Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

List of Port Adelaide Football Club players

Just wanting a bit of help from people on here. A bit of back story, I've been trying to improve the List of Port Adelaide Football Club players and believe that the page should be representative of Category:Port Adelaide Football Club players, which is a subcategory of Category:VFL/AFL players. In addition, before my contributions the page was very large (WP:TOOBIG) and I saw a reasonable split by having the SANFL listed players (before 1997) at List of Port Adelaide Football Club players (before 1997) which is also representative of Category:Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL) players, and a subcategory of Category:South Australian National Football League players and the AFL listed players at List of Port Adelaide Football Club players. In addition the navbox at the bottom of List of Port Adelaide Football Club players says VFL/AFL players, and it seems logical to me to have that page as just VFL/AFL players, the SANFL players do still have representation, and I made sure not to just delete them all. There are multiple other issues with the page, such as the stats haven't been updated since 2012, the cap order is out of whack as some debutants have been added and others haven't (i.e. Jimmy Toumpas is listed as the 152nd player, when he in fact is the 158th player). I have also updated the debuts and ensured they were in correct order.

Thejoebloggsblog has been reverting my edits to the way he last had it, this brings up the obvious issues of the stats being out of date, a whole lot of debuts are missing, and the three players that have debuted since are just being deleted. I have explained my edits on Thejoebloggsblog's talk page, and he just completely ignored it and reverted it back to his last edit. I know there have been problems before where Thejoebloggsblog will not discuss and will continue reverting back to their preference, so I'm asking for help on here so I don't WP:3RR as I'm unsure if it can be constituted as vandalism. As I previously said, I believe there is a logical split in the page due to the large page size and representing the correct categories so if anyone does have feedback and can help the discussion process, please comment, but there shouldn't be reverts of updated stats and debuts. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding statistics table

In the statistics table there are two options: the regular format and the ruckman format. First question: Is there a reason that for ruckmen the stats are in a different order? I can understand that there is an added column for hit-outs (as that is a major part of a ruckman's work) but why not just add it instead of all the order being different? Second question: Some players (such as Dane Swan and Alan Toovey) are not ruckmen, but have been known to ruck when needed (and have hit-outs listed in their stats on AFL Tables). Currently (amongst the players I looked at) their hit-outs are not included in their stats. Anyone know what reasoning there is behind this? Should their hit-outs be listed and their format changed to the ruckman format? --SuperJew (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, when adding stat tables, if the player plays as a relief ruckman occasionally, I use the ruckman table. Many if not most players have two or three hitouts a season, but when there are about 20 or more, use the ruckman table for mine. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 23:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why they're in a different order and why the template creator changed the order. I have noticed this, and it's in my long list of stuff to fix, but there are over 60 transclusions of the template, so just reordering the template will stuff up all the transclusions, so it's unfortunately a bit of a job to fix. As for the non-ruckman, I have attempted to fix it and have done so for about 20 or so players, unfortunately there was a period where nearly every addition of the stats table was the ruckman one. My rule of thumb is looking at their career average, if it's around the 5-10+ hitouts, then I would keep it as a ruckman, there may be a season where a player has 20 hitouts, but there overall average is less than one hitout, so I'd get rid of it in that case. It's a bit of a case by case basis, if they aren't known as a ruckman (i.e. Swan and Toovey), I'd keep the normal stats even if there are hitouts in their AFL tables stats. A clear example is Elliot Yeo, he is often the third man up, but he isn't known as a ruckman so that stats table wouldn't be approriate. Flickerd (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

ignoring my preference that we don't have any stats at all outside of games and goals in the infobox, and without having looked at the template, generally the order presented in the table doesn't have to match the order entered. That's the benefit of using templates, one change can automatically apply to hundreds of transclusions.The-Pope (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the template only applies to the header (below) and each season has to be manually ordered, so it's easier to reorder the ruckman template as it's 54 transclusions vs. 628. Flickerd (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

normal

Season	Team	#	Games	G	B	K	H	D	M	T	G	B	K	H	D	M	T
			Totals								Averages (per game)

ruckman

Season	Team	#	Games	D	K	H	M	T	H/O	G	B	D	K	H	M	T	H/O	G	B
			Totals									Averages (per game)

Flickerd (or anyone else), would you be able to reorder the ruck then? The sooner it's done, the less transclusions it'll be. --SuperJew (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I'm currently in the process of doing it, I'm just on holiday atm for a week, but I reckon it should all be done in about a month (hopefully). Flickerd (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This didn't take anywhere near as long as I thought it would, but this has been all fixed now and all the ruckman stats tables now match the order of the non-ruckman stats table with hitouts added onto the end, so all future transclusions will now need to match that order (below). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Season	Team	No.	Games	Totals								Averages (per game)
				G	B	K	H	D	M	T	H/O	G	B	K	H	D	M	T	H/O

Amazing, great job Flickerd! --SuperJew (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Josh Kennedys move discussion

I've put in a move request to have the two Josh Kennedys disambiguated by initial rather than by date of birth, feel free to weigh in. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability of women's football

So top-level women's football is up and coming as the All-Stars match this week showed. Does anyone know where they stand in regards to notability? Seasons, club seasons, players?
And another question, should we have separate pages for the women's team (as for example the W-League has) or should they be all in one club's page (like the VFL/reserves teams)? And if separate should there be individual club season pages for men and women?
I feel we should start working on this (unless it's already begun and I'm unaware, in which case please point the way), as clubs' have started signing for their lists etc. --SuperJew (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• In my view, we treat the women's competition exactly as we treat the VFL reserves teams. The overall season gets a page (e.g. 2016 VFL season), and we should aim to include everything there (i.e. no separate pages for the draft, or for the women's Brownlow, etc.). I'd say that the club seasons should form a sub-section of the parent club season page, similar to the VFL subsections on season pages for clubs with reserves teams in the VFL (e.g. 2015 Geelong Football Club season#VFL season). I wouldn't make separate articles for the women's teams as a whole; I'd have a two- or three-paragraph subsection on the parent club's page, similar to the 'Reserves team' subsections (e.g. Geelong Football Club#Reserves team; I've already started this section at Carlton_Football_Club#Women.27s_team, but it's thin on information at present until more info is released). Until such time as the women's league becomes a fully professional self-sustaining competition, I think this is the appropriate amount of weight to apply.

Regarding players: As a starting point, I'd say the marquee signings and the senior coaches would automatically meet notability guidelines (once they play their first game); for all other players, notability would need to be established on a case-by-case basis under the usual "significant coverage" WP:N guidelines. Aspirex (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The link between AFL and VFL teams is obvious, as players move between the two teams during the season based on form and injuries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe it is possible for any women players to be called up into the AFL team. So as long as general notability requirements are satisfied (which they should be once the season starts) I think the women's teams should have their own article in the same way as the women's soccer teams do (i.e. Perth Glory FC (W-League), Melbourne City FC (W-League), etc.). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In my view, those two example articles illustrate exactly why they shouldn't have their own pages. Both articles are very brief stubs, padded out with things like "current squad" which are ever-changing and not encyclopedic in nature. It will be necessary to have "women's team" subsections on the parent club anyway (since the parent club article covers administrative structure and senior on-field history), and I'm confident that there is not sufficient extra content to bother with distinct articles. Aspirex (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The state of those articles is a problem of lack of attention, not lack of notability. It is too soon to say whether women's AFL articles will suffer the same fate, but I do not think we should assume that will be the case. The parent club article does not need to cover the on-field history in detail if a properly curated article exists; a brief summary and link would suffice. On the other hand, with an eight-week schedule in February-March (not exactly footy season) a cynic may say the league has been created merely to fill the gap after the cricket finishes. So let's wait and see. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Your opinions, cynical or otherwise, on the women's competition itself are not relevant to this discussion. Let me expand my answer by saying that I have little doubt that unlike the reserves teams which have fully inherited notability, the teams in the NWL will meet the definition of WP:N. I merely put forward a style preference not to fork stubs out of otherwise well-balanced articles. Aspirex (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not say it is my opinion, but it is relevant to the discussion. Plenty of other sports do not have articles about short, semi-professional leagues played outside of a normal season, be they men's or women's sport. But given the local media's thirst for all things football it is going to receive a lot of coverage, so I agree that the teams will likely satisfy the notability requirement. As for your last point, whether to fork will ultimately depend on the volume of the content. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I've only just become aware of this dicussion but have already put significant work into page creation and planning for the league. I think it should be clear the league meets notability requirements though I agree that if pages become static (a problem at the best of times for many AFL pages) it could be a bit of a silly exercise. For now though, I've already begun working on planning for navboxes and category pages as well as club pages that could be linked from the AFL teams pages as I think it's difficult and cluttered to provide the necessary information within the Clubs' main pages. User:Tigerman2612 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I share concerns that, at least initially, articles about the Women's league teams will be little more than brief stubs, and for that reason should be part of the the main club article. Having said that, I would also like guidance on if there is a uniform style guide we should be following (as I have also been putting a bit of work into the current AFL Women's articles). Now that the player draft has been completed we know most of the players and coaching staff, would it be appropriate to add a AFL Women's League team subheading to each club's article and populate the section with a brief para about winning a licence and marquee/priority players, and a table of players/coaching staff? ColonialGrid (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Finals articles

All,

I've done some renovations to our finals articles. We had information strewn a little haphazardly across the old Early VFL finals systems and the current AFL finals system articles, which sort of tried to cover tournament brackets and some on-field and ground management history. So, what I've done is the following:

• New article: AFL finals series is the article about the finals as a competition. I've filled it with the grounds management history, drawn games rules, etc.. This is the appropriate place for onfield finals records, cultural impacts, etc., and we can write in general about the full 120 years of finals history.
• AFL finals system – I've stripped it back to be strictly about the tournament bracket system.
• I've retired Early VFL finals systems (redirected it) and put the information from it into 1897 VFL finals series, 1898 VFL finals series and Argus finals system. This is again because the finals systems involved were used outside the VFL, but the history was written in a VFL-specific way, so it was difficult to effectively demarcate.

I have a bunch of article links to rectify now. Aspirex (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)