Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football

This talk page is automatically archived by Shadowbot3. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL/Archive 4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL/Archive 3 (25 August 2006 - 29 October 2007) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL/Archive 4 (29 October 2007 - )

Infobox Taskforce

Hey there, I'm currently in the process of converting player pages infoboxes to the new template - Template:Infobox afl player NEW. This is a slow, tedious task, but I think the end result will be worth it. So I think if any of you fellow editors out there want to help, please do, because it would help so much. I'm currently working on Geelong Players and will work club by club for all the current players. So if you want to work on certain clubs to save me the time, please let me know, or show your support by listing your name below. You can also try and go onto the massive task of past players.

For lists of players see either Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL/Players or List of current AFL team squads.

THANKS EVERYONE! Allied45 (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• UPDATE: All current Geelong players have now got the new infobox. Feel free to go over them to correct and add details. Allied45 (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you are in some way connected with all of the pointless problems, trouble and and issues of information concealment, totally anachronistic descriptions, and removal of the exceptionally relevant (pre-the-days-of-draft and pre-the-days-of-full-time-footballers) player debut information that are described at [1]? :Or, perhaps, it might just be that an over-zealous somebody, unaware that there was an entirely different state of affairs in an earlier era — whan, for example, players needed to have a day job, and often played as amateurs, etc. — has mistakenly applied your "modern-21st-century-afl-infobox" (apparently agreed upon as appropriate to all players on the 2008 playing list) in an inappropriate fashion to what is, by contrast, and "earlier-era-article", which requires an "earlier-era-VFL, etc.-infobox"? Anyway could you please comment on the questions I have raised at at [2]? Thanks heaps.Lindsay658 (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the "cricket people" have been able to get by with two sorts of info box? If you look at Jack Worrall, you will notice that they are using something that they term "Infobox Historic Cricketer". Lindsay658 (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Players with no pictures

Just an idea for players where we cannot find pictures. Maybe we should place their jumper number in the image area instead. It would make the pages a lot more professional looking. And as we find pictures then we can replace them. Thoughts?!?InsteadOf (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, without seeing what this would look like, I'm not sure it would add much to an article. I could stand corrected though. --Roisterer (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

made a test at Aaron EdwardsInsteadOf (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that it is annoying that we don't have free photos of many players, but I don't like this at all. It distracts attention from the main part of the article - the prose - and does not convey any new information. Images are for displaying pictures, not oversized coloured text. Remy B (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good argument. Ill remove it. InsteadOf (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Premiership Players Templates

Over the past few days, I've been busy converting all Premiership templates (found here), to a standard navbox. They include all relevant team colours (though some may need to be modified), they also are more uniformed and take up less space. I have also begun creating templates for Grand Final years that don't currently have any. So if you would like to help, please see here, and begin creating new templates that use the new navbox style. Thanks!! Allied45 (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, good job on standardising the Premiership templates, but are the Grand Final sides (e.g. Port Adelaide of 2007) really necessary? I would argue no. Taking a leaf out of other sports, navigational boxes are only really used for significant awards/achievements - in the context of AFL, being the losing Grand Finalist doesn't really merit much here in my opinion. Cheers Boomtish (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with that, there is no need to have the runner-up Grand Final sides - it's a bit too much. I think we ought to delete that particular template, and just stick with the winning premiership teams. Allied45 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a thread here a couple of months ago when that template first appeared on Port player's pages, complaining that it was overkill and we agreed to remove the template. Although it is no longer on anyone's page is it worth deleting it and if so anyone know how to go about that? Nice work with the templates by the way Allied, I was the original creator of them (except the Richmond ones) and agree that they look much better this way. Crickettragic (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've requested speedy deletion on the Port Adelaide GF 2007 Side template page under the proposal that it is a largely insignificant achievement to warrant use of the navigational boxes and results in overcategorisation Boomtish (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Player Infobox

I've just added a show/hide option to the Career Highlights section of Template:Infobox afl player NEW, I think it fixes the problem of extremely long infoboxes (for example the fully extended version of Jonathan Brown).

But there is a problem in that all the text in this section is now centred, would someone please fix this up so that the text is back to normal. Thanks, I hope you all like it. Allied45 (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to leave the infobox the way it was prior, and in the cases of extrememly long honour rolls (perhaps such as James Hird, for example) simply create a separate header in the main article to document all the players' highlights/awards. The infobox can then be shortened to include only major awards (such as the Brownlow Medal, but perhaps not his most recent AFLPA awards) Boomtish (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Managed to align the text left!! - Allied45 (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

SANFL clubs

Is there any reason why some club's page are not using 'Football Club' as the page name? For example both Central District and North Adelaide use their nicknames while all the others use Football Club. I can understand why Port Adelaide's page is entitled Port Adelaide Magpies for example because they need to differentiate it from Port Power's page but for the other two there is no reason that I am aware of for them to break away from the naming conventions. Would anyone have any objections if I were to change their names? Crickettragic (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I always wondered the same thing myself. The two clubs' articles I created; Woodville Football Club and West Torrens Football Club, are in the style you recommend. I have no objections. --Roisterer (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it would depend on the branding the clubs chose to use.Hack (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Broken Game Reports links

As you've probably noticed, all of 2007's links to AFL.com.au game reports are broken and the reports no longer exist. So for this season I would like to make a suggestion of instead of using the official site, we use links to the new Herald Sun Superfooty site, where each game has an independent match report which are much more detailed than the current AFL formats. And they are most likely going to be kept on the sites archives, as every story is, accessible for years to come. An example of the Superfooty match reports are here. - Allied45 (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are the game reports for 2007? Remy B (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, It only began this year, I meant from this season's games we start using the Superfooty site. - Allied45 (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you certain they archive their stories because if they don't we're only creating the same amount of problems for ourselves. Normy 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well here is a match report from Round 16, 2005 of Geelong vs Port Adelaide that I found in the Herald Sun archives. Its not the same detail as the new match reports, but shows that they do archive these reports. ANd we know that the AFL site does not after the season ends. - Allied45 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Asian footballers

The quiz question about the earliest Asian VFL/AFL player led me to think that we could create a List of VFL/AFL players of Asian background page (or similar). Any thoughts? --TheGrantley (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I struggle to see how that's a notable topic. What does being Asian have to do with playing in the VFL/AFL? Remy B (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability aside I don't think the list would be big enough. Apart from Peter Bell and Wally Koochew have there been any other players who have had an Asian parent? Crickettragic (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sudjai Cook would be one but unless it is part of a greater article then it may not be notable enough. --Roisterer (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We already have a List of VFL/AFL players by ethnicity which covers all players mentioned so far so unless over the coming years the AFL starts recruiting players on mass from Asia I don't think it warrants it's own article. Crickettragic (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

hadn't realised the players by ehnicity existed. Obviously not an exhaustive list but it was interesting to see how many players of Croatian background there have been. --Roisterer (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, List of VFL/AFL players by ethnicity pretty much covers what I was looking to cover with my earlier suggestion. Thanks for the feedback everyone. --TheGrantley (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And on the topic of footballers with Asian backgrounds, I have now created an article on Wally Koochew, the first known VFL footballer of Asian background. --Roisterer (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

VFL/AFL Season "Footy Fixtures"

There seems to be quite an outstanding omission from all of the work on Aussie Rules. There is no article dedicated to what might be called "History of the VFL/AFL home-and-away system".

In 1897, the VFL's set of footy fixtures was very simple. Team A played seven matches, against B (at home), C (away), D (at home), E (away), F (at home), G (away), and H (at home) in the first half of the season and, in the second half of the season, played another seven matches against B (away), C (at home), D (away), E (at home), F (away), G (at home), and H (away), the "mirror image" of the first half season. Gradually things became more and more complex; for example, the 1931 changes to the Finals system gave the VFL, for the first time, a set date for the last match of the season, and thus made it possible to link the Grand Final with the Melbourne Show (thus, the last Saturday in September).

I believe that the article should deal with the manner in which the "fixtures" were set up in in 1897, and then listing every change that has been made to the structure of the home-and-away season (the Finals series has already been adequately dealt with — see Early VFL Final systems plus McIntyre System plus McIntyre Final Eight System plus AFL finals system).

Whilst it would be time-consuming, it is not very complex task; however, is far beyond the references and other VFL/AFL resources that are available to me.

Such an article, in its sequential account of the changes over the years, would also need to declare the things that have been fixed (such as there must be a game at stadium Y on date X, or that Essendon must play Collingwood on Anzac Day, or that the Grand Final must be on such-and-such a day, at such-and-such a location, at such-and-such a time of day) and those which are just a matter of the luck of the (random, rather than stacked) draw.

All of these increasing-over-the-years complications to what was once a simple matter of having two matching halves of a season have a detailed history.

Each experiment/innovation was introduced either to meet a particular need or to create a certain opportunity.

Each of the changes, and the reasons given for those changes, and the benefits and/or problems they brought in their train, or the weaknesses they revealed, are all a matter of record, and should be included in such an article. I believe that this account of precisely how the past explains and justifies the (otherwise confusing) present would very significantly embellish the manner in which the Wikipedia deals with Aussie Rules. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly be gappy to help write such an article. --TheGrantley (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good idea for a new article. Remy B (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, what I have just written at VFL home-and-away matches (1902-1930), based on VFL statistics, might provide some sort of starting data set for you to begin your work with? Lindsay658 (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

VFL Team Names

I am presently trawling through the sequence of VFL "year pages" and have come across an enforced mechanical anachronism that, due to the fact that it now seems to be established, seems to need some sort of discussion to change.

I refer to the fact that, just for example in the 1922 VFL season, The Melbourne Cricket Club Football Club, known either as "The Red-Legs" or "The Fuschias" (from the colours of their uniform), is referred to as "Melbourne Demons", The South Melbourne Football Club, known as "The Bloods" as a contraction of the term "Blood-Stained Angels", is referred to as the "South Melbourne Swans" (they were not called "Swans" until the influx of Western Australian players in 1933), The Fitzroy Football Club, known as "The Maroons" (from the colours of their uniform), is referred to as "Fitzroy Lions" ("Lions" was not used until 1957, when Fitzroy decided to abandon its unfortunately equivocal nickname "The Gorillas" that it had worn since before World War II), and The Essendon Football Club, most generally known as "The Same Old" or "The Same Olds", are referred to as the "Essendon Bombers" (a name they did not acquire until 1940).

Then, to further compound these factual errors which continue to appear, we find in 1925 VFL season, that The Footscray Football Club, known as "The Triclours" (from the colours of their uniform), is referred to as "Footscray Bulldogs" (the name "Bulldogs" did not appear until 1928), The Hawthorn Football Club, known as "The Mayflowers" (from the colours of their uniform), is referred to as "Hawthorn Hawks" (the name "Hawks" did not appear until 1942), The North Melbourne Football Club, known as "The Shinboners" (from the Pannam-like propensity of its players to kick opponents in the shins?), is referred to as "North Melbourne Kangaroos" (the name "Kangaroos" did not appear until 1954).

I could go on, but I hope that you get my point. Given that these nick-names change from time to time, and that it may or may not be clear which nickname had greater currency at any particular time, it would seem sensible to name the teams for what they were: viz., The South Melbourne Football Club, The Essendon Football Club, The Footscray Football Club, The North Melbourne Football Club, etc. However, such extended names would take up an enormous amount of page space unnecessarily. The conclusion would seem to be to name them far more simply, as South Melbourne F.C., Essendon F.C., Footscray F.C., North Melbourne F.C.. Yet, given that they are all "clubs", and that all of the "C's" also have the common property of being devoted to "F" (football), it seems that the best way out of all of this abominable mess is for the templates being used to be removed and replaced by what ought to be termed a VFL set, in addition to and separate from the current AFL set to continue to operate, which shows the Club's names as follows: Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Fitzroy, Footscray, Geelong, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Richmond, South Melbourne, and St Kilda. This would also encourage factual, realistic writing, in accordance with the ever-increasing proliferation of peacock terms (Wikipedia:Peacock) within AFL articles.

I am certain that, with somebody sufficiently specialized in such a task -- and given the global nature of the extent to which these distressingly anachronistic intrusions have been made into the records of earlier eras of Aussie Rules -- it would be a relatively easy task to construct a "bot" to make a global search and replace of such a specific nature in the limited population of the series of VFL year articles (i.e., from 1897 to 1989).

In the absence of a "bot" I am not certain how such a task might be accomplished; but, it seems certain that the longer these errors remain, the more pervasive their contamination of historical fact will be. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, I've changed the templates for the Victorian clubs by removing their nicknames. I think this is the best solution until a bot can be used to install a seperate template because obviously for recent seasons clubs like Port have their nickname but Richmond, Melbourne etc won't. Cheers Crickettragic (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done on knowing where to go to turn off the 2008 switch! Quite apart from the fact that each of these pages is now, thankfully, historically accurate, I also think that they look at least 300% better now that they are so much less cluttered. I think that the pages in their new form visually emphasize the data that the pages contain, rather then what it was doing earlier: emphasizing the competing clubs. In almost every sense of the expression, the names of the competing clubs is the "given data" and, therefore, does not require emphasis.

It also has an additional advantage. In the earlier format my eyes were so assailed and diverted by the swathes of blue colour that swept across the page that, certainly in my own case, I did not recognize that an additional convention was operating: that of coding the match winner in bold. Having looked at these pages continuously over the last two weeks, I have only just been able to notice this embedded convention on looking at the far more (visually) simple new format a few minutes ago. It really has made a substantial difference. Thanks for that. Lindsay658 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Players numbers

There is a photograph taken during a match between Fitzroy and Colingwood that was played at the Sydney Cricket Ground on 23 May 1903. All of the players clearly have a number on their back. I have not been able to find any photographs of numbered players before 1911 (one from 1911 shows that Collingwood players wore numbers whilst their Essendon opponents do not). Another photograph (from 1914) shows both the Collingwood team and its opponents (? Essendon) with numbers. As I have not been able to find any mention of the history of players numbers throughout the Wikipedia (meaning that there is either no mention, or that a mention is extremely well-hidden), I would suggest that it should appear under whatever part deals with playing uniforms; and, also, that players (at least for the last 70 years) have been reported on the basis of the umpire taking their guernsey number -- leading to a number of famous incidents where players have removed their guernseys. Anyway, I have isolated six questions that I feel need to be answered, and for which I can find no information:

(1) Given that it would seem logical that the numbers on the backs of the 1903 players would have been there to assist the Sydney crowd, how were the players numbered? (according to position? According to location on the playing field? according to their Family name?)

(2) If there was a gradual introduction of player numbers within the VFL competition, which team first introduced the custom and why did they introduce it? (e.g., they might have sold team-lists to raise funds for the club).

(3) Whenever such a custom was first introduced how were the players numbers match-specific or position-specific (as in today's Rugby Union and Rugby League)?

(4) Was there any connection between the universal application of player numbers -- by this I mean every player of every team on any one particular Saturday having a designated number -- and the introduction of the Football Record in 1912?

(5) When was it that it became the widespread custom for a player to continue with a specific designated number for all of their career?

(6) Did the nomination of a guernsey number for each selected player eventually become part of the standard process of delivering over the names of the selected teams to the VFl on a Thursday evening? Or was it that, as part of a player's registration, they were "registered" as, say, "Player 31 for Melbourne" and that the name "Ronald Dale Barassi" was placed beside that number, or was it the reverse, or was it two separate registers, one "seasonal" for the player, the other "weekly" for the number? (The events at the end of the 1958 VFL season emphasize the importance of this issue.)

Also, slightly connected with the above, I can find no reference to the practice of umpires offering two footballs to the visiting captain, as well as checking boots of all players for protruding and checking hands of all players to see that no rings were worn, before the matches. Anyway, I thought that I should raise this matter. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have my references in front of me but I seem to recall reading that numbers were not introduced until 1913 or so. This may have been for specific designated numbers so it is possible that temporary numbers were used prior to this. I will see if I can chase an answer of sorts down. --Roisterer (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just come across something that seems to strongly indicate the 1912 introduction; and given that, I think that it is 100% certain that it is, somehow, deeply involved with the VFL trying to enhance its income stream through the 1912 publication of the Football Record. Compare the left-hand column at [3] and at [4] with the left-hand column at [5]. This seems to confirm the adoption of numbers in 1912.

This, however, still leaves the questions of the numbering system unanswered -- although, it certainly appears that the player, regardless of where they played, carried the same number throughout the season, and that at least one, Frank Caine of Essendon (17 goals on the list) carried number 27 (Frank Caine played his first senior match in round 3 of 1912).

Using Maplestone's Flying Higher (1996), list of player numbers (pp.413-417) and comparing that with the list of players who actually played each game in 1912 (p.455), the numbering seems a little random. However, if you then look at pp.81-82, some of the mystery disappears, at least in Essendon's case. There is a photograph of sheet with "[Copyright]" printed at the top left hand corner, the sheet has the title "Official List of Player and Numbers", and it goes on to list 21 players for the Carlton and Essendon teams for the 1911 Second Semi-Final (although, of course, only 18 took part in the match). There seems to be no relationship between the numbers and the players' family names, or the positions in which they played (same for Carlton -- see [6]).

Each of the 21 numbers listed on that sheet matches those that are supplied by Maplestone at pp.413-417 -- so, from this, we can certainly state that however the 1911 numbers were determined, they stayed with the Essendon players throughout their careers. Mapleston states (a) that this is the fist time that numbers had been used in a finals match, and (b) that the Essendon players wore a small red number under their sash. On the basis that Maplestone was writing a history of Essendon, I would strongly speculate that, despite his apparent assertion, the South Melbourne and Collingwood players had also carried numbers in their First Semi-Final a week earlier.

It also interesting that one of the photographs on Maplestone p.82 shows one of the special boards that were erected at the two ends of the ground to display the players' names and numbers. The names seem to be at least as large as the names of the cricketers were on the old MCG scoreboard.

All of this, I suppose, raises another question: In that first year (1912), were the player numbers:

(a) issued by the VFL to all of its registered players; in other words, was the notice of the allocation of a particular number, however that number may have been determined (alphabet, position, seniority?), part of the VFL's formal acknowledgement of that player's registration for that season, or

(b)specified by the player's club at the time the application for registration was lodged. Lindsay658 (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You no doubt already have seen this but "The Complete Book of AFL Finals (2002) lists 1912 as the first year numbers were used, coinciding with the introduction of the Record. The book adds: "The experiments with numbering had been tried a few times before, first in the 1911 final between Essendon and Carlton, and also in the grand final. In the former match Essendon had small red numbers under their sash and Carlton wore small white numbers."

As an added piece of trivia, apparently the first goal kicked by someone wearing a number on their jumper was by Vin Gardiner of Carlton. --TheGrantley (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My first article

Well, after months of minor edits and trying to not make a fool of myself on the quiz, I have finally got around to creating an article from scratch. Stan Reid played for Fitzroy in the first season of the VFL, played in their 1898 premiership and then became the first VFL player to die in a war. He was also a great, great uncle of mine. Unfortunately my family don't seem to have any photos of him. Anyway, I'd love to get feedback on the article. --TheGrantley (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks good, well done. I notice you mention that he was considered Best on Ground at the 1898 GF. If you haven't already checked, you may want to look at Jim Main's book "When it Matters Most", which covers all the players he retrospectively awards Norm Smith Medals to. Reid may get a mention in that. The important question to ask is, did you inherit his skill and, if so, are you actually an AFL player secretly beefing up his own article? --Roisterer (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, he seemed to have gotten all the football skills in the family. --TheGrantley (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Charles Moore of Essendon was the first VFL player killed in the Boer War. He died 12 May 1901 and there is a memorial to him in St Vincents Gardens, South Melbourne. Reid died 29 June 1901. Phanto282 (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Boer War Nominal Roll: Charles Moore Lindsay658 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all this. I had only been told that he had died in the War and it wasn't until I read the article on "Fitzroy Firsts" on the AFL website that I saw that he was apparently the first to die on active duty. Now, I see I shall have to tell my Great Aunt that Great, great Uncle Stan wasn't actually the first VFL footballer to die on active duty. --TheGrantley (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No free image

User:David Gerard has just used a bot to add Image:Replace this image male.svg to literally hundreds of VFL/AFL player's infoboxes. Does anyone else agree that this makes the pages look ridiculous? Furthermore what is the point of adding it to Carl Ditterich for example, is it really realistic to think that a Wikipedian will have a free image of a footy player from the 1960s!? Anyway I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts, if we can get a consensus against this then maybe we can go about removing the image without too much hassle from David. Cheers Crickettragic (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like the look of it and I can't see it being a benefit to the page. I think there was also a discussion about it in the Cricket project with the consensus being that it wasn't liked there either. --TheGrantley (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it is just awful. Wikipedia articles should not treat the reader as an editor. I think it's a clear case of crossing the line from Wikipedia being written by editors for readers to being written by editors for editors. If there is no image then just dont have one - it's not that bad of a sin to have a biographical article without an image. We shouldn't litter Wikipedia with requests for more images when the vast majority of readers of the articles are not interested in contributing. Remy B (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How do we go about reverting back these edits? By my estimate David has added this to almost 500 articles so he's ensured that it's too big a task to do manually. Anyone here have this AWB thing? Crickettragic (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

At first I agreed with you all, but with a bit of a thunk, I reckon lets leave it for a while to see if it does prompt some new pics. I know I'll go through my pics when I get some time, to try to fill in some blanks. We just have hope that the quality of the photos are OK. As for the AWB, any established user can get it, just go to Wikipedia:AWB & follow the instructions. I have it, but won't be using it for this... yet. We should remember the 1955 rule as well for old Aussie photos too. The-Pope (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

VFL and Wartime

I have just removed a large section from The VFL during the World Wars and placed it within a newly created article VFL/AFL players who died in active service. I think it makes much more sense to do it this way; and, also, having the article on those who died in active service as a separate article might result in some additional contributions from those oriented to military history. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Were there no players who died in the Boxer Rebellion/Korean War/Vietnam War etc.? There were certainly players being called up in the Vietname War draft. --TheGrantley (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Debuts

Here's a list of debuts for use in info boxes. It's tersely formatted to reduce the page size http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_AFL/Debuts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.211.104 (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Where was it sourced from? --Roisterer (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

http://stats.afl.com.au/public/statistics/player_roundbyround.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.211.104 (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Most grateful for the tip. The database also lists the players who played for each team on a round by round basis for each year. This has allowed me to complete the 1924 round-robin Finals' South Melbourne and Fitzroy playing squads at [7]. Thanks. Lindsay658 (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers that is going to be very helpful. Previously I could only find debut information for Carlton players, thanks to Blueseum.com and nothing for players from other clubs. Much appreciated. Crickettragic (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with "Fremantle" in the 1995 tables

There is some sort of intermittent formatting problem associated with the rows in which the Fremantle matches appear in the tables at 1995 AFL season -- see, for example, [8]. I have done everything that I can possibly think of to correct it without having any effect. Is there someone with a bit more skill than I have than can have a look at it and set it right? Thanks. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it now but I can't guarantee anything. Normy 05:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it but it should be only temporary (as I've written in the edit summaries) until something is worked out. It definitely has something to do with the spacing between each of the column entries. Some of them were like Fremantle||Score when it should be Fremantle || Score. I don't know. My concentration isn't good enough to deal with such a problem as this. :D. I'm sure somebody will know how to solve it. Normy 05:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)