Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football

List of VFL debuts in 1933

Bedridden with the cold, I've tried to put my spare time to some sort of use and came up with List of VFL debuts in 1933. I'd forgotten that in the pre-list days clubs used to regularly debut up to 20 players each year. --Roisterer (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. Lucky there were only 12 teams, not 16! Only about 110 more years to go. I'd still prefer to see the club name in the table, not as a subheading, so that you could sort by team, or name, or round, or other things like games played or similar (if they get added).The-Pope (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant to incorporate the team names in the heading but forgot at the crucial moment. --Roisterer (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be missing this chap. Incidentally, 1933 ranks 12th on the most debuts (162). 1897 tops the list naturally enough with 284 debutants, the 1925 expansion brought 222 debuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.98.97 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for McIntyre. I recall adding him to Footscray's list because I remember thinking "I doubt I'll need to disambiguate him" but he must have been lost along the way. I plan to pick another random year and see if I can get a relatively low year for debuts. --Roisterer (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL/Debuts I compiled User:The-Pope/Sandbox3 as a guide for you. If Mr 202.45.etc wants to complete the list with the total including club change numbers, then please do. Excel2wiki makes cut and paste table generation very easy. The-Pope (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could produce a "skeleton" page for every year simply enough, just needing comments and/or proper wikilinking. Which I'll think about doing. but a settled format best be defined first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.98.97 (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just completed List of AFL debuts in 2008. What does everyone think of the format? Thanks, Allied45 (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I probably would add a "comments column" for things like "won Rising star", "brother/son of" etc. Otherwise, shows promise. --Roisterer (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be really all that necessary to include a "comments" section? Judging by other articles (i.e. the 2004 debut list), the majority of comments sections would be empty, and the ones that do contain info are mainly trivial information. It wouldn't be necessary to include brothers etc. in a debuts page. Any info like this can easily be incorporated in the actual player articles. Thanks, Allied45 (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer the comments column to the VFL/AFL cap number column, as this is by no means official. AFAIK, it's just been created/compiled/calculated by the AFL tables site. All you need is for them to find a missing or duplicated player from early on and everyone changes number. Borders on WP:OR in my mind. Would prefer a photo of a true debutant, rather than Judd as a club changer. Other than that, it looks good.The-Pope (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's just been created/compiled/calculated by the AFL tables site Yes, it's just my take on things, I'd also omit it. I'd hope I'm reliable enough to dip into for various tidbits, but wholesale (semi-original) ideas such as that are probably best left for me to take the blame if wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.98.97 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fair points. In reflection, maybe it would be better just to number the debuts in order 1, 2, 3 etc. for the season, for ease of sorting. And I totally agree on the Judd picture. Thanks for the feedback, Allied45 (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I don't consider the AFL Tables as a whole as not-reliable... just this aspect of it. Paul does a fantastic job and it's an invaluable resource. Have you had any recognition or awards from the AFL, media or other organisations that we could use to improve your standing to those who think that unless it has a Telstra, News Corp or Fairfax logo on it, it isn't a reliable source? The-Pope (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather keep a lower profile :p But really, it doesn't matter to much to me, my readers can take it or leave it, or, as many have done over the years, point out any problems. they do encounter, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.98.97 (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've renumbered the 2008 debuts in the order of their debuts in the 2008 season, not the overall "VFL/AFL cap" that was used previously. Thanks, Allied45 (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the initiative and changed Juddy to a picture of Cyril Rioli. Would have preffered Kreuzer (#1 draft pick) or Rhys Palmer (Rising star winner), but there was no Kreuzer pic and Palmer's pic is blurry and small. Decided on Cyril because of his runner-up in Rising Star, and of course he's well-known. Thanks, and if anyone doesn't like it / wants to edit it, go ahead. Gibbsy^spin 05:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good move. We really need to get more, and better-quality, pictures. Allied45 (talk)

Infoboxes

Hi all. I'm wondering what the consensus is on images in infoboxes showing team colours and player numbers, like for example, at Nick Riewoldt. Do they add anything to the infobox or article? Just following up on my comments here. Thanks, Somno (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do. Color and info. BrianBeahr (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Brian but I can't understand what it is that these images are supposed to bring to the infobox? The reason infoboxes are used on articles is to give a quick summary of information about the person or topic. It is not there to be decorated (with the exception of an image which illustrates who or what the article is about). It is already clear in the infobox that the footballer played with St Kilda so the red, white and black image is rather redundant. There is already a space in the infobox for the player's number to be added so likewise the 12 at File:Stkfcnumber12.jpg for example isn't of any use. All this does is further stretch the infobox so the important information like their career span and games tally etc is in many cases another scroll down the screen. Jevansen (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh no; please get rid of the new additions. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think {{St Kilda Football Club Leading Goalkickers}} and {{St Kilda Football Club Captains}} are unnecessary decoration. They do not link topics that a reader would wish to navigate through (and the topics are already covered by separate list articles and categories), and the templates themselves are large and confusing to readers. Somno (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates in general are becoming a problem. Nick Riewoldt has no less than 12 at the bottom of his article. Fortunately St Kilda didn't win the premiership because that would have added another. Recent additions have been All-Australian templates, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but once they're all created Mark Ricciuto is going to have about eight. This is why we need to be very selective when deciding which templates we should keep and St Kilda captains/St Kilda leading goal-kickers seem to be ones we could do without. Perhaps just create Category:St Kilda Football Club captains and Category:St Kilda leading goal-kickers instead? It would be good also if we could get some more input here from Brian. Considering he has made 500 edits over the weekend, his six word contribution to this discussion can only leave me to think that yet again he is disinterested in dialogue (he has previously been wiki-blocked for this). Jevansen (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I too have to vote against the new colour schemes that are being added. I also might add, that template is the older version. The current one that should be implemented into articles is the Template:Infobox_afl_player_NEW infobox. As others have pointed out, the reason for infoboxes are to quickly summarise. The infoxbox should not be lengthy (the large images are expanding the infobox). With regard to the many templates floating around (such as the St Kilda captaincy one), perhaps these are better off as lists, rather than templates. Boomtish (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated the files (St Kilda colours/numbers) for deletion here, if you wish to comment. Jevansen (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that most of the topics would make better lists than templates. Templates are supposed to link topics that readers may want to flick between, and in Riewoldt's case, there is already a template that links to the previous captain, another template that links to the previous and following winners of the Rising Star Award and the number 1 draft picks, and then templates below those templates repeating this information... I can't imagine someone reading this article, then thinking, "now I'd like to read about Harold Moyes, who led St Kilda's goalkicking in 1922". Somno (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just nominated the 1997 "MPT" template for deletion.The-Pope (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I want to kill whoever taught Brian how to create templates. Anyway ... thanks for making the effort to nominate the 1997 MP team, you forgot to sign your name though. Jevansen (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that the image deletion nomination resulted in a "delete" decision, but only one of the images was actually deleted... I'll contact the deleting admin. Somno (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting admin Explicit said "The remaining 49 files weren't tagged with {{ffd}}, so they'll have to be tagged and relisted at today's FfD." Any volunteers? Somno (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Champion of the Colony

I think it is time for this debate to be resolved.

Some time in the next few days I intend nominating the COTC article for deletion. The category too should go, as well as any ref within general articles.

Optical character recognition at the National Library newspaper site has now advanced enough to allow a search of The Argus to find the phrase "champion of the colony" or champions of the colony, or champion of the colonies, more than 30 times. Numerous sports and events relate to that phrase: billiards, cycling, tennis, athletics, rowing, ploughing, quoits, boxing, and swimming. The dates range from 1856 to 1899.

Not one reference relates to an individual player winning that award for Australian Football. Check it out at: http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/home

A number of issues of the annual publication "The Footballer" (mid to late 1870s) have been read too, and again although this is the era of Coulthard's great play, there is not one single reference to the COTC award being made to any player.

Using the NLA site 1901-1945 to search for "champion of the season" award is almost exclusively devoted to the popular vote undertaken by The Argus in September 1909. A significant fact about that event is often missed but I'll hold further comment and see how many recognise it for what it is.

Your support for the deletion would be appreciated. RossRSmith (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(1) provided we accept everything that you say -- and I can think of no good reason to not to accept it, given all your research, etc. -- we must agree that, the same as in the case of unicorns, bunyips, Santa Claus, etc. that many people, who only have access to particular levels of popular literature, very honestly believe that such a thing exists (or existed).

(2) Given (1), it would seem a very non-encyclopaedic act to delete an entry that describes a widespread delusion, simply because it is unfounded in historical fact.

(3) I strongly oppose the deletion.

(4) I strongly support a short piece simply describing the history of the claims made for such a thing, and then a brief description of the extent to which you have found no primary documentary evidence to support the claims that have been made.

(5) In view of the subject matter (a non-veridical, retrospective claim), I am certain that this evidence of its non-existence would not be considered "original research".

(6) Given how long you have been at this, it seems very stupid not to make a record of the fact that it never existed, and stop new generations of people taking on the folk-myth that such a thing existed.

(7) Maybe you should change the title to Champion of the Colony Controversy (and, then, there would be no need for the long list of players names).

In closing, if you were to delete it, you would have to delete other historically unsubstantiated fanciful nonsense -- such as Marn Grook -- as well. Far better to keep it in, and reveal that it is total B.S. Lindsay658 (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Lindsay. Fair points, and well made. I'd be quite happy to see the article retained with the change of title you suggest [and the list of names removed]. Will do some more checking on the background - CC Mullen is I think the original compiler in the mid-1950s.

RossRSmith (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the re-titling of the article (and don't even consider deletion). I have in front of me a reliable reference that says that it existed. It doesn't say that the Argus reported on it, or any other specific paper. It says that it was award to Wills for "allround sporting excellence in 1856 and 1857". It may have been awarded by a single person, or by a town council or by the Freemasons. I don't know. But AFL 2005 (p486) goes onto say it was transferred to the captains gathering at the end of the season to decide who was the best player of the year and then later by writers and critics, but doesn't say from where - maybe from a paper that hasn't yet been digitised - and maybe just like the Herald Sun won't refer to anyone as winning The Age's best player award, no-one else reported it (How many newspapers would report on the Ch 9's Lou Richards Medal or if the Footy Record gave out awards).

Who knows how important/respected/what esteem the award was held in. But someone, somewhere, at sometime did write down the list and it's made it into the official AFL records (was also in the 100 years of AFL book from 1996). Have you contacted Col Hutchinson, Michael Lovett or others at the AFL to ask where the list came from? Until you have proven that the list published by the AFL was a fabrication by someone, at sometime, then it must stay. Proving that you can't find the source is not the same.

And "holding further comment" isn't really Assuming Good Faith for the rest of us... For those who don't like playing games, The Argus held a plebiscite in Sept 1909 and received over 100,000 votes for the best player in both the league and association. It was called "champion of the season" on the coupon, but in most other references it was labelled "Football Champion". Still doesn't prove anything.The-Pope (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So you stand by the details listed on p486-487 of AFL2005 do you ? RossRSmith (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Until I see real proof that it was a fabrication by someone in the 60s in an office in Jolimont or similar... yes. The rules may have changed year to year, the name may have changed, it may have been the exclusive award of the Toorak Times. I don't know, but I do know that the AFL considers it enough to be listed in their book. I also know that things from that era are often found to be wrong (ie Dave Clement and the confusion over Fremantle/Union's premierships from the 1880s)... but prove it first, then get it published by a reliable source.The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

AFL2005 guide lists winners of alleged COTC award including:

1856 - Tom Wills (Corio Bay). Nonsense, Wills had been studying in England for some years, and played a number of cricket matches in UN & Ireland during 1856 cricket season, arriving back in Victoria on or about 23 December 1856. Not known to have played for Corio Bay during the remaining week.

1858 - George Bruce (Richmond CCFC). Nonsense, no such club known to have existed.

1903 - Hugh Gavin (Essendon). Nonsense, Gavin played in WA Goldfields comp that year, not in VFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RossRSmith (talk • contribs) 12:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

From the intro "was awarded to Tom Wills for all round sporting excellence in 1856 and 1857". Maybe the award was made in the beginning of the year for the previous year, or for his performances in the UK, and had previously been registered with Corio Bay. "From 1858 the award transfered to Australian Football with the captains gathering at the end of the season to decide who was the best player of the year." Maybe they meant after 1858, not from 1858. Again, maybe the award was given at the beginning of the year to Gavin for the 1902 season, but awarded in 1903. Raise your concerns with the publisher and see if AFL 2010 makes any corrections, or supplies any evidence.The-Pope (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Brian

Brian is adding 2010 fixtures and 2009 results in list format to the St Kilda article. Could we have eyes on this? As I've already reverted twice.Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He has just been 'blocked indefinitely' after once more reporting you, as well as Afterwriting and myself for 'vandalism'. Jevansen (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference reliability

At the Laurie Nash GA Review, the reviewer asks whether Stats.rleague.com and Full Points Footy are reliable sources. While I personally believe both to be reliable, I can understand others being less confident. Is there something we can point to with these (and any other "non-official" sites) to prove their reliability (or at least that they are no more unreliable than printed sources? --Roisterer (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

rleague is usually reliable. I have had a few issues with FPF in relation to accuracy.Hack (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Argh.. not the first time Stats.rleague.com has come up. Suggest not using unless completely necessary. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

For the more recent players would you use the AFL/club website profiles?Hack (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've probably found more errors in Main & Holmseby's Encyclopedia of AFL/VFL players as I have on AFL Tables (stats.rleague.com). The big difference is any errors on the website can be fixed in days, compared to probably left untouched until the next edition. And given how others (see above) regard the official AFL stats guides... I would trust those two sites above most. The other site that suffers due to it's web address is Kevin Taylor's [footystats.freeservers.com Footystats], that lives on a free server. Never shows up high on google searches, but I'd trust it above almost all others.The-Pope (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We've had similar debates at WP:FOOTY in the past. Given that wikipedia allows Soccerbase (one of the least accurate stats sites I've ever seen, only any good for 1996 onwards), I don't think the bar is particularly high. The basic rule of thumb we have there is "what makes this more than just a bloke with webspace?" For instance, has someone involved with it published anything? Do parts of the media occasionally use or refer to it? Do pundits or commentators refer to it? Or a club/clubs? I know we're talking about a different sport, but does rleague.com endorse the Rugby League statistics on the site? Even that would probably do. 82.13.161.114 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)