Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

We should note that Wikipedia:Categorization suggests in general avoiding categorising an article in both a category and it's subcategory. For this reason, footballers should only be categorised by the clubs they played for, and not also included in the broader category. JPD (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, so how can the Australian Rules footballers category be removed from each players page? Rogerthat 09:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it needs to be removed from each page individually. I haven't considered it a particularly urgent matter, and so have only removed it from pages that I have been editing anyway. JPD (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

AFL or Australian Rules?

For clarification, is this WikiProject intended to focus solely on the professional League, or is it also for wider Australian Rules articles? eg. Football Victoria, Auskick, Victorian Football League, and the other things in Category:Australian rules football. pfctdayelise 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This is solely for the AFL (formerly known as the VFL). Rogerthat 08:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian sports

I don't see any reason why this can't be a sub-page of WikiProject Australian sports. This is done with cycling already.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

John Manos

John Manos is proposed for deletion. It looks like if the article is not a hoax, then this wikiproject should be supporting the article. if it is a hoax,

the participants here should know that. --Scott Davis Talk 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Australian Rules Football"

Please comment on this Categories for renaming debate: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_20#Australian_rules_football. (I realise, not technically AFL, but I am sure people here might be interested.) pfctdayelise 05:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Biatch & Images

User:Biatch has spent a great deal of time an effort uploading lots of AFL nosource/nocopyright images to wikipeda. I've left a couple of messages on his talk page about this but have had no response. Most of the images are copyvio's, they'll be deleted soon enough, if he reads this he needs to get in touch so that he hasn't wasted his time doing this. Cheers Agnte 15:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I went and actually took some photos of my own then uploaded. Just wish others would do the same. --Biatch 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work

I know you're not getting a whole lot of support with this, Roger, but this is by far the best setup for a sports WikiProject I've ever seen. You've clearly set out all the work that needs doing and tied them in with useful resources in a way that I could only dream of getting set up for netball. :) Ambi 05:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Move New Zealand National Team article?

Could people please take a look at New Zealand (Australian rules football National Team) and decide whether it should be moved. Perhaps The Falcons (AFL team) might be more appropriate. == Adz 05:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd personally move it to New Zealand national Australian rules football team, as that seems to be the format used by most other sports (i.e. New Zealand national soccer team). Ambi 06:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ambi, The Falcons (AFL team) actually refers to more than one team, for example the Geelong Falcons in the TAC Cup. New Zealand national Australian rules football team it is. Rogerthat 09:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Promoting this project

I came across a site called BigFooty, which is an AFL fan forum. I think by contacting the administrators and asking them to promote this project on that forum in some way we could potentially recruit a wide range of people for this project. Thoughts? Rogerthat 11:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, did you contact the site? Diverman 11:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

afl-bio-stub

We currently have the {{afl-stub}} to label articles related to the AFL. COuld someone make, or propose on the relevant page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, a stub to use for AFL player bios? Thanks. Harro5 22:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made one here: Template:Afl-bio-stub, I hope that's acceptable?, Rogerthat 08:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Stats

Where did the lists of players come from for this? Ambi 07:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

These are just many requested players that I think we should document on the site. As you can see I've deleted them from the list as the articles have been made (around 95% by me, I might add!). Check out Resources on WP:AFL to see where you can get stats from. Rogerthat 12:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear - I meant the total numbers of players in the clubs' histories. Ambi 12:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I went to that site listed under "Resources" and checked the number of all the players listed for each club (using Excel). Rogerthat 12:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Checked them against other sources? If not, it's a good idea.. the basis for my lists used data that used to be here - but crosschecking was too formidable a task, so caveat emptor applies --Paul 15:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Broadcasting?

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add a section on television and radio brodcasters? Mike 08:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There's already a section on TV commentators/personalities. But feel free to expand the sections and narrow it down to what you like. Rogerthat 13:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok Just to be clear I meant on Television stations and radio stations that brodcast AFL Mike 13:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Australian Rules footballers

Category:Australian Rules footballers is getting unwieldy. How would it be if we created a subcategory Category:AFL players, and broke it up as follows:

• Category:AFL players
  • Category:AFL players by name (to contain every AFL player sorted by surname)
  • Category:AFL players by team
    • Category:Adelaide Crows players
    • etc - other AFL teams
  • Category:Brownlow Medal winners
  • etc - other AFL medals

Snottygobble | Talk 12:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

According to my understanding of the Categorisation policy, all the players who are in categories such as Category:Adelaide Crows players should not also be in the partent category Australian Rules footballers. To put this into practice, we would need to remove the category from the template. JPD (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've sorted the players by teams into leagues, so we got Category:VFL/AFL players, Category:SANFL players and Category:WAFL players under Category:Australian Rules footballers. Rogerthat 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Broadcasters

Ive added TV Broadcasters and Melbourne Radio and National Austereo through Triple M, I Dont know outside of victoria so please if you do add them Mike 05:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox template

I may be a stupid newbie but is it me or does this template not work?

Jabso 12:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at all mate, I put in the wrong infobox template. Cheers for bringing it to my attention, it should work now. Rogerthat 02:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Something seems to have happened to the infobox template, there's a bunch of info missing because i believe someone well-meaning has gone around and tried to put a 'captains' section in them. Is there anyone who can fiz this, and maybe accomodate captains as well? Apologies if this has already been noted. Blackmissionary 11:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Positions

I've noticed that there exists both Football (Australian rules) positions and also individual articles for many of the positions (eg: Full-forward, Ruckman (Australian rules football position), etc.). Is one favoured over the other? To which should other articles (player articles, for example) be linked? Jessesaurus 05:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I confused you mate, the Football (Australian rules) positions was my idea because i thought it was quite pointless to have an individual article on each position when really they can only just make up one decent article altogether! Those individual articles should really be deleted because really they're useless and I wouldn't have a clue how to delete articles so if someone wouldn't mind... Normy132 11:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree about having one article describing all positions, but before the old individual position articles are deleted, the players articles etc. that wikilink to the individual articles need to be modified. e.g. the separate page, Rover (football), has 28 pages linking to it.Ibroadbent 00:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Club annual reports

Anyone know where I can dig 'em up without having been a member of the club in question (or, preferably, leaving Adelaide)? An anon's added some extremely dubious details to Port Adelaide Magpies citing one and I'm having a hard time finding them so I can check... ～J.K. 07:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores ^Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm well sees no one has replied to this, I would say that Australian Football League and Australian rules football NEED to be included. I would also like to see all of the club's articles on it. Jasrocks ^(talk) 08:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that Australian Football League is far from a good article. It's a notable topic as far as Australian sport goes, but it needs a major cleanup to reach respectable standards like Wikipedia 1.0. Remy B 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that they were good articles. How bout us two plus anyone else started to clean it up Jasrocks ^(talk) 08:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I always hesitate from dissecting large articles like this because so many people have obviously put effort into it. In this case it really needs an overhaul, but if others were willing to accept that then I guess I could give it a go. It might have to be done in spurts though due to the time commitment. Remy B 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yer that's kool. Havent started it yet, but we can edit it to how we like at Australian Football League/New article. Dont expect you to do much of it, just that i've got holidays and have plenty of spare time. Cheers, Jasrocks ^(talk) 09:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put anything at Australian Football League/New article, or use any subpages that like in the main article space. If you want to make a draft new version, move it to your user space (User:Jasrocks/Australian Football League) or maybe the Talk page (Talk:Australian Football League/Draft). It's definitely a good idea to clean that article up, though! JPD (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)use

Sure. Delete that article then. Got the idea from the Futurama page :-P Jasrocks ^Talk} 10:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

AFL All-time Goalkicking records??

Can somebody give me brief explanation on what this article is to be about? I've got more than enough information to write about the all-time goalkicking record, though I'm a bit unsure if it should be just a list of all the people who broke it, a biography page on the history of it or a list that ranks the top goalkickers. Normy132 00:30 February 4, 2006 (UTC)

Something in the vein of List of AFL players to have played more than 300 games. Perhaps a listing of all players to have kicked more than 500 goals (or set the bar wherever appropriate). Rogerthat ^Talk 00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The page is up. If you're satisfied with how I've set it up I'll start a celanup on the list of AFL players to have played more than 300 games. Normy132 08:40, February 6, 2006 (UTC)

Yep it looks good mate. Good work Rogerthat ^Talk 12:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why change back the Geelong section?

If the players aren't created, then why name them as such? I've checked each of them up, and I've only put up the ones that have profiles. Boomtish 10:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The players listed here should be ones that don't already have profiles. You can see the ones that are started at Category:Geelong Cats players so there's no need for them here. The % quoted on this page refers to the players that are completed under that category. If I didn't answer your question properly, please clarify. Rogerthat ^Talk 12:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've lost me on logic. The list of players here are guys who haven't been done/profiled?

Pardon my ignorance, but I would have assumed that this page refers to guys who are done, that is, we have 'whatever number' out of 1004 guys done, and that we're 'whatever percent' complete on all Geelong profiles (assuming the aim of this project is to profile all players). No?Boomtish 10:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a project page, to help co-ordinate the creation of new articles (as well as improvement of old ones, I guess). The numbers show how many are already complete, and then the lists give some examples of what needs doing. If you want to know what is already done, then you can look at things lke the Category pages in the encyclopedia proper. JPD (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, look at Category:Geelong Cats players. There are 35 players listed under that category, meaning 35 players have profiles that have started. On the project page, we fill in that 35 profiles have been started, out of the 1004 players in total to have represented Geelong FC since 1897. On the project page, there is no need for players that are already under the category to be listed there, it should simply be used to put up articles for player pages that dont yet exist. Sorry for the confusion mate Rogerthat ^Talk 09:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've got it under control now. The changes make it much more easier to understand. Though, does my Jimmy Bartel article really need to be expanded?Boomtish 05:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think someone just added Bartel assuming there wasn't an article on him...he should be removed from the list Rogerthat ^Talk 08:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguities

Completing the list of bulldogs players I realise I occasionally transgress what is discussed above - I'll fix that up shortly.

But what I really wish to query is the fact that by adding thousands of names to en.wiki we are going to come across many instances where the name is already taken and there exists a substantial article. The choices are:

• create a disambiguity page, which also means mucking around with the title of the existing article (occasionally the name already exists under a disambiguity page, which makes life easier, we just add our name to the list); or
• simply put a line in italics at the start of the existing article explaining that if you are looking for Tom Jones the australian rules footballer, look here.

So far so good, but should we agree a standard for setting apart the names of our players. I have seen, for example, Tom Jones (athlete) which I find a little unsatisfactory. Mainly because the time may come when the clash is with a name famous in athletics. I have started using, for example, Fred Cook (Australian football). Any ideas anyone? I thought it was worth discussing now rather than after we have done 10,000 players. I also take the opportunity to congratulate Rogerthat again, and good work everyone - this is what I call a project worth doing! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have come across the same problem... and I have been creating mine with (Australian Footballer) after the name. SethCohen 02:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the rule I've been going by is to create a disambig page whenever the person isn't notable and having, say John Beveridge as the disambig page with links to John Beveridge (gardener) and John Beveridge (footballer). But if it's Ron Howard, I'd include a link in italics at the top of the page to Ron Howard (footballer). If there's already a Ron Howard that plays soccer that is listed as (footballer), then I just use Ron Howard (Australian rules footballer). hope that made sense, but that's how I see it. Also, if I know the middle names of players, I use Chris L. Johnson instead of Chris Johnson (Australian rules footballer). I don't think you can use Ron Howard (Australian football) because there is a conflict going on with soccer being called Australian football. Finally, let me just say good job there Joey (if I can call you that ;)) Rogerthat ^Talk 06:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

that was my footy club name - I hope I haven't blown my cover! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add that I think Rogerthat's suggestion is probably the way to go (even if it is a mouthful), i.e. Fred Cook (Australian rules footballer) - should be all lower case after "Australian". I reckon it would be best if we all invoked this practice - it would soon become a habit for those of us doing lots of these sorts of articles. Regarding when we should or shouldn't take the name of a player off the project page - where it is a stubby stub - I reckon it might be best to leave it there to alert people that this one needs a bit more done to it before we take if off the list - what do you all think? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of initials, I am using the Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers as my main source (which I am referencing as I go) - so if they show an initial or middle name, I am using it (helps against too much disambiguation) - but if they show a nickname in quotation marks - I won't include that in the title, but I will include that in the opening sentence - I think that is a fairly normal convention. Now here is a curiosity for you all, who would have believed that there have been two players officially called Peter J. Welsh - so for the moment I am calling the Footscary one Peter J. Welsh (Bulldogs) - the other one having played for Hawthorn, and incredibly the careers may have crossed for two or three years in the late 70s/early 80s. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good pippu. Now what's the bet both Peter Welsh's middle names were James? ;) Rogerthat ^Talk 01:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:AFL

With Portals being one of the two main Wiki-crazes currently (other being userboxes), I believe its time to make one for AFL. If you are interested in helping me make it please comment below. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should name it Portal:Australian rules football instead of just AFL, because it would involve explaining the actual sport rather than just the main league. Also, not sure if we have any real "featured articles" in Aussie rules/AFL (there are plenty of stubs on players, for example). But by all means, tell us your thoughts mate and we'll see what we can do. Cheers, Rogerthat ^Talk 07:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I will be working on the Portal here - User:Rogerthat/Portal:Australian_rules_football. Feel free to fix things up yourself. I've used Portal:Cricket as a basis for it but obviously it will look much different. Rogerthat ^Talk 11:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

2006 Season

The AFL Season 2006 article is up and running, but what about the club articles on the season. I have just updated Collingwood's and it is looking very very good. Please take note ;) Lonie From 50 01:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be called Lonie from 55 since it is rare for him to actually have a crack at goal from inside 50 :-) It looks fantastic and serves as a great example for the rest of us, especially since we are likely to fill up the ones we do with far better news than you are likely to! Carn the scraggers!! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work Lonie, if you keep this up we might have to give out a "WikiProject AFL Contrbiutor of the Month" award - In fact that's a good idea :) Rogerthat ^Talk 05:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would personally suggest having the current article split into 2006 NAB Cup and 2006 AFL Premiership Season. This would be more specific, as the total content at the end of the season is going to be huge enough as it is. Also I think it is more consistent with other annual event articles to put the year at the start of the name. With the content itself, I would personally prefer the details of the round's games to be in a table format as opposed to subheadings with commentary, as that would be much neater and concise. After the entire season is over, if the current method is kept, the article will be detractingly enormous. The commentary thats on there so far is POV material that isnt really suitable for encyclopedia articles, maybe it should be replaced with a link to an external news article which could give the reader an in-depth commentary without us having to write it or cause any POV issues. Remy B 13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to make it look as similar to the other AFL seasons as possible otherwise it's going to be this one massive article with reports on every single god-damn game which is not what we want. Only the significant stuff. So for now I think the pre-season article should say something like "Brisbane Lions, Melbourne, Kangaroos, Hawthorn, Geelong, Adelaide Crows, Collingwood and Fremantle are currently competing in the quarter-final stage of the competition." or something similar. Normy 06:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we could also set up the article in the vein of this: 2005_English_cricket_season and this - check out all the links to match reviews there. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Standardisation of Player Lists

To avoid the confusion as to what players belong where, I propose the following: For each team have we should have 2 lists and a category for our players. ie for Freo, we have the WikiProject_AFL#Fremantle__.2849.2F145.29 list (effectively a work in progress list), the List of Fremantle Dockers league players and Category:Fremantle_Dockers_players. The WP:AFL list should have EVERY player ever on a Freo list, whether rookie and delisted, or 200 game player. The List of Fremantle Dockers league players is now split into "Every Player Ever Played" (in order of debut), "Listed players yet to play a senior game" and "Delisted Players who did not play a senior game". Each club may adjust these headings as appropriate (ie add "significant reserve grade players" etc). I think the Category:XXXX_players should be restricted to the first 2 subsets - league players and current listed players yet to debut. Everyone agree? Next we probably start to tidy up the Category:XXXX_coaches as well. Should each team have it's own category as a subcat of Australian rules coaches? It's a bit each way at the moment.The-Pope 05:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems arising with this is that there could have been hundreds more players who never played a senior game through the early 20th century for Victorian clubs which makes the task of tallying players a little harder. I still think that currently listed players yet to play a game deserve to be listed under Category:Fremantle Dockers players. If they are delisted without playing a game, simply take them off the list. That's how I see it. As for the coaches category, I think that category is yet to be organised properly. I believe there should be no coaches under Category:Australian Rules coaches, that should just contain subcategories such as Category:Adelaide Football Club coaches in the vein of Category:VFL/AFL players. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Well the season is underway and I think it would be a good time if anyone wants to take their digital camera to the upcoming games. We need photos of players like Chris Judd (a joke that there's no photo for the great man), James Hird, and well, anyone really, even Harry O'Brien ;). My camera died a week ago (lucky it's under warranty) so I'll be out of action in terms of photos, but I hope everyone here can carry on here. Rogerthat ^Talk 12:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth writing articles anymore?

I'm not so sure it is.

When I first came to this site, I thought of nothing more but helping expand it. And what better way to do so then by expanding this great sport, particularly the great club of Geelong.

So I try to write up good, decent articles. Articles that give any random reader the sufficient amount of info on the players they're looking up, without sounding like a biased, one-sided, lavishing idiot.

But now apparently you cannot write a decent article anymore. This site wants expansion, wants involvement, in fact it promotes involvement, yet they rub out half of it. I understand if it's unncessary crap half the time, but this 'strictness' involving writing only articles with concrete 'facts' in it is ruining this whole site. If this site wants facts only, then maybe they should just link each player article to a webpage with that player's stats, because that's about as factual as it will be if this persists. Oh, and to top it off, maybe they would insert their name and date of birth. Bingo, an article.

Rant over.Boomtish 05:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from mate, I've seen your work and you do a great job. Check the discussion page of the Chris Judd article where I've added all the stuff that unbelievably, has been deleted from the article. Alot of that information clearly belongs in the article and the more people we get involved in WP:AFL and the article, the more informed and sharper the player pages will be. Rogerthat ^Talk 06:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as nice as it may be to talk about how good a player was in their under-12 team, or discuss when they once had 12 kicks and 7 handballs against the Kangaroos in a losing match, that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. I have had to wholly cut back your articles, and delete your copyvio images, as both WP:NPOV and WP:COPYVIO have been left in your trail as you have been writing. For example, how does a plpayer who hasn't been drafted yet (see Tom Hawkins) get a longer article than say, Jim Stynes? Harro5 07:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How does Tom Hawkins get a bigger article than Jim Stynes? That's ridiculous. It's entirely up to whoever wants to write an article for that particular player.

Not my problem if no one is up to writing Stynes up. As for Hawkins himself, why does it matter whether or not he hasn't been drafted or not? He's a person, and a rather particular one at that for any Geelong fan. Look at the NBA for example. You've got alot of undrafted guys with profiles up (see guys like Rudy Gay, LaMarcus Aldridge). So, in going with your rich vein of consistency, why not go delete those people?

Nothing personal, but you want people to contribute, to write good articles for the site, yet you set in place all this rules (most of which are reasonable and understandable, I don't dispute that) which restrict us from writing nothing but: Chris Judd is the captain of the West Coast Eagles, he has won a Brownlow Medal. Well, blow me over, I've come looking for some info on who this Judd-bloke is and that's all I've got. Brilliant.Boomtish 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Disappointing response Harro, you've convinced me Boomtish, more evidence of this site becoming a joke. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to comment how much should or should not be removed from articles, or alternatively modified, but it is worth noting that encyclopaedia articles are not meant to be written the same way as newspaper articles, or footy magazine profiles, or anything like that. We can't use phrases like "obvious class, athleticism and uncanny goal sense" or "perhaps more tragically for the team than anyone else". This site is meant to stick to facts, and if you think that ruins it, then you haven't understood the point of the site. I don't think this has to make the articles useless, though - look at Steve Waugh and Shane Warne. These articles are fairly informative, aren't they? A fair amount of the Chris Judd information should probably be in the article, but it needs to be written in the appropriate style. JPD (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that and I agree with you. I understand the neccessity to include NPOV in articles, but I'm annoyed in how Harro has gone about removing the sections. It seems he's just looked at an article, saw a few phrases that were questionable, and then deleted the massive surrounding segment of the article. So much of that information is useful, but it seems Harro is too lazy to really rectify it and bring it up to standard. Rogerthat ^Talk 08:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

C'mon everyone - JPD is right - let's stick to wikipedia conventions and try and churn out the best stuff possible. There was a similar discusion on the Australian noticeboard. There is certainly a consensus that if you have rock solid references, you can be a bit more descriptive about a player's skill set. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what I added to Bernie Quinlan recently: He was a prodigious kick of the football which earned him the nickname "superboot". He regularly featured in the World of Sport kicking competions (a sports program which was popular in Melbourne for three decades) and is reported to have once kicked a goal from the wing at the Whitten Oval, Footscray (a distance approaching 100 metres). We've been able to add a bit of colour and interest to the article while dealing only with known facts (we all know he was called "superboot") - just to show that it is possible to make a footy article interesting. By the way, The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers is an excellent reference, if you can get your hands on it, it will be hard for anyone to attack your articles if you are citing it as a reference. Let's not dispair - there is a shitload of material out there waiting for us to turn into pithy, factually solid, informative (and mildly entertaining) articles! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of that material is the info in the Judd article, which is clearly usable but needs to be discussed and improved, not just chucked away. Rogerthat ^Talk 08:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what JPD has said - this has to be an encyclopedia, not a commentary. But I dont think thats as much of a problem for content as has been claimed. If there is something non-trivial that you want to write about, it would have to be extremely obscure for there to be no sources for it. There are thousands of respected news articles about the AFL every year that you can link to in a references section, not to mention all the other sources of verified information on the web. In my opinion its worth taking the extra step to spend a little bit of time finding real sources for information you already personally know is true, because then it increases the credibility of all the articles in the AFL project, and in Wikipedia. People will value all these AFL articles if they are credible, not because theres a large quantity of it. Remy B 12:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting question

As I get towards the end of completing my list of Bullies players, I noticed that George Tribe, who played 66 games for Footscray, also played 3 tests for Australia (in cricket). There is already a cricketing article on him, with all the cricketing templates, etc. which is fair enough. We'll come across this sort of thing at least a few times for each of the older clubs - one can't say it was common, but it certainly was not a rare event, particularly pre-1970 (i.e. VFL players also playing cricket to sheffield shield standard and beyond). My view is that since we are talking about the same person, it all has to be included within the one article. Perhaps we simply add our templates below the cricketing ones? Especially since in most cases an article on the player, especially if he is a test cricketer, will already exist. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if its the same person then it definitely needs to be within the same article. Just add the AFL infobox below the cricket one and merge your text into the cricket stuff. Remy B 12:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

See Jack Worrall for an example of what I did. Rogerthat ^Talk 01:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A good guideline on whether the AFL or cricket templates should go on top or below would be the amount of matches, fame and influence he had on the game. This issue would probably have to be discussed with the WP:CRIC guys. Perhaps a merged template can be made? There is a sufficient number of people who played in both sports before professional Aussie rules emgerged. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 01:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. See List of Australian rules and cricket players. Rogerthat ^Talk 04:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed to all the above - excellent idea Rogerthat. On a different subject, I'm having a problem with a red link appearing to the infobox template in funny spots - don't know how to get rid of it - see Frank Aked and Frank Aked Snr --ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • All fixed pippu, take a look at the changes I made to the boxes (there was nothing under "dead" - the value there should either be "alive" or "dead", and also coach should have "coach" or "notcoach" next to it). Cheers, Rogerthat ^Talk 09:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I get the picture now. Hey, I'm Sicilian, you have to explain things 3 or 4 times before it sinks into my testa dura. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Stats

It's interesting having a look at these stats which I have copied from the main page below: 5.1 Adelaide (61/145) 5.2 Brisbane Bears (26/143) 5.3 Brisbane Lions (34/89) 5.4 Carlton (48/1088) 5.5 Collingwood (99/1056) 5.6 Essendon (52/1055) 5.7 Fitzroy (32/1157) 5.8 Fremantle (53/145) 5.9 Geelong (50/1004) 5.10 Hawthorn (44/838) 5.11 Kangaroos (50/919) 5.12 Melbourne (55/1239) 5.13 Port Adelaide (34/85) 5.14 Richmond (43/1057) 5.15 St Kilda (95/1506) 5.16 Sydney/South Melbourne (68/1333) 5.17 University (10/112) 5.18 West Coast (53/165) 5.19 Western Bulldogs (67/918) Incredibly the old rivals Essendon, Collingwood and Richmond have used 1055, 1056 and 1057 players respectively (although it must be said that Richmond joined the comp 11 years later) - and Carlton isn't too far off this number either. What is unbelievable is that less successful clubs like South and St Kilda are at 1333 and 1506 respectively. It just goes to show that stable clubs enable stable lists which win premierships (or perhaps premierships encourage stable lists). Can I ask for a definition of "players used" - does it merely include those who have ever played a game or those who have ever been on an official playing list. It would seem to me that if it is the latter, that does not strike me as being very encyclopediac, and surely we should expect a minimum standard before they have an article written about them. To conclude, congrats on Collingwood (Lonie from 50 I presume), the Saints and South for leading the current player article premiership stakes, but watch out for them doggies snapping at your heals! (as they have done throughout their existence - which can be rightly read a number of ways). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed the same thing when I originally put those lists up re, particularly the Saints having a massive number of players. They were always the weakest club, therefore it would have been easier to get a game for them is my logic. Anyway to get the lists up, what I did was went over to RLeague (User:*Paul* runs that site - great resource) and copied the player list for every club into Excel. I then checked the end of the columns to see how many players each club had. The list on Rleague only had players who had played 1 game or more - which is why there was a bit of confusion when docker_dave made profiles for players like Adam Butler, who were listed but never played a game. This looks to have been resolved now. But yeah, it's only for players who have played 1 game or more with that club. Finally, the Dons have fallen away a bit haven't they? At one stage we were leading the pack with 40-odd players but Lonie has shot the Pies up from about 50-odd players when he came, to about 100 now. Great effort. As for my contributions, the reason the Bombers aren't on top is because I write profiles for every single club, no bias from me whatsoever :) Rogerthat ^Talk 08:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also pippu I should add you're doing a brilliant job with the Doggies players - I like the way you've referenced players skill levels from the Record, top idea. Rogerthat ^Talk 08:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Afl infobox

Check out the {{Infobox_afl_player}} to see the changes I've made - I have added Height/Weight as a column for the infobox which means every infobox is currently out of whack (except for Justin Longmuir). Does everyone think this is unneccessary or is it a worthy addition? Rogerthat ^Talk 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I reckon it's good. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this info goes better in the infobox than in the main article, and need only every be mentioned there, unless there is something interesting or quirky about it that needs to be emphasised. I am happy to back through my articles and fix up. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The height or weight might only be notable to mention for someone like Libba or Aaron Sandilands, I came across the height mentioned in many articles and thought it should only be included in an infobox since it is sort of generic information (although still useful to know). Rogerthat ^Talk 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea to have this information in the infobox but this now means that nearly 400 articles now have {{heightweight}} in their infobox. Is there going to be a concerted effort to have these missing values entered? --The Brain of Morbius 10:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the 'Height/Weight {{{heightweight}}}' text that is now in most player articles looks pretty ridiculous. The height and weight of the player isnt even really much of a concern, unless they are notably tall or short, and then it can be in the article text. As for weight, that can change at any given time if a player bulks up or whatever. Remy B 12:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I share Remy B's concerns about the relevance of the weight of players. It makes a limited amount of sense in a club's team list for a season, let alone in an article about the player's whole career/life. Having said that, if a value being missing from a lot of articles is a problem, it's possible to make the parameter optional. See Template:Infobox Australian City for an example. JPD (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Making it optional sounds like a good idea, although I have no idea which bit of the IAC box refers to making something optional... Rogerthat ^Talk 00:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I just made it optional. Where there is no heightweight parameter, the infobox skips that row. So that should leave all of those pages without heightweight appear unaffected.--The Brain of Morbius 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I take that back. Justin Longmuir is now no longer displaying a heightweight value when it should. I'll leave the infobox as it is for now (as it's doing no real harm) but I'll investigate it further later.--The Brain of Morbius 06:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Football

I'm not sure if you are all familiar with the generic article Football, which goes through the related history of all the football codes, and puts aussie rules in its rightful historical context (i.e. right up there in terms of age and historical firsts). There has been a concerted effort over the last few months by some rugby diehards to completely downplay this history. On the talk page, link above, there is a poll underway at the moment, to change the descriptor of the section on aussie rules from Australian to Victorian. I know it is too idiotic to be true, but only weight of numbers will crush this idiocy once and for all. Please make an effort to visit the page and to disagree with this absurd poll. Ignoring it because it is just too stupid will simply mean that it will continue for a long time. This is the wording of the poll:

That the section featuring games that are descended from Victorian Rules and Gaelic Rules should be headed "Games descended from Victorian (Australia) and Gaelic Rules"

Thanking you all in anticipation. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

2006 NAB Cup

I have created the 2006 NAB Cup article using a table format for the games. This keeps the article clean, simple and every game has a link to a full report from the AFL website. I think this should avoid any POV issues that will naturally arise from commentary-style Wikipedia articles. I have named it with the year at the front to be consisent with most annual (or longer interval) sporting event articles on Wikipedia, eg. 2006 NFL season, 2004-05 NBA season, 2005-06 Indian cricket season, 2006 Commonwealth Games, etc. I took the ordering of the teams for each match in the order on the AFL website reports, assuming they were in order of home vs away, but it doesnt appear to be the case after I look carefully at it. So... for the meantime I have named the headings 'Team 1' and 'Team 2', which isnt ideal, but if anyone wants to fix that up then feel free :) Remy B 16:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Amateur AFL teams

Hello. Recently, North Carolina Tigers was put on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Tigers by myself, with the result being to merge the team to its respective league - United States Australian Football League, on the grounds that the performance and competition level is not of first-class standard, although the leagues in themselves are of interest. At the time I wrote a rather large discussion, indicating that the AfD could be a litmus-test or precedent for similar AFL teams and I would like to see what people think about this, as to I (or someone else) should go ahead and merge them, without sending a whole pile to AfD.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like people to consider that there is a definite difference between comps like the BARFL and the DAFL that have been around for 15 years or so, and other overseas comps that are just starting out or are simply a means for people to have a bit of a kick around the park. So when we talk of some of the older clubs in the BARFL and DAFL that may have won a few premierships, names that are actually known to many footy followers in Australia - is there something really wrong with writing about that? Also, aussie rules is the national code of Nauru - so why shouldn't its older clubs get a bit of a write up if necessary? Wouldn't it appear a touch condascending to say to them: "you can't talk about your own clubs, but you can mention your league"? Aussie rules also has a reasonably long history in PNG and has been played in New Zealand as a minor sport for 100 years. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me that you might be able to find an aussie rules club in New Zealand that is even older than any soccer club in Italy. Lastly, it is well documented that aussie rules was played as a minor sport in both Scotland and South Africa around 1900 before dieing out (only to be reborn in the latter country more recently, under very different circumstances). Let us also not forget that two Japanese born players are currently trialling with Essendon, and when people say that only 5-10 AFL/VFL players have been born overseas - I would submit to them that they are out by a very large margin. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see that dozens of AFL players were not Australian born, but they all learn their football and football culture in Australia. With respect to the teams not being notable, but the league being notable - it is similar to a school article noting that it consistently tops the examination tables; however, the individual students which are responsible for this are not really notable. I'm not saying we can't have information on the actual clubs - simply putting the paragraph under a listing of the national league is totally fine.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is a reasonable starting point, but then eventually it is possible for a league to pass a certain threshold where the clubs may be considered sufficiently notable. The US and Canadian leagues may not yet be there - but the BARFL and DAFL may almost be there because they have been well organised competitions for at least 15 years, and some of the clubs are known even to Australians. This isn't a principle just for oversease aussie rules clubs - its for all sports clubs across the world. I have seen a similar debate in it.wiki discussing amateur level soccer clubs. The same debate could be had for suburban aussie rules (or league or soccer or lacrosse or Trugo) clubs. There must be a point where some of these cross the treshold of notability and warrant an article. Regarding Nauru, whose national footy code is aussie rules and has been for decades, if they have any footy clubs that trace their history to the establishment of the code in Nauru, then it warrants an article. We can't have a blanket rule that says an aussie rules club from overseas can't have an article about it because it is from overseas. Do we write articles about soccer clubs in Australia and New Zealand? (remembering that soccer is the 4th ranked football code in Australia). Who, outside of a handful of people in Australia, would know anything about Melbourne Victory, who have been around for barely a year, and whose main claim to fame is that it is on the verge of bankruptcy already. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comment regarding Melbourne Victory is perhaps an indication of your inclination towards AFL :) ?? Because Melbourne Victory is a team competing at first-class level with 10,000 spectators a week, with players who have competed at other notable first-class teams as well as international level. About the blanket rule, it applies to things similar to the North Carolina Tigers on the grounds of sporting merit, but of course in the cases you mentioned, they are different to the "general case" in that they have historical and wide community impact (if a club has 10,000 kids participating it is possibly notable even if none of them are even high school standard) which sets them apart from the NC Tigers, who are most probably a bunch of expats kicking a ball in a public park. As for the BARFL and such, although it is not well known, the teams can become notable, if their alumni/players graduate to the AFL for instance. I think, eg, if I were to start an article on Commercial Swimming Club, this should stand, even though nobody refers to it as such (aside from maybe a few swimming commentators and websites), because it has produced the likes of Libby Lenton, Leisel Jones and Susie O'Neill in the last decade. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC).

I was being cheeky about Melbourne Victory (afterall, this is the AFL project page, no non AFL people are reading, right?) - everything you say is reasonable (I am still struggling to understand how they beat Sydney 5-0, definitely warrants a stewards' enquiry). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia as a tool for documenting the history of these clubs. Afterall, many do not have websites and should at least have their date of formation and where they are based somewhere. It is fair enough to merge them into the USAFL article and I have added this basic information to that article. --Rulesfan 01:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

More needs to be done

When you loooks at the soccer teams, virtually all listed players have a short bio. They should list all the players on the site for the teams and give them a short bio (it's not too hard, just read they player site on their site and it'll give their stats). Also there are more Rugby league player pictures. They must be getting the permission somehow. Anyone would think Soccer and Rugby are much more popular due to all the time and effort put into their site and hardly any on the AFL sites. I say get behind ALL yteams and help build AFL up on this wikipedia. It makes it look like a small sport compared to soccer federation and nrl and Afl had more money and is more popular than both of them. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliat1981 (talk • contribs)

If you think the quality is poor now, you should have seen the AFL coverage when I stumbled upon wikipedia in late October of last year. Articles on such greats as Tom Hafey, Gary Ayres, Greg Williams (well the list is absolutely massive) didn't exist - there were around 30-40 player articles. Now there are upwards of 1,000, and I would estimate I've started around 60-70% of those, if not more (not to mention my setting up of this project, which has given AFL on this site a sense of direction). I'm not bragging here, merely showing the state of things on here. It's very obvious though that ALOT more needs to be done, and the best way is to tell everyone you know who might be interested in footy to get on board and share their knowledge and/or skills. BTW, an easy way to get player photos without copyright is to take your digital camera to the footy... I'll leave it there, Rogerthat ^Talk 09:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sliat1981, you are right, the AFL project is a long way from any form of completion. I personally expect progress will pick up once the AFL season begins in the next week or two. I look forward to when we can boast blue links in the order of this: List of Test cricketers, but its going to take a lot of people a lot of work to do. Remy B 10:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of lists, I think there is not a list of footballers for Aussie Rules. I saw many for other codes in Category:Lists of sportspeople. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

sliat_1981 here. But these people from the Rugby are obviously getting the permission somewhere. There must be a way. Also, it's strange to have more information on the soccer federation when it just in it's infancy to have not nearly as much on the game which has existed much much longer. Just a trick to make overseas visitors think it's our national game.

speaking of more needing to be done - why aren't more voting in favour of the Australian Football Hall of Fame becoming the Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight - remembering that it has been part of yet another acrimonious debate with the round ball brigade. If appropriating the term Football for their own use isn't bad enough, they are trying to illegally appropriate the official name of our hall of fame - the name actually being owned by the AFL. Let's get off our backsides and make sure we do everything we can to protect our home grown code - no one else will protect it for you! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

sliat_1981 here:There is a difference from renaming soccer football, thats one thing. But now to say we can't call Aussie Rules football now because Football is taken? I didn't know Football Federation owned the Australian dictionary.

Lionel Hill's football career

I am currently writing an article on the former Premier of South Australia, Lionel Hill. In one biography of him it mentions that he was a champion Australian Rules footballer who represented South Australia but does not mentioned which South Australian National Football League club(s) he played for. As he was born in 1881, I would presume he played league football from about 1900 to 1910. If anyone has the time and resources to find out who he played for, I'd be extremely grateful (if anyone in Adelaide wants to find out, there is a booklet in the Mortlock Library listing all the players to have played for South Australia; I'd do it myself but I'm some thousands of kilometres away from Adelaide). Cheers. --Roisterer 08:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• I can do this. My office in the physics dept at Adelaide University is just 100m away! Do you have a name for it? Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal

I'm sure some of you participating in WP:AFL would have seen the notice on the front page, where Brisvegas has set up a new Portal for Australian rules football. I have added some initial modifications and was wondering everyone's thoughts on it (take it to the Portal talk page). Rogerthat ^Talk 08:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a dunce, I don't quite understand this portal idea (in the wikipedia context, I obviously know what a portal is generally speaking). For instance, what does it achieve over and above the AFL project page? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have no idea what the portal does that the project doesnt. It just seems to be something confusing which splits everything up into two different areas, so inevitably people will miss things when they only go to one of the two pages. Remy B 11:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the portal is like a main entry point for those new to the sport. It will have links to the project, terminology used in Aussie rules, rules of the game, clubs in the AFL, other leagues, etc. Much different to the project page, which is basically a listing of all tasks that need to be done. Rogerthat ^Talk 22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Portals are meant to be easy access pages for both editors and readers (ie. people who don't edit but use Wikipedia). The project page is just for editors. Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I see it as a portal for the sport. Being a player in the amateurs who is more interested in local footy than the "AFL" I think it is a great idea. Gives lesser leagues the recognition and exposure they deserve. The AFL is not the be all and end all of Australian Rules. What about those who live overseas, or live in places like the Tasmania, NT and ACT where there isn't an AFL club and like myself don't really follow or are interested in following an AFL club. If the AFL were to dissapear, people would still play and watch the sport of Aussie Rules.--Rulesfan 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Footy tipping software

The season proper is almost upon us I've been asked to find some good and free footy tipping competition software for our company. Or any websites which host. Can anyone help? -- Ian ≡ talk 09:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The AFL FootyTips competition looks pretty good. Probably the best of the web-based ones. Rogerthat ^Talk 22:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Kangaroos page

Would someone please fix the Kangaroos page? It looks awful as everything is shoved to the right after the player lists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs) .

I fixed it by ending the table in the player's list section. JPD (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)