This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
It says in the article that a normal quarter is 20 minutes, but as far as I know, the quarters in the AFL are 30 minutes, which I guess are the most common games. -- Utdiscant ( talk) 14:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest to add the suspension types, which are mentioned to exist but not explained, to be added to the main article. I don't know about them - I would guess that there is something like a yellow card with a 3-minute-penalty going with it, and a red card, but I don't know nothing about it. I couldn't find the information by reading Laws of Australian rules football either. Eltirion ( talk) 05:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The article declares that the field is elliptical in shape. That might be the ideal, but it's not always a reality. Geographical and other factors often have an impact. Even in the AFL/VFL the previous Hawthorn ground, Glenferrie Oval, was nothing like an ellipse. Many grounds began as cricket grounds. Our Cricket field article says "a large circular or oval-shaped grassy ground". What do the rules for footy say? HiLo48 ( talk) 04:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It's standard in Wikipedia not to capitalise 'football' in the name of a code of football, for example see association football, American football, Canadian football, Gaelic football and rugby football. I don't see how Australian football is any different, even though the AFL website may capitalise all words in the name, that is probably their standard, but not Wikipedia standard. BTW I've read number of books on Australian football, with publication dates ranging from the 1950s to the 2000s, and they all predominately use the uncapitalisation of football in the name 'Australian football'. As a side note, these books also predominately use 'Australian football' not 'Australian rules football' when referring to the sport. 137.147.193.90 ( talk) 06:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
203.114.146.141 ( talk) 04:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)User Calibanu
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Australian rules football. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian rules football. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian rules football. 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}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
They should call it australian rugby, because it has nothing to do with football! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 ( talk) 01:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
On 19 Oct, user Hrt953 added a section to the Australian rules page titled "AFL and LGBTI policy". It includes information on AFLW's recent rejection of a transgender player. The same editor afterwards added an exact copy of the section to the Australian Football League page. I left the latter section alone and removed the one added to the Australian rules page, stating in the edit summary that "if a section on the AFL's LGBT policies belongs anywhere, it's the AFL page". User Arianewiki1 reverted me with an accusation of imposing WP:OWN and failing to gain a consensus. I think it's pretty self-evident that sections strictly related to the AFL belong on the AFL page. In the hopes of reaching a consensus, I'd like to solicit the opinions of other editors. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 05:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Australian rules football. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian rules football. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
There are several cities in this article that possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. The example added of: Prentis, Malcolm David. The Scots in Australia. UNSW Press, 2008. ISBN 9781921410215, p. 261.
[4] and [] are dubious at best and is sadly unverifiable by other readers. Statement by
HappyWaldo
[5] saying: "remove template until "many of the dubious cites" are actually listed, given editor's history of calling cites dubious when they are in fact perfectly reliable"
is not factual. Furthermore, there are many contradictions between related article on the sport. I.e.
Australian rules football in Scotland does not imply Prentis, Malcolm David. The Scots in Australia at all nor even imply this current version (seemingly contradicts it) and is not cited in the alternative page.
There are also several of the other sources quoted in the article that have similar issues. I.e.
"In some special situations if the score is tied, such as grand finals or other knockout tournaments, either extra time or a rematch is required the following week to determine the winner."
"A distinctive feature of the game is the mark, where players anywhere on the field who catch a ball from a kick (with specific conditions) are awarded possession.[4]"but this talks about "control of the ball" not only catching it. Contradicting this textt defines the mark as
"The position on the Playing Surface where the opposing Player stands is known as “the mark”."(pg.58.)
There are many others like these:
Clearly this article likely needs an overall independent review of verifiable / accessible / better citations to make it more relevant. Page protection might be the only way to improve this.
Note advisement: The response made here is in light of this veiled threat against me here
[6] "Remember, if you don't start to act in good faith then you will be banned for a long time"
, which I have removed as a likely
WP:PA.
Arianewiki1 (
talk) 03:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Arianewiki1 ( talk) 08:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
"It was the case in the 19th-century, as it is in modern times, that women made up approximately half of crowds at Australian football matches—a far greater proportion than soccer and the two rugby codes."There is seemingly no assertion here of this as fact, and seems so ambiguous and irrelevant (trivial). i.e. Equally, half of the crowds are men. Worst, what has this to do with Women's Australian football? If you argue it has something to do with the next sentence, then the presentation of this becomes personal research as it draws a conclusion. Yet you still claim it is also 100% reliable?
...stating I haven't gained a consensus (meaning your consent, since no one else has problems with my additions)Sorry. It doesn't quite work that way. You should have discussed the changes to the parts of article in the Talkpage first, especially the drastic changing of the heading and the modify the text to suit. e.g. Synthesis. Had you just bothered to explained it or attempting to discuss it rather just denigrate me because you thought it wrong, then things might be different. I only pointed out Hess as a problem example. (It was not done to force you into modifying it nor just to annoy you.) Really, most editing made here is a compromise - that what consensus simply is. It isn't just all one way.
Statement
I'm totally done with arguing here. It is about time you adopt the precepts of Honest, which I also try to do. (admittedly sometimes I fail to do).
As for, the rest... Sorry,
WP:CITEHOW is irrelevant here, as it only gives how cites are created. Better is
Synthesis of published material &
Reliable sources, where it says:
"Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."
As I said: "Hess case, there is apparently 30-pages to plough through to just to deduce this single statement"
e.g. pg. 111-141. What page does it actually states: "...in the 19th-century, as it is in modern times, that women made up approximately half of crowds at Australian football matches."
? If it takes 30-pages to say that then it is
original research because the conclusion has been synthesized to support the statement. If the first statement is written to support a second sentence, then it is
synthesis, which appears to be the case here.
Saying: "As has been explained, citing books without online access is fine as long as said books are available in libraries, archives the general public can access (all cited books and journals meet this criteria)."
is not quite true. The source has to be verifiable to other users. Many of the cites in this article are not easily verifiable (who has time to go to find that book in a library?), and although it is assumed
good faith applies to the editor who states it in an article, it is easy to misuse them. The articles you are supporting statements are likely being used as primary sources, which is not allowed.
To make the point of all the problems with this article, I will be (mainly) adding the following Inline templates with a 'reason=';
Note: 'Request quotation' and 'Cite quote' shows the current issues with used cites in this article is a historical problem. Please before removing them, get adequate consensus. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 03:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Arianewiki1:, if we are going to come to any kind of consensus, we need to go through the issues that you have one at a time. Once we have resolved something, we will move onto the next one, until everything is cleared up and we can hopefully return to editing the Australian rules page.
Let's go through the disputed material carefully, piece by piece.
We will begin by looking at the Australian rules football match that occurred in London in 1888. At this point in our back-and-forth, I'm sure you agree that this match occurred (that IP who deleted the original sentence is therefore incorrect in his edit summary claim that Australian rules was never played in the UK back then). The amount of archival evidence available for the match is overwhelming, those newspaper articles I found for you being but two examples. The sentence that you reverted in question reads:
"Australian rules football was played outside Australasia as early as 1888 when Australians studying at English and Scottish universities formed teams and competed in London."
The secondary source I found and cited, Scots in Australia (written by historian Malcolm David Prentis, published by the University of New South Wales. Meets WP:RELIABLE), reads:
"... there was a match in London in 1888 between teams from Edinburgh and London Universities. Many of the players were second or third generation Scottish-Australians."
Please explain the issue that you have with this. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 04:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@ HappyWaldo:
This section is to discuss specific changes and or problems people have with the history section. Thejoebloggsblog ( talk) 07:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@ HappyWaldo: My major gripe is that the chronological flow is all over the place in the history section. If the first football club in Melbourne was formed in 1859, then the same section should include the happenings of the following year, which includes the formation of the Adelaide Football Club (SAFA).
The spread to other colonies was very staggered and having it all represented in one section when South Australia adopted the code TWO DECADES earlier than Western Australia is inaccurate. South Australians played a pivotal role in the adoption of Australian rules in Western Australia.
Thejoebloggsblog ( talk) 08:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@ HappyWaldo: I also have a problem with the origins section basically being repeated in the "First rules" section.
@ HappyWaldo: is arguing that the game became popularly referred to as "The peoples game" in the 1880's. There is little evidence for this, especially in newspapers of the time. He has asked me to find evidence to the contrary in scholarly literature which is quite frankly absurd. Thejoebloggsblog ( talk) 07:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The left image has for a while now served as the lead image for this article. User Slovebz recently replaced it with the right image, saying in one of his edit summaries that "two guys fighting over one ball is better". Anyone else have a preference here? I'd say the left image is far more captivating. It stopped me in my tracks when I first saw it. I'd argue it approaches something like the images of Jezza's mark on purely aesthetic grounds. The other shot, while depicting a more even contest, doesn't really stand out. Per WP:INTRO, "Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article". The left image is simply more interesting, and will compel more readers to scroll further. It has another advantage over the right image in that it shows AFL level footballers. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 05:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
When did the “bounce” become 15m? Not cited at Running bounce either.
MBG02 ( talk) 03:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps some useful information for you to consider: (1) 10 yards: 1944, Victoria, book of rules, page 12, item 17, clause (i), [9]; (2) 10 yards: 1912, Victoria, [10]; (3) 10 yards, 1897, Victoria, [11]; (4) 7 yards, 1884, Western Australia, [12]; and (5) 5 yards, 18??, Tasmania, [13]. I’m sure that there’s more specific information somewhere. Perhaps the best place to look for more details on this defining aspect of Aussie Rules might be (a) in the official rule books, and (b) in the ANFC's blanket declarations? Lindsay658 ( talk) 06:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
It says in the article that a normal quarter is 20 minutes, but as far as I know, the quarters in the AFL are 30 minutes, which I guess are the most common games. -- Utdiscant ( talk) 14:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest to add the suspension types, which are mentioned to exist but not explained, to be added to the main article. I don't know about them - I would guess that there is something like a yellow card with a 3-minute-penalty going with it, and a red card, but I don't know nothing about it. I couldn't find the information by reading Laws of Australian rules football either. Eltirion ( talk) 05:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The article declares that the field is elliptical in shape. That might be the ideal, but it's not always a reality. Geographical and other factors often have an impact. Even in the AFL/VFL the previous Hawthorn ground, Glenferrie Oval, was nothing like an ellipse. Many grounds began as cricket grounds. Our Cricket field article says "a large circular or oval-shaped grassy ground". What do the rules for footy say? HiLo48 ( talk) 04:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It's standard in Wikipedia not to capitalise 'football' in the name of a code of football, for example see association football, American football, Canadian football, Gaelic football and rugby football. I don't see how Australian football is any different, even though the AFL website may capitalise all words in the name, that is probably their standard, but not Wikipedia standard. BTW I've read number of books on Australian football, with publication dates ranging from the 1950s to the 2000s, and they all predominately use the uncapitalisation of football in the name 'Australian football'. As a side note, these books also predominately use 'Australian football' not 'Australian rules football' when referring to the sport. 137.147.193.90 ( talk) 06:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
203.114.146.141 ( talk) 04:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)User Calibanu
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Australian rules football. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian rules football. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian rules football. 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}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
They should call it australian rugby, because it has nothing to do with football! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 ( talk) 01:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
On 19 Oct, user Hrt953 added a section to the Australian rules page titled "AFL and LGBTI policy". It includes information on AFLW's recent rejection of a transgender player. The same editor afterwards added an exact copy of the section to the Australian Football League page. I left the latter section alone and removed the one added to the Australian rules page, stating in the edit summary that "if a section on the AFL's LGBT policies belongs anywhere, it's the AFL page". User Arianewiki1 reverted me with an accusation of imposing WP:OWN and failing to gain a consensus. I think it's pretty self-evident that sections strictly related to the AFL belong on the AFL page. In the hopes of reaching a consensus, I'd like to solicit the opinions of other editors. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 05:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Australian rules football. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian rules football. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
There are several cities in this article that possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. The example added of: Prentis, Malcolm David. The Scots in Australia. UNSW Press, 2008. ISBN 9781921410215, p. 261.
[4] and [] are dubious at best and is sadly unverifiable by other readers. Statement by
HappyWaldo
[5] saying: "remove template until "many of the dubious cites" are actually listed, given editor's history of calling cites dubious when they are in fact perfectly reliable"
is not factual. Furthermore, there are many contradictions between related article on the sport. I.e.
Australian rules football in Scotland does not imply Prentis, Malcolm David. The Scots in Australia at all nor even imply this current version (seemingly contradicts it) and is not cited in the alternative page.
There are also several of the other sources quoted in the article that have similar issues. I.e.
"In some special situations if the score is tied, such as grand finals or other knockout tournaments, either extra time or a rematch is required the following week to determine the winner."
"A distinctive feature of the game is the mark, where players anywhere on the field who catch a ball from a kick (with specific conditions) are awarded possession.[4]"but this talks about "control of the ball" not only catching it. Contradicting this textt defines the mark as
"The position on the Playing Surface where the opposing Player stands is known as “the mark”."(pg.58.)
There are many others like these:
Clearly this article likely needs an overall independent review of verifiable / accessible / better citations to make it more relevant. Page protection might be the only way to improve this.
Note advisement: The response made here is in light of this veiled threat against me here
[6] "Remember, if you don't start to act in good faith then you will be banned for a long time"
, which I have removed as a likely
WP:PA.
Arianewiki1 (
talk) 03:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Arianewiki1 ( talk) 08:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
"It was the case in the 19th-century, as it is in modern times, that women made up approximately half of crowds at Australian football matches—a far greater proportion than soccer and the two rugby codes."There is seemingly no assertion here of this as fact, and seems so ambiguous and irrelevant (trivial). i.e. Equally, half of the crowds are men. Worst, what has this to do with Women's Australian football? If you argue it has something to do with the next sentence, then the presentation of this becomes personal research as it draws a conclusion. Yet you still claim it is also 100% reliable?
...stating I haven't gained a consensus (meaning your consent, since no one else has problems with my additions)Sorry. It doesn't quite work that way. You should have discussed the changes to the parts of article in the Talkpage first, especially the drastic changing of the heading and the modify the text to suit. e.g. Synthesis. Had you just bothered to explained it or attempting to discuss it rather just denigrate me because you thought it wrong, then things might be different. I only pointed out Hess as a problem example. (It was not done to force you into modifying it nor just to annoy you.) Really, most editing made here is a compromise - that what consensus simply is. It isn't just all one way.
Statement
I'm totally done with arguing here. It is about time you adopt the precepts of Honest, which I also try to do. (admittedly sometimes I fail to do).
As for, the rest... Sorry,
WP:CITEHOW is irrelevant here, as it only gives how cites are created. Better is
Synthesis of published material &
Reliable sources, where it says:
"Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."
As I said: "Hess case, there is apparently 30-pages to plough through to just to deduce this single statement"
e.g. pg. 111-141. What page does it actually states: "...in the 19th-century, as it is in modern times, that women made up approximately half of crowds at Australian football matches."
? If it takes 30-pages to say that then it is
original research because the conclusion has been synthesized to support the statement. If the first statement is written to support a second sentence, then it is
synthesis, which appears to be the case here.
Saying: "As has been explained, citing books without online access is fine as long as said books are available in libraries, archives the general public can access (all cited books and journals meet this criteria)."
is not quite true. The source has to be verifiable to other users. Many of the cites in this article are not easily verifiable (who has time to go to find that book in a library?), and although it is assumed
good faith applies to the editor who states it in an article, it is easy to misuse them. The articles you are supporting statements are likely being used as primary sources, which is not allowed.
To make the point of all the problems with this article, I will be (mainly) adding the following Inline templates with a 'reason=';
Note: 'Request quotation' and 'Cite quote' shows the current issues with used cites in this article is a historical problem. Please before removing them, get adequate consensus. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 03:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Arianewiki1:, if we are going to come to any kind of consensus, we need to go through the issues that you have one at a time. Once we have resolved something, we will move onto the next one, until everything is cleared up and we can hopefully return to editing the Australian rules page.
Let's go through the disputed material carefully, piece by piece.
We will begin by looking at the Australian rules football match that occurred in London in 1888. At this point in our back-and-forth, I'm sure you agree that this match occurred (that IP who deleted the original sentence is therefore incorrect in his edit summary claim that Australian rules was never played in the UK back then). The amount of archival evidence available for the match is overwhelming, those newspaper articles I found for you being but two examples. The sentence that you reverted in question reads:
"Australian rules football was played outside Australasia as early as 1888 when Australians studying at English and Scottish universities formed teams and competed in London."
The secondary source I found and cited, Scots in Australia (written by historian Malcolm David Prentis, published by the University of New South Wales. Meets WP:RELIABLE), reads:
"... there was a match in London in 1888 between teams from Edinburgh and London Universities. Many of the players were second or third generation Scottish-Australians."
Please explain the issue that you have with this. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 04:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@ HappyWaldo:
This section is to discuss specific changes and or problems people have with the history section. Thejoebloggsblog ( talk) 07:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@ HappyWaldo: My major gripe is that the chronological flow is all over the place in the history section. If the first football club in Melbourne was formed in 1859, then the same section should include the happenings of the following year, which includes the formation of the Adelaide Football Club (SAFA).
The spread to other colonies was very staggered and having it all represented in one section when South Australia adopted the code TWO DECADES earlier than Western Australia is inaccurate. South Australians played a pivotal role in the adoption of Australian rules in Western Australia.
Thejoebloggsblog ( talk) 08:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@ HappyWaldo: I also have a problem with the origins section basically being repeated in the "First rules" section.
@ HappyWaldo: is arguing that the game became popularly referred to as "The peoples game" in the 1880's. There is little evidence for this, especially in newspapers of the time. He has asked me to find evidence to the contrary in scholarly literature which is quite frankly absurd. Thejoebloggsblog ( talk) 07:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The left image has for a while now served as the lead image for this article. User Slovebz recently replaced it with the right image, saying in one of his edit summaries that "two guys fighting over one ball is better". Anyone else have a preference here? I'd say the left image is far more captivating. It stopped me in my tracks when I first saw it. I'd argue it approaches something like the images of Jezza's mark on purely aesthetic grounds. The other shot, while depicting a more even contest, doesn't really stand out. Per WP:INTRO, "Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article". The left image is simply more interesting, and will compel more readers to scroll further. It has another advantage over the right image in that it shows AFL level footballers. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 05:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
When did the “bounce” become 15m? Not cited at Running bounce either.
MBG02 ( talk) 03:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps some useful information for you to consider: (1) 10 yards: 1944, Victoria, book of rules, page 12, item 17, clause (i), [9]; (2) 10 yards: 1912, Victoria, [10]; (3) 10 yards, 1897, Victoria, [11]; (4) 7 yards, 1884, Western Australia, [12]; and (5) 5 yards, 18??, Tasmania, [13]. I’m sure that there’s more specific information somewhere. Perhaps the best place to look for more details on this defining aspect of Aussie Rules might be (a) in the official rule books, and (b) in the ANFC's blanket declarations? Lindsay658 ( talk) 06:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)