![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Anybody editing this page, please put the season fixture on.
Thank you to whoever helps out this page and adding more rounds to the 2010 season fixture.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Anybody editing this page, please put the season fixture on.
Thank you to whoever helps out this page and adding more rounds to the 2010 season fixture.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)