![]() | 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 5 |
We should note that Wikipedia:Categorization suggests in general avoiding categorising an article in both a category and it's subcategory. For this reason, footballers should only be categorised by the clubs they played for, and not also included in the broader category. JPD (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, so how can the Australian Rules footballers category be removed from each players page? Rogerthat 09:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
For clarification, is this WikiProject intended to focus solely on the professional League, or is it also for wider Australian Rules articles? eg. Football Victoria, Auskick, Victorian Football League, and the other things in Category:Australian rules football. pfctdayelise 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
This is solely for the AFL (formerly known as the VFL). Rogerthat 08:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why this can't be a sub-page of WikiProject Australian sports. This is done with cycling already.-- Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
John Manos is proposed for deletion. It looks like if the article is not a hoax, then this wikiproject should be supporting the article. if it is a hoax,
the participants here should know that. -- Scott Davis Talk 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Please comment on this Categories for renaming debate: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_20#Australian_rules_football. (I realise, not technically AFL, but I am sure people here might be interested.) pfctdayelise 05:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Biatch has spent a great deal of time an effort uploading lots of AFL nosource/nocopyright images to wikipeda. I've left a couple of messages on his talk page about this but have had no response. Most of the images are copyvio's, they'll be deleted soon enough, if he reads this he needs to get in touch so that he hasn't wasted his time doing this. Cheers Agnte 15:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I went and actually took some photos of my own then uploaded. Just wish others would do the same. -- Biatch 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I know you're not getting a whole lot of support with this, Roger, but this is by far the best setup for a sports WikiProject I've ever seen. You've clearly set out all the work that needs doing and tied them in with useful resources in a way that I could only dream of getting set up for netball. :) Ambi 05:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Could people please take a look at New Zealand (Australian rules football National Team) and decide whether it should be moved. Perhaps The Falcons (AFL team) might be more appropriate. == Adz 05:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I came across a site called BigFooty, which is an AFL fan forum. I think by contacting the administrators and asking them to promote this project on that forum in some way we could potentially recruit a wide range of people for this project. Thoughts? Rogerthat 11:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
We currently have the {{ afl-stub}} to label articles related to the AFL. COuld someone make, or propose on the relevant page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, a stub to use for AFL player bios? Thanks. Harro 5 22:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Where did the lists of players come from for this? Ambi 07:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add a section on television and radio brodcasters? Mike 08:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Category:Australian Rules footballers is getting unwieldy. How would it be if we created a subcategory Category:AFL players, and broke it up as follows:
Snottygobble | Talk 12:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Ive added TV Broadcasters and Melbourne Radio and National Austereo through Triple M, I Dont know outside of victoria so please if you do add them Mike 05:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I may be a stupid newbie but is it me or does this template not work?
Jabso 12:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Something seems to have happened to the infobox template, there's a bunch of info missing because i believe someone well-meaning has gone around and tried to put a 'captains' section in them. Is there anyone who can fiz this, and maybe accomodate captains as well? Apologies if this has already been noted.
Blackmissionary
11:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that there exists both Football (Australian rules) positions and also individual articles for many of the positions (eg: Full-forward, Ruckman (Australian rules football position), etc.). Is one favoured over the other? To which should other articles (player articles, for example) be linked? Jessesaurus 05:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know where I can dig 'em up without having been a member of the club in question (or, preferably, leaving Adelaide)? An anon's added some extremely dubious details to Port Adelaide Magpies citing one and I'm having a hard time finding them so I can check... ~ J. K. 07:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody give me brief explanation on what this article is to be about? I've got more than enough information to write about the all-time goalkicking record, though I'm a bit unsure if it should be just a list of all the people who broke it, a biography page on the history of it or a list that ranks the top goalkickers. Normy132 00:30 February 4, 2006 (UTC)
The page is up. If you're satisfied with how I've set it up I'll start a celanup on the list of AFL players to have played more than 300 games. Normy132 08:40, February 6, 2006 (UTC)
If the players aren't created, then why name them as such? I've checked each of them up, and I've only put up the ones that have profiles. Boomtish 10:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've lost me on logic. The list of players here are guys who haven't been done/profiled?
Pardon my ignorance, but I would have assumed that this page refers to guys who are done, that is, we have 'whatever number' out of 1004 guys done, and that we're 'whatever percent' complete on all Geelong profiles (assuming the aim of this project is to profile all players). No? Boomtish 10:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've got it under control now. The changes make it much more easier to understand. Though, does my Jimmy Bartel article really need to be expanded? Boomtish 05:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Completing the list of bulldogs players I realise I occasionally transgress what is discussed above - I'll fix that up shortly.
But what I really wish to query is the fact that by adding thousands of names to en.wiki we are going to come across many instances where the name is already taken and there exists a substantial article. The choices are:
So far so good, but should we agree a standard for setting apart the names of our players. I have seen, for example, Tom Jones (athlete) which I find a little unsatisfactory. Mainly because the time may come when the clash is with a name famous in athletics. I have started using, for example, Fred Cook (Australian football). Any ideas anyone? I thought it was worth discussing now rather than after we have done 10,000 players. I also take the opportunity to congratulate Rogerthat again, and good work everyone - this is what I call a project worth doing! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
With Portals being one of the two main Wiki-crazes currently (other being userboxes), I believe its time to make one for AFL. If you are interested in helping me make it please comment below. DaGizza Chat © 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The AFL Season 2006 article is up and running, but what about the club articles on the season. I have just updated Collingwood's and it is looking very very good. Please take note ;) Lonie From 50 01:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
To avoid the confusion as to what players belong where, I propose the following: For each team have we should have 2 lists and a category for our players. ie for Freo, we have the WikiProject_AFL#Fremantle__.2849.2F145.29 list (effectively a work in progress list), the List of Fremantle Dockers league players and Category:Fremantle_Dockers_players. The WP:AFL list should have EVERY player ever on a Freo list, whether rookie and delisted, or 200 game player. The List of Fremantle Dockers league players is now split into "Every Player Ever Played" (in order of debut), "Listed players yet to play a senior game" and "Delisted Players who did not play a senior game". Each club may adjust these headings as appropriate (ie add "significant reserve grade players" etc). I think the Category:XXXX_players should be restricted to the first 2 subsets - league players and current listed players yet to debut. Everyone agree? Next we probably start to tidy up the Category:XXXX_coaches as well. Should each team have it's own category as a subcat of Australian rules coaches? It's a bit each way at the moment. The-Pope 05:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Well the season is underway and I think it would be a good time if anyone wants to take their digital camera to the upcoming games. We need photos of players like Chris Judd (a joke that there's no photo for the great man), James Hird, and well, anyone really, even Harry O'Brien ;). My camera died a week ago (lucky it's under warranty) so I'll be out of action in terms of photos, but I hope everyone here can carry on here. R o gerthat Talk 12:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure it is.
When I first came to this site, I thought of nothing more but helping expand it. And what better way to do so then by expanding this great sport, particularly the great club of Geelong.
So I try to write up good, decent articles. Articles that give any random reader the sufficient amount of info on the players they're looking up, without sounding like a biased, one-sided, lavishing idiot.
But now apparently you cannot write a decent article anymore. This site wants expansion, wants involvement, in fact it promotes involvement, yet they rub out half of it. I understand if it's unncessary crap half the time, but this 'strictness' involving writing only articles with concrete 'facts' in it is ruining this whole site. If this site wants facts only, then maybe they should just link each player article to a webpage with that player's stats, because that's about as factual as it will be if this persists. Oh, and to top it off, maybe they would insert their name and date of birth. Bingo, an article.
Rant over. Boomtish 05:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
How does Tom Hawkins get a bigger article than Jim Stynes? That's ridiculous. It's entirely up to whoever wants to write an article for that particular player.
Not my problem if no one is up to writing Stynes up. As for Hawkins himself, why does it matter whether or not he hasn't been drafted or not? He's a person, and a rather particular one at that for any Geelong fan. Look at the NBA for example. You've got alot of undrafted guys with profiles up (see guys like Rudy Gay, LaMarcus Aldridge). So, in going with your rich vein of consistency, why not go delete those people?
Nothing personal, but you want people to contribute, to write good articles for the site, yet you set in place all this rules (most of which are reasonable and understandable, I don't dispute that) which restrict us from writing nothing but: Chris Judd is the captain of the West Coast Eagles, he has won a Brownlow Medal. Well, blow me over, I've come looking for some info on who this Judd-bloke is and that's all I've got. Brilliant. Boomtish 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to comment how much should or should not be removed from articles, or alternatively modified, but it is worth noting that encyclopaedia articles are not meant to be written the same way as newspaper articles, or footy magazine profiles, or anything like that. We can't use phrases like "obvious class, athleticism and uncanny goal sense" or "perhaps more tragically for the team than anyone else". This site is meant to stick to facts, and if you think that ruins it, then you haven't understood the point of the site. I don't think this has to make the articles useless, though - look at Steve Waugh and Shane Warne. These articles are fairly informative, aren't they? A fair amount of the Chris Judd information should probably be in the article, but it needs to be written in the appropriate style. JPD ( talk) 12:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what JPD has said - this has to be an encyclopedia, not a commentary. But I dont think thats as much of a problem for content as has been claimed. If there is something non-trivial that you want to write about, it would have to be extremely obscure for there to be no sources for it. There are thousands of respected news articles about the AFL every year that you can link to in a references section, not to mention all the other sources of verified information on the web. In my opinion its worth taking the extra step to spend a little bit of time finding real sources for information you already personally know is true, because then it increases the credibility of all the articles in the AFL project, and in Wikipedia. People will value all these AFL articles if they are credible, not because theres a large quantity of it. Remy B 12:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As I get towards the end of completing my list of Bullies players, I noticed that George Tribe, who played 66 games for Footscray, also played 3 tests for Australia (in cricket). There is already a cricketing article on him, with all the cricketing templates, etc. which is fair enough. We'll come across this sort of thing at least a few times for each of the older clubs - one can't say it was common, but it certainly was not a rare event, particularly pre-1970 (i.e. VFL players also playing cricket to sheffield shield standard and beyond). My view is that since we are talking about the same person, it all has to be included within the one article. Perhaps we simply add our templates below the cricketing ones? Especially since in most cases an article on the player, especially if he is a test cricketer, will already exist. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting having a look at these stats which I have copied from the main page below: 5.1 Adelaide (61/145) 5.2 Brisbane Bears (26/143) 5.3 Brisbane Lions (34/89) 5.4 Carlton (48/1088) 5.5 Collingwood (99/1056) 5.6 Essendon (52/1055) 5.7 Fitzroy (32/1157) 5.8 Fremantle (53/145) 5.9 Geelong (50/1004) 5.10 Hawthorn (44/838) 5.11 Kangaroos (50/919) 5.12 Melbourne (55/1239) 5.13 Port Adelaide (34/85) 5.14 Richmond (43/1057) 5.15 St Kilda (95/1506) 5.16 Sydney/South Melbourne (68/1333) 5.17 University (10/112) 5.18 West Coast (53/165) 5.19 Western Bulldogs (67/918) Incredibly the old rivals Essendon, Collingwood and Richmond have used 1055, 1056 and 1057 players respectively (although it must be said that Richmond joined the comp 11 years later) - and Carlton isn't too far off this number either. What is unbelievable is that less successful clubs like South and St Kilda are at 1333 and 1506 respectively. It just goes to show that stable clubs enable stable lists which win premierships (or perhaps premierships encourage stable lists). Can I ask for a definition of "players used" - does it merely include those who have ever played a game or those who have ever been on an official playing list. It would seem to me that if it is the latter, that does not strike me as being very encyclopediac, and surely we should expect a minimum standard before they have an article written about them. To conclude, congrats on Collingwood (Lonie from 50 I presume), the Saints and South for leading the current player article premiership stakes, but watch out for them doggies snapping at your heals! (as they have done throughout their existence - which can be rightly read a number of ways). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Check out the {{ Infobox_afl_player}} to see the changes I've made - I have added Height/Weight as a column for the infobox which means every infobox is currently out of whack (except for Justin Longmuir). Does everyone think this is unneccessary or is it a worthy addition? R o gerthat Talk 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are all familiar with the generic article Football, which goes through the related history of all the football codes, and puts aussie rules in its rightful historical context (i.e. right up there in terms of age and historical firsts). There has been a concerted effort over the last few months by some rugby diehards to completely downplay this history. On the talk page, link above, there is a poll underway at the moment, to change the descriptor of the section on aussie rules from Australian to Victorian. I know it is too idiotic to be true, but only weight of numbers will crush this idiocy once and for all. Please make an effort to visit the page and to disagree with this absurd poll. Ignoring it because it is just too stupid will simply mean that it will continue for a long time. This is the wording of the poll:
Thanking you all in anticipation. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have created the 2006 NAB Cup article using a table format for the games. This keeps the article clean, simple and every game has a link to a full report from the AFL website. I think this should avoid any POV issues that will naturally arise from commentary-style Wikipedia articles. I have named it with the year at the front to be consisent with most annual (or longer interval) sporting event articles on Wikipedia, eg. 2006 NFL season, 2004-05 NBA season, 2005-06 Indian cricket season, 2006 Commonwealth Games, etc. I took the ordering of the teams for each match in the order on the AFL website reports, assuming they were in order of home vs away, but it doesnt appear to be the case after I look carefully at it. So... for the meantime I have named the headings 'Team 1' and 'Team 2', which isnt ideal, but if anyone wants to fix that up then feel free :) Remy B 16:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Recently, North Carolina Tigers was put on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Tigers by myself, with the result being to merge the team to its respective league - United States Australian Football League, on the grounds that the performance and competition level is not of first-class standard, although the leagues in themselves are of interest. At the time I wrote a rather large discussion, indicating that the AfD could be a litmus-test or precedent for similar AFL teams and I would like to see what people think about this, as to I (or someone else) should go ahead and merge them, without sending a whole pile to AfD. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
When you loooks at the soccer teams, virtually all listed players have a short bio. They should list all the players on the site for the teams and give them a short bio (it's not too hard, just read they player site on their site and it'll give their stats). Also there are more Rugby league player pictures. They must be getting the permission somehow. Anyone would think Soccer and Rugby are much more popular due to all the time and effort put into their site and hardly any on the AFL sites. I say get behind ALL yteams and help build AFL up on this wikipedia. It makes it look like a small sport compared to soccer federation and nrl and Afl had more money and is more popular than both of them. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliat1981 ( talk • contribs)
sliat_1981 here. But these people from the Rugby are obviously getting the permission somewhere. There must be a way. Also, it's strange to have more information on the soccer federation when it just in it's infancy to have not nearly as much on the game which has existed much much longer. Just a trick to make overseas visitors think it's our national game.
sliat_1981 here:There is a difference from renaming soccer football, thats one thing. But now to say we can't call Aussie Rules football now because Football is taken? I didn't know Football Federation owned the Australian dictionary.
I am currently writing an article on the former Premier of South Australia, Lionel Hill. In one biography of him it mentions that he was a champion Australian Rules footballer who represented South Australia but does not mentioned which South Australian National Football League club(s) he played for. As he was born in 1881, I would presume he played league football from about 1900 to 1910. If anyone has the time and resources to find out who he played for, I'd be extremely grateful (if anyone in Adelaide wants to find out, there is a booklet in the Mortlock Library listing all the players to have played for South Australia; I'd do it myself but I'm some thousands of kilometres away from Adelaide). Cheers. -- Roisterer 08:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure some of you participating in WP:AFL would have seen the notice on the front page, where Brisvegas has set up a new Portal for Australian rules football. I have added some initial modifications and was wondering everyone's thoughts on it (take it to the Portal talk page). R o gerthat Talk 08:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The season proper is almost upon us I've been asked to find some good and free footy tipping competition software for our company. Or any websites which host. Can anyone help? -- Ian ≡ talk 09:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Would someone please fix the Kangaroos page? It looks awful as everything is shoved to the right after the player lists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 ( talk • contribs) .
![]() | 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 5 |
We should note that Wikipedia:Categorization suggests in general avoiding categorising an article in both a category and it's subcategory. For this reason, footballers should only be categorised by the clubs they played for, and not also included in the broader category. JPD (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, so how can the Australian Rules footballers category be removed from each players page? Rogerthat 09:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
For clarification, is this WikiProject intended to focus solely on the professional League, or is it also for wider Australian Rules articles? eg. Football Victoria, Auskick, Victorian Football League, and the other things in Category:Australian rules football. pfctdayelise 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
This is solely for the AFL (formerly known as the VFL). Rogerthat 08:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why this can't be a sub-page of WikiProject Australian sports. This is done with cycling already.-- Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
John Manos is proposed for deletion. It looks like if the article is not a hoax, then this wikiproject should be supporting the article. if it is a hoax,
the participants here should know that. -- Scott Davis Talk 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Please comment on this Categories for renaming debate: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_20#Australian_rules_football. (I realise, not technically AFL, but I am sure people here might be interested.) pfctdayelise 05:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Biatch has spent a great deal of time an effort uploading lots of AFL nosource/nocopyright images to wikipeda. I've left a couple of messages on his talk page about this but have had no response. Most of the images are copyvio's, they'll be deleted soon enough, if he reads this he needs to get in touch so that he hasn't wasted his time doing this. Cheers Agnte 15:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I went and actually took some photos of my own then uploaded. Just wish others would do the same. -- Biatch 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I know you're not getting a whole lot of support with this, Roger, but this is by far the best setup for a sports WikiProject I've ever seen. You've clearly set out all the work that needs doing and tied them in with useful resources in a way that I could only dream of getting set up for netball. :) Ambi 05:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Could people please take a look at New Zealand (Australian rules football National Team) and decide whether it should be moved. Perhaps The Falcons (AFL team) might be more appropriate. == Adz 05:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I came across a site called BigFooty, which is an AFL fan forum. I think by contacting the administrators and asking them to promote this project on that forum in some way we could potentially recruit a wide range of people for this project. Thoughts? Rogerthat 11:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
We currently have the {{ afl-stub}} to label articles related to the AFL. COuld someone make, or propose on the relevant page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, a stub to use for AFL player bios? Thanks. Harro 5 22:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Where did the lists of players come from for this? Ambi 07:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add a section on television and radio brodcasters? Mike 08:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Category:Australian Rules footballers is getting unwieldy. How would it be if we created a subcategory Category:AFL players, and broke it up as follows:
Snottygobble | Talk 12:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Ive added TV Broadcasters and Melbourne Radio and National Austereo through Triple M, I Dont know outside of victoria so please if you do add them Mike 05:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I may be a stupid newbie but is it me or does this template not work?
Jabso 12:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Something seems to have happened to the infobox template, there's a bunch of info missing because i believe someone well-meaning has gone around and tried to put a 'captains' section in them. Is there anyone who can fiz this, and maybe accomodate captains as well? Apologies if this has already been noted.
Blackmissionary
11:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that there exists both Football (Australian rules) positions and also individual articles for many of the positions (eg: Full-forward, Ruckman (Australian rules football position), etc.). Is one favoured over the other? To which should other articles (player articles, for example) be linked? Jessesaurus 05:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know where I can dig 'em up without having been a member of the club in question (or, preferably, leaving Adelaide)? An anon's added some extremely dubious details to Port Adelaide Magpies citing one and I'm having a hard time finding them so I can check... ~ J. K. 07:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody give me brief explanation on what this article is to be about? I've got more than enough information to write about the all-time goalkicking record, though I'm a bit unsure if it should be just a list of all the people who broke it, a biography page on the history of it or a list that ranks the top goalkickers. Normy132 00:30 February 4, 2006 (UTC)
The page is up. If you're satisfied with how I've set it up I'll start a celanup on the list of AFL players to have played more than 300 games. Normy132 08:40, February 6, 2006 (UTC)
If the players aren't created, then why name them as such? I've checked each of them up, and I've only put up the ones that have profiles. Boomtish 10:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've lost me on logic. The list of players here are guys who haven't been done/profiled?
Pardon my ignorance, but I would have assumed that this page refers to guys who are done, that is, we have 'whatever number' out of 1004 guys done, and that we're 'whatever percent' complete on all Geelong profiles (assuming the aim of this project is to profile all players). No? Boomtish 10:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've got it under control now. The changes make it much more easier to understand. Though, does my Jimmy Bartel article really need to be expanded? Boomtish 05:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Completing the list of bulldogs players I realise I occasionally transgress what is discussed above - I'll fix that up shortly.
But what I really wish to query is the fact that by adding thousands of names to en.wiki we are going to come across many instances where the name is already taken and there exists a substantial article. The choices are:
So far so good, but should we agree a standard for setting apart the names of our players. I have seen, for example, Tom Jones (athlete) which I find a little unsatisfactory. Mainly because the time may come when the clash is with a name famous in athletics. I have started using, for example, Fred Cook (Australian football). Any ideas anyone? I thought it was worth discussing now rather than after we have done 10,000 players. I also take the opportunity to congratulate Rogerthat again, and good work everyone - this is what I call a project worth doing! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
With Portals being one of the two main Wiki-crazes currently (other being userboxes), I believe its time to make one for AFL. If you are interested in helping me make it please comment below. DaGizza Chat © 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The AFL Season 2006 article is up and running, but what about the club articles on the season. I have just updated Collingwood's and it is looking very very good. Please take note ;) Lonie From 50 01:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
To avoid the confusion as to what players belong where, I propose the following: For each team have we should have 2 lists and a category for our players. ie for Freo, we have the WikiProject_AFL#Fremantle__.2849.2F145.29 list (effectively a work in progress list), the List of Fremantle Dockers league players and Category:Fremantle_Dockers_players. The WP:AFL list should have EVERY player ever on a Freo list, whether rookie and delisted, or 200 game player. The List of Fremantle Dockers league players is now split into "Every Player Ever Played" (in order of debut), "Listed players yet to play a senior game" and "Delisted Players who did not play a senior game". Each club may adjust these headings as appropriate (ie add "significant reserve grade players" etc). I think the Category:XXXX_players should be restricted to the first 2 subsets - league players and current listed players yet to debut. Everyone agree? Next we probably start to tidy up the Category:XXXX_coaches as well. Should each team have it's own category as a subcat of Australian rules coaches? It's a bit each way at the moment. The-Pope 05:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Well the season is underway and I think it would be a good time if anyone wants to take their digital camera to the upcoming games. We need photos of players like Chris Judd (a joke that there's no photo for the great man), James Hird, and well, anyone really, even Harry O'Brien ;). My camera died a week ago (lucky it's under warranty) so I'll be out of action in terms of photos, but I hope everyone here can carry on here. R o gerthat Talk 12:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure it is.
When I first came to this site, I thought of nothing more but helping expand it. And what better way to do so then by expanding this great sport, particularly the great club of Geelong.
So I try to write up good, decent articles. Articles that give any random reader the sufficient amount of info on the players they're looking up, without sounding like a biased, one-sided, lavishing idiot.
But now apparently you cannot write a decent article anymore. This site wants expansion, wants involvement, in fact it promotes involvement, yet they rub out half of it. I understand if it's unncessary crap half the time, but this 'strictness' involving writing only articles with concrete 'facts' in it is ruining this whole site. If this site wants facts only, then maybe they should just link each player article to a webpage with that player's stats, because that's about as factual as it will be if this persists. Oh, and to top it off, maybe they would insert their name and date of birth. Bingo, an article.
Rant over. Boomtish 05:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
How does Tom Hawkins get a bigger article than Jim Stynes? That's ridiculous. It's entirely up to whoever wants to write an article for that particular player.
Not my problem if no one is up to writing Stynes up. As for Hawkins himself, why does it matter whether or not he hasn't been drafted or not? He's a person, and a rather particular one at that for any Geelong fan. Look at the NBA for example. You've got alot of undrafted guys with profiles up (see guys like Rudy Gay, LaMarcus Aldridge). So, in going with your rich vein of consistency, why not go delete those people?
Nothing personal, but you want people to contribute, to write good articles for the site, yet you set in place all this rules (most of which are reasonable and understandable, I don't dispute that) which restrict us from writing nothing but: Chris Judd is the captain of the West Coast Eagles, he has won a Brownlow Medal. Well, blow me over, I've come looking for some info on who this Judd-bloke is and that's all I've got. Brilliant. Boomtish 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to comment how much should or should not be removed from articles, or alternatively modified, but it is worth noting that encyclopaedia articles are not meant to be written the same way as newspaper articles, or footy magazine profiles, or anything like that. We can't use phrases like "obvious class, athleticism and uncanny goal sense" or "perhaps more tragically for the team than anyone else". This site is meant to stick to facts, and if you think that ruins it, then you haven't understood the point of the site. I don't think this has to make the articles useless, though - look at Steve Waugh and Shane Warne. These articles are fairly informative, aren't they? A fair amount of the Chris Judd information should probably be in the article, but it needs to be written in the appropriate style. JPD ( talk) 12:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what JPD has said - this has to be an encyclopedia, not a commentary. But I dont think thats as much of a problem for content as has been claimed. If there is something non-trivial that you want to write about, it would have to be extremely obscure for there to be no sources for it. There are thousands of respected news articles about the AFL every year that you can link to in a references section, not to mention all the other sources of verified information on the web. In my opinion its worth taking the extra step to spend a little bit of time finding real sources for information you already personally know is true, because then it increases the credibility of all the articles in the AFL project, and in Wikipedia. People will value all these AFL articles if they are credible, not because theres a large quantity of it. Remy B 12:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As I get towards the end of completing my list of Bullies players, I noticed that George Tribe, who played 66 games for Footscray, also played 3 tests for Australia (in cricket). There is already a cricketing article on him, with all the cricketing templates, etc. which is fair enough. We'll come across this sort of thing at least a few times for each of the older clubs - one can't say it was common, but it certainly was not a rare event, particularly pre-1970 (i.e. VFL players also playing cricket to sheffield shield standard and beyond). My view is that since we are talking about the same person, it all has to be included within the one article. Perhaps we simply add our templates below the cricketing ones? Especially since in most cases an article on the player, especially if he is a test cricketer, will already exist. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting having a look at these stats which I have copied from the main page below: 5.1 Adelaide (61/145) 5.2 Brisbane Bears (26/143) 5.3 Brisbane Lions (34/89) 5.4 Carlton (48/1088) 5.5 Collingwood (99/1056) 5.6 Essendon (52/1055) 5.7 Fitzroy (32/1157) 5.8 Fremantle (53/145) 5.9 Geelong (50/1004) 5.10 Hawthorn (44/838) 5.11 Kangaroos (50/919) 5.12 Melbourne (55/1239) 5.13 Port Adelaide (34/85) 5.14 Richmond (43/1057) 5.15 St Kilda (95/1506) 5.16 Sydney/South Melbourne (68/1333) 5.17 University (10/112) 5.18 West Coast (53/165) 5.19 Western Bulldogs (67/918) Incredibly the old rivals Essendon, Collingwood and Richmond have used 1055, 1056 and 1057 players respectively (although it must be said that Richmond joined the comp 11 years later) - and Carlton isn't too far off this number either. What is unbelievable is that less successful clubs like South and St Kilda are at 1333 and 1506 respectively. It just goes to show that stable clubs enable stable lists which win premierships (or perhaps premierships encourage stable lists). Can I ask for a definition of "players used" - does it merely include those who have ever played a game or those who have ever been on an official playing list. It would seem to me that if it is the latter, that does not strike me as being very encyclopediac, and surely we should expect a minimum standard before they have an article written about them. To conclude, congrats on Collingwood (Lonie from 50 I presume), the Saints and South for leading the current player article premiership stakes, but watch out for them doggies snapping at your heals! (as they have done throughout their existence - which can be rightly read a number of ways). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Check out the {{ Infobox_afl_player}} to see the changes I've made - I have added Height/Weight as a column for the infobox which means every infobox is currently out of whack (except for Justin Longmuir). Does everyone think this is unneccessary or is it a worthy addition? R o gerthat Talk 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are all familiar with the generic article Football, which goes through the related history of all the football codes, and puts aussie rules in its rightful historical context (i.e. right up there in terms of age and historical firsts). There has been a concerted effort over the last few months by some rugby diehards to completely downplay this history. On the talk page, link above, there is a poll underway at the moment, to change the descriptor of the section on aussie rules from Australian to Victorian. I know it is too idiotic to be true, but only weight of numbers will crush this idiocy once and for all. Please make an effort to visit the page and to disagree with this absurd poll. Ignoring it because it is just too stupid will simply mean that it will continue for a long time. This is the wording of the poll:
Thanking you all in anticipation. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have created the 2006 NAB Cup article using a table format for the games. This keeps the article clean, simple and every game has a link to a full report from the AFL website. I think this should avoid any POV issues that will naturally arise from commentary-style Wikipedia articles. I have named it with the year at the front to be consisent with most annual (or longer interval) sporting event articles on Wikipedia, eg. 2006 NFL season, 2004-05 NBA season, 2005-06 Indian cricket season, 2006 Commonwealth Games, etc. I took the ordering of the teams for each match in the order on the AFL website reports, assuming they were in order of home vs away, but it doesnt appear to be the case after I look carefully at it. So... for the meantime I have named the headings 'Team 1' and 'Team 2', which isnt ideal, but if anyone wants to fix that up then feel free :) Remy B 16:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Recently, North Carolina Tigers was put on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Tigers by myself, with the result being to merge the team to its respective league - United States Australian Football League, on the grounds that the performance and competition level is not of first-class standard, although the leagues in themselves are of interest. At the time I wrote a rather large discussion, indicating that the AfD could be a litmus-test or precedent for similar AFL teams and I would like to see what people think about this, as to I (or someone else) should go ahead and merge them, without sending a whole pile to AfD. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
When you loooks at the soccer teams, virtually all listed players have a short bio. They should list all the players on the site for the teams and give them a short bio (it's not too hard, just read they player site on their site and it'll give their stats). Also there are more Rugby league player pictures. They must be getting the permission somehow. Anyone would think Soccer and Rugby are much more popular due to all the time and effort put into their site and hardly any on the AFL sites. I say get behind ALL yteams and help build AFL up on this wikipedia. It makes it look like a small sport compared to soccer federation and nrl and Afl had more money and is more popular than both of them. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliat1981 ( talk • contribs)
sliat_1981 here. But these people from the Rugby are obviously getting the permission somewhere. There must be a way. Also, it's strange to have more information on the soccer federation when it just in it's infancy to have not nearly as much on the game which has existed much much longer. Just a trick to make overseas visitors think it's our national game.
sliat_1981 here:There is a difference from renaming soccer football, thats one thing. But now to say we can't call Aussie Rules football now because Football is taken? I didn't know Football Federation owned the Australian dictionary.
I am currently writing an article on the former Premier of South Australia, Lionel Hill. In one biography of him it mentions that he was a champion Australian Rules footballer who represented South Australia but does not mentioned which South Australian National Football League club(s) he played for. As he was born in 1881, I would presume he played league football from about 1900 to 1910. If anyone has the time and resources to find out who he played for, I'd be extremely grateful (if anyone in Adelaide wants to find out, there is a booklet in the Mortlock Library listing all the players to have played for South Australia; I'd do it myself but I'm some thousands of kilometres away from Adelaide). Cheers. -- Roisterer 08:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure some of you participating in WP:AFL would have seen the notice on the front page, where Brisvegas has set up a new Portal for Australian rules football. I have added some initial modifications and was wondering everyone's thoughts on it (take it to the Portal talk page). R o gerthat Talk 08:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The season proper is almost upon us I've been asked to find some good and free footy tipping competition software for our company. Or any websites which host. Can anyone help? -- Ian ≡ talk 09:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Would someone please fix the Kangaroos page? It looks awful as everything is shoved to the right after the player lists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 ( talk • contribs) .