Talk:2013 AFL season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Australian rules football (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 2013 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.

Melbourne tanking event[edit]

Does anyone take exception to using the title "Melbourne Football Club tanking scandal" to head the summary of the AFL's investigation. Although the club was found not guilty of the specific crime of "tanking", they were still investigated for it and it is likely to remain the common name of the incident, so I'd say it is fair and NPOV to use it in spite of the negative stigma it may bring. Can we resolve this quickly so that other pages can be linked to this section?

Aspirex (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The use of the word scandal is probably just as problematic as tanking, as it was more of an investigation than a scandal. If you want to link to it, you could use the {{ anchor}} template that makes the link work regardless of the title text. The-Pope (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

essendon drug scandal[edit]

surely the drugs scandal at essendon deserves a mention in the controversy section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.232.148.226 (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The lack of any actual charges, evidence, etc. makes it difficult to write a reasonable and balanced section at the moment which isn't heavily based on rumour or repeatedly disclaimed with the word 'allegedly'. In keeping with the view of this page as an encyclopedia rather than a news source, I personally have no intention of spending time writing anything on the subject of Essendon until something formally happens. Aspirex (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, the Essendon drug scandal has gone on a longer than the Melbourne tanking thing, and that got a mention. Future readers of this article will want to know about 'all' the scandals of the 2013 AFL Season. You can't just not put it in there because you're an Essendon supporter. The point is, they broke the rules, and thus created a controversy. Whether they knew what they were getting themselves into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.103.190.123 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Aspirex's comment above is a wise one. Wikipedia has no deadline. We have no need to rush to add something to the article. It seems likely to me that something concrete will come out of this, but we need to wait and see exactly what that is. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I fix the ladder?[edit]

The footnote about Essendon says "Essendon were relegated to ninth due to irregularities in its supplements program..." Now, I have been beaten into submission over the idea that A team can be plural (although it still grates), but there's no way it should be plural and singular in the one sentence. It simply has to read "Essendon was relegated to ninth due to irregularities in its supplements program..."

But I have no idea where and how to fix this. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Open [[Template:AFL Ladder/2013]]. For consistency within the article, it should be was and its, since we haven't used singular they anywhere else in this article (which was tacitly decided during the McAusten arguments from a couple of years ago). And while you're at it, get it out of the table and put it as a footnote below the table. Aspirex (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

PLAYER free agent?[edit]

In some discussions surrounding the AFL the expression in the title seems to be used, but just as often, they're just called Free agents, which is obviously what Wikipedia has an article on. We're obviously talking about players, so that word seems redundant. Is there any good reason to not simplify the heading Player free agents in the article to just ''Free agents''? HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)