Talk:2011 AFL season

Red links and GWS

Hey GPW, considereing it seems to only be the two of us who edit this article. I have added the info about GWS back to the article because you have to look at this from the perspective of the reader. They will see that this will be the only season with 17 teams teams, but if we don't explain why this is the case then they will be wondering why. Can you please explain here why you think it shouldn't be mentioned rather then just reverting me? Jenks24 (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sponsored Venues

Hello All,

Since the AFL page lists the venue names without the sponsors' names, should we change the names of the venues in this page (and possibly previous year's pages) to make both pages more consistent. Hope to hear all of your views on this. Cheers, Lindblum (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wherever possible we should avoid commercial names. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The AFL does use commercial names for stadiums. For the 2009 season, the only stadium the AFL did not use a commercial name for was Etihad Stadium due to a sponsorship conflict between Qantas and Etihad Airlines and as such, the AFL only referrred to the stadium as Docklands Stadium. Since this has been resolved, the AFL and every other media outlet refers to the stadiums by their naming rights sponsor. I believe this article should do the same, not as an advertising vehicle, but because this is what they are called. Thankyou Merlin Wiese (talk 2:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably the most reliable broadcast source for anything to do with the AFL is the ABC. It goes out of it's way to avoid the commercial names, on the basis that it should not be promoting commercial organisations. Nor should Wikipedia. The non-commercial names are just as real, and in many ways, more correct than the commercial names, because they are "permanent", not changing on the whim of a marketing person. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with everything HiLo and Lindblum have said. Wikipedia isn't an advertising vehicle. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I believe that we should use the commercial names because most people know then better by they commercial name rather that the permanent venue name e.g. Many people wouldn't know that York Park is Aurora Stadium, so I suggested that we use the commercial names so that people know the extact venue of the match.

Many Thanks,

McAusten (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That may work for young folks not used to the traditional names and brainwashed in commercialisation, and it may work for some venues, but please tell us what is any less clear about the name York Park than the name Aurora Stadium? And I seem to have been aware of a Telstra Stadium and a Telstra Dome and a Telstra something else. Where are they? Do they still use those names? All very unclear. Oh, and that brings to another point. Back to York Park. I suspect that name has existed for 100 years. Aurora Stadium is a current name that could change on the whim of an administrator and/or commercial arrangement. The permanent, non-commercial names are the stable ones. If a game is played this year at a venue that has a new sponsor next year, do we change our article to give the venue its new name? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Titan uranus (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with the opinion that the page should have generic, non-sponsored names. The stadia are known to the majority of supporters as their sponsored names. Almost no one refers to York Park as York Park. This should be kept in line with the 2010 season's references, which were to the sponsor names. Also, the argument that we should follow the ABC is ridiculous. That view is out-dated and impractical, especially given that advertising is seen repeatedly on their television broadcasts of VFL matches.

Related to this issue, I am sure that our fellow Wikipedians are smart enough to click on the links provided if they are not sure what each ground is, or where they are located. Also, with regards to the ABC, I am very sure that during every AFL radio broadcast, they air no commercial advertisements. I am certain this is what HiLo48 was referring to when they mentioned the ABC. Lindblum (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My two cents worth - As the commercial naming rights are subject to change, and therefore the commercial name of the stadia are going to change also, would it not make more sense to refer to the stadia as the non-sponsored names? If the MCG or SCG was to be sponsored in the future, what would most fans (or people visiting this site) refer to the stadia as? MC Rocks (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I know the ABC radio coverage has no ads, but they attempt to do the same thing on their TV coverage (also their TV news). It's impossible of course, and ads and references to the commercial names come up all the time. The simple fact, one that HiLo48 chooses to avoid, is that people generally refer to these stadiums by their common name, and that is their commercial one. Yes, Geelong people say 'Kardina Park', and many haven't yet recognised that Subiaco is now 'Pattersons Oval'. But most people (most, not everyone) refer to Etihad Stadium, AAMI Stadium, Aurora Park and Telstra Stadium as those names. And like I said, Wikipedia has done so in the past. Titan uranus (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Our major map sources (Google Maps, Melway) don't show the commercial names. See my 21.48 comment below.) If someone wants to find a ground they need the permanent name. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, it is an encyclopedia that should accurately reflect the stadiums name at the present time. If any other organisation or even individual changed their name, Wikipedia would be expected to reflect these changes. The stadium pages clearly show the 'current' name, and both the AFL and stadiums themselves market these venues under their sponsored names. Whilst we may not all like, or agree with the sponsored names, virtually every other Wikipedia page for any sport will reflect the sponsored name, and I feel the AFL should do the same. We're not in the 1960's anymore, and personal feelings on the matter shouldn't inhibit article accuracy. For example, Kardinia Park is the area that hosts Skilled Stadium. The stadium itself is no longer known as Kardinia Park, and hasn't been for some time. I suggest somebody get hold of an AFL press release which shows the official names that the AFL expects to be used. This is not the ABC, and contrary to individual beliefs, Wikipedia is not against using corporate names if it enhances article accuracy.

Brad 191919191 (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2011 (AEDT)

Temporary names are a problem for anyone who doesn't have a map showing the short term name for the relatively short period a commercial name exists. Let Wikipedia be the place where encyclopaedically sound long term, permanent names are recorded. Those names haven't gone away. We have no need to pander to short term marketing goals. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Like it or loathe it, the commercial names are the official stadium names. I don't call you MiLo48 when your name's HiLo48. Wikipedia should reflect accurately the name of the stadium at the time. Years down the track when Etihad Stadium is Qatari Oil Stadium, the user will still be able to click on the stadium name and see where that venue is. This isn't about pandering to marketing goals - it is about acknowledging fact from fiction. Etihad Stadium is the official name, Docklands Stadium is the unofficial name. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be displaying official names. Brad 191919191 (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2011 (AEDT)

Please define "official". And Wikipedia has policies about using common names. The poor old Docklands Stadium in Melbourne has changed its name so often that it has around four or five of those. Docklands is the one consistent name recognised by everybody. HiLo48 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I would define "official" as the names referred to by the governing body of the sport as well as the stadiums themselves. In instances such as Olympic Games and Asian Cup Soccer, where the governing body refuses to recognise the sponsors names (this also occured with the AFL and Etihad in 2009), then it is appropriate to refer to the venue by its generic name. But when the AFL in this instance chooses to acknowledge the sponsored names, then Wikipedia, being an accurate encyclopedia, should reflect this. You say Wikipedia has policies about using 'common names'... I think most people in this day and age refer to venues by their sponsored name, and hence that would be deemed common. I suggest you check out the 2010/11 NRL, Super Rugby, A-League, EPL, NFL season pages and you will notice that they all use sponsors names. Fair enough, AFL fans don't have to comply with other codes/sports, but we also don't have to be different for the sake of being different. This is only my opinion and I respect yours entirely, but it's one which I personally feel reflects the present situation most accurately. Brad 191919191 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you go to Geelong one day and ask the folks there where they go to watch their footy. I don't live there but I have a lot of relatives who do, obsessive Geelong supporters, and it's Kardinia Park all the way for them. If you've known a place under a particular name all your life, you do not change your usage just because some sponsor turns up for a year or two. The name is part of the geography of your town, not a business deal. Also, I just checked Google Maps and the Melway (Victoria's favourite street directory). Both display ONLY the traditional name. So to use commercial names here achieves little but helping advertisers. That's not our goal. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think venue names should be kept as their sponsored names for the appropriate season(s) in which they are so named, and kept as their usual name for other purpose eg. for club's home grounds or for lists of venues. For example for an article on say, the 1933 VFL season, the term Princes Park would be used, but for an article on the 1995 AFL season, Optus Oval would be used.

Just a thought - considering the AFL is the governing body for this competition, and the AFL's [afl.com.au website] uses sponsored names - see AFL venues on the official AFL website. This would seem a logical reason to use sponsored names where the AFL uses it. Also, the use of Docklands Stadium instead of Etihad Stadium would seem to be in violation of WP:COMMONNAME - "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." A simple Google test for sponsored venue names as opposed to their non-sponsored names appears to be in favour of sponsored names (I used speech marks around each name):

• Etihad Stadium (201 000 results) vs Docklands Stadium (29 000 results) (Colonial Stadium [68 800 results] and Telstra Dome [809 000 results], former names of the stadium, have even greater results).
• TIO Stadium (45 600 results) vs Marrara Oval (11 300 results) vs (2630 results)
• Skilled Stadium (52 900 results) vs Kardinia Park (21 500 results)
• Subiaco Oval (93 400 reults) vs Patersons Stadium (31 000 results)
• Football Park Adelaide (122 000 results) vs AAMI Stadium (110 000 results)
• Aurora Stadium (118 000 results) vs York Park Tasmania (44 100 results)/York Park Launceston (33 800 results))
• ANZ Stadium (195 000 results) vs Stadium Australia (260 000 results) vs Telstra Stadium (283 000 results)

Excluding Patersons Stadium, whose name has only just changed, and Football Park, which may have had some results added due to its somewhat generic name, all other sponsored names have more hits than their unsponsored names. I cannot find any Wikipedia policy that is against using sponsored names, and as far as I can see, most other sports league, particularly in the US, but also in New Zealand and Europe, use sponsored names, which are generally the more well-known names. Unless someone can come up with a good argument as to why these names should not be changed (besides having friends who call a stadium only by its old name, as above), I would like to hear it, and if not, these names should be changed. Bozzio (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, those who have presented arguments for a view different from yours actually believe they ARE good arguments. To constantly just ignore them is not even good manners. This is a discussion. We respond to the content of each others' comments. Well, some of us do. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please (re)present these arguments? As far as I've seen, the arguments against is that non-sponsored names are more common, which is not verified by a search engine test or by any source that I have seen on this page besides saying friends call it by a certain name, which by no means makes it the most common name used; and that stadium names change too much, so the original name should be used, although stadium article names could just be changed, like with most other stadiums in other sports leagues, as they gain new sponsors or revert back to their original name. I am not ignoring either of these arguments, I have rebutted them as they seem to be incorrect, not supported by any WP policies or by WP:COMMONNAME. I would be happy to hear feedback on my comments, too. Bozzio (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the ABC's website does sometimes use commercial names, even though, like Wikipedia, they are not meant to be an advertising vehicle 'Skilled Stadium' used, not Kardinia Park.Bozzio (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably mu biggest concerns arise because of the ephemeral nature of commercial names. I like to think of an encyclopaedia as having some sort of timeless quality. One should be able to look at content and get as much meaning as possible at any time. To suggest using different names for the same ground in different seasons, when it's not necessary, frankly seems nonsensical to me. I like the idea of being able to logically connect from Wikipedia to other documents, maps and sources, old and new. Obviously the best approach is to use the permanent names, not a name that could change tonight. I pointed out above that my two favourite map sources, Google Maps and Melway, both use the permanent names for the grounds I looked at. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason that there has to be any "all or nothing" policy here - would you agree that Aurora Stadium, AAMI Stadium, ANZ Stadium, Etihad Stadium and TIO Stadium could be changed to their sponsored names in this article, as they are the more recognisable names? As to your point above, it would seem to me to be incorrect to refer to anything by its old name. The SCG is not referred to as the Association Ground. The names of things change, and Wikipedia will document these changes, but should always use the current name. Bozzio (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I have no idea where AAMI Stadium, ANZ Stadium, and TIO Stadium are. And that's part of the problem. As for being the most recognised names, who says so? Got a good source? As for current names, in many cases there are clearly two. Why not use the more permanent one? HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Search engine test above? Almost all media sources and the AFL official website use commercial names.

Oh, by the way, I changed things that were not related to the stadium names in my last edit, so be a bit careful before reverting willy-nilly :) It doesn't really matter. Bozzio (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hilo, this really has to be changed. I respect your opinion, but as myself and others have stated, Wikipedia articles need to reflect the official and most common name for the venue at the time. The governing body, and most supporters, will refer to the sponsored names. They appear in newspapers, matchday programs, event tickets, tv, radio (except ABC who account for a limited amount of AFL listeners) etc. You told me I should head down to Geelong... well I go down at least once a season and hear Skilled used often. In any case, I don't think the unverifiable views of the good people of Geelong should have bearing on this matter - it isn't a popularity contest, it's a matter of fact. This is a wider issue, and as stated, the pages for virtually every sporting organisation in the world reflect the current sponsored names. If we have to go down the 'he said, she said' path, I assure you that most people I know refer to venues by their sponsored name. If you don't know where AAMI Stadium is, I suggest you actually start watching and reading about some AFL, instead of listening to the ABC 24/7. Brad 191919191 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's time for some good faith to be shown here. That last post shows little. Your response is one of a person who is frustrated that not everyone is seeing things their way. I encounter that sort of thing every day, and have no trouble dealing with it. I intend to step back for a bit, recommending that you too await contributions from a few other editors. Bozzio has damaged your case by making a sweeping change when clearly no consensus existed to justify it. It may in a few days. Show some manners, both of you, and you're more likely to persuade others. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've shown more then enough manners - I've stated numerous times that I respect your opinion and you're more then entitled to it. I can actually see where you're coming from. I'm not frustrated I'm not getting things my way - I'm frustrated that an online encyclopedia will not accurately reflect the stadium names at the present time. I never said sponsored names sit well with me 100%, but they need to be acknowledged. Anyway, if the consensus is against my views, well I'll cop it on the chin. I don't think Bozzio has damaged 'my' case, and I also feel that we're both (you and me) recycling arguments like a merry-go-round. I think you're right that we should wait a few days and hopefully more people will chip in with their 2 cents. But I don't think we need the teacher-schoolkid retorts of "show some manners". The arguments to date have been reasonably civil and I don't think anybody needs to be spoken to in a condecending manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad 191919191 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I really MUST make one more comment. One reason I have repeated arguments is to desperately try to get you to respond to some of them. Maps would be the classic example. That you repeatedly ignore points I make is very frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The manners thing goes both way, HiLo48. You removed my entire edit apparently without even looking at it, removing some content that was not related to the stadium names.

I'm not sure if you are unable to see that your argument that it is easier not to change names of stadiums even if they are the common name of the stadium does not satisfy any Wikipedia policies, including WP:NOTADVERTISING (stadium names are not biased towards a particular product or company; they do not promote a company other than its name - it is not FLY ETIHAD Stadium or BANK USING ANZ Stadium) or WP:COMMONNAME (most of the commercially-named stadiums are most well-known by that particular name, especially where the same name has been used for a number of years). Basically, you are proposing to use names for articles that are neither the common name, as shown by a search engine test and from most media sources; nor the official name, as written on the Australian Football League's official website. This does not make much sense. I am sorry if you think I am not showing "manners" or using good faith, but I cannot see a logical reason why these names should be kept, except as a historical reference. I am happy to hear some other users comment besides yourself and Brad191919191, but if a consensus cannot be reached in a few days, I think it would be best if we submitted this for a third opinion. Bozzio (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be two separate issues here - firstly the actual article name, which is what WP:COMMONNAME actually refers to (it does not apply to use in other articles), and unless we are discussing changing 2011 AFL season to something else, should not be discussed here. Whether the actual article name is Subiaco Oval or Pattersons Stadium has a pretty clear consensus that we keep the article at the non-sponsored name. If you want to debate that, then go to each venue's page or to WT:AFL and start a discussion there. For the older grounds, with well-established names, it's an easy decision. For newer grounds that only ever had sponsored names, it can be a problem, but generally there is a name in use prior to the sponsorship arrangement being made.

For use in pages like this, however, I am leaning towards using the name in use at the time. ie, a Geelong home game on 1975 VFL season would have [[Kardinia Park (stadium)|]], in the mid 90s or whenever it was, [[Kardinia Park (stadium)|Baytec Stadium]] or [[Kardinia Park (stadium)|Shell Stadium]] and recently it would have [[Kardinia Park (stadium)|Skilled Stadium]]. The name of the ground at the time should be retained FOR historical accuracy, despite how commercial or advertising-like it may seem at the moment.The-Pope (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think The-Pope has summed it up perfectly: if an article is making reference to a particular year or season, use the name of the stadium that was used in that season; if the stadium is being listed for example as a home ground or in a list of venues, the COMMONNAME should be used, whether it is a commercial name or a non-commercial name. The three grounds I would have issue with using a non-commercial stadium are Docklands Stadium/Colonial Stadium/Telstra Dome/Etihad Stadium, Football Park/AAMI Stadium and York Park/Aurora Stadium

• Docklands Stadium has never been officially known by the AFL as Docklands Stadium, and is generally more recognizable as one of its commercial names. Although Telstra Dome has more hits on a Google test, I think it would be better to use its current name.
• AAMI Stadium has been known as such since the middle of the 2002 season (source: Austadiums article, which coincidently is called AAMI Stadium). Football Park is also a bit ambiguous; most sporting grounds in Australia could be described in one way or another as a 'Football Park'.
• Aurora Stadium has been known as such since the middle of 2004 (source: "New name for York Park"). York Park is not generally used by any major media or non-media sources (excluding sometimes the ABC), and is slightly ambiguous.

In particular Docklands Stadium definitely needs to have its article name changed. Bozzio (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really commenting on this debate, but I think The-Pope makes a good point about the name of the ground vs what it is called in a given season. But just on one of the above, Football park has been known by that name since 1974, and only as AAMI Stadium since 2002. You'll find that the two names are used interchangeably by everyone involved (from the general public to the SANFL management), and that for historical reasons I would continue to favour Football Park. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as a quick aside, previous consensus was pretty much in line with The-Pope: use the non-sponsored name on the article, but in articles about leagues you use the sponsored name at the time, linking to the non-sponsored name for the article. - Bilby (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

One further argument: why do corporations bother spending millions of dollars on naming rights? So that the stadiums they buy the rights to are referred to with a reference to the corporation. As has been said above, it's not 'Fly Etihad Stadium'. By writing Etihad Stadium Wikipedia is not imploring readers to fly Etihad. It is simply honouring the rights of Etihad to have that stadium known as Etihad Stadium. The page is ridiculous the way it is. Titan uranus (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You really don't understand advertising. I saw the boss of Etihad explaining that he bought those naming rights years ago precisely so that people WOULD think of flying Etihad when the airline became more active in Australia, which it now has. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting the snide put-down to one side, of course Etihad purchased the naming rights to get people to fly with them. But by calling it 'Etihad Stadium' Wikipedia is not suggesting to people that they should fly Etihad. It is simply honouring the fact that Etihad Airways paid to have the stadium named after them. That would be the right thing to do. Furthermore, as Bozzio has suggested, your logic extends to re-naming the NAB Cup the Pre-season competition. That is what the ABC does, and if you truly believe Wikipedia should not refer to stadia by their commercial name, why are you happy to refer to the NAB Cup as it is? Titan uranus (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48: Do you think we should change the article 2011 NAB Cup to "2011 Australian Football League pre-season competition"? I would hate to think we are promoting the NAB. Bozzio (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a constructive nor relevant comment HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, of course its not, because it doesn't benefit your argument. It's actually a really good point that I didn't think of. Isn't it complete double standards if we can acknowledge a competition sponsor but not a stadium sponsor? And your right, sponsors pay for stadium naming rights to increase exposure of their brand (and hopefully revenue), but it still doesn't say "Fly with Etihad" or "Insure with AAMI". It's simply just mentioning the company name. Looking at the numerous posts from myself and others above, it seems as though the only one putting up any resistence to the change is your good self. And when you look at the pages for every other sporting competition in the world, not to mention past AFL seasons, it's not hard to see why. Perhaps you are a traditionalist Gen X-er who can't handle change? It's time to start acknowledging the fact that the sponsored names are the official stadium names, recognised by the stadiums themselves and the AFL, the competitions governing body. This should be good enough for encycolpedic purposes. The fact we still have 'Docklands Stadium' listed is frankly embaressing when you look at other sports codes pages. This isn't 1964 anymore. The only ones who refuse to acknowledge the names are the Tobin Brothers on ABC (whoops, I just mentioned a company name). I suggest the change be made tomorrow (AEDT). Brad 191919191 (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

When the your argument becomes more about me than the topic at hand, you have really stopped being a productive contributor to Wikipedia. Maybe you should take your embarrassment and abusive style somewhere else. HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ok guys, the personal attacks are getting us nowhere. I think everyone has made their points and that some of you need to disengage from this conversation for a while. If we really need to, we can call in an uninvolved user to determine the consensus of the discussion, but the unambiguous personal attacks are getting this discussion nowhere and are weakening some people's arguments. Jenks24 (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything that The Pope and Jenks24 have typed in this section. It is time for everyone to stop these personal attacks and have a look at this in a constructive (and non-violent) manner.

- Firstly, just because other sports pages on Wikipedia refer to stadium names in a specific way doesn't mean that it should necessarily be used in this page or others. I have personally found out the hard way, making changes on a (non-AFL) sports page to match those on another sports page isn't a good thing if certain users (most likely the ones you helped create that particular page) will not budge under any circumstances and didn't hesistate to use harsh statements directed towards me. This taught me that the best thing to do is not to change all of it, just a part that I feel needs changing, which involves compromise.

- Secondly, any sponsorship contracts that are signed with a stadium to change the stadium name does not impart any direct legal (or any other) responsibility on Wikipedia to change the way that stadium is referred to on this (or any) page. It is the way the stadium is referred to by other impartial sources that raises the issue of whether the name of the stadium needs changing to reflect the present (and not the past or the future).

- Thirdly, any requests for Docklands Stadium to change its article name should be moved to that page, not this one. AFL isn't the only entity that uses this particular stadium.

Now that I've got that off my chest, to achieve consensus on this issue I believe we could do the following:

• Use the current (sponsored) stadium names in the 2011 AFL Season page
• On the AFL main page, list the stadiums by their original (unsponsored) name, then show the current (sponsored) name (and the previous names if the urge overcomes anyone) beside it in the next column, so that anyone can instantly see what the stadium was referred to in the past and what it is called in the present. Lindblum (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

GWS/WS

Just a query: is the correct name for the new football team based in Western Sydney, Greater Western Sydney, West Sydney or just Western Sydney? Or does it matter?Bozzio (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure our article Greater Western Sydney Football Club is correct on this one and they should be referred to as Greater Western Sydney in Wikipedia articles (the majority of the time). Jenks24 (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Change, or not?

We have had a week-or-so-long discussion, and HiLo48 has the only objection of those whose have participated in the discussion to using the names the AFL recognises as correct for season pages, and I stress this, only for season pages i.e. the name used officially, whether commercial or not, during the 2006 season, would be used in an article about the 2006 season. I think tomorrow (27th Feb) would be a good time to change the names, if no more reasonable objections with a reasonable argument and a reliable source. Bozzio (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is what the consensus has shown we should do, though to be fair to HiLo he wasn't the only objector to the change (I think both Lindblum and myself were for using the non-sponsored names at the beginning of the discussion). I also agree that, unless more objections spring out of the woodwork, it would be agreeable to make the change tomorrow. My only concern with all this is that, although I would easily be able to tell what [[Kardinia Park (stadium)|Skilled Stadium]] means, I think I would have to actually click the link in an old article when it's showing [[Kardinia Park (stadium)|Baytec Stadium]]. Jenks24 (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note on that, Kardinia Park was only known as Baytec Stadium for two months before the start of the 2001 stadium, before the stadium deal with Baytec collapsed and was replaced by a deal with Skilled Engineering, during which no regular season AFL matches were played. Not sure if any Wizard Cup games were played, though. [1] Bozzio (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for the link and for clarifying that for me. Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A simple suggestion. Show both names. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So will this change be occuring? 218.185.10.126 (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Collingwood v St Kilda match in round 11

From the article: "Collingwood and St Kilda meet for the first time since last year's drawn decider." Wouldn't this be INCORRECT as they met the week after the drawn decider, in the Grand Final Replay? Suggest re-wording to "Collingwood and St Kilda meet for the first time since last year's drawn grand final and subsequent replay" or similar. Because they have met since the drawn Grand Final. It was 7 days later. Sem boy (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You are completely correct and I have reworded accordingly. Please feel free to improve upon what I have done and if you see any other instances like this, where something is simply wrong, you can just fix it yourself (though you should give a reason in the edit summary). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)