to that). Frankly I would prefer them to go back to white. Curse of Fenric 22:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WFN Link

Noticed you removed worldfootynews.com link and I was a little bemused. The site reports on international footy, but it also reports on the AFL where it is relevant to international Aussie Rules. As the AFL is the de facto 'keeper of the code', they get quite a mention.

Look at the most recent articles on the site:
4 of the last 10 are relevant to current/past AFL players.
If you head back a little further there are articles like:
http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.php?story=20061109092808429
http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.php?story=20060918124403637
http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.php?story=2006063006252654
I acknowledge that it isn't exactly reporting on the weeks scores etc. but it is giving you information (on the AFL) that other media sources either don't cover, cover late, or only cover briefly. 40010 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As you say, "relevant to 'international Aussie Rules". That's why it doesn't belong here. It belongs on the Australian Rules Football page. The fact that the AFL is the "defacto keeper of the code" is actually irrelevant. Curse of Fenric 08:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So basically you're saying that the AFL wikipage is only relevant for the league in Australia and pretty much shouldn't mention anything about players born overseas (like Mal Michael - the centre of the recent draft controversy), exhibition matches overseas or even the International Rules series. As for your comment: "The fact that the AFL is "defacto keeper of the code" is actually irrelevant." - on what grounds? 40010 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite see what you're getting at here. Obviously the AFL is relevant to WFN, partly as it's position as de facto keeper of the code. That doesn't mean that every website with stories about Aussie rules including the AFL is sufficiently relevant to this article about the AFL in particular. In an article on the AFL, players like Mal Michael should be mentioned as much as any other players - their place of birth is not particularly relevant. WFN does do a good job of bringing to light some less heard stories that are signficant from a particular angle, but the point is that they are generally not that important in the general context of the league. The main point is that Wikipedia is not meant to be a link directory - we already have enough links (the AFL site, stats sites, and major news sites) in this article, and WFN isn't of the same relevance as those. Of course, if WFN contains any information important enough to be in the article (which is the point of Wikipedia, not the external links), then it should be added, with WFN as a source. JPD (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

North Melbourne - Kangaroos

I think we need to sort this out once and for all. As Pope says, let's not start an edit war - let's discuss this, and this would be the best place to do it.

I'll just put my point of view first. I'm on the side of saying North Melbourne. The club went to just "Kangaroos" as a part of their drive for a national fan base. This effort has failed miserably and they know it. They also sought to get local clubs (such as Sunshine, Sunbury Rovers and Moorabbin for example) to add Kangaroos to their fixtured name for a price and publicity. This is something that I've never accepted as reasonable and I for one ignore it. Sunshine have dropped the name now, and the only reason Rovers are keeping theirs is to seperate them from the main Sunbury club.

I put the final scores of all leagues across Australia on my website. FWIW I have NEVER called the club Kangaroos. I have retained North Melbourne. I know that's hardly a good enough reason for WP to follow suit, but I'm just making that point. What we need to sort out is what takes precedence. The club name? The trading name? The name on the AFL fixture? Who do we listen to? The club? The AFL? I really think if this WP article is going to be accurate - that's what we have to sort out. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting my POV... I'm a Freo fan so have no allegience to either name. To me wiki MUST use the "official" title and to me that must be consistant with the club and/or the AFL. Currently, AFAIK and can see, it is Kangaroos. Regardless of the reasons for the change, they made it. The kangaroos.com.au website, in the history section, has the following:

This was also the last time the Club played under the banner 'North Melbourne'. The decision to play and trade under the banner of the Kangaroos reflected the Club's decision to broaden its national appeal. While we are and always shall remain the North Melbourne Football Club, fully capitalising on the Club's long-standing nickname the Kangaroo - a true Australian icon - is believed to provide significant opportunities in developing an Australia-wide profile.

So, I believe if you are talking about the team, like in a list of teams, results, or player's teams, it MUST be Kangaroos, especially where it is obvious that it is the AFL team, and not the national RL team etc. If you are talking about the official club name, then North Melbourne Football Club is appropriate - Kangaroos Football Club is always wrong. I think having the Roos page at North Melbourne Football Club (as it is) is correct, and the Kangaroos in MOST other references as appropriate. UNLESS, that is, the club decides to use NM more often, but I can't see any sign of that, other than adding NMFC to the logo. I also want to point out that I am not a revisionist, players prior to 1999 played for North Melbourne, not the Kangaroos, something that the AFL doesn't do (ie in their published alltime playerlists, they have guys from the 1940s playing for the "KANG". Don't agree with that. The-Pope 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I just think we should be consistent. Would we want to see a list of teams that just read "Blues, Bombers, Bulldogs, Cats, Crows, Demons, Dockers, Eagles...."? On a related note, I was talking to a rugby league supporter from Sydney a few years ago and he thought the Bulldogs had moved to WA, because of the name change. :-) Grant65 | Talk 05:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Pope on every point that he makes. For the official club titles (like article title for example) they are the North Melbourne Football Club. However, as that piece lifted from the club website states, they play under the name of "Kangaroos". Anything prior to 1999 has got to be North Melbourne - you will notice this for example when I made the Grand Final tables on the Adelaide page and called them North Melbourne in 1998, not Kangaroos, as that was their name at the time. But for now, they play under the name Kangaroos, and as there is no documentation I can see that says they are back to North Melbourne, they need to be named as such in tables, ladders, lists etc. I think anything that covers both periods should be stated as North Melbourne/Kangaroos but others may not agree with me on that point.

Just while we are on article naming though, I think that all club articles need to be moved to their official title. NMFC has theirs, but I know for a fact that Adelaide has "Adelaide Crows" where I think it should be "Adelaide Football Club", with a redirect from Adelaide Crows. But thats another issue that I will bring up on the club talk page.

Cheers, Seth Cohen 06:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to pick up on what Grant said about the nicknames of the other clubs. Calling a club by it's "nickname" only actually goes against it's traditional base. The point was made about the Bulldogs in the rugby league for example. I'm sure most of the traditional fans still call them Canterbury - especially as they still play (I think) out of Belmore. The same applies to the Roosters (even the commentators sometimes call them Easts). It's a very hazy situation, which Pope actually picked up with the revisionist stuff - something that I am 100 percent with him on. And I agree with Seth about Adelaide, and it also applies to Brisbane, West Coast and Sydney. And to a degree Port Adelaide - but then with the SANFL team around there's a practical necessity there.

It would seem - judging by what Pope said - that there are two legitimate trains of thought. One points to North Melbourne. The other points to Kangaroos. Grant has said we need to be consistent and I agree. So to what point do we achieve that consistency? Or is it impossible? Maybe we need to be consistent in a practical sense - in which case we should go with North Melbourne. But only with a consensus AND only if getting consistency is impossible otherwise. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 11:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I would say that the only train of thought points to the Kangaroos for almost all references until they decide to go back to NM. Unlike other teams, they have decided to use the nickname as their trading name. I guess what do we do if the "Camry Crows" become an "official name"! This whole thing started with a user claiming that they had reverted to NM. We are yet to see any evidence of this. The-Pope 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer to see the club and the AFL using "North Melbourne", but I think that with the situation as it is, the general Wikipedia approach says we should follow the current AFL usage of "Kangaroos", but not anachronistically. JPD (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you, JPD. They should. The "Kangaroos" experiment has failed. Look who has the least members on the page here. To what Pope said, I guess we need to look at the 2007 draw for a guide for now. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I will go along with what JPD and Fenric have said, if "Kangaroos" is still the main name used by the club. If we could only get the Western Bulldogs to revert to Footscray, or call themselves "Western Melbourne". (I think the same about WA teams that do the same thing, e.g. the Western Force and Western Warriors.) Grant65 | Talk 23:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Grant I disagree about the Bulldogs. They represent the western suburbs. The local football league went the same way - changed their name from Footscray District to Western Region. For the same reason. Now if they'd just called themselves "Bulldogs" that would be another matter entirely! CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 08:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is "Western" isn't a place and its ambiguous. I don't like Western Warriors and Western Force for the same reason. Grant65 | Talk 09:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ambigious, Grant? I used to live in the western suburbs and I can tell you if any permanent resident heard you insinuate that Western was ambigious in the case of the Bulldogs they'd abuse you like there was no tommorrow. The western suburbs is very much a place in their eyes - and that's why the Bulldogs did what they did. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 11:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're still missing Grant's point, Fenric. He's not saying that "Western Suburbs" is not a place (although it is more ambiguous than "Western Melbourne" - the western suburbs of which city?), but that "Western" by itself is not a place. As for ambiguity, Western Warriors is bad enough, but at least they are from the west in the appropriate context. It is strange that in a supposedly national competition, a team from an east coast city can call itself simply "Western".

I think we are starting to get a bit off topic here. As JPD and Grant have both said, it would be good to see the club revert back to North Melbourne as the "Kangaroos" experiment hasn't really worked out well. It didn't work in Sydney and they abandoned Canberra. They will still be calling themselves the Kangaroos mainly to try and gather support on the Gold Coast where a "local" team called North Melbourne wouldn't otherwise.

In summary, as far as I can see, the consensus is that, although we'd rather they were North Melbourne, the fact is they aren't. They are trading as the Kangaroos, have been since 1999, and no documentation can be shown to prove that they have reverted back to North Melbourne. Just because their logo has the phrase in it isn't sufficient evidence. Seth Cohen 13:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)