This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Many Thanks,
McAusten ( talk) 00:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Titan uranus ( talk) 02:19, 13 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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
I am a Geelong Football Club member, go to every home game down there and have done so for the last 10 years. Myself and the many others who call that stadium home refer to it as Skilled Stadium. When it was called Shell Stadium I refered to it by the naming rights sponsor. Before that, when it had no sponsor, I called it only Kardinia Park. Don't get me wrong, people still call the ground Kardinia Park (or better the Cattery), but it's the traditional name, not the official name and most people are happy to refer to either one, but for history's sake it should be known as Skilled Stadium in 2011.
I believe it is also worth noting that of other sporting competitions and their sponsored names, both of stadiums and the competition itself. In every major sporting competition article on wikipedia, every stadium (if it has a naming rights sponsor) is listed by its naming rights sponsor. For example in the 2011 Super Rugby season, the Melbourne Rectangular stadium is called AAMI Park, it's official name. Vodacom Park is used instead of Free State Stadium to reflect its name during the 2011 season, these were the names of the stadiums used. Another example - the 2011 ANZ Championship season is named after its sponsors the ANZ, it is not called the 2011 Trans Tasman netball season. It's stadiums too are known by the sponsored names - Hisense Arena, ETSA Park, TSB Bank Arena. Internationally, every major sporting league lists its stadiums by their naming rights sponsors. Track the Super Bowl venues - Super Bowl XLIV was played at Sun Life Stadium, referring it by is sponsored name. In the UEFA Champions League and English Premier League, Arsenal has their home ground listed as their naming rights sponsor Emirates not as Ashburton Grove.
The only time naming rights sponsors should not be used are when organisations don't use naming right sponsors, i.e. the Olympic games and FIFA World Cup. I believe there is nothing wrong with using the sponsors names to highlight points in history, because wikipedia should represent an accurate portrayal of names including naming rights sponsors. For most stadiums, if they have had a naming rights sponsor, they will list on the wikipedia article at what point in time sponsored names were used. Again I refer to Sun Life Stadium, home to the Miami Dolphins of the NFL. It lists under its former names the years in which the stadium was known by different names.
Whilst I understand that just because other sporting leagues on wikipedia use this method doesn't mean the AFL has to, I believe that it should. This article and wikipedia has an obligation to be true to history and to the time of the competition. In 2011 Docklands stadium will be known as Etihad stadium and if wikipedia is to be an accurate representation of history it must use the sponsored name. If people are unsure of where Patersons Stadium is, they merely need to click on the link and they can find out that in 2011 it was the naming rights sponsor for Subiaco Oval. I don't believe that venues or stadiums need to change the name of their article each time there is a new sponsor. I'm fine with Docklands Stadium not being called Etihad Stadium in the article. However any other article that refers to Docklands Stadium in a particular point in time - i.e. for anything in 2010-11 should refer to it as Etihad Stadium.
Sorry if I've repeated a few things, but I think I've covered all the main points I wanted to discuss. And yes lets please put an end to all the personal attacks and constant changes to both 2011 AFL and NAB Cup articles. If we can agree on something soon, whether it be an unbiassed opinion or a majority consensus then great. For the time being, I am in favour of Lindblum's last proposal. Merlin Wiese ( talk 1:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Take it wherever you like, but I strongly suggest that you first properly engage in discussion. That means reading, thinking about, and addressing ALL the points that others make. (e.g. maps) You cannot convince others if you refuse to consider the points they make. In saying this I am definitely NOT being stubborn and unreasonable. HiLo48 ( talk) 11:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
PS - I think the AFL website, Stadium websites, AFL Record, AFL 2011 season guide, AFL media releases, tabloid/broadsheet news reports, online press reports, television broadcasts/news bulletins and radio broadcasts/news bulletins are a greater source then an online maps website, where the information for the specific venue may not have been update for some time. This is the AFL page, not the Melways page, so we should reflect their views on the matter, not Melways. 60.224.170.95 ( talk) 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe we need to clarify a few points to determine if we need to change anything. Firstly, the main argument is whether or not, for this article only, the names of internal links to stadiums on wikipedia should be named by sponsored or non-sponsored names. Changing the article names of stadiums to reflect current naming rights sponsors is another issue and one that should be discussed elsewhere. This article needs to decide whether or not to use the current sponsored names e.g. Etihad Stadium, Skilled Stadium ect. or Docklands Stadium, Kardinia Park ect. These names are to be used only to link to the stadium article on wikipedia. The second main issue is what is wikipedia's policy regarding the usage of sponsored names in wikipedia links (not article names). Any arguments about what other organisations call stadiums i.e. the ABC, Melway, Google Maps are irrelevant; the same apply's for a general consensus. This is about wikipedia's policy, not others policy. I have been doing some research on wikipedia's policies regarding this and so far have not found anything conclusive regarding this issue - for or against.
This is the main point regarding wikipedia's stance on advertising:
Interpret the above how you wish. My interpretation of this statement is that so long as it is unbiased and verified that a stadium is known by it's sponsored name, then it is ok to use in an article, provided it is relevant to the topic. As I said before, I have not come across anything on wikipedia and it's policies specifically regarding the use of sponsor names in links to other wikipedia articles. If someone has found something or knows how we can find this out, then please provide a link or quote and we can then determine what should be used. Merlin Wiese ( talk) 4:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement about whether commercial (sponsored) or non-commercial (neutral) names should be used for Australian Football League season pages. ): |
After reading the discussion above, 3O may not have been a good option, as others in the past had stated their opinion, and were responded to in a manor by some other editors in a manor that does not reflect WP:AGF and possibly WP:CIVIL. As for the requested comment regarding naming within this article, follow WP:COMMONNAME here in this article; those interested in the official or formal name can find such information on that location's specific article page.— RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
A simple suggestion. Show both names. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
Would it be possible to add an attendance table charting total and average attendances? The following is taken from the A-League page and is a perfect template for what I think should be added to the page.
Team | Hosted | Average | High | Low | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Melbourne Victory | 15 | 15,234 | 32,321 | 8,287 | 228,517 |
Adelaide United | 15 | 11,552 | 21,083 | 7,370 | 173,286 |
Brisbane Roar | 15 | 9,279 | 20,831 | 3,522 | 139,182 |
Perth Glory | 15 | 8,488 | 16,019 | 5,576 | 127,322 |
Newcastle Jets | 15 | 8,429 | 13,463 | 3,114 | 126,439 |
Melbourne Heart | 15 | 8,312 | 25,897 | 2,754 | 124,680 |
Wellington Phoenix | 15 | 7,981 | 14,108 | 4,700 | 119,716 |
Central Coast Mariners | 15 | 7,713 | 12,409 | 5,373 | 115,695 |
Sydney FC | 15 | 7,656 | 12,106 | 4,012 | 114,834 |
North Queensland Fury | 15 | 4,245 | 7,195 | 1,003 | 63,681 |
Gold Coast United | 15 | 3,434 | 14,783 | 1,658 | 51,505 |
League total | 165 | 8,393 | 32,321 | 1,003 | 1,384,857 |
Updated to the end of season.
The only problem is I have no idea how to set it up so if people think this would be a useful addition, if somebody who knows Wikipedia a little better then myself wants to set it up, that would be appreciated. Cheers. Brad 191919191 ( talk) 14:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
To stop this from getting out of hand, can I propose that EVERY single note added at the base of the results is referenced, preferably to a news website, but AFL/club or stats sites are also ok. If we start now, then it isn't too onerous, compared to trying to do it all at the end of the year or when some WP:V stickler comes along and wants to delete the lot. It also means that the obscure "first time since XXXX" type of notes should be excluded, unless you can find a source that a) proves it is correct AND b) indicates that it is notable enough to make it into print. Also note that it doesn't have to be an online source - if the AFL record, printed newspapers or other offline source prints it, then you can use that as a source too. Trying to use radio or TV commentary as a source though is tougher as there is no official record of it, so Dennis/Bruce's statisical gems will probably have to be ignored unless someone in the papers picks up the same stat. The-Pope ( talk) 09:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, I just wondering how you manage to find out the crowd before the report comes out on the official AFL website, let alone before the match finishes? Thanks, McAusten 05:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone think that a results table similar to the one at 2008-09_Premier_League#Results would be useful and informative? The problem is that I think we'll have to create our own style, as the football one doesn't quite seem customisable enough to cover AFL. Ideally, I'd love to see it look something like the following. It will be a lot of work to create, even more if we try to create something "universal" like {{ Fb r}} rather than just a once-off table. To me the main benefits are that you can see instantly who you have left to play, home and away, and with our uneven draw, it makes it easier to see who gets to play bottom teams twice, or just once.
Away Team | |||||||||||||||||||
Home Team | Adelaide | Brisbane Lions | Carlton | Collingwood | Essendon | Fremantle | Geelong | Gold Coast | Hawthorn | Melbourne | North Melbourne | Port Adelaide | Richmond | St Kilda | Sydney | West Coast | Western Bulldogs | Bye | Bye |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adelaide | Rd 10 | Rd 17 | Rd 3 | Rd 21 | Rd 8 | 105-85 | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Rd 2 | Rd 16 | |||
Brisbane Lions | Rd 20 | Example | Example | Example | 92-94 | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | |
Carlton | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Collingwood | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Melbourne | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | 84-84 | Example | Example | Rd 5 | Rd 15 |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
So is it worth spending the time to create this sort of table? The-Pope ( talk) 12:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, I just wondering about Round 4 as it claims to be the only round of THIS season where Etihad Stadium doesn't host an AFL match. I just thinking if it was the ONLY round where Docklands haven't hosted a match since it opened in Round 1, 2000? Many Thanks, McAusten 02:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, Me again; Is it the first time in V/AFL history that they has been 3 draws in the first 4 rounds?, McAusten 00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Good luck, Ignorant Armie s 09:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I saw the brief discussion above about making sure all stats and comments in the game notes are verifiable, which I generally agree with. I want discuss notability. In particular, there are a lot of comments about winning or losing streaks under specific circumstances (e.g. round one games over a few years), which when you look at it more closely don't add up to more than a three-game streak - which adds a lot of needless information to the article.
I drafted the following as a starting point, which reflects what I would personally like to see. We can argue about any or every point, or whether this is even worth codifying. These are general guidelines rather than hard-and-fast rules, so there would be flexibility in application.
Any records such as: highest score, lowest score, greatest winning margin, greatest losing margin, highest score in a quarter/half, highest score by an individual player, highest crowd, lowest crowd, should be noted for:
However, this should only be applied as deemed sensible; e.g. any 'highest score' below 150 points is not high enough to be notable. I'd propose the following criteria:
The highest score, lowest score, etc. in each season should be acknowledged. This should only be done once in the year - i.e. when the season is done, the article should not be full of "this is the highest score so far this season" comments.
Similarly, the eventual winners of Goal of the Year and Mark of the Year should be noted in the games in which they occurred.
Any records based on a highest score, lowest score, winning margin, etc., since a certain previous date, needs to have a minimum duration for it to be notable. I suggest:
When reporting a winning or losing (or winless or unbeaten) streak, there is a tendency to include an update every time the streak is extended by one. This clogs up the system with unnecessary comments. As such, I firstly suggest the following for reporting streaks:
The following streaks are notable for consecutive wins or losses:
Generally speaking, any 'first' which can also be described as a streak (e.g. first win by a coach, first win by a club at a certain venue) should follow the rules of a streak; a coach getting his first win in his tenth game is notable, but in his second game it is not. The sorts of firsts which are worthy of comment are:
The results of every game are already in the table, so unless there is a specific reason to re-state it (because a record is set or a streak is extended), the game commentary should avoid doing so. The following things might normally be considered notable enough to mention:
The following is worth mentioning in the game notes before the round is played:
The section should not be used to recap an existing active winning/losing streak (e.g. "Fremantle will be trying to win its sixth game in a row against Adelaide...").
It is worthwhile commenting on:
Aspirex ( talk) 09:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Where is the Lion vs Roos game in round 9? HiLo48 ( talk) 08:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Round 1 - Melbourne drew with Sydney - as a result, both teams are equal on points, percentage and for/against. Since alphabetical order is not a tie-breaker, both teams are in equal 8th place and should be both 'in the top 8' in the ladder progression. I keep changing this, McAusten keeps changing it back.
Can we get a ruling?? Bevstarrunner ( talk) 09:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, has there even been a point in VFL/AFL history that all of the AWAY teams won? I since to notice as a trivia for this round that Collingwood was the only HOME team to win this round. Should that be a good point to mention? McAusten ( talk) 11:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to word that section title as diplomatically as possible. McAusten is in the habit of using what might be descried as somewhat bossy language in Edit summaries and in hidden comments in the article itself.
I and others have asked him to ease up on the wording of the Edit summaries on more than one occasion, with little success. But I see those as transient things that just portray him in a less than ideal light, so more of a problem for him than for the rest of us.
However, his hidden comments, embedded in the article itself, are another matter altogether. Those currently in the article (over which we've just had a minor edit skirmish) are "Hey Guys, Please keep this up-to-date!!" and "Seriously Guys, keep it updated!!!". He has just restored these after I removed them, asking him at the time to raise the matter on the Talk page. He didn't, choosing instead to "growl" at me on my Talk page. (I scored 12 exclamation marks!). So, I've chosen to raise this here myself.
I've never seen anything like those hidden comments in another article in Wikipedia. I find them abrasive, aggressive, unpleasant, and just plain inappropriate. I doubt if they will achieve his goal of regular updates to the parts of the article he is most concerned about. They are more likely to discourage other editors from improving the article.
Can we please try to reach some consensus about whether this stuff belongs? HiLo48 ( talk) 02:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
User IgnorantArmies wants to change "Metricon Stadium, known non-commercially and long term as Carrara Stadium" to "Metricon Stadium, otherwise known as Carrara Stadium", justifying it in an Edit summary saying "seems to be marginally WP:CRYSTAL - we can't predict the long term name of Carrara". To me, that's just silly. Metricon IS the commercial name. Carrara is the non-commercial name, has already been the long term name for many years, and remains the non-commercial name for the forseeable future. This seems to be an attempt to put the temporary commercial name on an equal (or even higher?) footing than the long term name. It's word play, pushing a commercial name. That's not Wikipedia's role. HiLo48 ( talk) 09:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, just with the attendance, why would it be considered original research if I just manually add the total up myself? Beside, it just mathematics so there's no point to wait until a "reliable" source (I put reliable in quotes because I believe that that it can be possible that the source can be inaccurate and mess-up the AFL statistics) to show the attendance for this season. So why brother to wait rather than keeping the 2011 AFL season Wikipedia article well and truly up-to-date with helpful mathematical skills? Many Thanks, McAusten ( talk) 13:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I vote for a ban on aggressive Edit summaries, especially if they contain exclamation marks. They add nothing to Wikipedia. HiLo48 ( talk) 19:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just been going over attendance figures and I believe there are a few mistakes with the total figures. I normally use stats.rleague.com/afl/ as a guide, however their total attendance differs from another similar site in www.footywire.com/afl/. At the end of round 15 the totals are 4,246,255 (stats.rleague or AFL Tables) [4] to 4,246,233 (footywire) [5]. After reviewing both totals against the official attendance from the AFL match reports I believe that both websites are incorrect, each having reported the wrong attendance total for one match. Footywire lists the round 1 West Coast vs. North Melbourne crowd of 35,855 [6] compared to the AFL and AFL Tables' 35,878 [7] [8]. In round 3, AFL Tables lists the Richmond vs. Hawthorn attendance as 46,368 [9] compared to the AFL and Footywire's 46,369 [10] [11]. Going off these inaccuracies, the true total at the end of round 15 should be 4,246,256, or +1 for AFL Tables or +23 for Footywire. I should point out that it could be possible that afl.com is wrong and in their match reports the author/editor has simply listed an incorrect attendance figure. Does anyone know if the AFL keeps a list of its attendance so we can compare figures, or even just another source to compare the totals? I'm not going to change the total for the moment, though I am more inclined to use AFL Table's figures as a guide rather than Footywire. Merlin Wiese ( talk) 03:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:AFL Premiership Logo 2011.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
Hey, I just thinking that I heard on the radio that Collingwood has defeated Carlton five consecutive times for the first time in 60 years (since 1951). Is that correct? McAusten ( talk) 10:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, I just thinking that about Geelong, if they are the first team to win two matches over 100 points in a row since St Kilda in 2004? McAusten ( talk) 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, me again, do you recon that Collingwood and Geelong are fighting each other in order to get the minor premiership, especially this week were both teams have victories well and truly over 100 points against the two bottom teams ( Gold Coast and Port Adelaide)? McAusten ( talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, why it is that this discuss page is at a low importance?— Preceding unsigned comment added by McAusten ( talk • contribs)
Hey guys, I just thinking about the grammar in this article and I tend to believe that when we're referring to teams that it is better to use the word "their" rather that "its". e.g. "Collingwood have their biggest ever win in AFL history." instead for "Collingwood have its biggest ever win in AFL history." I mean that you don't call people "it" over "he" or "she". So want do you guys recon? McAusten ( talk) 13:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
We have a problem. McAusten is unilaterally changing "its" to "their" in the article, despite the seeming consensus above. He participated above, but hasn't posted here for a while. I've asked him to pay some more attention to what others think here. HiLo48 ( talk) 12:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, I seem to notice that we I'm absent, NOT all of the stats, season summaries for teams, etc. are staying up-to-date. Take for example Richmond, their season summary has not been update even since I been overseas in Europe. I mean that I feel stressful that I'm the only one updating Collingwood's season summary and nobody else. Also with season summaries, I want to discuss with all of you about how if we should have ALL of the season summaries in either a list or Template:AFLGameDetailed form (I might already dicuss this here). Another problem is that Wikipedians has been updating articles in various formats in which it really annoys me when I update stats myself. e.g. With the Win/Loss table, I seem to notice that some Wikipedians have NOT bold the margin e.g. "Port Adelaide 138" rather than the preferred format "Port Adelaide 138". I notice that one lazy Wikipedian has decide to only update the Win/Loss table for their favorite team ( Adelaide) rather that both teams ( Adelaide and Brisbane Lions). I mean the whole idea is to keep the article up-to-date, it is? Speaking about updating in various formats, I seem to notice the ladder progression gets messy and untidy all of the time. I mean that we should discuss this problem together on this page and settle down on ONE simple format that all of us Wikipedians can follow. One Final thing I want to talk about in this is NOT changing/removing that already occurred in the past, I mainly notice that with the Win/Loss table were vandals keeping removing the bold text with home teams and sometimes with the Ladder were people make up they own stats. Its drives me insane and people must start looking at the Ladder on the offical website here in order to update the Ladder on Wikipedia. I hope that you fellow Wikipedians take me seriously on this issue as I am finding it stressful enough updating many stats myself. Thank you for your attention. McAusten ( talk) 04:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I just thinking that they have been 10 matches so far this season where the margin has been over 100 points ( Gold Coast vs. Carlton, Essendon vs. Gold Coast, West Coast vs. Western Bulldogs, Richmond vs. Carlton, Collingwood vs. North Melbourne, St Kilda vs. Adelaide, Geelong vs. Melbourne, Geelong vs. Gold Coast followed by Port Adelaide vs. Collingwood in the same week and Hawthorn vs. Port Adelaide) Is that a record for most 100+ point victories in a single season? I wouldn't be surprised! McAusten ( talk) 05:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
McAusten is choosing to ignore everything I and others have written here and on his Talk page. Where do we go from here? I don't want to confront the three revert rule. My view is that by ignoring proper Discussion he is vandalising the article, but I'm not wanting an Edit war. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I've taken it to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. HiLo48 ( talk) 10:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The issue of McAusten's behaviour has been resolved by him being blocked indefinitely. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought: would it be better if we gave each round just its most simple heading? e.g. Round 5 instead of Round 5 (Easter and Anzac Day). It makes it much easier for a few years time; i.e. if we want to include a link to 2011 AFL season#Round 5, we won't have to go back and check whether or not it has a bracketed comment hanging off the end of it. Then we can describe the theme of the round in the AFLGameHeader template. Aspirex ( talk) 13:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
There are two awards sections and both say pretty much the same thing
Also, under 'controversy' shouldn't Kim Duthie be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 ( talk) 09:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:SPLIT would suggest that as an article over 100KB that this article should or could be split into separate sections. The article is quite large, which might reduce readability or make it harder for people with slower computers. 2011 NRL season has done this quite well IMHO by creating 2011 NRL season results, which a lot of larger sports seasons/competitions do, probably for the same reason. Any thoughts on a split? Ignorant Armies 04:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
But, the first thing I'd split out is the "Team changes" section; that's a list that doesn't need to be in the main article, and that the average reader would have very little interest in. In fact, I'd argue that the relevant information should be put into the individual club season summary pages only, and that only the retirements of players with more than 300 games experience or some other particular notability be mentioned in the main article. Aspirex ( talk) 07:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2011 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 04:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 97 external links on 2011 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) 05:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Many Thanks,
McAusten ( talk) 00:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Titan uranus ( talk) 02:19, 13 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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
I am a Geelong Football Club member, go to every home game down there and have done so for the last 10 years. Myself and the many others who call that stadium home refer to it as Skilled Stadium. When it was called Shell Stadium I refered to it by the naming rights sponsor. Before that, when it had no sponsor, I called it only Kardinia Park. Don't get me wrong, people still call the ground Kardinia Park (or better the Cattery), but it's the traditional name, not the official name and most people are happy to refer to either one, but for history's sake it should be known as Skilled Stadium in 2011.
I believe it is also worth noting that of other sporting competitions and their sponsored names, both of stadiums and the competition itself. In every major sporting competition article on wikipedia, every stadium (if it has a naming rights sponsor) is listed by its naming rights sponsor. For example in the 2011 Super Rugby season, the Melbourne Rectangular stadium is called AAMI Park, it's official name. Vodacom Park is used instead of Free State Stadium to reflect its name during the 2011 season, these were the names of the stadiums used. Another example - the 2011 ANZ Championship season is named after its sponsors the ANZ, it is not called the 2011 Trans Tasman netball season. It's stadiums too are known by the sponsored names - Hisense Arena, ETSA Park, TSB Bank Arena. Internationally, every major sporting league lists its stadiums by their naming rights sponsors. Track the Super Bowl venues - Super Bowl XLIV was played at Sun Life Stadium, referring it by is sponsored name. In the UEFA Champions League and English Premier League, Arsenal has their home ground listed as their naming rights sponsor Emirates not as Ashburton Grove.
The only time naming rights sponsors should not be used are when organisations don't use naming right sponsors, i.e. the Olympic games and FIFA World Cup. I believe there is nothing wrong with using the sponsors names to highlight points in history, because wikipedia should represent an accurate portrayal of names including naming rights sponsors. For most stadiums, if they have had a naming rights sponsor, they will list on the wikipedia article at what point in time sponsored names were used. Again I refer to Sun Life Stadium, home to the Miami Dolphins of the NFL. It lists under its former names the years in which the stadium was known by different names.
Whilst I understand that just because other sporting leagues on wikipedia use this method doesn't mean the AFL has to, I believe that it should. This article and wikipedia has an obligation to be true to history and to the time of the competition. In 2011 Docklands stadium will be known as Etihad stadium and if wikipedia is to be an accurate representation of history it must use the sponsored name. If people are unsure of where Patersons Stadium is, they merely need to click on the link and they can find out that in 2011 it was the naming rights sponsor for Subiaco Oval. I don't believe that venues or stadiums need to change the name of their article each time there is a new sponsor. I'm fine with Docklands Stadium not being called Etihad Stadium in the article. However any other article that refers to Docklands Stadium in a particular point in time - i.e. for anything in 2010-11 should refer to it as Etihad Stadium.
Sorry if I've repeated a few things, but I think I've covered all the main points I wanted to discuss. And yes lets please put an end to all the personal attacks and constant changes to both 2011 AFL and NAB Cup articles. If we can agree on something soon, whether it be an unbiassed opinion or a majority consensus then great. For the time being, I am in favour of Lindblum's last proposal. Merlin Wiese ( talk 1:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Take it wherever you like, but I strongly suggest that you first properly engage in discussion. That means reading, thinking about, and addressing ALL the points that others make. (e.g. maps) You cannot convince others if you refuse to consider the points they make. In saying this I am definitely NOT being stubborn and unreasonable. HiLo48 ( talk) 11:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
PS - I think the AFL website, Stadium websites, AFL Record, AFL 2011 season guide, AFL media releases, tabloid/broadsheet news reports, online press reports, television broadcasts/news bulletins and radio broadcasts/news bulletins are a greater source then an online maps website, where the information for the specific venue may not have been update for some time. This is the AFL page, not the Melways page, so we should reflect their views on the matter, not Melways. 60.224.170.95 ( talk) 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe we need to clarify a few points to determine if we need to change anything. Firstly, the main argument is whether or not, for this article only, the names of internal links to stadiums on wikipedia should be named by sponsored or non-sponsored names. Changing the article names of stadiums to reflect current naming rights sponsors is another issue and one that should be discussed elsewhere. This article needs to decide whether or not to use the current sponsored names e.g. Etihad Stadium, Skilled Stadium ect. or Docklands Stadium, Kardinia Park ect. These names are to be used only to link to the stadium article on wikipedia. The second main issue is what is wikipedia's policy regarding the usage of sponsored names in wikipedia links (not article names). Any arguments about what other organisations call stadiums i.e. the ABC, Melway, Google Maps are irrelevant; the same apply's for a general consensus. This is about wikipedia's policy, not others policy. I have been doing some research on wikipedia's policies regarding this and so far have not found anything conclusive regarding this issue - for or against.
This is the main point regarding wikipedia's stance on advertising:
Interpret the above how you wish. My interpretation of this statement is that so long as it is unbiased and verified that a stadium is known by it's sponsored name, then it is ok to use in an article, provided it is relevant to the topic. As I said before, I have not come across anything on wikipedia and it's policies specifically regarding the use of sponsor names in links to other wikipedia articles. If someone has found something or knows how we can find this out, then please provide a link or quote and we can then determine what should be used. Merlin Wiese ( talk) 4:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement about whether commercial (sponsored) or non-commercial (neutral) names should be used for Australian Football League season pages. ): |
After reading the discussion above, 3O may not have been a good option, as others in the past had stated their opinion, and were responded to in a manor by some other editors in a manor that does not reflect WP:AGF and possibly WP:CIVIL. As for the requested comment regarding naming within this article, follow WP:COMMONNAME here in this article; those interested in the official or formal name can find such information on that location's specific article page.— RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
A simple suggestion. Show both names. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
Would it be possible to add an attendance table charting total and average attendances? The following is taken from the A-League page and is a perfect template for what I think should be added to the page.
Team | Hosted | Average | High | Low | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Melbourne Victory | 15 | 15,234 | 32,321 | 8,287 | 228,517 |
Adelaide United | 15 | 11,552 | 21,083 | 7,370 | 173,286 |
Brisbane Roar | 15 | 9,279 | 20,831 | 3,522 | 139,182 |
Perth Glory | 15 | 8,488 | 16,019 | 5,576 | 127,322 |
Newcastle Jets | 15 | 8,429 | 13,463 | 3,114 | 126,439 |
Melbourne Heart | 15 | 8,312 | 25,897 | 2,754 | 124,680 |
Wellington Phoenix | 15 | 7,981 | 14,108 | 4,700 | 119,716 |
Central Coast Mariners | 15 | 7,713 | 12,409 | 5,373 | 115,695 |
Sydney FC | 15 | 7,656 | 12,106 | 4,012 | 114,834 |
North Queensland Fury | 15 | 4,245 | 7,195 | 1,003 | 63,681 |
Gold Coast United | 15 | 3,434 | 14,783 | 1,658 | 51,505 |
League total | 165 | 8,393 | 32,321 | 1,003 | 1,384,857 |
Updated to the end of season.
The only problem is I have no idea how to set it up so if people think this would be a useful addition, if somebody who knows Wikipedia a little better then myself wants to set it up, that would be appreciated. Cheers. Brad 191919191 ( talk) 14:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
To stop this from getting out of hand, can I propose that EVERY single note added at the base of the results is referenced, preferably to a news website, but AFL/club or stats sites are also ok. If we start now, then it isn't too onerous, compared to trying to do it all at the end of the year or when some WP:V stickler comes along and wants to delete the lot. It also means that the obscure "first time since XXXX" type of notes should be excluded, unless you can find a source that a) proves it is correct AND b) indicates that it is notable enough to make it into print. Also note that it doesn't have to be an online source - if the AFL record, printed newspapers or other offline source prints it, then you can use that as a source too. Trying to use radio or TV commentary as a source though is tougher as there is no official record of it, so Dennis/Bruce's statisical gems will probably have to be ignored unless someone in the papers picks up the same stat. The-Pope ( talk) 09:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, I just wondering how you manage to find out the crowd before the report comes out on the official AFL website, let alone before the match finishes? Thanks, McAusten 05:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone think that a results table similar to the one at 2008-09_Premier_League#Results would be useful and informative? The problem is that I think we'll have to create our own style, as the football one doesn't quite seem customisable enough to cover AFL. Ideally, I'd love to see it look something like the following. It will be a lot of work to create, even more if we try to create something "universal" like {{ Fb r}} rather than just a once-off table. To me the main benefits are that you can see instantly who you have left to play, home and away, and with our uneven draw, it makes it easier to see who gets to play bottom teams twice, or just once.
Away Team | |||||||||||||||||||
Home Team | Adelaide | Brisbane Lions | Carlton | Collingwood | Essendon | Fremantle | Geelong | Gold Coast | Hawthorn | Melbourne | North Melbourne | Port Adelaide | Richmond | St Kilda | Sydney | West Coast | Western Bulldogs | Bye | Bye |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adelaide | Rd 10 | Rd 17 | Rd 3 | Rd 21 | Rd 8 | 105-85 | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Rd 2 | Rd 16 | |||
Brisbane Lions | Rd 20 | Example | Example | Example | 92-94 | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | |
Carlton | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Collingwood | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Melbourne | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | 84-84 | Example | Example | Rd 5 | Rd 15 |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
So is it worth spending the time to create this sort of table? The-Pope ( talk) 12:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, I just wondering about Round 4 as it claims to be the only round of THIS season where Etihad Stadium doesn't host an AFL match. I just thinking if it was the ONLY round where Docklands haven't hosted a match since it opened in Round 1, 2000? Many Thanks, McAusten 02:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, Me again; Is it the first time in V/AFL history that they has been 3 draws in the first 4 rounds?, McAusten 00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Good luck, Ignorant Armie s 09:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I saw the brief discussion above about making sure all stats and comments in the game notes are verifiable, which I generally agree with. I want discuss notability. In particular, there are a lot of comments about winning or losing streaks under specific circumstances (e.g. round one games over a few years), which when you look at it more closely don't add up to more than a three-game streak - which adds a lot of needless information to the article.
I drafted the following as a starting point, which reflects what I would personally like to see. We can argue about any or every point, or whether this is even worth codifying. These are general guidelines rather than hard-and-fast rules, so there would be flexibility in application.
Any records such as: highest score, lowest score, greatest winning margin, greatest losing margin, highest score in a quarter/half, highest score by an individual player, highest crowd, lowest crowd, should be noted for:
However, this should only be applied as deemed sensible; e.g. any 'highest score' below 150 points is not high enough to be notable. I'd propose the following criteria:
The highest score, lowest score, etc. in each season should be acknowledged. This should only be done once in the year - i.e. when the season is done, the article should not be full of "this is the highest score so far this season" comments.
Similarly, the eventual winners of Goal of the Year and Mark of the Year should be noted in the games in which they occurred.
Any records based on a highest score, lowest score, winning margin, etc., since a certain previous date, needs to have a minimum duration for it to be notable. I suggest:
When reporting a winning or losing (or winless or unbeaten) streak, there is a tendency to include an update every time the streak is extended by one. This clogs up the system with unnecessary comments. As such, I firstly suggest the following for reporting streaks:
The following streaks are notable for consecutive wins or losses:
Generally speaking, any 'first' which can also be described as a streak (e.g. first win by a coach, first win by a club at a certain venue) should follow the rules of a streak; a coach getting his first win in his tenth game is notable, but in his second game it is not. The sorts of firsts which are worthy of comment are:
The results of every game are already in the table, so unless there is a specific reason to re-state it (because a record is set or a streak is extended), the game commentary should avoid doing so. The following things might normally be considered notable enough to mention:
The following is worth mentioning in the game notes before the round is played:
The section should not be used to recap an existing active winning/losing streak (e.g. "Fremantle will be trying to win its sixth game in a row against Adelaide...").
It is worthwhile commenting on:
Aspirex ( talk) 09:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Where is the Lion vs Roos game in round 9? HiLo48 ( talk) 08:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Round 1 - Melbourne drew with Sydney - as a result, both teams are equal on points, percentage and for/against. Since alphabetical order is not a tie-breaker, both teams are in equal 8th place and should be both 'in the top 8' in the ladder progression. I keep changing this, McAusten keeps changing it back.
Can we get a ruling?? Bevstarrunner ( talk) 09:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, has there even been a point in VFL/AFL history that all of the AWAY teams won? I since to notice as a trivia for this round that Collingwood was the only HOME team to win this round. Should that be a good point to mention? McAusten ( talk) 11:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to word that section title as diplomatically as possible. McAusten is in the habit of using what might be descried as somewhat bossy language in Edit summaries and in hidden comments in the article itself.
I and others have asked him to ease up on the wording of the Edit summaries on more than one occasion, with little success. But I see those as transient things that just portray him in a less than ideal light, so more of a problem for him than for the rest of us.
However, his hidden comments, embedded in the article itself, are another matter altogether. Those currently in the article (over which we've just had a minor edit skirmish) are "Hey Guys, Please keep this up-to-date!!" and "Seriously Guys, keep it updated!!!". He has just restored these after I removed them, asking him at the time to raise the matter on the Talk page. He didn't, choosing instead to "growl" at me on my Talk page. (I scored 12 exclamation marks!). So, I've chosen to raise this here myself.
I've never seen anything like those hidden comments in another article in Wikipedia. I find them abrasive, aggressive, unpleasant, and just plain inappropriate. I doubt if they will achieve his goal of regular updates to the parts of the article he is most concerned about. They are more likely to discourage other editors from improving the article.
Can we please try to reach some consensus about whether this stuff belongs? HiLo48 ( talk) 02:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
User IgnorantArmies wants to change "Metricon Stadium, known non-commercially and long term as Carrara Stadium" to "Metricon Stadium, otherwise known as Carrara Stadium", justifying it in an Edit summary saying "seems to be marginally WP:CRYSTAL - we can't predict the long term name of Carrara". To me, that's just silly. Metricon IS the commercial name. Carrara is the non-commercial name, has already been the long term name for many years, and remains the non-commercial name for the forseeable future. This seems to be an attempt to put the temporary commercial name on an equal (or even higher?) footing than the long term name. It's word play, pushing a commercial name. That's not Wikipedia's role. HiLo48 ( talk) 09:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, just with the attendance, why would it be considered original research if I just manually add the total up myself? Beside, it just mathematics so there's no point to wait until a "reliable" source (I put reliable in quotes because I believe that that it can be possible that the source can be inaccurate and mess-up the AFL statistics) to show the attendance for this season. So why brother to wait rather than keeping the 2011 AFL season Wikipedia article well and truly up-to-date with helpful mathematical skills? Many Thanks, McAusten ( talk) 13:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I vote for a ban on aggressive Edit summaries, especially if they contain exclamation marks. They add nothing to Wikipedia. HiLo48 ( talk) 19:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just been going over attendance figures and I believe there are a few mistakes with the total figures. I normally use stats.rleague.com/afl/ as a guide, however their total attendance differs from another similar site in www.footywire.com/afl/. At the end of round 15 the totals are 4,246,255 (stats.rleague or AFL Tables) [4] to 4,246,233 (footywire) [5]. After reviewing both totals against the official attendance from the AFL match reports I believe that both websites are incorrect, each having reported the wrong attendance total for one match. Footywire lists the round 1 West Coast vs. North Melbourne crowd of 35,855 [6] compared to the AFL and AFL Tables' 35,878 [7] [8]. In round 3, AFL Tables lists the Richmond vs. Hawthorn attendance as 46,368 [9] compared to the AFL and Footywire's 46,369 [10] [11]. Going off these inaccuracies, the true total at the end of round 15 should be 4,246,256, or +1 for AFL Tables or +23 for Footywire. I should point out that it could be possible that afl.com is wrong and in their match reports the author/editor has simply listed an incorrect attendance figure. Does anyone know if the AFL keeps a list of its attendance so we can compare figures, or even just another source to compare the totals? I'm not going to change the total for the moment, though I am more inclined to use AFL Table's figures as a guide rather than Footywire. Merlin Wiese ( talk) 03:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:AFL Premiership Logo 2011.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
Hey, I just thinking that I heard on the radio that Collingwood has defeated Carlton five consecutive times for the first time in 60 years (since 1951). Is that correct? McAusten ( talk) 10:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, I just thinking that about Geelong, if they are the first team to win two matches over 100 points in a row since St Kilda in 2004? McAusten ( talk) 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, me again, do you recon that Collingwood and Geelong are fighting each other in order to get the minor premiership, especially this week were both teams have victories well and truly over 100 points against the two bottom teams ( Gold Coast and Port Adelaide)? McAusten ( talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, why it is that this discuss page is at a low importance?— Preceding unsigned comment added by McAusten ( talk • contribs)
Hey guys, I just thinking about the grammar in this article and I tend to believe that when we're referring to teams that it is better to use the word "their" rather that "its". e.g. "Collingwood have their biggest ever win in AFL history." instead for "Collingwood have its biggest ever win in AFL history." I mean that you don't call people "it" over "he" or "she". So want do you guys recon? McAusten ( talk) 13:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
We have a problem. McAusten is unilaterally changing "its" to "their" in the article, despite the seeming consensus above. He participated above, but hasn't posted here for a while. I've asked him to pay some more attention to what others think here. HiLo48 ( talk) 12:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, I seem to notice that we I'm absent, NOT all of the stats, season summaries for teams, etc. are staying up-to-date. Take for example Richmond, their season summary has not been update even since I been overseas in Europe. I mean that I feel stressful that I'm the only one updating Collingwood's season summary and nobody else. Also with season summaries, I want to discuss with all of you about how if we should have ALL of the season summaries in either a list or Template:AFLGameDetailed form (I might already dicuss this here). Another problem is that Wikipedians has been updating articles in various formats in which it really annoys me when I update stats myself. e.g. With the Win/Loss table, I seem to notice that some Wikipedians have NOT bold the margin e.g. "Port Adelaide 138" rather than the preferred format "Port Adelaide 138". I notice that one lazy Wikipedian has decide to only update the Win/Loss table for their favorite team ( Adelaide) rather that both teams ( Adelaide and Brisbane Lions). I mean the whole idea is to keep the article up-to-date, it is? Speaking about updating in various formats, I seem to notice the ladder progression gets messy and untidy all of the time. I mean that we should discuss this problem together on this page and settle down on ONE simple format that all of us Wikipedians can follow. One Final thing I want to talk about in this is NOT changing/removing that already occurred in the past, I mainly notice that with the Win/Loss table were vandals keeping removing the bold text with home teams and sometimes with the Ladder were people make up they own stats. Its drives me insane and people must start looking at the Ladder on the offical website here in order to update the Ladder on Wikipedia. I hope that you fellow Wikipedians take me seriously on this issue as I am finding it stressful enough updating many stats myself. Thank you for your attention. McAusten ( talk) 04:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I just thinking that they have been 10 matches so far this season where the margin has been over 100 points ( Gold Coast vs. Carlton, Essendon vs. Gold Coast, West Coast vs. Western Bulldogs, Richmond vs. Carlton, Collingwood vs. North Melbourne, St Kilda vs. Adelaide, Geelong vs. Melbourne, Geelong vs. Gold Coast followed by Port Adelaide vs. Collingwood in the same week and Hawthorn vs. Port Adelaide) Is that a record for most 100+ point victories in a single season? I wouldn't be surprised! McAusten ( talk) 05:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
McAusten is choosing to ignore everything I and others have written here and on his Talk page. Where do we go from here? I don't want to confront the three revert rule. My view is that by ignoring proper Discussion he is vandalising the article, but I'm not wanting an Edit war. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I've taken it to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. HiLo48 ( talk) 10:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The issue of McAusten's behaviour has been resolved by him being blocked indefinitely. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought: would it be better if we gave each round just its most simple heading? e.g. Round 5 instead of Round 5 (Easter and Anzac Day). It makes it much easier for a few years time; i.e. if we want to include a link to 2011 AFL season#Round 5, we won't have to go back and check whether or not it has a bracketed comment hanging off the end of it. Then we can describe the theme of the round in the AFLGameHeader template. Aspirex ( talk) 13:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
There are two awards sections and both say pretty much the same thing
Also, under 'controversy' shouldn't Kim Duthie be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 ( talk) 09:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:SPLIT would suggest that as an article over 100KB that this article should or could be split into separate sections. The article is quite large, which might reduce readability or make it harder for people with slower computers. 2011 NRL season has done this quite well IMHO by creating 2011 NRL season results, which a lot of larger sports seasons/competitions do, probably for the same reason. Any thoughts on a split? Ignorant Armies 04:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
But, the first thing I'd split out is the "Team changes" section; that's a list that doesn't need to be in the main article, and that the average reader would have very little interest in. In fact, I'd argue that the relevant information should be put into the individual club season summary pages only, and that only the retirements of players with more than 300 games experience or some other particular notability be mentioned in the main article. Aspirex ( talk) 07:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2011 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 04:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 97 external links on 2011 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) 05:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)