Talk:Australian Football League/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

ranked 4th in the world for average attendances

Could someone please clarify and provide a source for the claim that AFL is "ranked 4th in the world for average attendances"? Among what? All types of football? All league sports? All sports? Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This statement has since been removed from the article. Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames

Are these official ones or unofficial. If official - aren't FFC not legally allowed to use "Dockers"? BartBart (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

2008/2009 Official Membership Merger

I am not that skilled with the tables on Wikipedia, but how about a merger of the current 2008 Membership and 2009 Membership collums for the clubs into a new "2008/2009 Membership" collum with total numbers from the current two collums for each club, get me? Joker264 (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Themed rounds - delete

We are told "Themed rounds have become immensely popular..." Well, not matter how true or otherwise this unsourced claim ever was, the AFL has seemingly abandoned themed rounds. This sub-section should also go, unless it is just re-written in the past tense. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Popularity

A new user, Mr fourex, whose only other contributions have been about two rugby league players, has now twice added material to the first paragraph pointing out that the 2009 NRL Grand FInal had a bigger TV audience than the 2009 AFL Grand FInal. WHile this is presumably true (the source IS a newspaper owned by the same people who own Rugby League), it's a very distorted perspective with an obvious POV intention.

The fact may belong deeper in the article, along with a look at the different times of the two events. (My understanding is that the NRL final is deliberately scheduled to get the best TV audience, while the AFL Grand Final follows tradition with its timing on Saturday afternoon.) But it does NOT belong in the first paragraph.

I don't want an edit skirmish with Mr fourex. But let's kill this silliness from someone obviously pushing a POV.

HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Memberships

Just wondering if it's really necessary to have the memberships from the last three years for every club in the current teams table at the top of the page... Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Seems like overkill to me too. Current membership would be enough. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Jumper vs Guernsey

Guinea Pig Warrior has just replaced all uses of the word Jumper with Guernsey. No change to sources. I've lived in or near Melbourne all my longish life, followed footy all that time, and would never use the word guernsey. It seems pretentious to me. Footy jumpers are common usage in my part of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the term guernsey, is an offical part. All football club use it on their store with it being sleeveless. A jumper would be for when players where long sleeves like they did in the old days and only a few players do now. And you do not use personal view. Wikipedia is not a place for it. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

But your personal view on what a jumper is or isn't is Ok? The real thing that shouldn't be on Wikipedia is closed-minded editors who do nothing but preach what is right according to them and refuse to compromise or discuss anything civilly. Not everything is black or white. I'm getting sick of seeing your name next to almost every dispute on here.

My personal view on this issue is that either can be used in any context. Just don't use Jersey, kit or shirt! The-Pope (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gpw - Please don't treat me as if I don't know the rules. My point was that YOU changed the text with no explanation and no new source, AND failed to indent your response for neater layout. Please use the place where "All football club use it on their store with it being sleeveless" as a source for your change. HiLo48 (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

IMHO either is fine, so I wonder if there was any need to change in the first place. Having said that, definitely not worth the trouble it would cause to change it back from guernsey to jumper. (And yes, at least some evidence of referencing would be nice when you do something like this GPW and would have made this thread nonexistent.) Jenks24 (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, I did not "treat you" (should be threat you). I wrote do not use personal view. I am not, I may have over-reacted. Jumper and guernsey are both right but AFL club stores use "guernsey". I think guernsey is used more universally now. And "The Pope", I'm getting sick of you being a hypocrite. All I see is you replying 20 times. I do too but don't write "You're sick of it" when you do it aswell. And where is this "thread"? I have no idea what you are on about. Here, Port Adelaide use the term "guernsey" https://www.clubsonline.com.au/shop/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_main&orgid=1750 Adelaide use it aswell https://www.clubsonline.com.au/shop/index.cfm?fuseaction=Display_Product_Listing&CategoryID=497&Title=Guernseys&OrgID=1743 Look up every team store, and I guarantee, they all have "guernsey" written down and is a more accepted name for the clothing. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 4:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Gpw - it's not the job of others to go looking for sources that back up your claims. It was YOUR job to include them when you first made the change. Unsourced changes to articles are big red alert to those trying to maintain the quality of Wikipedia. And it seems that you are a little confused about the language of others. A thread is just a collection of posts on a topic. Nothing to do with threat. That's what you do every time you tell us you're going to get an administrator to keep us all in line. HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well you just prove yourself to be more of a hypocrite and a smart alec (And this is not abusement). This is the truth. You know the T is close to the D, I made a typo. You don't need to be high and mighty about it since you were the one in the first place to make an error. And yes, it is. Where was your link for "jumper"? Another hypocrite edit. So you have the freedom to do anything as long as you think it's fine? You didn't show a link. And clearly, you do have a grudge against me. You look at other peoples links, including an IP abuser. Why not mine? And no, I never wrote that. You need to read wikipedia guidelines and stop acusing people of harrasment when I have been clearly civil and I only wanted an admin to sort this out because this has gone on too long. And yes it is your job. If you don't like it, don't be a wikipedian. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 6:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No. YOU changed the article to say guernsey instead of jumper, so YOU must provide the reference. To revert to the status quo, as I did, does not require new references. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it was guernsey by my understanding and others think it was too, until you changed it. I am sick of you lying and acting like your the one in the right when you were the one changing it with no source and I gave the source and now you're being childish and telling me that it had to be sourced then when you were the one who changed it with no source and now it doesn't matter even though you changed it in the first place. It was originally guernsey, then it was changed to jersey which is normally a soccer uniform, then changed to jumper then I changed it back to it's original guernsey since the wikipedian was wrong in the first place. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so someone else got it wrong too, eh? Just like me? Hmmmm. There's a lot of us wrong out here, eh? OK. I know for certain that I could find sources using the word jumper, but really can't be bothered. It's been common all my life in my part of the world. But if you stick a source in for guernsey, I won't mess around with it any more. Wikipedia will be slightly worse off, because BOTH words are common enough and should probably be mentioned, but that's the way you want it, so I surrender. HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Slightly worse off? Oh the world is much worse if I change it from jumper guernsey like every AFL club store says. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 5:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Current teams

Shouldn't the locations of teams be a bit more specific then they currently are?
So indicate which suburb the club's administrative and training bases are:

• Adelaide FC in West Lakes (Adelaide), SA^[1]
• Brisbane Lions FC in Woolloongabba (Brisbane), Queensland^[2]
• Carlton FC in Carlton North (Melbourne), Victoria^[3]
• Collingwood FC in East Melbourne (Melbourne), Victoria^[4]
• Essendon FC in Essendon (Melbourne), Victoria^[5]
• Fremantle FC in Fremantle (Perth), WA^[6]
• Geelong FC in South Geelong (Geelong), Victoria^[7]
• Hawthorn FC in Mulgrave (Melbourne), Victoria^[8]
• Melbourne FC in East Melbourne (Melbourne), Victoria^[9]
• North Melbourne FC in North Melbourne (Melbourne), Victoria^[10]
• Port Adelaide FC in Alberton (Adelaide), SA^[11]
• Richmond FC in East Melbourne (Melbourne), Victoria^[12]
• St Kilda FC in Moorabbin (Melbourne), Victoria^[13]
• Sydney Swans FC in Paddington (Sydney), NSW^[14]
• West Coast Eagles FC in Subiaco (Perth), WA^[15]
• Western Bulldogs in Footscray West (Melbourne), Victoria^[16]

--124.176.206.39 (talk) 11:50 12:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point. It is real information. But you would probably need to refine suburbs for the non-Victorian teams. And provide sources. HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it and post what I find here. Then we could also transfer the information to each individual club. --124.176.206.39 (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

To be pedantic, I need to point out that Geelong FC is in South Geelong. HiLo48 (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to ask why bother? What about when teams move? What if the training and admin are separated? It also is misleading to call them suburbs (city), state - at leqst in WA you never say Subiaco (Pe th) WA, let alone Fremantle (Perth), which is simply wrong. I'd strongly suggest it stays as is.The-Pope (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

16 teams to 17 (October 2010 or March 2011)

The section heading above, No. of teams, is an entry in the infobox. It's been changed from 16 to 17, then back to 16, a couple of times now, I think. Obviously it will say 17 once the next season has started, because of the arrival of the Gold Coast Suns. The final season in which there were 16 teams has now finished. Seventeen AFL clubs will begin pre-season training of various forms quite soon. Seventeen AFL clubs will appear in the draw for next season, which won't be far away. I'm guessing 17 teams will play in the pre-season competition. At some point the infobox has to change to say 17. Why not now? If not, when? And why? HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Personally I think we may as well change it to 17, mainly because if we don't decide to a lot of IPs will, in good faith, keep changing it to 17 and it would just be a lot of hassle over nothing to change it back all the time. Whereas changing it to 17 will keep everyone happy and we won't have constant conversatins about it over the summer. Anyway thats my two cents, Jenks24 (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Theres only going to be a 16 team preseason with the Gold Coast Football Club debuting in Round 2 in the normal season. The season is over of course but Gold Coast should not be put in until the start of the 2011 season because current would mean they are playing when the team are not playing. And if IP's continue to change it then protect the page do not let them do it when it's not correct. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, no team is currently a member of the AFL because no teams are currently playing. I reckon that they are in the AFL as soon as the draw including them is announced. If there is a draw published that lists the Suns, it would look a bit silly pretending they aren't part of the League. Based on recent years, that will be later this month. Maybe the number could be annotated to an explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

By your logic, if a team was announced for the 2051 season with an fixture that came out this year you would count them as an current team even though the team wouldn't enter for 50 years, this is not how it works. They are an upcoming team and as soon as the AFL season starts in middle March next year, that is when you change it. By adding them as an "Current team" that would be giving the reader false information and giving wikipedia the status that anyone with no source or anything can just make any old edit. If Ips continue to put in this false information just request for an protect that only a established user can edit onto here. And by "Current" it means a team that has played in the AFL and is still playing even though the season has ended. The Gold Coast are just an upcoming team not an current one. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The only draw that will happen this year, and that is also very relevant, is the one for 2011. From the point at which that draw is published, we will have multiple very reliable sources to show that Gold Coast is part of the League. It won't be a falsehood. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the "when the fixtures are out" would provide the ultimate source, but I'd think that there are plenty of sources out there saying the Gold Coast is entering the league in a few months time. And as others have said, by your logic, 0 teams are current teams as of today. What are the 16/17 "current/future" teams doing at the moment? They are trading. How many teams are trading? 17. How many teams will be in the National Draft? 17. How many teams will be in pre-season training for the 2011 AFL season in a few weeks time? 17. Looking back over the past few years, the fixtures normally are released in the last week of October. So we could endure 3 more weeks of meaningless edit warring or we can move on to more important issues.The-Pope (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The AFL website has not put up the Gold Coast Football Club on their website. I do not think the AFL consider them as a team. I think your just trying to be slack so you just put them up and not bother about it during the holidays. Thats just my opinion on what you wanna do. When you mean "current team" it would mean the team from the current season but sicne its over it's the previous season not an upcoming season. Or if you want, change it from current clubs to just clubs since it isn't really curren. The day they offically debut in the AFL, they are an offical AFL team or when the 2011 season starts. As I've written above, an upcoming team may enter in say 2051 and have it's fixture announced in 2010 but anyone would know they are not an "current team". The team hasn't fully been completed, there are still more players coming in and they will not finish with list until early next year. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please give up on mentioning the 2051 season. It simply isn't relevant. No other club has finalised its list yet. Why wouldn't you accept the fixture, in multiple sources, as enough evidence? HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am using it as an example of your logic. It is relevant to your logic. Why does it matter what I think about the fixture? This isn't for my personal opinion on how my team will go with the fixture. The club needs to play first. You wouldn't have a players debut in say 2009 if they were just listed and didn't play a game until 2013. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors have now agreed, with reasons, that publication of the fixture would be a good point for recognition. I am asking you because that's how consensus works. Your opinion on a matter others are trending towards will influence that evolving consensus. As for 2051 having any relevance to the very next playing season, 2011, you have simply lost me and, I suspect, others. If you want your opinion to count, you need to actually engage in the discussion. Comment on the points others make (sensibly, not with strange ideas like 2051). Don't just keep repeating your own seemingly random points. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what I am talking about you smart alec. I'm sayin, if a team fixture is announced in this year but it's not for more than a year that makes it so the new club for the future year a current team even though they want play for more years. They can't be current. Look up a dictionary, new; present; most recent: the current issue of a publication. Thats what current means. Gold Coast do not follow any of those. And here another reason. The AFL offical wrote, they do not enter the AFL until 2011. It is still 2010. How can they be an AFL team in 2010 when they do not play until 2011? GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Heres a link http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/09/22/gc-suns-a-success-no-matter-what/ the Roar claim they enter in the 2011 season. The 2011 season has not started. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks are also never a good way to gain consensus. I have even less idea what you're talking about now, so I guess that makes me not very smart at all. I surrender to your "logic" for the moment. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack? You are being obnoxiously self-assertive and impudent which is offically called a smart alec. My old teacher use to call people "smart alecs". It is not a personal attack. You must be mature enough to take critism. I've given a good source. It even writes on the Gold Coast Football Club wikipedia page that they enter the AFL in the 2011 season. The 2011 season has not started. "In good faith" do you understand what I am writting about? You need to think probably if you can't understand it. It is quite simple. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the 2011 AFL season, nor the 2010 AFL season article. It's the article about the league. You have to be cautious about using the AFL site as a guide, as it is primarily a marketing site. They'll add the Suns when they want to maximise their exposure. There is no debate, as far as I can see that the Suns have been issued a licence to enter the AFL. Corporately, legally, officially, who knows. It may be Oct 31, it might have been June 30, it might be March 26. To me, everything that occurs in the AFL world over this summer break, will include the Suns just like all other teams. (Your comment about them not playing in the preseason cup aren't correct - they still haven't decided the format.) That means the competition currently has 17 teams. The-Pope (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The draw for next season has now been published, showing 17 teams. Guinea Pig Warrior has just reverted what I see as a very logical change in the article to 17 teams. If there is anything like consensus on this matter, it would be for the publishing of the draw to be a logical time to change it. So I intend to revert the revert. HiLo48 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Logical? You using your biased/silly claims that it looks better with no sources to back it up. Claiming that fixture annoucements to a new teams makes them offical part when the club has been licenced to enter at the start of the 2011 season. I have sources on my side that they enter in 2011 not October 2010 because of fixture annoucments when there licence is for them to enter in 2011. Now, I suggest waiting until March 2011 to change it, not because it looks better. Now, where is the sources claiming they enter the AFL in October 2010 just because of their fixture and when it is put out on their wikipedia article they enter in 2011. There website. The AFL website. Almost any AFL related website claims they enter in the 2011 season not post season 2010/2011. And do not write they are a team because they have the players. They have been collecting players since 2008/09 (I am not too sure) and there is not policy that a team with 22 players is an AFL team. That would mean my football team I play for is an AFL team by your logic. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 9:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And another thing, if you don't show any reliable sources claiming new teams that have fixture anouncements is the AFL and just revert my edit. I am reporting you for vandalising with your intention to just go by your own rules. That is not how wikipedia works. So find the sources (I doubt there is anything in my opinion) and then come back and put them down. Go on the Gold Coast Football Club wikipedia article and look at the reliable sources that state, they enter at the start of the 2011 season and not October 2010 over fixture annoucements. There is not AFL law that claims teams enter as soon as there fixture is announced. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 9:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Manners, my good man. Manners. Abusing and threatening other editors is never a good way to convince others of the wisdom of your position. The sequence of events in the past two days was that the media published the fixture (the obvious source you are seeking), another editor (not me) felt this was evidence enough of there now being 17 teams, you reverted that change, and I reverted yours. I was polite. The other editor was polite. (Didn't say much at all, admittedly.) Of those people showing interest in the article in the past 24 hours, that's two thinking the fixture is good evidence of there now being 17 teams, and one not thinking that. I will add the source that should have been included yesterday. Apologies for not doing so. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is your idea of being civil when I never swore or was rude? You need to read WP:V in which, you need a proper source not made up information by fellow wikipedians. You could be considerd vandalising when you haven't given one proper source claiming they are an AFL team just because of an fixture annoucement for when they do offically enter. Do you understand? GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is The Age newspaper, normally considered in Wikipedia to be the most reliable newspaper source in Melbourne. Their article acknowledges AAP at the end, again, one of the most reliable sources in Australia. I have absolutely no doubt that AAP would have got the information from the AFL. All this material is copyrighted these days, so to publish they would have to both have permission and be very sure of the facts. If you want more, the AFL website itself now has a link to the new fixture as its banner across the top of its home page. The big pictorial internal ads down the side of the AFL's home page are links to the Gold Coast's fixture, giving it more prominence than any other team. Looks like the AFL's agenda right now is to show us that the competition has 17 teams in it.

PS: Again, please, threats ("You could be considerd vandalising...") will not convince others you are right. You have now reverted this material three times in just over 24 hours. Be careful. (Not a threat. Just a tip. I won't be reporting anybody.) I'm not going to rush into changing the article again now either. I will await others' thoughts. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you read anything I've written? I wrote the fixture is correct but it's for "next years season in March, 2011" not October 2010. What does The Age's critical reception of wikipedia got to do with Gold Coast being an AFL club? And you have undone my edits aswell. If we can't agree on it and you undo it once more, I will get admins to sort it out. I'm reporting you are not giving me a proper source. Did you read WP:V? Where you cannot make up information without a proper source. How is your personal opinion on thinking the AFL is treating GGFC as an offical AFL club now actually make them one? I want you to leave it which is what really should be doing because GGFC and the AFL have said a thousand times, they enter the AFL at the start of the 2011 season. I've never heard of read anything about GGFC entering the AFL in October, 2010 in post season. You write about random things that do not have anything to do with GGFC entering the AFL in October, 2010 when theres no source on it at all. Thats why I am extremley considering getting an admin to come and tell you. Because, I have the sources, you haven't given me anything. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I said I wasn't going to comment on the topic for a while, and I won't, but in self defence I MUST comment on this from the last post - "And you have undone my edits aswell."

No. I haven't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, the Gold Coast Football Club has stated on their offical websites that they will enter the AFL at the start of the 2011 AFL season "http://goldcoastfc.com.au/the-club/countdown-to-2011/". They are countdowning for too. Now is that enough information for you to now know they are not an AFL club just yet. They are sayin it. And there the ones that you think enter in October, 2010 which makes no sense at all when the AFL has stated over and over again, they will enter the AFL in 2011. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And yes you have undone my edits... TWICE. Now you're being a hypocrite and a liar and this is the truth. I have undone your information since the rules state the information cannot be changed til an agreement can be made. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. A misunderstanding there. Yes, I did undo your edits. Didn't realise you were referring to a time some hours before that conversation. Anyway, a few more editors have had a go at the article now. I thought the edit by USER:The-Pope was clever. By just listing years, it took away our argument about exactly at what point Gold Coast becomes part of the League. but it all got lost in the skirmishes overnight. Could you accept that version now? (Just looking for that middle ground.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So by his logic, let's put the premiership teams of all the years and put the most premiership by a team in all of the 114 years which would be too long and and look silly. Thats why it is only for present day. And if random ip vandals continue this, I will get this page to be protected. I am right, my sources clearly prove it, and since you haven't got any and claim it just looks better, I guess we leave it or I will have to get an admin. Do we have an understanding? GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to clarify (and I really don't want to get into this argument), but GPW, the IPs are definitely not "vandals", they are acting in good faith and I would remind you to WP:Assume good faith with them and to not bite the newcomers. Jenks24 (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Every person besides you agree it should be 17 now. That is a consensus (a consensus does not need to unanimous). Give it up and stop reverting the edits 60.240.231.203 (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No GPW, I don't think we do have an understanding. I don't understand the intensity of your feelings on this matter. Please don't go threatening admin intervention. Threats never help convince others you are right. Better to discuss here. Now, don't worry, I won't be changing the number of teams any time soon without your agreement or outside intervention (which I am not seeking). I am still trying to understand your position. OK, you don't think there are 17 teams yet. But exactly when? Will you insist that there are still only 16 teams until 6.40pm on Saturday 2nd April, 2011, when GC starts its first full season game? I submit that it has to be some time before then. But when? HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Until the 2011 AFL season begins which is what the AFL comfirmed so many times I could not count. And getting and admin is trying to help not threat you. I don't know what your problem is. It will offical be aloud to change on Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:10pm. That is when the 2011 season starts. And plus ip editor, it does not matter if there are more people agreeing when they have not got the sources and I do. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I still contend that the fixture is a perfectly good source. When any AFL fan from now on mentions "the fixture", they won't be talking about the 2010 one. That's been forgotten. It will be the 2011 one. It is an official AFL publication. I cannot see why you won't accept it. BTW - You have reverted on that article three times this afternoon. That is reportable under WP:3RR. Again, not a threat from me (although someone else may pick up on it), just an indication that you probably need to consider others' views and your behaviour here a lot more. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The AFL year runs November 1st to October 31st, therefore the 2011 season begins November 1st 2010.60.240.231.203 (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting claim. Do you have a reference for it? Or any example of its usage? HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The AFL annual report http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/annual_reports/2007/ConciseFinancial.pdf (2007 being the only year they released a concise annual report). It is also used by the WAFC http://www.wafootball.com.au/resources/cat_view/137-wafc/138-annual-reports and all AFL Clubs. Essendon: http://www.essendonfc.com.au/club/2009AnnualReport.pdf, Collingwood: http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/portals/0/magpies_docs/2009_annual_report_cfc.pdf, Hawthorn: http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/Portals/0/hawks_docs/09_annualreport.pdf 60.240.231.203 (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the financial report for teams, has nothing to do with Gold Coast entering the AFL. GCFC have been getting money since 2008, so I have no idea what that has got to do with it. For example, The Australian government's financial year begins on July 1 and concludes on June 30 of the following year. How would that have anything to do with a new prime minister coming in? GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gpw - you have a habit of arguing by analogy. It can be effective if the analogies are good ones, but you don't seem to choose very relevant ones. That one has so little to do with football it didn't convince me of anything. Earlier you used one about the 2052 season, or something like that. Again, not relevant. No apparent connection.

Because the rest of Australia uses July to June, it IS interesting and significant that the AFL uses November to October for its financial year. You should at least acknowledge that. I still think that there are many possible times that one could declare that GC are part of the League, and I have my preference. That you are so determinedly inflexible makes discussion and negotiation very difficult. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an example. I know you have a grudge against me. You don't want to finish this so I'm going to get somebody who hasn't been involved to settle this. This has gone on too long and you don't want to listen to me or an admin who agrees with me. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for chiming in on your delusions GPW, but what kinda hippy delusional recreational drugs are you on if you think an admin has agreed with you? Whatever they are, I wan't some, then I'd probably agree with you, which after spending 10 minutes looking at your history on Wikipedia, would be a first. 93.182.189.31 (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake Gpw, go get your claimed pet admin to have a real look at our respective approaches to discussion, and stop just threatening. I'm quite happy for your tame admin to check out my grudge against you. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Five people have supported the change with one person disagreeing. That is a concensus and unless GPW can show objectively that Gold Coast is not currently an AFL clubs then the concensus should stand.60.240.231.203 (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I've now locked the article for a week while you thrash out consensus. If you want my uninvolved opinion, why can't you say "16 (17 from 2011 season)" or similar? GedUK  07:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That is what should be done. The AFL stated that they come into the AFL at the start of the 2011 AFL season. What is there else? 17 teams starts from March 24, 2011 not October 29 because of the fixture annoucement for the 2011 AFL season. Now what else is there to convince you? Did you read the source? They say it. Now me. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So you are willing now to accept putting 16 (17 from 2011 season)? As you seemed to oppose that sort of compromise when it was raised above. If so that may well be a reasonable move. I note, however, that the AFL.com.au website now lists 17 clubs in the banner on their page, and that the Suns are listed as a club in the 2010 draft page. So I tend to agree with HiLo48 that the AFL is now acting as if there are effectively 17 clubs in the league. - Bilby (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have requested unprotection. I think we (bar 1) all agree with "16 (17 in 2011)" as the preferred option? I think this gazumps all of Ged's options below. Option 1 is too extreme, it's one line in an info box. #2, well, most of us are in WP:AFL anyway, Jevansen and Afterwriting about the only two regulars (sorry if i've forgotton others) who haven't had their say already. #3 I assume you mean uninvolved, not involved, is probably the best, which I think the unprotection request hopefully will bring.The-Pope (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Good decision. I think "16 (17 in 2011)" is something we can all live with (despite a large majority thinking we should just change it to 17). Anyway, this nonsense has gone on far too long and I'm glad we've reached a compromise (I hope). Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, uninvolved! Sorry! Have amended. GedUK  15:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, put as 17 teams as of March 24, 2011. That is the day the offical 2011 season starts and where Gold Coast have been stated so many time by the AFL, when they enter to make it 17 teams. Is it that hard to wait 4 months? GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 4:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused again. Does this mean you are willing to accept changing it now to "16 (17 from 2011 season)", per Ged UK's suggestion, modifying Ged UK's suggestion to make it say "16 (17 from 24 March 2011)", or are you saying that you're unwilling to accept any change until 24 March 2011? - Bilby (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused with that. I mean, putting the Gold Coast Football Club on current teams and adding it to 17 teams on March 24, 2011. The 2011 season starts of the 24th of March. You can make changes to the page of course. As long as it isn't too major that I might not agree with. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Currently the infobox reads:

No. of teams: 17

The current proposal is to change the infobox so that it reads:

No. of teams: 16 (17 from 2011 season)

Are you happy with changing the infobox in that manner, and are you happy to see it done now? - Bilby (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Something has been bothering me about this proposal, and I think I'm pinning it down. If we cannot yet say how many teams there are based on who will be playing in the future, the 2011 season, because it hasn't started, then it's a bit odd to say that there are 16 teams now because there were that many teams in the 2010 season. That season is over. To head down a possibly similarly pedantic path to Gpw, we are between seasons now. We don't have a competition with 17 teams, because that competition hasn't started yet, but equally we don't have a competition with 16 teams, because that competition is finished. As soon as the last season with 16 teams has finished, like now, we should no longer be saying that there are 16 teams in the competition. Personally, I think that neither of those such extreme, rigid and arbitrary positions is appropriate, or sensible. Everything but the blowing of the siren for the first round next year says that we already have a 17 team competition. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thats it. Just do like 16 (17 from 2011 season). I'm happy with that. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 5:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Next steps

As I see it, there are a few ways forward from here. I'm not an expert on dispute resolution, but I do know that there needs to be agreement on how to progress this. I have also suggested (on my talk page) that the protection is taken back to RPP for a second admin opinion.

1. Start an Request for Comment. These can be rather hit and miss in terms of effectiveness, and can take a little time to sort out, plus potential difficulties agreeing the wording of it.
2. Ask for an opinion at Wikiprojct AFL. However, it seems like most of the active regulars there are already involved here, which considering the article's importance is not surprising.
3. Ask an uninvolved editor that you can all agree on to evalute the consensus. This editor doesn't have to be an admin; the only advantage an admin provides is that they can remove the protection sooner.

I suggest that you add your names below which option you prefer. This is only a suggestion to getting this resolved. Hope this helps. GedUK  13:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Option 1:

Support Option 2:

Support Option 3:

• support. See my comments above in the Protection sectionThe-Pope (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Jenks24 (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this one if needed. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 4:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear. I'm happy to volunteer, but it may be unnecessary if the above conversation on the compromise is agreed? GedUK  15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How can the Gold Coast be an "upcoming club". They're in the league, they're in the draw and the draft, they have a link to their club website on the main AFL page. How they hell can you spend so much time arguing semantics when the answer is clear, there's currently 17 teams in the comp. You people are weird. 124.169.34.133 (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above carefully before using generalist terms like "you people". The current wording is a compromise generated by very strong insistence by ONE editor that there are not yet 17 teams. HiLo48 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it that hard just to wait for 4 months until they offically enter as contracted and not fan made up? They will be a team soon. But we have agreed to acknowledge them with (from 2011 season). Now I think that is fair enough and do not write slander or swear both of you ip user and HiLo48. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't write slander, that'd be libel you are thinking of. See Defamation. Also, nobody has written anything libelous against you as far as I can see, everything stated seems to be true. It is just you that is insisting that we wait, so no "slander" or libel there. 93.182.187.56 (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Gpw - I will not resile from describing what you have done as "very strong insistence by ONE editor that there are not yet 17 teams.". That is NOT slander. It's completely true. It's surely not offensive. It's rubbish like that posted by you that ruins any credibility your opinions might otherwise have. On the other hand, accusing ME of slander for that comment IS quite offensive. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That is slander. It is not just me. It is also the admin and others than were convinced by me. It's now just you two "sooks" who are just being stubborn, biased, childish and hypocritical. No sources back your claims and you continue to be rude and arrogant. It's not just me, it is also the admin and I think others have been convinced and now agree and thats why it has been changed. It's only you two now. This is the last time I'll say this: Either give us at least one good, reliable source that clearly defines this team as something other than entering in the 2011 AFL season (and is not just an opinion piece), or stop pushing your agenda. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's really sad when the attempts by an Admin and others at compromise are interpreted as a victory by one player. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And what were you? 3 million players. You have an ego, I am but one person and I see you are defeated but you don't have to be a bad sport in knowing you were wrong. Mind you, I have been wrong lots of times and I don't sook or go on about it. Just accept to wait 4 months for their offical debut and get over it. Is it that hard. Otherwise, you are vandising a page by writting false opinion claimed information. The others have agreed and they know they were wrong since the admin tried to help and they finally went for source instead of opinion. As you've been told, Wikipedia doesn't work on personal opinion. It works on valid and reliable sources. You have not once provided a reliable source that backs up your opinion, whereas I have provided a LOT of sources that back up the assertion that they are not yet an AFL team. Now move on and in the future, your opinion is only good when you have reliable sources. So only make edit changes to page if you have them instead of being stubborn and childish. That is all I am going say. Now forget about it, and move on like an mature wikipedian would.GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC) GPW, it is important that you don't take a battlefield mentality when editing - there was no win and no defeat, just an agreement that we would go with a compromise. I would tend to agree that there are now 17 clubs, but making the distinction between 2010 and 2011 seems to be ok. However, at the risk of reopening this, which I would rather not do, there are reliable sources for 17 teams: the AFL website lists 17 clubs in its banner, there are 17 clubs taking part in the current draft, and the fixture lists 17 clubs as playing - including in the NAB Cup. (Actually, the NAB cup lists 18 teams, but let's not muddy the waters). I'm happy for the compromise to stay for a bit longer, but you're arguing about a technicality - to all intents and purposes, both the AFL and the Gold Coast Suns seem to be effectively operating as if the Suns are a part of the AFL competition. - Bilby (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48: I've seen a few football related pages where this particular user has gone against consensus and edit warred other users into submission. It's a shame that this kind of thing is allowed to occur and is ruining wikipedia, I've given up contributing to AFL related pages for this very reason. For the record, there are currently 17 teams in the comp, Gold Coast are officially part of it despite the assertion that "they will be a team soon". Gold Coast are a team now, they've been a team for the last year in the VFL and are now part of the AFL. You only have to look at the official AFL site to know this. 139.230.245.21 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks Bilby. I know there was no win/loss but hes acting like there was and he lost which he is implying. And don't root for anyone, HiLo was in the wrong aswell. And Ip user, this is the last time I am going to write this, go believe what you want to believe but don't edit it on wikipedia if it isn't directly true. The AFL website is a marketing website, and they want to acknowledge the Gold Coast Football Club to spread awareness. Since they are so close to entering. I have heaps of more evidence that you have agnored backing me up. So that said and down, that is it. Believe what you to believe but don't edit it on wikipedia if it doesn't have the sources to back it up. Now lets just all agree to wait 4 months and no slander or abuse and just be civil and help improve AFL articles. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There you go throwing that slander word around again GPW. I've already explained this once, but I'll try again. Slander is the vocal insinuation of something and libel is the written equivalent. So say I said "GPW is an absolute idiot" to a crowd of people, that would be slander, but if I wrote "GPW is an absolute idiot" on a blog / wikipedia, that would be libel. Also, it is only slander / libel if you do not have the evidence to back it up.

So again, saying "GPW is an absolute idiot" would be slander, writing "GPW is an absolute idiot" would be libelous. Hope this clears it up for you. 93.182.187.56 (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

THe AFL provides links to 17 clubs but because this differs from your viewpoint, the AFL site is only a "marketing website". How odd. 139.230.245.20 (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Greater Western Sydney Giants

I'm no AFL guru (I barely know a thing about the game), but I saw on 7 News that the AFL has officially decided to enlist the 'Greater Western Sydney Giants' as an 18th team. Not being my domain, I didn't feel particularly bold enough to enter it, but I thought I'd leave a note here for someone else to :) — Deon^talk 08:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Collingwood's Training Ground

Hello All,

Noticed that the training ground for Collingwood is listed as Westpac Centre. In view of the fact that Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle, should we change the name to Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Centre (which is the former name for the centre)? I would change it myself, but I don't want it to be reverted back without discussion or consensus. If anyone is interested, I obtained the former name from the official website (listed below)

http://www.thewestpaccentre.com.au/

Cheers, Lindblum (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep support that change, especially considering that Westpac Centre actually redirects to CBS Canterbury Arena (some sports arena in New Zealand) and the name of the correct wikipedia article is actually Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Centre. In fact, considering the link is currently wrong, I will fix this immediately. Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. Related to this, can we edit all other AFL-related articles so that official ground names are used instead of temporary sponsorship names? I do then when I can but there is so much of it that needs doing. Afterwriting (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Gold Coast

The article currently says

"In March 2008, the AFL won the support of the league's 16 club presidents to establish a side on the Gold Coast. In June 2008 it was announced that the new team would play in the TAC Cup in 2009 before being promoted to play in the VFL from 2011. On 31 March 2009 the AFL issued a provisional licence to the Gold Coast Football Club. The team debuted in the TAC Cup in 2009 and began recruiting other players."

Does it mean "promoted to play in the AFL from 2011"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That whole little sub-section could do with a rewrite. I think it should be telling us that Gold Coast played in the VFL 2010, and will play in the AFL in 2011. Those moves weren't/aren't promotions. They are part of a planned progression. I shall do a little edit now. Anyone is welcome to fix the whole section. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Update. My "little edit" will have to wait until tomorrow due to protection currently in place on the article. (See article history) HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering how you were going to pull off that edit now ;)

A small tiny separate niggle, in the first map of current clubs the mascot (better word?) is only shown for the Brisbane Lions and the Western Bulldogs. I understand it may have to be there for bulldogs, but could probably be removed for the lions, for consistency. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if that's a semi-legal issue connected with the history of the clubs? The Brisbane Lions were created by a merger of the Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy (the Lions). So, they're NOT the Bears, but the Lions. The players still wear the letters BBFFC on the back of their jumpers. Similarly, I think the Sydney jumper has SMFC to indicate its South Melbourne history. Just thinking as I write here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I don't think legality should affect the simple map here. Sydney just says sydney on the map. Oh poor lions, I miss 2001. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would personally prefer that they all just stuck to their simple location based names. I still don't understand why Footscray had to disappear. 08:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Brisbane. Footscray had to go so that Brisbaners would have a team to cheer for Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "Fitzroy had to go..." I still don't understand why Footscray had to change its name. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That is what I meant. You're good. My dad was a big footscray fan, back in the day. Before the name change. Anyway, gonna rewrite that Gold Coast section? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Television ratings

Firstly, details about tv ratings don't belong in the lead paragraph. Secondly it's a tenuous comparison that statistically is probably too close to call, doesn't take into account the 20 or so extra games played in a NRL season and probably changes year to year. Why not use #1 rating single game for the year? Highest attendance & financial strength are both clear differences between the AFL and most other Aust leagues. Note: due to the long size of article I struggle to edit it on my mobile browser, hence my rollback rather than edit or undo. The-Pope (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No it includes all the games played in the season including the NAB Cup.

NAB Cup is irrelevant. 201 NRL + 3 SOO vs 185 AFL games means the difference iisn't statistically significant.The-Pope (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How can you use attendance figures to justify a games popularity, without making reference to the bigger TV audience? Surely, the overall audience size is what is important, especially considering many more watch on TV than at the ground. So you should either remove the reference about most popular, or include the basis it is quoted on and the other measures where it isn't. You can't have our cake and eat it to. We want this page to be a factual representation.

Sure the grand final is the highest rating, but that is it. If you look through the top 20 programs for the year AFL only has a documentary about Ben cousins, while nrl has over 8 games in the top 20. This is the same year after year.

That guy is right. We only want facts on the page people from the AFL putting marketing materical on here. If the NAB cup and gaelic football games don't generate enough interest that is a weakness of the popularity outside regular season games, compared to other sports like cricket and soccer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.120.202.204 (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that the two IPs above both trace back to Sydney banks who are owned by Westpac so they may know each other off wikipedia.

Attendance differences are huge. TV rights differences were huge - 780 mill for 5 years vs 500 for 6. TV viewing figures are similar.The-Pope (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those weird discussions that hardly matter. There's this thing called the Barassi Line that shows that on one side of the line it's AFL in massive ascendancy, with League in the same position on the other side. The two markets are geographically almost separate entities. It's only because of the existence of national TV networks and some concept that competition exists where it really doesn't, that this discussion even occurs. In their home territories, each competition is pretty dominant. National comparisons are really pretty pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.7.9 (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is not the way to resolve content disputes. The page is now temporarily protected and hopefully mature discussion will find a consensus or some middle ground. –Moondyne 07:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Now maybe some more constructive editors can comment on my thoughts that national TV ratings are pretty pointless for codes whose territories are largely distinct. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Now we can have some constructive feedback on saying the sport is the most popular in an entire country based on attendences figures in a sub section of a country, versus the more accessible national medium of television. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.7.9 (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to take seriously an anonymous editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive editing which includes removing other editors' comments from talk pages. When you decide to start acting responsibly then we can also start to have some "constructive" discussion with you on these matters. Afterwriting (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you just ignored what I said, while pretending to respond to it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Had a look at the webpage that the IP user keeps using as a basis for his NRL-is-more-popular claims, and I noticed that the article and its contents are from 2009. Would have thought that last year's figures would be more relevant, which got me thinking, why didn't he/she use them? I did a search on the internet, and found this page: http://www.talkingfooty.com/tv_ratings_2010.php. It contains the TV ratings figures for AFL and NRL in 2010, which includes the following disclaimer:

'TV ratings are based on the available OzTAM, AGB Nielsen and ASTRA estimates for the Australian capital cities and regional Australian TV markets.

Please note: ASTRA does not provide capital city or regional Australian subscription TV market breakdowns. The ASTRA subscription TV ratings shown on this page are for reach (ie: 5 minutes or more of the broadcast watched) including repeats and regionals. Figures provided for subscription TV games shown in italics above are the 5 city metro average, which is the same method used for FTA.'

I did a very geeky thing and added up all the national TV figures for both codes and came up with the following result:

AFL 2010 Season total national TV figures (excluding NAB Cup and GF Replay) - 83,568,000 or 451,718 per match

NRL 2010 Season total national TV figures (including State of Origin) - 84,192,000 or 412,705 per match

In my opinion, it is very close in the total TV figures, however the per match numbers show AFL leading slightly. Will leave it up to the rest of you to decide whether to use these numbers. Lindblum (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We aren't debating the accuracy or the out of dateness of the info, just whether it really belongs AT ALL in the opening paragraph. I agree with the IPs on only one point - the claim of most popular code according to attendance (he/she seems to be ignoring the "according to attendance" bit) needs a better ref. That doesn't mean that the TV info should be there. I'm about to move it lower in the intro and add an ABS ref for it. Hopefully this will end it. As the numbers that Lindblum are 40 mill less than the other numbers, there is something fishy going on... but either method shows the same thing - NRL has slightly more overall, less per game and in the end it's too close to call with statistical certainty - ie they are effectively the same number. Hence it doesn't need mentioning in the lede. It may be useful down lower in the article, but I would want something a bit better than a NZ paper or WP:OR by one of us.The-Pope (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I see know. On another topic, it is not my WP:OR but some data from the talkingfooty website. If you like me to show all the unfiltered data from that site on this page, I am more than happy to do so, however it is very long.

On the topic at hand, stating that AFL is or is not the most popular attended/viewed sport in Australia may not be needed as the numbers are so close between the two codes that either one could be considered the most popular. As a compromise, it could be stated that AFL is one of the most popular sporting leagues in the country based on attendance and TV figures or something vaguely like that. Lindblum (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My view on this stuff now is that it's dangerous and a bit weaselish to even try to put words like "one of the most popular" in the article. We just need the properly sourced and complete figures, in a form in which an interested reader can compare if they want. The comparisons, in fact, should probably be in another article. HiLo48 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with the above comments, using the words 'one of the most popular' should not be in the article. It is debeatable at best, and not true at worst.

Also this years figures would be heavily weighted to AFL because of the 2 grand finals, and even then it couldn't out rate the NRL nationally. The topic about popularity should be further down the page, and should only reflect the statistics. Making sweaping statements without facts should be kept to the media. Crowd attendance is a good fact, but does not equal 'most popular' and should be down lower, side by side wih the tv ratings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.7.9 (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That guy is right, I did some research and found this from October this yea in 'The Age' (Melb - ALF paper)

"This year, while the introduction of digital multi-channels has reduced market share for all traditional primary stations, rugby league outperformed all other sports year-on-year across free-to-air TV."

"Rugby league still leads all other sports in the top 20 free-to-air programs this year, with the NRL grand final yet to be played. The code registered six programs in the top 20, with the first State of Origin game bettering the Australian Open men's tennis final and the second and third Origin matches rating ahead of the women's tennis final.

The AFL's only top 20 programs, apart from the grand final, were the two-night presentation of Such Is Life: The Troubled Times of Ben Cousins.

But it was pay TV where the main difference was shown with AFL. The NRL premiership claimed 39 of the top 50 programs. The NRL had four of the top five Foxtel programs. An Eels versus Roosters Saturday match at 5.30pm set the record for the highest-rating Fox Sport game in NRL history - 360,633 viewers.

These figures, in an otherwise depressed free-to-air industry, confirms rugby league is still the game in the biggest city in Australia. It seems certain four AFL games will be removed from the anti-siphoning list, allowing pay TV to bid at the same time as free-to-air."

http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-races-ahead-in-tv-viewers-stakes-20100930-15z9t.html

So it looks like apart from the grand final, the AFL struggles to bring in the numbers for its other big top tier games compared to NRL. And while it is not clear cut, we should be eliminating statements about being the 'most popular'. As another editor said, it is in appropriate to make such comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.120.203.204 (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Rugby League outrated Aussie Rules in Sydney!

What a pointless comment. It's POV pushing rubbish like that which destroys these discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you taling about? They are national figures. Please keep unconstructive comments out of the page.

(Comment - please learn to sign your posts with four tildes - that's the ~ symbol at the top left of your keyboard. Better still, register, so we know it's really you, whoever you are, and not just some random who happens to use the same IP address tomorrow. Makes these chats much nicer.)

The words you offered us above included "...rugby league is still the game in the biggest city in Australia..." Well der. Please see Barassi Line. And "An Eels versus Roosters Saturday match at 5.30pm set the record for the highest-rating Fox Sport game in NRL history..." So what? Nothing to do with AFL or any comparison with it. And speculation - "It seems certain..." If you want to convince anyone with figures please use relevant ones. If you have them, don't leave them buried among pointless statements of the bleeding obvious (RL is strong in Sydney), irrelevancies and speculation.

If the NRL marketing team are going to create so much fuss over 1 sentence in the main AFL page, maybe we should just have no reference to the popularity of AFL. There is so much information out there that to find a clear cut way of saying 1 sport is more popular than another is almost impossible. How do you measure the popularity? You could use TV ratings, attendances, membership numbers, senior & junior participation levels, merchandise sales. Which information do you use? What is the correct formula to work out popularity? I think that the best way to approach this (if it is included in the AFL page) is to treat each piece of information individually for comparison, and not use them to try and provide an overall answer to the question of popularity.

It seems clear that at this stage, there is no compromise that could be reached before the block is removed. Lindblum (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct way to do it, just represent the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.62 (talk • contribs)

Heard a chat on ABC radio today where some Sydney based commentators were talking about the threat to Australian cricket from the aggressive promotion and growth of Aussie Rules in NSW, from where a lot of our successful cricketers have come. I had no idea, but if Sydney cricket folk are concerned, League has no hope. OK, that's all OR and POV, but clearly, recent League disasters in Melbourne mean that no equivalent growth for League is happening in that city. I would just warn our keen League marketers that starting a war on measures of success of the two codes is unlikely to work in their favour as soon as a few things other than TV ratings are considered. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What to call the Brisbane Lions

To most footy fans, that name, Brisbane Lions, is what they're known as. Plenty of good media sources to tell us that. Lindblum wants them to be listed as Brisbane Lions Australian Football Club, explaining in his Edit summary that their website says Brisbane Lions AFC. Well, that's in one spot. Most of it just says Lions, and in a few spots, like the logo, it says Brisbane Lions.

And there's a problem assuming that AFC actually stands for Australian Football Club. It IS an assumption, which we're not supposed to do, and if it was an A-League soccer club it wouldn't work. A lot of those clubs have FC as part of their name, but it actually doesn't stand for Football Club, or anything else for that matter.

However, the ABNLookup site, which is cited in the article, tells us that the Entity Name is BRISBANE BEARS-FITZROY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED and the Trading Name is BRISBANE LIONS AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL CLUB. (I have left the capitals as they are on that site.)

So, lots of options.

The AFL article in questions includes Sydney Swans, Western Bulldogs, and West Coast Eagles, just like that. No Football Club. I reckon the Brisbane Lions should stay that way too. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Linblum about this on his talk page here and explained my opinion there as well. I must say that I agree that it should simply be Brisbane Lions. Firstly though, the "AFC" clearly stand for "Australian Football Club"; there is no doubt about this. The reason that Brisbane, Sydnat, the Bulldogs and West Coast all have the their wikipedia articles named as such (ie without "Football Club" on the end) is due to WP:COMMONNAME. While COMMONNAME is only meant to apply to article titles, I think common sense would see that it should be invoked here too. We shouldn't list what the teams are officially known as (eg what there entity name or trading name is), we should list them as what they commonly known as. Jenks24 (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I just think it's interesting that on their website the Lions do use Brisbane Lions AFC, but not the fully expanded name. Are they trying to avoid putting their legal entity name in writing? Maybe I'm just reading too much into this... HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We have to realise that common names are almost impossible to define from reliable sources, that the marketing departments of each club do there best to drive the public to a commonname of their current choosing (see Geelong and Freo moving away from FC last year to their use their nicknames - Geelong to get away from the GFC bad connotations and Freo because we finally got the rights to use the name Dockers), and that the official names are normally only ever used on some pieces of paper filed away and never looked at. I have no problem with the name in the AFL page table being BL Australian Football Club, but the article must stay at just BL.The-Pope (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Brisbane Lions per WP:COMMONNAME. –Moondyne 05:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with leaving the name as Brisbane Lions in the AFL page table, since it is not that big an issue. The name "Brisbane Lions Australian Football Club" came about due to the merger between the Brisbane Lions and Fitzroy. The word "Australian" was added to reflect the fact that the Brisbane Lions represent fans from 2 states (Brisbane fans, and the old Fitzroy fans, I think). I added the suffix to Brisbane's name because I thought, if most of the other teams have "Football Club" at the end of their names, why shouldn't the Brisbane Lions. However I agree that Brisbane is commonly referred to as the Brisbane Lions.

On another topic related to this, if we are to be consistent with the COMMONNAME principle, the following teams' names should be changed in the AFL teams table, because last year (2010) they were referred to more often as:

- Geelong Cats

- Gold Coast Suns

Lindblum (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

that is exactly what I'm talking about - they weren't actually referred that much by those names by the general public, compared to just Geelong or just Gold Coast, but the marketing departments decided that they wanted the teams to be called that - and hence the AFL website etc follow. I think that, similar to not listing Etihad Stadium or whatever, they should stay as the Football Club, as they are still also commonly called that. If we follow every marketing department decision then we'll be changing every article every couple of years. The-Pope (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We should simply stick with what the AFL fixtures and ladders pages say (eg. http://www.afl.com.au/ladder/tabid/74/default.aspx) as this is what the media and everyone else will follow. –Moondyne 12:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with all that, however Moondyne, to be consistent with your opinion, should we remove the words "Football Club" from the other teams since the AFL doesn't include this in the fixture or the ladder? Lindblum (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clear and perhaps for not reading all of the above discussion carefully enough, I was talking about mentions within prose and in tables. Articles titles may be another matter. Is that what you were asking me?–Moondyne 13:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to just within the table and prose on the AFL page. The article titles are fine, however to save some bytes we could remove the words "Football Club" from the table. Having those two words there doesn't add anything extra on the page, and each team's page states the full name anyway. Lindblum (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Following shows nomenclature from AFL website which is what we should therefore follow.

–Moondyne 14:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all except for Geelong Cats. 2 years of marketing spin does not a Commonname make.The-Pope (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of Moondyne's list except that Geelong should remain Geelong. A nickname should only be added as a suffix on the club name if two teams share the same "first" name ie Melbourne Victory and Melbourne Heart. Lindblum (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be my preference too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Size of AFL page

Noticed that the size of the AFL page is 128kb currently. Looking at Wikipedia:Article size, it says that any page greater than 100kb should be divided up. Any thoughts on this? As a starting point, the VFL/AFL records section could only have a link to the larger page. Lindblum (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. (Hate to waste any more words and bytes) HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To start with, we could move the History section to a new page (History of the VFL/AFL) and leave a link and a very brief paragraph of the origins of the league. We could also remove all the information in the VFL/AFL records section and leave only the link to the records page. This should have a large effect on the size of the AFL page. Lindblum (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this idea, especially creating a History of the VFL/AFL article and just summarising it on this article. Jenks24 (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I did a test related to this, and reduced the size of the AFL article to 73kb (a saving of 56kb!). I achieved this by copying the main AFL article to a new userspace page I created, moved the History section to a new page, and removed all the VFL/AFL records. I haven't worked on a summary for the History section yet, but it looks like this is all we need to trim for the immediate future (there is always potential for more trimming in the future!) Lindblum (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Seventeen teams now as of January 24

USER:Guinea pig warrior has again reverted an innocent change to the number of teams in the AFL from the incredibly logical number of 17 back to 16, the number that played last year. I didn't make the change he reverted. Someone else did. So I am clearly not alone in my view that there are 17 teams in the AFL. I suspect that others feel the same way. (Well, I know for certain that many do.)

The season starts in two months. (I don't need to say which season.) There are 17 teams playing this season. In 18 days the NAB CUP Starts, with 18 teams! (Greater Western Sydney gets a go.) I looked in a lot of newspapers - The Australian, The Herald Sun, The Age. All, today, give me equally obvious pathways to look up details for 17 teams. The AFL website shows 17 teams. Is there any evidence anywhere that there are only 16 teams in the AFL today? HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support 17 teams (not "16 (17 in 2011)" or some derivative). –Moondyne 02:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - adding it was my fault, as it seemed odd to say "16 (17 in 2011)" when it was 2011, and at the time we had 17 clubs listed in "current clubs", which created an inconsistency between the two sections. We need to make the change at some point, and given that they will be playing in the NAB Cup as an AFL team in just over two weeks, now seems like a good time. - Bilby (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Can't believe this is such an issue. Jenks24 (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Seeing as my support has been questioned below, I will elaboarate a little. Basically I agree completely with HiLo's rationale, especially the four reliable sources that he lists. Also, no, this is not this is definitely not a "big deal" to me and if the consensus is that we leave the page as is, I won't care. However, your statement about it being the off-season is incredibly selective. It is more accurately the pre-season and there are 17 teams doing an AFL pre-season (and that is not OR, it can be backed up by a multitude of reliable sources). Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jenks - the "Not a big deal" factor is why the article has stayed with 16 teams for so long. Many people wanted to change it to 17, but Guinea pig warrior was determined that it should stay at 16. The rest of us gave up, seeing it as "not a big deal" and letting the person who did think it was a big deal get his way until now. But saying there are 16 teams is becoming more and more of a deal as every day ticks by. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that "not a big deal" has been the major factor here. And yes, the longer it stays at 16, the more farcical it becomes (it especially needs to be updated before the start of the NAB Cup). Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have informed USER:Guinea pig warrior of this discussion so that he can explain why it is such an issue to him, if he so chooses. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support 17 now, new year, circulating information is already about new tournaments. If it matters, I changed the number in the article (not the infobox though). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Against This is all peronal opinion. I'm going by reliable sources. They don't debut in the AFL until the 2011 season starts. We are currently in the "off" season. And yes Jenks24, why is it such a big deal to wait 2 more months? I know you're only using personal opinion, with no sources "WHAT SO EVER". The sources on the GCFC wikipedia page states, they do not enter until the start of the 2011 season. The 2011 season is not until March 24. Wait then. Or you're going againt wikipedia rules, and using personal opinion. Wait the "2" months. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment With all due respect, I gave four excellent sources above, The Australian, The Herald Sun, The Age and the AFL website. Not sure what else you could demand. I chose my words carefully. Do read them again please. When someone today says "this season" it's obvious to us all that they mean the 2011 season. The present tense question "How many teams are playing this season?" will be answered with "17" by everyone with an interest in the game, except perhaps yourself. All media coverage discusses 17 teams now. Why do YOU want to make a fuss insisting that there are only 16? All evidence says there are 17 teams now. I asked in my original post "Is there any evidence anywhere that there are only 16 teams in the AFL today?" Well? HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support 17 teams - The media commonly refers to the Gold Coast Suns as an AFL team. The club exists, the AFL recognises them as an AFL club, the AFL is not objecting to Gold Coast using the AFL name or logo on their official website, Gold Coast participated in the official AFL draft (which is only open to AFL teams). The only difference with the other clubs is that they have not played any official AFL games yet. Lindblum (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Against They refer it to the upcoming season. I do not care what the media says. We have gone through this a million times. The AFL have stated, they do not enter the AFL until, the 2011 AFL season. I personally do say there are 17 teams. But thats my personal opinion. But, the AFL have said over and over again, they do not enter until the 2011 season. Understand? Theres really 18 teams, but where only counting whos has competed in the AFL and is still contracted to. I'm only going by the AFL and GCFC sources about their AFL debut. Theres nothing about when it's 2011 on January 24th, they become a team. I'm in year 10 in a week, I don't think I'm a year 10 until schools starts next week. You get me? Theres 16 teams who are still current teams in the AFL, who have played. Personally, I think there is something wrong with you, if you can't wait 2 months until they "offically" enter. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• They are, as Hilo has said, on the official AFL website, listed among all the other teams. Please don't vote twice Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thats a marketing website. Why would GCFG and the AFL write, they enter the AFL when the 2011 season starts. Why? And don't tell me what to do. I'm not voting. Theres no vote, when theres no sources from the AFL, or something better, a contract form stating that they enter in some weird time before the 2011 season, when it's said a millions times they've enterd. I'm starting to personally think you're all trolls. I don't understand anyone who can't wait 2 months for they offically enter. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the distinction is between entering the AFL and playing the first match - I don't think they need to be the same thing. From my perspective, they are currently an AFL team who have yet to play their first game in the season. Which is why they took part in the Draft, and they are about to play their first AFL game in the NAB Cup. Their debut match in the season will come later, but they doesn't mean that they're not already an AFL team. - Bilby (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr Pig, Is this just a game for you? Are you having fun annoying everyone else? They are listed alongside the other 16 clubs in every reliable source that exists, so of course it should say 17 teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.197.112 (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay IP address, give me an place where we can talk. You're obviously a troll, who hides behind a computer. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a phone, not a computer... you r wrong again Mr Pig. !! hahaha. Would you like to tell Ablett that he isn't the captain of an AFL team?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.88.96 (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And no Ip coward. I tipped Ablett to be the captain of GCFC. But thats only personal. - GPW

I think it's clear from the above that the consensus (not unanimous, but a clear consensus) is that there are now 17 teams. I've updated the infobox, and also added # of teams to the competition timeline, to fairly clearly show the expanison. Might be difficult to squeeze in 18 next year (October 2011? Nov? 1 Jan 2012? March 2012?), but lets cross that bridge then.The-Pope (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GPW, did you simply revert the article to an earlier stage? Your edit removed some text as well as the Brisbane Lions jersey. I'll fix the article to match the popes change in infobox, and so if anyone disagrees with 17 they should revert myself and the pope. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I should have checked how much was rolledback before I worked on it. Sorry bout that. The-Pope (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove the Brisbane guernsey. - GPW

Hence my crossing that part out? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the article seems to cover both the NAB Cup and the AFL first grade/league competition, shouldn't there some sort of disclaimer before the list of current clubs explaining that there are 18 clubs in the pre-season and 17 in the premiership season? Hack (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that we can ignore the NAB Cup, as (for the first time since the 80s) it is similar to Cup comps in other sports and includes teams from other leagues. No-one puts a note on the EPL page that the FA Cup includes teams from lower leagues. Ignore it, in 5 weeks it will all be forgotten.(until the GWS 18 vs 17 issue reignites in October - and judging by today's drama probably a few other times before then!) The-Pope (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not hugely fussed, as long as there's a broad consensus - though the EPL/FA Cup example doesn't quite fit, given the English league and cup are organised by separate organisations... Hack (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Guernsey

File:Gold Coast Suns Guernsey1.png

Only team that wears bottoms on the field?

Proper club or not, the Suns hold the honour of being the only team to have shorts in their uniform image. For the sake of consistency, they should probably be removed (or someone can make shorts for the other teams). In addition, it's despicable that the Lions don't have their own guernsey. Someone who knows how (meaning not me) please create one! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been some issues with copyright for the Brisbane guernsey. The logo is complex enough to be protected by copyright, as it involves more than simple colours, letters and geometric shapes. It would need to be added with a fair use rationale, and this would also probably prevent the use of a vector image. - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps simplifying it then, just the blue and maroon? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone else uploaded the design, but I've added a non-free use rationale, so hopefully the Lions are covered. I can't help with the Suns, though, as my computer is a bit iffy with png files. But if I get the chance I'll see if I can help there. - Bilby (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There are 18 teams

Heres the link http://www.facebook.com/#!/GWSGiants/posts/189794771043045?notif_t=feed_comment claimed by an GWS offical. That they are the 18th team. Thus are an AFL club. 18 teams should show up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.214.41 (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The page is about the League, and they will only play in the Australian Football League in 2012. There are only 17 teams in the league for 2011. Come back in October and remind us to change it then. It isn't about who has a licence, it's who's playing in the coming/current season. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Then Gold Coast shouldnt be there. Because they dont play until March. What is wrong with you? People obviously dont respect wikipedia. When people like you edit on it. You are just TOO biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.226.189 (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It is 2011 so it is common sense that the # of teams refers to the 2011 season.The-Pope (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

An observation - The style of these aggressive posts from IP editor 124... is very similar to that of the now banned user Guinea pig warrior. Anyone know how to foloow up on these things? HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Whos that? And I think you are just all biased. Maybe be more logical... instead of biased towards yourselves. I know people on Facebook who disrespect this AFL page. Maybe change your atitudes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.226.189 (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have 100% proof it's you (which I won't post here as I don't want to "out" you). Time for another checkuser me thinks 93.182.186.12 (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you going on about. I dont even know this person you are on about. I dont even know this person you are on about. Could we talk about the AFl page? I really would like it changed to 18 teams. Since proof that theres 18 teams. Maybe we should have something like 18 teams but then have 17 teams playing. How bout that. Or are you going to be jerks about that too? Maybe give me a fair go.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.226.189 (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought about yesterday, was almost convinced when the facebook link was posted this morning, but the gold coast "trap" virtually confirms it. The name on the facebook question linked above also has a twitter account by the same name, who is stalking frequently tweeting Warren Tredrea and his page background is a cartoon boy wearing a Port guernsey - two of GPW's most frequently editted pages. The IPs above and one of GPW confirmed sockpuppets are all on Telstra Bigpond in South Australia, and their contribution history all seems aligned to AFL, Port or (AFL) Video Games. But there would be 1000s of people on Telstra in South Australia, a good few of them would be Port fans, and most of them would be interesting in Treders... so nothing can be proven, other than it more than satisfying the WP:DUCKTEST. So, I !vote that we ignore that issue, and just all agree that there are currently 17 teams in the AFL, not 16, nor 18 and spend our time IMPROVING the encyclopedia, planning our Dreamteam teams or other more productive tasks, and ignore the trolls.The-Pope (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow Pope! Talk about stalking. I offically know, you are a trolling stalker. Actually Warren Tredrea is a childhood idol of mine. So why the hell wouldnt I tweet him stuff like other people do? You must say personally, that animated picture is good. But you are a troll. And Im not with Telstra. So thats wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.226.189 (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I made one comment about one argumentative, confrontational editor. I feel my post still stands. Commenting on other posters, expecially abusively, is rarely helpful. But I shall now move on. I agree with The Pope. To a newcomer to the sport, the classic, hypothetical Wikipedia reader, the only sensible thing to say right now is that there are 17 teams in the League. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Got to agree with HiLo48. There are 17 teams competing in the 2011 AFL season, not 18. MC Rocks (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

St Kilda's training ground name

According to this page - http://www.saints.com.au/training%20times/tabid/8767/default.aspx - on St Kilda's website, their training ground is called the "Linen House Oval" even though the rest of the complex is called the "Linen House Centre". Afterwriting (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, the Saints are in the process of moving from their former base at Moorabbin Oval in Moorabbin, which was called Linen House Oval, to their new base at Belvedere Park in Seaford, which Linen House also acquired the naming rights for. Confusing. So as far as I understand, Linen House Oval and Linen House Centre are two different things. If you google "linen house centre" it should come up with some links that confirm this. The article on Moorabbin Oval also confirmed this: "A new additional training and administration facility for the Saints, Linen House Centre in Seaford near Frankston, approximately 21 kilometers from Moorabbin, is currently under construction and is expected to be completed in 2010 at a cost of approximately 10.45 million dollars. The development is a St Kilda Football Club development in conjunction with the Frankston City Council, the State Government Of Victoria and the AFL. The St Kilda Football Club will retain Moorabbin Oval as a training, retail, museum and entertainment venue." IgnorantArmies 14:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

St Kilda have already moved their training facilities to Frankston - but they are also keeping some of their other facilities at Moorabin for the forseeable future. It remains to be seen whether the ground itself at Moorabin will ever again be used for training. But the real issue here is whether the ground itself at Frankston is now known as "Linen House Oval". I am happy to leave the article information as "Linen House Centre" but as the link I posted clearly refers to the training session as being at "Linen House Oval in Frankston" this may be more correct in reference to the actual ground as distinct from the "Linen House Centre" as a whole - or it may have been a mistake by whoever put the information on the webpage. The distinction is not that important but I will try to clarify things out of curiosity. But their training is now based - since January - in Frankston instead of Moorabin. Afterwriting (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)