Talk:2010 AFL season

Australia: Australian rules football Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2010 AFL season is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Please add rounds

Anybody editing this page, please put the season fixture on.

HOW TO DO IT:

1. Go to this website: http://www.afl.com.au/premiership%20fixture/tabid/10586/default.aspx

2. If you see "BY ROUND", press on whatever round your doing.

3. Finished.

Thank you to whoever helps out this page and adding more rounds to the 2010 season fixture.

New Match Templates

Please see my post on the talk page for wikiproject AFL - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_AFL#New_AFL_Match_Templates_-_Comments_Please.

The proposed new templates would effect this page, so it would be good to have the feedback of people who use and edit this page.

Matt5AU (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main new template is Template:AFLGame. The link will take you to the page for the template, which includes documentation on usage if you have any problems. Matt5AU (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Times of Games in Fixture section

I think that at the start of the fixture (ie above Round 1), that the following line should appear - (All times shown are local) - to clarify how the start times were calculated (I can't find the right word, but hopefully you can sort of understand where I am going with this). Any thoughts or further suggestions about this proposal? This particular line appears on the Fixture page of the AFL website (link is in the section Please add rounds on this page)

Lindblum (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note about all times being local. It looked a bit bare on it's own so I also created a bit of a preamble on the draw.Matt5AU (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypotheticals

Today I have already removed one addition by an IP of the form "If (x happens) it will be the first......" Another IP editor has just added: "If they play, Barry Hall (Western Bulldogs) and Brent Staker (Brisbane Lions) will face off for the first time since Hall punched Staker in the infamous clash in Round 4, 2008, when they played for Sydney and West Coast respectively."

OK, it's true, but it depends on an if, and is about an event in the future. I know it's the sort of thing sports journalists delight in, but this is an encyclopaedia, not the back pages of a tabloid paper.

I reckon I could make up another ten similar hypotheticals in the next half hour. Do we really want that in Wikipedia?

HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are that we don't need that sort of information in the article. You are correct HiLo48; one could come up with any number of this type of scenario to prove a point. MC Rocks 08:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical Leaders

Should the article have a section for the top X number of players in certain statistical categories somewhere? If that's not standard information to report in the AFL, forgive me, I am a relatively new fan of the sport. Anyways, I was thinking goals, behinds, marks, tackles, disposals, handballs, and frees for/against would be a good start for a "Statistical Leaders" section. Maybe would be pertinent to have a team statistics section as well? EDIT: I've looked at the 2008 season article which has sections for goals, disposals, kicks, handballs, marks, tackles, and hitouts...and on second thought, behinds wouldn't be such a great stat to have, ha. Hokun (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Hokun[reply]

I was just thinking that and I am willing to do it, if a majority agree that statistics should be placed in there, I think it does add value to the article to show who is leading the statistics in each of the various areas mentioned by Hokun. I will add it as soon as I have clarification that it should be on the page. Tubby23 (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we write about rumours?

This article now has a Notable events section describing rumours about possible salary cap breaches by St Kilda. I don't think Wikipedia should contain rumours.

HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I left it in and didn't nuke it was because of the effect the rumour had on the betting markets. Rumours without an effect don't belong here unless they are very, very widely reported.The-Pope (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think rumours should stay unless they are backed up by one (maybe two) sources Bevstarrunner (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong - Record run of home ground wins?

I recall reading a fortnight ago that Geelong had equalled the longest run of home ground wins ever recorded. With today's win, it would have broken that record. (It's about 24 wins.) This is notable enough to be a footnote, but I cannot find the original source. Anyone? HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people don't like my site (well, one person), but here's my tally: http://stats.rleague.com/afl/teams/allteams/streaks.html#02

Thanks. I like the information content of your site but, as a teacher of web design, I'd make a few initial suggestions. Firstly, get rid of the patterned background. Makes it too hard to read. A plain colour would be better. Secondly, increase the overall font size just a bit. Thirdly, spread out the heading lists so that it's easier for a newcomer to find what they are interested in. Moving on, did the other person's objection prevent us from using your site as a reference. The data is what matters here, not whether it looks pretty. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Round?

I know we've had it in previous years, but I thought I heard a suggestion on radio that the AFL is taking the emphasis off these "special" rounds. The AFL website tonight, at the start of round 8, doesn't mention Indigenous Round. There's a small video of indigenous marks, but that seems to be it. Should we drop the round name too? HiLo48 (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with dropping the title. Could just add a note that the Ess v Rich Dreamtime match is a celebration of the contribution to the game by indigenous players. Not sure if the game in Darwin has any special significance as well? Matt5AU (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a limit to "This is the first time since....."?

This article is full of statements of the type "This is the first time x has beaten y in the dark at z stadium while wearing their purple shorts since...." Is there a limit to this? Has anyone ever tried to set guidelines as to what is notable and what isn't, or is it just up to editors who stick this stuff in and others who review it, depending upon how they feel at the time?

At the moment, some of this stuff reads like pointless trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if enough people are now looking at this article for me to actually get a response on this issue? HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, every single "notable" round by round event should be deleted UNLESS it is directly supported by a reference to a reliable source. Otherwise it is just a laundry list of whatever, whenever. Freo's "first time playing at the MCG this year" is notable, as it's been widely discussed in many reliable sources. "Freo's first loss to a team captained by a red head wearing white shorts when they are wearing their home jumper at an away ground" is not.The-Pope (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching Changes

When is it appropriate to note that Paul Roos is handing over to John Longmire at season's end? Bevstarrunner (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2011 article? Maybe mention at their last home game? Maybe tonight's if they lose... but most importantly, when you have a reliable source that mentions it.The-Pope (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit skirmish over the logo

Two editors seem to have been disagreeing over the presence of the AFL logo in this article. It looks fine to me, but I'm open to an explanation of why it shouldn't be there. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The removal of the logo makes the article look much worse and it shouldn't be removed unless a good replacement image can be found to be for it (but I doubt it can). Jenks24 (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see anything wrong with the logo either. GPW is happy to demand people justify why it should be included but reverts without himself giving a reason why it should go. Jevansen (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you stalking me Javansen? The logo is great but it isn't the offical logo of the 2010 season. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 22:05, 12 September, 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think Jevansen is "stalking" you. It's probably just that he has a lot of pages on his watchlist that you continue to edit-war on, even when the talk page consensus disagrees with your personal opinion. To answer your issue about the logo, there is no specific logo for the 2010 season (to my knowledge) and if you read the caption that logo has been the AFL logo for every season from 2000 to 2010. Jenks24 (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just following the example of the NFL seasons wikipedia. They do not use there offical logo on their season exept for the 2008 season when the logo was redone because it was important and I've put it up on the 2000 season which mirrors it I spose. I do the simpless edits and it starts into a war with usally you people. It's an image of the AFL logo, it's not the offical logo of the 2010 season. Please just keep editing the article without the logo which is unneeded. SOme of these guys are doing a great job and this little issue shouldn't cause the article to be edited on. Thank you. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 22:35, 12 September, 2010 (UTC)

There you go!!! A perfectly reasonable case for removing the logo. This is why you need to communicate, instead of just threatening the user in your edit summaries. If you had summarised what you wrote above the issue may have been resolved much earlier.

At risk of being further accused of stalking, I just looked at your edit history and am staggered by how many edit wars/disputes you are currently involved in just over the last 24 hrs.

As such I'd suggest you stop blaming other people as the reason you keep getting into edit wars and take a look at why it is you that seems to be involved in all recent AFL related disputes on wikipedia. You are allowed three reverts in a 24 hr period. Once you have reached your limit, or preferably before, you need to seek an alternate method to resolve the dispute. You are responsible for ensurng you don't go over that number, it doesn't matter how many times the other person had reverted the page. Jevansen (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo currently has a fair use rationale for only the Australian Football League article. If it's going to be used here (or on the Australian international rules football team, AFL (video game series), and Australian Rules Football (video game) where it also currently appears) then it needs a proper justification written. I don't know whether or not an acceptable justification is available in this situation, but "it looks good" doesn't qualify. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, "it looks good" was the not so serious, ironical reason I used in my post to bring this discussion here, hoping that someone would notice that I, at least, had given a reason, unlike our two warriors. I have no strong feelings either way on whether the logo should be there, but I could see the need for discussion. Not being an expert on Wikipedia rules, etc, can someone explain how the logo image "has a fair use rationale for only the Australian Football League article"? I can see that it may not be appropriate on Australian international rules football team, AFL (video game series), and Australian Rules Football (video game), but is there some "legal" reason why it should not be used here? (Note that I am not arguing for its inclusion or otherwise, just seeking knowledge.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'It looks good' might not have been intended to be a serious argument, but it's still the only argument I've seen. See WP:LOGO and WP:FAIR for information on non-free images. Yes, there is a "legal" reason. Every article that includes a fair use image needs to have a specific fair use rationale for the image to appear on that page. It's a copyright and/or trademark issue. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jevansen, I wasn't the one who was warned by an admin to stop this childish behaviour of yours. Some of those are wrong or with the same people. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 14:10, 13 September, 2010 (UTC)

All these warnings and tips on avoiding edit warring really aren't getting through to you are they .... Jevansen (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. GPW clearly has absolute contempt for wikipedia policies. He has been banned for edit warring before and since returning from his block he has continued on in the same disruptive manner as before. If he isn't going to listen to advice, given in good faith, what more can be done? I think I'm going to have to fill out at report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Jevansen (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A report? You are just a hypocrite. Last night you and Afterwriter abused me calling me immature when I'm just a wikipedian like yourself. You seem to want to stalk me, looking up my history and being noisey towards me. WHy is it when I go on an article you are on there wanting to catch me out and get me off wikipedia? GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 15:25, 13 September, 2010 (UTC)

OK, we can all move on now. GPW, what you did was correct. How you did it was wrong. Non-Free images can't be used just for decoration. Absolutely the right thing to do was to delete it. Your edit summary at the time was OK too, The AFL logo is not the offical logo of the 2010 season. But you have to back off a bit and wonder if getting angry, accusing people of stalking etc is worth it? The-Pope (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were abused at an called an "immature twirp" and then a admin telling the abuser to stay away from you but just cause more problems, I'd think you would be angry too. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really affect anything here though. Take a step back, remember that ALL we have to go on is the keystrokes that you make, and remember at the end of the day... it's just a website.The-Pope (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onorem - thanks for the explanation re the fair use policy. That does explain the issue, unlike any of Gpw's Edit summaries. And sorry The-Pope, but you're wrong. Gpw's Edit summaries were mostly confrontational and did not explain the real problem. Pretty sure he broke the Three revert rule along the way too. We now have the correct logo, and it did not come from Gpw! It came from you, The-Pope, so thank you for that. But no-one's confrontational attitude should be excused. I know that on sports and games articles we sometimes have editors with less sophisticated knowledge of polices, but that doesn't mean we have to behave like we're barracking for our favourite team and throw logical thought and good manners out the window. I'm glad the article is correct (and looking better now ;-) ) Let's move on. HiLo48 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors interested in this matter will find it worth looking at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to see that User:Guinea pig warrior has been blocked for two weeks for his behaviour over this (plus a history of prior poor behaviour.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I know that GPW's subsequent edit summaries and actions were wrong, I was trying an olive branch approach, because his initial actions were correct... and like I said "how he did it was wrong". He had enough other people telling him off, I thought a bit of praise may work, but he couldn't get past the past at all. The-Pope (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All-Australian Team

Should the All-Australian team be placed in the article or at least a link to the team for this season. I think it adds value to the page to show which players were deemed by the panel of experts to be the best players for the season. Tubby23 (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there is already a link to it from the 2010 afl season template, but I think there could be a link to 2010 All-Australian team somewhere in the awards section. Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retirements, delistings etc

Firstly, good work everyone on the the referencing of the delisted/retired players section - there were only a few missing, which is really good.

But can we get some agreement on whether rookies (especially those who never played at AFL level) should be listed there? Technically, guys like Orreal and Gilchrist will probably have their pages deleted in time, as they never made it to senior level, and it is hard for them to really meet the "non-trivial coverage in independent sources" notability requirements, but that is a different issue (at Freo we've redirected them to a list). So, back to this list - I think that rookies should only be listed if they've played AFL. Opinions? The-Pope (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that only rookies or players that actually played in the AFL rather than just players who were just on a teams list. Tubby23 (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, for consistency, all delisted rookies should be included. It gets too complicated if we keep those who played games, then keep those who redirect to a list such as Freo. It would be nice if we could get some form of list going for other clubs (there is one on the Geelong page as well). – Allied45 (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is two separate issues - who deserves an article, and who deserves to be on the season's list of players to leave the league. Sticking to the one relevant to this page - do you think:

Any player rookie or senior, 0 or 300 games should be listed here?
Only "notable players", say over 100 games or a major club or league award?
Any player to have played at least 1 game?
Any senior listed player (and I guess rookies who were elevated could or could not fit under this rule)?

Agree or disagree? The-Pope (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably support either option 1, 3 or 4. Allied45 (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support either 1 or 3, but it doesn't really concern me which one we go with out of those two. Jenks24 (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with 3. Tubby23 (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just thought I'd poke this thread as it hasn't seen any comments in over a month. I've updated the Retirements, delistings etc section so that I'm fairly sure it now covers every player who has been listed, whether rookie or senior, and whether they have played an AFL match. But I'd be interested in others' opinions about what we should do about this. Has it now become too long and unwieldy? Does anyone really care about this issue? ;) Jenks24 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on 2010 AFL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]