Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL/Archive 1 (1 November 2005 - 7 April 2006) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL/Archive 2 (8 April 2006 - 24 August 2006)

Contents 1 Image:AFL finals.jpg 2 2006 AFL Finals Series Template 3 Style guide 4 South Melbourne Football Club 5 Current Squad National Flags 6 Use of VFL/AFL 7 Telstra Stadium games 8 What should I do?? 9 WikiProject Australian football (soccer) 10 Australian rules WikiProject 11 AFL Draft pages - explanation? 12 VFL/AFL and Victorian Football League pages 13 Football in Australia - naming conventions 14 Stablepedia 15 infoboxes 16 George Doig 17 Anyone still involved ?` 18 AFL Draft pages 19 Football naming conventions! 20 Wikipedia Day Awards 21 Is this project AFL or all Australian football related articles? 22 Australian rules around the world 23 Barassi Line 24 A question asked and answered but 25 Non-AFL players 26 The flags are back again 27 TAC Cup 28 Team location map 29 Kelvin Moore 30 Notability - Australian rules football leagues, clubs and players

[edit] Image:AFL finals.jpg

I've added this image to AFL finals system as I feel it looks better and is easier to read than the template. I'd be grateful if someone could review it for correctness please. Cheers. -- I@n 01:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct! Does the grand final have a nominal home team? Snottygobble 01:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! I think the grand final does have a team that is consistently treated as the nominal home team, but this doesn't seem to be decided in a consistent way. I seem to remember there might be a coin toss involved somewhere. JPD (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the image reads better than the template - the template was originally designed for articles like 2006 AFL season and so on, to format the actual team names and scores, etc. In fact I was looking for a picture like this when originally doing the template. - if I had been able to find one, it wouldn't have started off looking crappy like this - before User:JPD fixed it! -- Chuq 11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work on doing it diagramatically. What I'd suggest is technical though: JPEG sucks for doing line diagrams like this. GIF format would have been more suitable, or even PNG. I don't think loss of colours is a major issue here so GIF would have been better. JPEG is better for photos where there are more colour variations. - Bricks J. Winzer 07:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Image:AFL finals.gif is now up. If someone is good with Inkscape and svg vector files that'd be even better. -- I@n 09:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

PNG and SVG are the preferred (most open) formats for on Wikipedia. -- Chuq 09:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this User:I@n/2006 AFL finals? -- I@n 09:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just created AFL Finals Series 2006. However, I think that the gray template should be used, with maybe a link to the graphical version. By the way, has anyone found the image forthe 2006 finals, like the one listed @ AFL Finals Series 2005? I couldn't. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear up my comment above, which I realise was a bit ambiguous:

• I believe that the graphic created by I@n definately shouldbe used in AFL finals system, as it is the best representation of the win-loss path we have.
• However, I believe that in season finals articles, eg AFL Finals Series 2005 and AFL Finals Series 2006, you should use the gray box. Don't forget that there is a large section detailing the format on each of these season pages, as well as a Main Article: link to the AFL finals system article.

However, I'm not a member of this project (I think?), so feel free to ignore this. However, I will be helping with updating the AFL Finals Series 2006 article, and hopefully will be able to create a template which we can use to create match summaries in a more standardised table format, as opposed to those in AFL Finals Series 2005. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 AFL Finals Series Template

If no-one has any objections, I will use User:Daniel.Bryant/Sandbox0 (subst, so it doesn't matter where it is located) for adding results to the AFL Finals Series 2006 page. Any comments are welcome, and usage of the template can be found on the discussion page for my Sandbox0 (link above). Daniel.Bryant 02:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide

The style guide says "In tables or ladders, use of shortnames or nicknames or combinations of both are acceptable as follows:". I had thought that the point of the discussion leading to the creation of the style guide was that a few of us didn't want the nicknames used in those contexts, but we didn't get around to discussing it further. I would like to the guide to say that shortnames only shoudl be used. Does anyone object? JPD (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Melbourne Football Club

I have long thought that there was no need for this article, as the history of the club at South Melbourne should be fully covered in the Sydney Swans article. Since noone has really replied my comments whenever I have raised this, I am wililng to go ahead and make the changes. If you object, please say so at Talk:South Melbourne Football Club. On a related matter, I have suggested that Cat:Sydney Swans players and Cat:Sydney Swans coaches be renamed to reflect the fact that they include old Souths players - please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 9#Sydney Swans categories to South Melbourne/Sydney Swans. JPD (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, someone seems to have done this already.--Rulesfan 07:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Squad National Flags

This issue Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_AFL/Archive_2#Aboriginal_flag.2FState_flags_on_club_pages seems to have come up again. User:Devoindahouse has re-added the national flags to the Carlton Football Club page. I posted some comments on the user's talk page. However, my personal opinion is that they are fine, and consistent with all other sports, especially in light of the AFL's recent decision to include an International Draft (see this link)[1]. If this is the case, however, someone should keep the other clubs lists consistent with the Carlton one.--Rulesfan 07:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they are ugly and pointless. Maybe only a national flag if they are not from Australia? They would be sparse enough to not clug up the lists. As for state and racial flags - they are really just an abuse of the images facility of Wikipedia. Details of a player should be left to the player article, not graphically detailed on their team page. Remy B 07:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also I find it a bit concerning that the Cartlon article is listing player positions (with forwards pointing to Striker... a term never used in Australian rules). For one, todays game is played such that players can and do play anywhere, so the categorisations are quite ambiguous. But the main problem is that it is replicating information that belongs in the player articles, and that sort of redundancy always leads to problems like data going out of sync because it is only updated in one place, or having different people discussing the information in different places, etc. I guess it would be OK if they were AFL or team specified positions rather than how the editor feels about it at the time (players can change their primary positions up to many times a season). Thoughts? Remy B 07:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. There is no need to mindlessly copy the format of the soccer lists. Representative football is not currently a major part of the sport, so flags are unnecessary, and there aren't set positions. We should only include the sort of information that is usually included in Aussie ruels team lists elsewhere. JPD (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed as well. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of VFL/AFL

The season articles such as 1897 VFL season have recently been changed so that they all start with something like "Results and statistics for the VFL/AFL season of 1897. Previously, instead of "VFL/AFL", many had the anachronistic Australian Football League or incorrectly linked Victorian Football League. Since each season was in fact either a VFL season or an AFL season, it would be much better in the VFL season articles to say "Victorian Football League, and link to the article about the league. That is, "Victorian Football League". I will make this change unless there are objections. The issue does make me wonder whether the the VFL/AFL article is necessary. The title is a term describing an entity that we already have an article on, which normally would mean a redirect. The only extra info in the article is the VFA/VFL section, which really should be separate anyway, and also is covered in the VFL article. JPD (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but will involve a fair bit cleanup work, including the info box on Australian Football League itself. Pudgey 22:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telstra Stadium games

Hi AFL'ers, I know this weekend many of you will be busy :) but I thought some of you may be able to help - I have just replaced the crowds section in Telstra Stadium with a table, and am missing info on AFL matches at the ground pre-reconfiguration. I noticed some games were played there in 2002 AFL season but as reconfiguration lasted from 2001 to 2003 I don't know if these games count as pre-reconfiguration or not. I'm sure some of you would know! Thanks, -- Chuq 13:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It was only possible to play Aussie rules matches there after the reconfiguration which allowed for the oval field, so I'd say they all count as after the reconfiguration. In general, from memory I don't think the second two stages of the reconfiguration affected the capacity significantly, so they are not particularly relevant. For what it's worth, my brother played in the first ever Aussie rules game there at the end of the 2001 season! JPD (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should I do??

What club (not players) stubs should I do now?? can anyone give me an assignment??

Reply to me when you find an assignment

Rakuten06 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the WP:AFL To Do List. Not really sure that a "clubs" section is relevant as we have created all of the AFL clubs...maybe that's something for an Australian rules WikiProject to tackle. Rogerthat ^Talk 04:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Australian football (soccer)

Hi, currently WikiProject A-League is considering an expansion to cover all football (aka soccer) in Australia. We would probably prefer the name Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian football (soccer), although since AFL's proper name is (I believe) Australian football I just thought I'd check here first to see if anyone has any major objections to the name. We could have a disambig at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian football as well. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian football (soccer) seems really ambiguous. Why not Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian soccer? Remy B 12:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"....." :) -- Chuq 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In hindsight I should have expected that answer and shouldn't have bothered asking. ;-) Carry on. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 05:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian football (soccer) seems fair and reasonable, especially if there is to be a disambig at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian football as well. Furthermore: we are happy with our title of Wikiproject AFL, and also, the current article on soccer is called Football (soccer), so a title of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian football (soccer) actually seems a fair compromise. Obviously, we would be quite entitled to hit the roof if the soccer fans were wanting to use "Australian Football" on its own without any form of qualification. But they aren't doing that, they have offered up the very fair alternative upfront - I think they should be allowed to run with it (from a strong aussie rules supporter). πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed pippu. BTW, the reason I called this Project "AFL" was because it is the only league notable enough to be able to cover every aspect of it on Wikipedia. What are everyone's thoughts on an Australian rules WikiProject, covering things such as football overseas, minor leagues etc.? Rogerthat ^Talk 12:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian rules WikiProject

see Rogerthat's comments above asking for "thoughts on an Australian rules WikiProject, covering things such as football overseas, minor leagues etc.?".

In theory yes, that would be good to seperate the broader sport out from the professional competition. In practice however I think we do not have the resources as yet to run two (or more) Projects covering Australian rules football. I am a fairly rabid SANFL supporter, but I can live with Neil Kerley or Jack Oatey being included under the "AFL" umbrella as the term AFL has become synonomous for most people with the broader sport of Aussie rules. Pudgey 07:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Pudgey makes a good point - and if it is acceptable to a stark raving mad South Australian - it probably means it's good enough to stay as it is. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

When Roger started this project, someone asked him whether it was about the league or the sport, and he said the league. That is why the name is what it is, and why the project page says the scope is Australian Football League-related articles. As Pudgey says, it would be silly to have more than one project, but I would definitely support broadening the scope of this project, which I think is a good enough reason to change the name. JPD (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

At what point does the notable bit kick in? For example there are some country leagues that are virtually professional and others that are strictly amateur. There also definitely needs to be more work done on the state leagues with an obvious focus on the big three - VFL, SANFL and WAFL. --Hack 02:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has occurred a few times over the past year and is to be found in a number archived in a number of spots. In summary, there would be no problem doing an article on most fair dinkum leagues (thus the Footscray Football Foundation, or triple F, which held its matches on Rowe St, Maidstone, would not get a guernsey, much less the Mitchell St Asteroids or the Gordon St Lions). The clubs that form each league can only seriously be considered if the article on the league itself has grown to a decent size. Similarly, the articles on most country towns are likely to be small enough to have a para on their footy team - once again, a separate article on the footy tea cannot really be considered if the town's or suburb's article is smallish. I find that to be a reasonably good guide. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFL Draft pages - explanation?

At Talk:2004 AFL Draft an anon user has commented that This article anticipates too much prior knowledge. I got here after hitting "random article". I didn't know what an AFL draft was then, and I still don't now. It seems to involve large spreadsheets. The comment seems a fair call to me. My suggestion would be to provide a short heads-up along the lines of:

"The AFL Draft is the annual draft of young talent by Australian rules football teams that participate in the main competition of that sport, the Australian Football League."

which is taken from the start of the main AFL Draft article. Sadly, it would seem that all the various Draft pages would need this added ... I'm prepared to do this minor task unless someone disagrees. I haven't looked to see if any other related lists have the same issue. Pudgey 06:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A good way to give context to annual articles is to have a parent article, eg. AFL draft, which talks about the draft process in detail and then link to that in all of the annual ones. A one or two line brief overview is still good in annual articles though. Remy B 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VFL/AFL and Victorian Football League pages

I agree that with the comments above that VFL/AFL is not really needed — i.e. people would do a Google search for "VFL" and/or "AFL", not for "VFL/AFL" — and it should be a re-direct to the AFL page, since the AFL is the successor of the "Old VFL".

Secondly, I also feel that Victorian Football League should be be moved to something like Victorian Football League (1995) and Victorian Football League should be a disambiguation page, directing people to either the AFL page or, if they are really looking for the "New VFL", to Victorian Football League (1995).

Thirdly, since the new VFL is so different to the VFA, e.g. in terms of teams, the merger with the AFL reserves, etc., I think there should be a separate Victorian Football Association article (covering 1877-1995). (The VFA page is currently a redirect to the "New VFL" article.)

Any comments? Grant65 | Talk 05:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All three points seem logical to me and cover it pretty well. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about something like VFL I and VFL II?Hack 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As "VFL I" became the AFL, it would be covered on the AFL page. As for "VFL II", how about we call it Victorian Football League since 1995? Grant65 | Talk 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

AFL/AFL to me seems best. Victorian Football League since 1995 sounds like it is a continuation of the original VFL. To me reference to the original VFL prior to 1990 should be VFL/AFL and to the VFA as VFA/VFL. It is still ambiguous, but not as ambiguous as it could be... Hack 03:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hack, I don't follow what you're saying. Do you think we should stick with the present arrangements? The VFA was a respected amateur competition and both a forerunner and peer of "VFL 1"/AFL. It used to field separate teams in interstate carnivals as recently as 1987 and Terry Wallace was an All-Australian representing the VFA in 1988. I think it deserves better than a brief mention in a story on the current 2nd tier competition in Vic. Grant65 | Talk 07:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think the current arrangements should suffice. As I see it the current VFL is a rebadged and expanded VFA. If there is only a small section on VFA in the current VFL page then it needs to be expanded.Hack 07:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

References to any of the competitions at a particular point in history should be using the name from that time, but the article for, for example, the VFL/AFL is (rightly) at Australian Football League. So references to this league before 1990 generally should be Victorian Football League, and references to it's whole history VFL/AFL. There is no need for an article at VFL/AFL describing the term itself - a redirect is better. Whether there should be separate pages for the VFA and the new VFL is a different sort of question. The VFL is the current form of the VFA, and while it has changed a lot, it didn't all happen when the name changed, so it would be quite valid to cover the whole history in one article. On the other hand, a separate article might give a better reflection of the VFA's place in history. I do agree with Grant that the use of "VFL" to refer to the original VFL is common enough to make that a disambiguation page, but also agree with Hack that "since 1995" is not an appropriate disambiguation. 10:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what do we call the article? Grant65 | Talk 11:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that probably depends on whether it is going to be split in two or not, and I'm undecided on that... JPD (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with recently above. It would be ludicrous to name the VFL page anything like VFL II or VFL since 1995. VFA redirect to VFL, VFL with small disambig at the top prompting users to AFL. Just make sure all the links are done correctly, i.e. VFL. So long as the first paragraphs of the respective pages quickly detail the date of the name change. Aspirex 09:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of being a bore I have to disagree. The VFA was historically significant and a very different competition to the present VFL. I think it deserves its own article. Grant65 | Talk 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football in Australia - naming conventions

I would like to invite all interested editors to have a read of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and offer improvements or suggestions on the talk page. Please do not comment about it on this page - I am hoping to centralise discussion in one place! -- Chuq 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] infoboxes

Given a lot of people are only putting AFL club details into players infoboxes can we possibly get some sort of consensus on how much detail gets put into the boxes. I would be for all state league experience being included in the infobox. Also the current box looks a bit messy - could we get someone to look at cleaning it up a bit (perhaps more along the lines of the {{Football player infobox}}).... --Hack 12:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I gather you mean Template:Infobox Football biography? That particular template is not generic enough - it looks to be too soccer-specific to my liking. Certainly the terminology is not Aussie rules. I agree with State League (WAFL, SANFL, TFL) experience being included for those who played pre-1990. After that (like it or not) those competitions are clearly of a lesser status. I would only include State League details since 1990 if they were of clear significance (eg Sandover medal or State League team representation) and even then I can see where some would not include them. Pudgey 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think all AFL players should have state league details (where that experience exists) as well as junior club details. If one was to look at the infobox one might conclude their football career only started with their debut at AFL level. The userbox (if this was used) would needed to be adjusted so it is clear that it relates to Australian rules football. --Hack 09:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, we have the AFL player infobox, now for the {{Australian rules footballer infobox}}. I think the current AFL infobox is a little too heavy; the soccer infobox is a bit tidier and something along those lines would be good. Rogerthat ^Talk 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That template is crap. who would use it. What about national and state representation (ie International Rules, State of Origin ?) and career highlights which the current infobox has ... I prefer the soccer one, even if it is soccer specific. --Spewmaster 04:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's crap then edit it.Hack 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Doig

Can someone have a look at the George Doig article and help redraft it as it seems a blatant lift from the website referenced? I won't get back here for a day or so, and with poor George's death yesterday the page may well be scrutinised. Pudgey 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone still involved ?`

Looks like this project has reached critical mass.

Anyone still interested ? --Spewmaster 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I still contribute articles but have to admit it's not as active as it was a few months ago, which may be attributed to it being the off-season of the sport. Rogerthat ^Talk 00:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFL Draft pages

At the moment, these are arranged in a very confusing manner. The 2006 AFL Draft page contains details of the pre-season draft from before 2006 (which occurred in 2005) and then trades and the national draft from before the 2007 season. I know that the AFL gives these drafts specific names: i.e. the 2006 NAB AFL National Draft and the 2006 NAB Pre-season and rookie drafts both occurred before the 2007 season. I believe that it would be best to group drafts into their relevant off-seasons, i.e. a page named 2006/07 AFL Drafts would list all drafts relevant to the 2007 season. This would remove the confusion. Thoughts on this proposal?

Secondly, i think we should be including the rookie draft on the drafts page. With so many players entering the AFL through the rookie system, there should be some reference to the rookie draft so that, for example, one could go back and find out where Bret Thornton or Andrew Carazzo were drafted. Aspirex 09:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the rookie drafts is that there really are a lot of non-notable players listed there that never played a game in the AFL. But I think we can still include them for informational purposes. As for your first point, I found it very confusing also when I was starting up the Draft pages a year or so ago, but going by the official way the AFL names the drafts I think it is best we leave it under 2007 AFL Draft. Of course, we'd need to include a notice of what date the draft was held and after all, it is called "Pre-season" for a reason, as the 07 Draft takes place before the season, while the Nationals are after the specified season. But I'm interested to see what others think on this. Rogerthat ^Talk 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football naming conventions!

We need some more contributors to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). There are still more soccer nazis then ruby and football supporters.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)

Krabby me 10:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter "how many" there are - it isn't a vote, it's a discussion. All supports of all codes are welcome to the discussion, of course, but stop trying to polarise the discussion by making it into an "us vs. them" - there isn't anything to "win" here. By the way, making statements like "soccer nazis" isn't really a good way of demonstrating your ability to discuss things from a Neutral point of view. -- Chuq 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this project AFL or all Australian football related articles?

I'm planning on joining this project, but I'm just curious. Is this project for just AFL based topics? Or for all Australian rules football related articles? Like for instance, the South Australian National Football League? --Borgarde 05:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the project is about the AFL, but there are as yet no other Aussie Rules projects, so those of us with an interest in state leagues etc have tended to use this as our umbrella. See also #Australian rules WikiProject above. Pudgey 08:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian rules around the world

I know this is not strictly speaking within the remit of this project but will interest a few here. There are a number of articles linked in the Aussie Rules Playing Nations links template that seriously test the notability criteria for wikipedia. For example the article Australian rules football in the Czech Republic is basically about a single team that doesn't play in regular competition and Australian rules football in Kenya covers a couple of training sessions a couple of years ago. Surely to have an article you'd need to at least have regular competition either at international or club level.Hack 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barassi Line

Hi - I and a few others have been working on an article on the Riverina region. Although in NSW AFL is popular. Trying to track down an authority for the opinion and discussion is at Talk:Riverina#Football - VFL. There is probably an article in the topic the Barassi Line which is referenced most notably in Pascoe, Robert (1995). The Winter Game: The Complete History of Australian Football. Melbourne: Text Publishing Company. ISBN 1 86330 597 1. . Has anybody got the book and can they help? Thanks --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question asked and answered but

A question asked and answered as part of the project quiz but the players article still doesnt have any mention of the persons playing career, and the question its here and the players article is here . Gnangarra 12:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-AFL players

Do we have a list of "articles needed" for players who were SANFL/WAFL/etc stars prior to 1987, or were at several VFL/AFL clubs in roughly equal proportions? For instance, Andrew MacNish was All-Australian in 1986 when he was with Subiaco, was listed by the Eagles in 87, although I can't remember if played any games for them, and later played three games for Geelong. Michael Aish (footballer) was All-Australian with Norwood in 1985 and 1986 but never played with the VFL/AFL.

Maybe we should have a separate list of "articles needed" for All-Australians(?) Grant | Talk 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lacking a separate Aussie Rules project I think the idea has merit. There is no existing list that I am aware of, but Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL/To do could easily be made to include sections for WAFL/SANFL/TFL/NTFL. Not sure if a cut-off date is necessary but if there were one for SANFL it would be pre-1991 (ie when Adelaide joined the VFL/AFL, sending the local competition to second-tier status). Certainly the All-Australians that were not VFL deserve to be recognised, and there were plenty of outstanding footballers in these states who deserve coverage. Pudgey 09:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a vote on whether to expand WikiProject AFL to a more general project encompassing Australian rules - it seems we're having more interest in detailing the histories of leagues like the SANFL and WAFL, which it could be said were on par with the VFL in terms of standard, and therefore notability. So how about a vote? Rogerthat ^Talk 00:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes much more sense to cover the sport than the league. I don't even see a need for a vote unless someone objects to expanding the scope! JPD (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JPD.

In a sense we have already started on the non-VFL players, with Hall of Famers such as George Doig, Barrie Robran and Stephen Michael.

Aussie rules is unusual in that it took so long for a national comp to emerge and the other leagues were formally equal to the VFL until 1987-1991. Grant | Talk 11:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it has to be done on an as-needs basis. To me anyone who has won a major award (Sandover, Magarey etc) is notable. Extending it to any WAFL/SANFL league player is probably stretching the definition. WAFL/SANFL club B&F winners or captains might be a long enough list, although often already covered by the AFL/VFL list. I'll let others decide about players from the VFA/Tassie/QFL/NSWAFL/NTFL etc And as I added a few weeks ago, we still have a LONG way to go with AFL/VFL players! The-Pope 10:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mate when (non-)players of the ilk of Jack Juniper (for example) warrant a WP:AFL article merely because they spent two years on an AFL list without ever playing an AFL game I think we could extend the definition of notable for WAFL/SANFL a little further than club captains and B&F winners if need be (see my comments re All-Australians above). :) Pudgey 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether they are notable enough for an article is a completely different question from whether they are included in this project, but yes, I would have to agree that there is no reason to prioritise the VFL, at least historically. If anyone can write articles for non-VFL players, go for it - don't wait for the project to change! JPD (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also could people not refer to players as former players just because they are not playing AFL.--Hack 09:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The flags are back again

I think they look awful. Collingwood and Sydney's lists look so messy with flags for everyone. This isn't soccer. We don't have a world cup. We don't have an active international player trade system. Peter Bell, Adam Campbell or Kris Massie are never going to play for South Korea, New Zealand or Sweden. Why not put a Brownlow logo next to Brownlow winners... it's just as relevant to the team list as a flag of where they were born. The-Pope 10:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of the flags, especially when 95%+ are going to be Australian (for obvious reasons). πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete them as you find them. They are a nonsense for the AFL as per The-Pope's comments above. Pudgey 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. You could perhaps put flags next to those of Aboriginal heritage or those born overseas but even then it's not really necessary. Rogerthat ^Talk 09:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TAC Cup

Is this league and it's affiliated teams sufficiently notable for inclusion? They don't seem to meet criteria for creating biographical articles for the participants shown at WP:BIO. Garrie 00:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the TAC Cup article and the few associated club articles. The wiki links that are blue link to players that are currently (or were previously) on Australian Football League club lists which I think meets the criteria, being a national top-level sport. I agree that if not on an AFL list the individuals would not otherwise meet the WP:BIO standard as I understand them (unless of course they also have some other claim to notability that would meet the criteria). Pudgey 08:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up to let any interested parties know.

I did try to get AFL - contributors input here but lacking that I have listed North Ballarat Rebels at AfD here. My opinion is, while the TAC Cup is notable - as a source of talent for the AFL - the individual teams are not. Individual athletes are notable once they become members of a fully professional sporting league (see WP:BIO), I don't think it's too great a stretch to apply the same to individual teams.

If these teams individually meet WP:CORP then I will be more than happy with a decision to keep. But given the current reference is the TAC Cup website I'm guessing they have not been the individual subject of multiple works independant of the TAC / AFL, as required at WP:ATT.Garrie 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Go the swans in '07! Garrie 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Team location map

Hi AFL editors, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at some of the maps I have done at User:Chuq/Sandbox/Sports maps and let me know what you think! Thanks, -- Chuq 05:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, could be used in articles like Australian rules football in Australia. Rogerthat ^Talk 09:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelvin Moore

Hi AFL editors.

I noticed that there are two Kelvin Moore articles Kelvin Moore and Kelvin Moore (footballer). What do you think would be the best way of disambiguating them. Should there be a Kelvin Moore disambiguation page with links to Kelvin D Moore and Kelvin ? Moore (the young one). Cheers--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

According to AFC Record Season Preview 2005 (a booklet that came along with the NAB Cup version of the AFL Record), the younger Kelvin Moore is listed as Kelvin W. Moore. I think we can rename/move his page to Kelvin W. Moore. And I also think it's good to have a disambiguation page for both of them. Celticshk ^Talk 09:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability - Australian rules football leagues, clubs and players

For editors interested in Australian football (the AFL kind), I have drawn up some draft notability guidelines (suggestions?) for leagues, clubs and players that can be found here - User:Mattinbgn/Sandbox - Notability Australian football leagues and clubs If these guidelines or an amended version thereof was gain some level of consensus it would provide some much needed guidance to editors about what article subjects are likely to be seen as notable and hopefully head off a number of WP:AfD debates. To keep all debate in the one location I would ask that comments be kept in the talk page of the draft guideline. All comments and suggestions and changes would be gratefully received. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 09:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)