Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football

Seventh AFL Women's season and related articles

Hey guys – hope everyone's doing well. I've started the article for the seventh AFL Women's season after the new CBA and start date were announced, but I'm seeing a lot of "season seven" (the recent graphic on the socials even reads "2022 NAB AFLW season 7"), so I've titled it "2022 AFL Women's season B" for now – what do we think? If the AFL sticks with that sort of title when the season rolls around, which could look really messy on Wikipedia, we could use "B" for all related articles/throughout all articles that link to this season and possibly move/change the formatting for all of the articles, templates, etc. for the previous season to include "A", so at least we're using a consistent formatting; things like career spans could then read "2017–2022 (B)" if a player were to retire at the end of this season, for example. Keen to know if anyone has any thoughts or simply think I've jumped the gun/it's a discussion for later in the year – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Well the 6th AFLW season has already been moved to 2022 (Part A) AFL Women's season per this article. I think for now we should move season 7 also to a similar title 2022 (Part B) AFL Women's season for the consistency. Later, we might change based on sources. --SuperJew (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Part A/Part B makes them sound like different halves of the same season, which I don't like. By analogy with the Australian Open tennis, which had two 1977 seasons, the approach I'd adopt given the choice would be put the months in the article title e.g. "2022 (January - April) AFL Women's season" like 1977 Australian Open (January) – Men's singles, put them as 2022 (A) and 2022 (B) in things like premiership lists. If the group doesn't like that, I'd still suggest dropping the word 'part' and styling it as "2022 (A) AFL Women's season". I don't think there's a need to distinguish between the two 2022s in things like career spans which are equally validly interpreted as time ranges rather than distinct seasons. I suppose both 2022s end up in the same club season article for now e.g. 2022 Carlton Football Club season; that's probably going to get messy since those articles have always represented an October-to-September view of the season, and I expect when the inevitable happens (which is, the season goes over new year and they all get retrospectively renumbered to a summer season format e.g 2022/23 season) these 'late year' seasons may need to be shuffled between articles (I.e. 2022b gets retro-considered part of 2023 or a renamed 2022/23 or something) - but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Aspirex (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

SuperJew, I noticed that Black had formatted last season as "part A" as well, but I thought that was just a personal choice given it hadn't been formatted that way by the AFL/I didn't see it anywhere else and disagree that the call's already been made to reformat it that way for that reason (I also agree with just dropping "part" and adding "(A)"). Aspirex, I actually went back-and-forth between naming the article "season B" and "2022 (B) AFL Women's season" and would be happy to move it to the latter title, mainly because it's shorter than including the months (and looks neater, in my opinion) and especially if we're already thinking of including "B" in other areas. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Global-Cityzen, could you please discuss here first before moving? While I understand the rationale to put the months in the title, I think having a consistent format of A and B is better than sometimes having the months, sometimes having A and B, sometimes having I and II, etc. The other thing to consider is, while we might have been given the August and November dates, there's always the possibility of a delay to the start and/or end of the season, so simply having A and B and sticking with it (unless the AFL comes up with a better season name or it gets delayed into 2023) would be easier than having to move all of the pages' titles again should the season be delayed and finish in December. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 08:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Asperix's proposals, the risk with the "A"/"B" disambiguation is that readers interpret these as signifying a single season split into two parts or even two different divisions, but it might unfortunately be necessary in contexts where concision is particularly important. Hopefully sources adopt clearer terminology which we can follow. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that A/B carries with it an implication of superiority/inferiority, and that I/II or 1/2 would be better short-forms. I'd only go with A/B if that became the common representation in references. Aspirex (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Teratix, yeah, I get where you're coming from – I just figured this way might be a little less messy and easier to distinguish. Nicole Livingstone said on Credit to the Girls only hours ago that the AFL will indeed be naming the season 2022 NAB AFLW season seven, and I've just updated the article prose to reflect this. I don't think it's going to get any clearer, and I just feel like it's going to get messy if we adopt this for Wikipedia. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Tricky one. We're clearly not going to know the final article titles for at least a couple of years. Seems to me that the right approach for now is call them 2022 AFL Women's season and AFL Women's season 7, explain the inconsistent branding in the lead, and wait to see what the future COMMONNAME ends up being. Likewise I suggest our short form (e.g. in stats or lists) be 'Season 7' or 'Season 7 (2022)' for now, and accept that there's likely going to be some future changes.

Circling back to other questions - what do we think about including both AFLW seasons in the same club 2022 season? Important that we get to a consensus on that. Aspirex (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aspirex: Do we have any indication what will be the dates for season 8? --SuperJew (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. What are your thoughts on the different possibilities based on the answer to that question? Aspirex (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking that if season 8 goes into 2024, than season 7 can go into the clubs' 2023 season and season 8 into 2024. But if it's fully in 2023, I'd put season 7 into 2022. It's not very clear if this is part of some move of timeframes, or trying to squeeze in an extra season. --SuperJew (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure the league has tacitly implied that they would prefer the men's and women's seasons to be as concurrent as possible - i.e. season 8 is more likely to be 2023 than 2023/24. (I can't find the ref, though). That said, even if Season 8 only slightly overhung into the 2024 calendar year (i.e. ran January to August), I still think I'd probably be grouping it with the 2023 Men's season; the women's season would really have to start overlapping with the men's preseason matches before I'd change my mindset on that. That is to say that I'd probably go with both S6 and S7 in the 2022 club pages. Aspirex (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems some sources are calling it 2022/23 season. --SuperJew (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

With a month passing since last conversation on this topic I guess we haven't really finalised a position. Can I suggest we go with page names of 2022 AFL Women's season and AFL Women's season seven for now? AFLW marketing continues to push 'season seven' over anything else, while also using '2022 NAB AFL Women's season seven' as a longform. The (A) and (B) format does not seem to be getting any common use and should probably be dispensed with sooner rather than later. For club season articles, User:SuperJew I see you've now added Season 7 to the 2022 Collingwood Football Club season page (which you perhaps had reservations about in the above discussion) – are you and others comfortable with finalising this as the standard? Aspirex (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually Global-Cityzen added it, and I just filled-out what was missing ;) I think for now we'll leave it, and if we see the seasons span change we might move it. Using "season seven", what should we use as short-form? Right now seems there is use of 2022 for both seasons or of 2022A/2022B. --SuperJew (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't look at the edit history closely. I'd perhaps use S7 or S7 (2022) for now. Aspirex (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Are we sure about getting rid of A and B? I've made it more widespread since is was brought back up (e.g. moving all of the affected articles/templates), and thought that we were just going to leave it for now. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm certain it's the right call because I'm not seeing A and B anywhere other than Wikipedia, which definitely isn't in line with our naming conventions. Aspirex (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If that's the case and we're definitely moving on this, we should agree on the short form and its usage. I prefer S7 (2022), but think that whatever we use, it should also be used in career spans; I think that there's a need to disambiguate between the two seasons rather than just leave it as 2022 for either season so that readers know when players started/retired/moved. For example, we have Katie Loynes who retired last season, and say if Erin Phillips were to retire after this season, I don't think that both career spans should read "2017–2022" if one played one more season than the other; in the case of the latter, it should read "2017–S7 (2022)" so that people know that's the season she retired in (if that happens). When it comes to players moving clubs, an example is Madison Prespakis; instead of reading "2019–2022 / 2022–", I think it should be "2019–2022 / S7 (2022)–" (similar with Phillips). In the grand scheme of things, this wouldn't affect a lot of players, especially if this ends up being a one-off and we're leaving 2022 (as in the sixth season) as is. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm on board with S7 (2022). Aspirex (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we should have differenet short forms for the different seasons, as it is otherwise confusing as 4TW gave good examples above. S7 (2022) feels a little bulky for me, while S7 feels out of context, especially in the future when people read back. A thought might be to use Sx for all the seasons, but that's a massive change and quite against the current consensus. If we're willing to hold off a bit, we can see what sites such as AustralianFootball will choose to do, and make a more outside sources based decision. OTOH, things are already being edited now, so bottom line I'd back S7 (2022) currently, keeping it open to re-visit once the season starts and more off-Wiki sources make a choice of formatting. --SuperJew (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

We could also just use S7 for things like accolades (e.g. selection in this season's AFLW AA team could read S7 under a player's accolades and the captain could have S7 (c) rather than S7 (2022) (c) or S7 (2022; c)), but if using two short forms is confusing, I understand. I feel like if we reach a consensus on how to use them, it shouldn't be too much of a problem, but for the most part, yeah, S7 (2022) was my thinking. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey all. First time I've checked in here for a month or so, was a bit of a shock to see the article move to 'season seven'... especially since the lead sentence now makes no sense, and obviously was passed over during the page move.

I've always thought the 'season seven' moniker the league is using is coming from a marketing/branding perspective and is not encyclopaedic at all. IMO, we have a fairly strong precedent with the yearly Big Bash League articles forgoing marketing terminology like 'BBL|01' in the title. Obviously it's a little more difficult given this upcoming AFLW season won't traverse two calendar years like the cricket tournaments, but I just think 'season seven' seems a little gimmicky to me.

I agree that we probably won't achieve a perfect outcome until a few more years down the track when we can look back in retrospect, but given the nascent nature of the league, I would argue Wikipedia also has a role to play in establishing some of that terminology rather than following other historians (of which, unfortunately in the women's game, there are few). Gibbsy^spin 08:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Gibbsyspin, I don't really like the "season seven" name either, but I also understand the need to be consistent with sources, so I'm fine with the current path that we're on for the time being; definitely understand where you're coming from, though. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Work on new article "1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game" of Australian Rules football completed

The lengthy and arduous task of compiling the accurate and detailed article on the 28 October 1916 exhibition match of Australian Rules football, contested in London between two teams of AIF soldiers, is now completed. Please see both 1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game and Talk:1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

1930 Brownlow Medal

I've sone some research into the 1930 Brownlow Medal, and I'm not sure I'm meeting the WP:V hurdle (or breaking the OR rules) for one conclusion. Looking for the team's opinion and any other info that can be added.

• I found an article from 1924 in which the original conditions of the medal were paraphrased as: the winner was the player with the highest number of votes; if tied, the umpires would meet and pick a winner.Link
• An article from 1930 after the Judkins-Collier-Hopkins tie stated that the conditions were now: 'At the end of the season, the player obtaining the largest percentage of votes to games played to receive the medal; in case of an equal number of votes the umpires to be called together to decide to whom the medal shall be awarded'. Link This appeared to be verbatim from the rules.
• This wording, supporting by this article, heavily implies that the 'percentage of votes to games' was the primary winning condition, not just a tie-breaker as usually seen in modern references. In other words, in a theoretical scenario in which Harry Collier polled 5 votes from 18 games (27.7%), he would still have lost to Stan Judkins with 4 votes from 12 games (33.3%).
• My conclusion is that at some stage between 1924 and 1930, the 'winner is the player with the highest votes' clause was changed to 'winner is the player with highest percentage vs games', but the wording of the tie-breaker wasn't changed from reading 'in case of equal votes...' to 'in case of equal percentage...' – meaning that there was a conflict between the two rules in 1930, triggering confusion.

I've included all of the above in some way, but been intentionally vague about whether the 'percentage of votes to games played' rule was intended to be the primary criterion for victory or a tie-breaker. At the moment, it's mentioned in the 'tie-breakers' section of the Brownlow Medal article. The main question is does the above represent a sufficiently verifiable body of references to move the 'highest percentage' criterion out of the tie-breakers section and into the primary conditions section?

Annoyingly as an aside, I cannot find any reference to state when 'highest votes' was changed to 'highest percentage vs games', leaving a critical gap in the chronology which makes the above difficult to explain in articles. I highly suspect it was changed only that year in 1930, but definitely can't verify it. My reasoning is that in 1929 per this article it was decided not to award votes during interstate game weekends, presumably to even out the Brownlow disadvantage a player might have by playing in a state game; counting the votes from subsequent years indicates that this policy did not continue – making it highly conceivable that it was dropped in 1930 and replaced with the 'highest percentage vs games' clause which had the same intent. If anyone ever finds something in a reference about when this rule was added, I'd be very interested. Aspirex (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Icons on 2022 (B) AFL Women's season

The user Nhoj1898 is adding icons to the page, and continues doing so with no explanation (against WP:BRD), despite my reverting and explaining that it is against the consensus. Could someone else please weigh in, as I really don't feel like getting into an editwar over it? --SuperJew (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Tables look much better with the icons.

However, if the consensus in AFL/AFLW is for dull tables without the cool looking items, then fair enough.

The explanation cited that the icons are redundant, which from a visual point of view is a matter of personal opinion.

One might argue that elements of the page are redundant given that fixtures and results information is available online elsewhere - the AFL / AFLW websites and various media outlets. I don't share that view, particularly as these pages serve as stable records for current seasons in the future. From time to time organisations change internet content providers and when that happens, information on past seasons may be lost from the official sites as migrating data of past seasons is not guaranteed to be a high priority.

Regards, John Nhoj1898 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we want this to turn into rugby league (which I thought straight away without knowing might have been a source of inspiration for these edits). Nhoj1898, I understand where you're coming from about the season pages serving as stable records, but I'm not sure if that also justifies including icons – that you think tables look much better with icons, and that the tables look dull without them, is also a matter of personal opinion. For this article in particular, I'm personally more worried about trying to add/maintain content and make it look neater, and perhaps raise the standard for current and future season articles, than about making it pop visually; plus, obviously more colours will be added to the tables as the season progresses, and if a team's colours/design were to change, it would probably be more appropriate to keep a record of this at the club article than the season articles. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:MOSICONS discourages icons as decoration, and using an icon to repeat the meaning of its adjacent word does qualify as that. I recall having this discussion as a project a few years back and concluding no club jumper icons, so I support sticking to that approach. Aspirex (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The article's title

Any reason why you have changed the title @Aspirex: to "AFL Women's season seven"? I'm just considering how this will look from an encyclopedic perspective in 20 years time to some neutral reader... 2020 AFLW season, 2021 AFLW season, 2022 AFLW season, AFLW season 7, 2023 AFLW season...seems unnecessarily confusing. Do we now keep the 2022 (B) reference where it is mentioned on other pages and in templates? This is obviously a transition period for the league, from next year onwards the league will revert to playing 1 season per calendar year, so splitting the two distinct 2022 seasons into (A) and (B) seems more logical than adopting the league's own generic long-winded title. Pinging other regular users because I'd like their perspective - @4TheWynne:, @Nhoj1898:, @SuperJew:, @Thejoebloggsblog:. Global-Cityzen (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Global-Cityzen: Hey mate, we've been discussing this for a while at the section above #Seventh AFL Women's season and related articles. Would probably be better if you read the input there and if you have anything to add, add it at that section to keep the discussion centralised in one place :) --SuperJew (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear I am blind as a bat, thank you Global-Cityzen (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries, easy enough to miss if you're not following closely :) --SuperJew (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Coaching changes on season pages

Bringing up a discussion I had with 4TheWynne (here) for more widespread discussion:

I noticed for a while that the "coaching changes" on season pages list the changes as happening post-season. For example: 2020 AFL season includes Rhyce Shaw stepping down which happened after the end of the season. My suggestion is to have the coaching changes appear as pre-season (or mid-season of course), as this is the season they will affect. If we look at the previous example, David Noble coming in as Norf's coach affects the 2021 AFL season and has no bearing on 2020. With this change, it would also make sense to move the section to the beginning of the page.

Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Certainly I always organize the Carlton season pages that way. It only gets messy with caretakers who come in with few games left - i.e. Noble goes in the 2022 page as replaced by Adams with six games left; and in my view it should be Noble again who is listed as outgoing in 2023's page. (But when Malthouse got the flick from Carlton in early 2015, I probably would have put Barker as outgoing in the 2016 article). Thoughts on how to deal with grey cases like this? Aspirex (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Silly editing at Australian rules football

Can some other editors, Admin if possible, have look at the recent history at the above article. An editor wants to add some rather silly Distinguish fields. HiLo48 (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

We have a similarly unhelpful editor, Talsta, an obvious rugby league fan who has made disruptive edits to (and even vandalised in the past) the Australian Football League article – clearly the NRL isn't getting enough mentions in the AFL article (who would have thought?) and they want to refer to it at any opportunity they get. If people could please keep an eye out for this as well, that would be great – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Barassi line

On the Talk page of the above article, I tried to draw attention to a problem I perceived with a recent addition to the article. Two editors have responded with what I consider to be less than helpful responses. Would love to see the thoughts of others please. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Zebra stripes on statistics tables

Hey guys – hope everyone's doing well. Yes, it's back to that old topic again... some of us love them, some of us love to hate them... statistics tables. But don't worry, this one's a fun one.

The way that AFL/AFLW statistics tables are currently formatted, we have manually-added zebra stripes that bunch up and look all messy when you sort a column, so long story short, I went in search of a solution (after trying JavaScript) and was eventually presented with Template:Alternating rows table. All we would need to do is change the format at the AFL player statistics start templates and remove the manual stripes from all of the existing tables, and voilà, we've made yet another accessibility-related improvement to these tables. Take, for example, Tony Lockett's table, as it's currently formatted:

Season	Team	No.	Games	Totals							Averages (per game)
				G	B	K	H	D	M	T	G	B	K	H	D	M	T
1983	St Kilda	37	12	19	17	76	26	102	44	—	1.6	1.4	6.3	2.2	8.5	3.7	—
1984	St Kilda	14	20	77	44	146	19	165	108	—	3.9	2.2	7.3	1.0	8.3	5.4	—
1985	St Kilda	14	21	79	22	146	32	178	112	—	3.8	1.0	7.0	1.5	8.5	5.3	—
1986	St Kilda	14	18	60	29	119	36	155	85	—	3.3	1.6	6.6	2.0	8.6	4.7	—
1987	St Kilda	14	22	117	52	226	49	275	164	16	5.3	2.4	10.3	2.2	12.5	7.5	0.7
1988	St Kilda	4	8	35	19	65	19	84	44	6	4.4	2.4	8.1	2.4	10.5	5.5	0.8
1989	St Kilda	4	11	78	24	122	18	140	92	5	7.1	2.2	11.1	1.6	12.7	8.4	0.5
1990	St Kilda	4	12	65	34	112	16	128	84	11	5.4	2.8	9.3	1.3	10.7	7.0	0.9
1991	St Kilda	4	17	127	51	190	33	223	140	7	7.5	3.0	11.2	1.9	13.1	8.2	0.4
1992	St Kilda	4	22	132	58	214	30	244	157	12	6.0	2.6	9.7	1.4	11.1	7.1	0.5
1993	St Kilda	4	10	53	12	85	26	111	63	7	5.3	1.2	8.5	2.6	11.1	6.3	0.7
1994	St Kilda	4	10	56	26	100	16	116	76	7	5.6	2.6	10.0	1.6	11.6	7.6	0.7
1995	Sydney	4	19	110	44	176	42	218	139	16	5.8	2.3	9.3	2.2	11.5	7.3	0.8
1996	Sydney	4	22	121	63	212	45	257	168	21	5.5	2.9	9.6	2.0	11.7	7.6	1.0
1997	Sydney	4	12	37	21	65	23	88	50	7	3.1	1.8	5.4	1.9	7.3	4.2	0.6
1998	Sydney	4	23	109	36	167	41	208	121	9	4.7	1.6	7.3	1.8	9.0	5.3	0.4
1999	Sydney	4	19	82	38	141	27	168	112	15	4.3	2.0	7.4	1.4	8.8	5.9	0.8
2002	Sydney	46	3	3	0	5	2	7	1	3	1.0	0.0	1.7	0.7	2.3	0.3	1.0
Career			281	1360	590	2367	500	2867	1760	142	4.8	2.1	8.4	1.8	10.2	6.3	0.7

Here is what the table would look like with the start template reformatted, the manual stripes removed and the other changes applied that we've discussed here but haven't yet applied to this table:

Season	Team	No.	Games	Totals							Averages (per game)							Votes
				G	B	K	H	D	M	T	G	B	K	H	D	M	T
1983	St Kilda	37	12	19	17	76	26	102	44	—	1.6	1.4	6.3	2.2	8.5	3.7	—	0
1984	St Kilda	14	20	77	44	146	19	165	108	—	3.9	2.2	7.3	1.0	8.3	5.4	—	7
1985	St Kilda	14	21	79	22	146	32	178	112	—	3.8	1.0	7.0	1.5	8.5	5.3	—	3
1986	St Kilda	14	18	60	29	119	36	155	85	—	3.3	1.6	6.6	2.0	8.6	4.7	—	1
1987	St Kilda	14	22	117†	52	226	49	275	164	16	5.3†	2.4	10.3	2.2	12.5	7.5	0.7	20±
1988	St Kilda	4	8	35	19	65	19	84	44	6	4.4	2.4	8.1	2.4	10.5	5.5	0.8	3
1989	St Kilda	4	11	78	24	122	18	140	92	5	7.1†	2.2	11.1	1.6	12.7	8.4	0.5	10
1990	St Kilda	4	12	65	34	112	16	128	84	11	5.4†	2.8†	9.3	1.3	10.7	7.0	0.9	3
1991	St Kilda	4	17	127†	51	190	33	223	140	7	7.5†	3.0	11.2	1.9	13.1	8.2	0.4	16
1992	St Kilda	4	22	132	58	214	30	244	157	12	6.0	2.6	9.7	1.4	11.1	7.1	0.5	10
1993	St Kilda	4	10	53	12	85	26	111	63	7	5.3	1.2	8.5	2.6	11.1	6.3	0.7	5
1994	St Kilda	4	10	56	26	100	16	116	76	7	5.6†	2.6	10.0	1.6	11.6	7.6	0.7	7
1995	Sydney	4	19	110	44	176	42	218	139	16	5.8†	2.3	9.3	2.2	11.5	7.3	0.8	7
1996	Sydney	4	22	121†	63†	212	45	257	168	21	5.5†	2.9†	9.6	2.0	11.7	7.6	1.0	14
1997	Sydney	4	12	37	21	65	23	88	50	7	3.1	1.8	5.4	1.9	7.3	4.2	0.6	1
1998	Sydney	4	23	109†	36	167	41	208	121	9	4.7†	1.6	7.3	1.8	9.0	5.3	0.4	15
1999	Sydney	4	19	82	38	141	27	168	112	15	4.3†	2.0	7.4	1.4	8.8	5.9	0.8	6
2002	Sydney	46	3	3	0	5	2	7	1	3	1.0	0.0	1.7	0.7	2.3	0.3	1.0	0
Career			281	1360	590	2367	500	2867	1760	142	4.8	2.1	8.4	1.8	10.2	6.3	0.7	128

Would everyone be onboard with this? I know some might look at it as "another thing to add to the list" when it comes to these tables, but it's a necessary and pretty straightforward change, to the point that I'd be surprised if anyone opposed it; nevertheless, keen to know people's thoughts – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Someone needs to really get through to Johnny Stormer, again, about highlighting career-high statistics in bold, basketball-style – it should just be a flat no, as we already highlight key statistics in bold (like above), but they keep ignoring me.

Seems like an obvious improvement – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic idea! Anything which automates formatting to be more consistent and less of a drain on the editor (wow do I hate copying the stats line from the previous season and then having to manually change the bg colour), is to be blessed! --SuperJew (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Awesome – glad you guys like the idea. I updated the formatting last week and updated some statistics tables accordingly; if anyone comes across any tables with outdated formatting and would like to help fix them, that would be awesome – thanks, guys. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

State/country flags in current squad templates

In addition to my comment above, in my opinion, Rulesfan is being equally disruptive (albeit in a different way) by adding state or country flag icons next to players' names in the Queensland teams' AFL and AFLW current squad templates; they gave differing reasons for their edits when reverting my reverts to the Gold Coast templates: "State of Origin is important when AFLW State of Origin matches are played" (AFLW) and "Oea represented PNG ... where the players are from has a big influence on player retention at the club and in QLD" (AFL). Regardless of their rationale, I think that this is completely unnecessary detail and should be removed immediately; would appreciate other editors' thoughts – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG and MOS:SPORTFLAG give a fairly clear view that flags have a place for sports where national sporting teams are the pinnacle competition. A specific comment in the MOS is "Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with." I would say that for Australian rules football in the 21st century, this is obviously club level, since representative football is long dead, with any occasional games serving more as exhibitions than genuine competition and the International Cup a lower level amateur competition. So I'd agree that the flags should be removed. (I've been using the flags for a long time on Carlton season pages, and by the same logic should remove them - which I'll endeavour to do when I get some spare time). Aspirex (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd defer to MOS:SPORTFLAG's point that flags are strictly to indicate representative nationality. If players don't represent their state or country in interstate or international football – i.e., the vast majority of players – their flag should not be included. I'd also emphasise Asperix's point that Australian rules football's representative level is less prestigious than its club level and thus even representative nationality is less relevant than in other sports. Flags also impose a heavy, ongoing maintenance burden if standardised across every squad template. – Teratix ₵ 01:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Australian Football covering AFLW S7

Not sure if anyone else noticed, but Australian Football hasn't been updating to include the new AFL Women's season yet – only just read here that they just weren't able to upgrade the site to accommodate two seasons in one calendar year in time for the start of season seven, so hopefully they should be onto it soon. Once this happens, I was intending on using this site rather than womens.afl for match stats in the season seven article (on that, one frustrating thing that I haven't gotten to the bottom of yet is the absence of crowd figures and what we might do there – hopefully Australian Football has the missing ones, though I'm not sure how they would). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I can vouch for Australian Football – it's a wonderful encyclopaedic resource that I've actually had the privilege to contribute to in a few ways. It's certainly a more permanent solution than womens.afl too in terms of URLs (although archiving the URL undoes that issue). I still think it's quite remarkable how little statistical insight we get on the official womens.afl website. You can't even sort columns! And the app is not much better. Pretty ordinary. As for crowd numbers, they often pop up on Austadiums after a little while, who often seem to have other ways of tracking them down straight from the source. Incidentally, their system is struggling to deal with two seasons in the one year as well. Gibbsy^spin 11:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

AFL Finals System

Not sure if anyone else noticed, but a user nominated the finals template for deletion with a much less clear bracket in its place. Please go to the template deletion discussion and explain to this user why our template is needed.