Talk:2007 AFL season

Australia: South Australia / Australian rules football Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2007 AFL season is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Nicknames[edit]

Can someone explain the reason for the use of the club plus its nickname (eg. "Richmond Tigers" instead of "Richmond")? With the exception of the Brisbane Lions, West Coast Eagles, Sydney Swans and Western Bulldogs the nickname is not part of the official club name and is not part of the common usage, also this this article (and other AFL season articles) is inconsistent with the main AFL page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messymatt (talk • contribs) 05:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong Cats times two[edit]

As I type this, the Geelong Cats appear twice on the table, and the Brisbane Lions not at all. I'm not sure how the correct table looks so I'll leave it to someone else to make corrections.

Ordinary Person 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typo. also, hawthorn appears 0 times and adelaide twice .these have been corrected

Fair use rationale for Image:2007AFLToyota.png[edit]

Image:2007AFLToyota.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance[edit]

Why does the Essendon/Collingwood matches atracts most crowed? ?I thought that Essendon's main rivaly is Carlton! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.24.58 (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retirements, sackings, delistings[edit]

The retirements table is starting to get a bit out of control, and I am sure the sackings/delistings one will too when the season is over. I think we should be a bit more discriminate - I'm proposing to have a notability line where the player has to have played 150+ VFL/AFL games for them to be included in the tables. Any thoughts? Remy B 13:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have been adding to both sections in the last fortnight and it will get bigger especially the delisting section. i don't like 150+ games option . i would rather like have a separate page for both section , similar to the Debutant section Bossboss1234 10:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now the table is really ballooning out to an unreasonable size. We don't need an exhaustive list - we just need a notable list. Maybe 150+ games is too strict - how about 100+? That's four seasons of full play, which is enough to be considered a notable player in the AFL. We shouldn't dilute the list of greats who have retired with the list of players who barely played a game, if at all. Remy B 11:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Mark Bolton to the list. I wouldn't say he's particularly notable and at 124 games, might be borderline, but I noticed his career spanned 10 years. Far from 4 seasons full, I realised for one, few players manage to get many games in their first two or three years of AFL and secondly, any number of reasons could prevent a player from playing 22 games each season thereafter. Basically, a really good player is probably going to notch up his 100-150th far sooner than a less notable player and add to that an injury stricken player of talent could find himself retiring after spending several years not doing much at all (see Josh Francou). It's not a very even scale and some considerations have to be given. (btw, feel free to knock Bolton off if you think he's just clogging the list, noone is missing him) MrAngy 12:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be a separate page, especially for the sackings/delstings, as it's getting big now and i'm sure there is more to come, where as most of the retirements would have been announced by now. Times1 05:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season results[edit]

I believe that the season results of round 1 - 22 should be moved to their own article, because the size of this current article is getting too big. I think it should be removed from this article and a link be made to 2007 AFL season results similar to how the 2007 NRL season works. Please voice your opinions here as to leave it how it is or move the results. Thanks Times1 12:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer it as it is now. I think the results are the most popular reason people come to this article. Remy B 06:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:2007AFLToyota.png[edit]

Image:2007AFLToyota.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]