| Revision as of 16:45, 27 July 2014 editHiLo48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers91,370 edits →The AFL is NOT the VFL.: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:42, 26 September 2014 edit undoHiLo48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers91,370 edits →Anti-AFL POV pushing at Queensland rugby league team: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| :If that's a justification for claiming Port Adelaide's earlier premierships as AFL premierships, which you did on the ] page without an ], it doesn't work. The VFL was effectively just renamed to the AFL. Carlton didn't have to join the league. The league's name changed around it. Its premiership count simply continued on. Port Adelaide had to join the league from outside. Premierships from that outside competition do not count in the AFL. ] (]) 16:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | :If that's a justification for claiming Port Adelaide's earlier premierships as AFL premierships, which you did on the ] page without an ], it doesn't work. The VFL was effectively just renamed to the AFL. Carlton didn't have to join the league. The league's name changed around it. Its premiership count simply continued on. Port Adelaide had to join the league from outside. Premierships from that outside competition do not count in the AFL. ] (]) 16:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Anti-AFL POV pushing at ] == | |||
| Can I have some more eyes at the above article please. Only two of us have played on the Talk page for this issue, so we need more input. An editor who is happy have players simply '''play''' for different codes when they move from one form of rugby to another insists on describing them as being '''poached''' when they choose to play Australian football. I think even the editor involved agrees that "'''poached'''" is a non-neutral term, but argues that it is what actually happened. I believe it would do no harm at all, and be a much better look for Misplaced Pages, if we used the neutral term "'''recruited'''", but he won't have a bar of it. | |||
| Note that this has already been taken to the NPOV Noticeboard. No real support for our AFL hating editor's position. But he persists. ] (]) 07:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:42, 26 September 2014
 | Australian Football League received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian Football League article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian Football League article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
 | Australia: Australian rules football B‑class High‑importance   | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.Merging of the Brisbane Lions and Fitzroy
This article incorrectly claims that Brisbane was a new club introduced in 1986 as the Brisbane Bears, and that the merger between them and the Fitzroy Lions did not occur until 1996, suggesting that the Fitzroy Lions continued through to 1996, however this is not the case. Brisbane was created by Fitzroy moving to Brisbane (as South Sydney had a couple years earlier), with a view to becoming the Brisbane Lions, however the current Brisbane City soccer team were also known as the Lions, and a protest meant that the name of the Brisabane Lions could not be used, thus the change to the Brisbane Bears. Future changes to the national soccer competition meant that the Brisbane City (Lions) soccer club was no longer used and their name amended, thereby allowing the Brisbane Bears to be changed to the Brisbane Lions and giving Fitzroy supporters a chance to reinstate their love of their old club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.20.129 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- um, no. You are wrong. Maybe we need an Australian rules football conspiracy theories page to allow crazy ideas like this to be published (only kidding, that's what bigfooty is for!) The-Pope (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know it could all be alleged to be part of a huge conspiracy, but the OP should look at http://www.fitzroyfc.com.au/lions.html. A quote - "After 100 years of competition in the VFL-AFL, Fitzroy said goodbye to the city of Melbourne in Round 21 1996 in front of 48,884 people, against Richmond. They lost lost by 151 points. It has been called by many as "the saddest day in 100 years of AFL football". A lap of Fitzroy's past players and heroes from their long and distinguished history took place around the MCG before the match..." HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I realise this is an old thread but to clarify - the AFL club settled with the soccer club in early 1997 to allow the AFL club to trade as the Brisbane Lions. Hack (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I know it could all be alleged to be part of a huge conspiracy, but the OP should look at http://www.fitzroyfc.com.au/lions.html. A quote - "After 100 years of competition in the VFL-AFL, Fitzroy said goodbye to the city of Melbourne in Round 21 1996 in front of 48,884 people, against Richmond. They lost lost by 151 points. It has been called by many as "the saddest day in 100 years of AFL football". A lap of Fitzroy's past players and heroes from their long and distinguished history took place around the MCG before the match..." HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Shorten Introduction
The introduction is way too long on this page. An introduction to a page should only be one or two paragraphs at most. The AFL Intro is too long winded. All statistical info should be removed or relocated and also there is too much historical data too it should also be moved to a history section. Doe anyone else agree? Anderch (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with your comments. I had already started to draft a few changes, including reducing/ relocating much of the introduction section. I have just loaded those changes, to get the ball rolling. Melbourne3163 (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Is Matthew Pavlich really still a South Australian?
We have an image with the caption "Matthew Pavlich, a South Australian playing for Western Australia-based club Fremantle..." Pavlich has been in Perth all his adult life, 14 years, almost half of his whole life. Has anybody asked him what he thinks he is? HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- yep. "I'm a South Australian" The-Pope (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. Impressive response! (I wonder if that journal would have published the article if the answer had been no?) HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Merging the Clubs and Expansion sections
Does anyone think that these two sections should be merged? They contain pretty much the same information. Either that or the Expansion info under clubs should be moved into the dedicated Expansion section. It seems strange the way it is and doesn't read well. Anderch (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Article requires a total rewrite
This article is to say the least is really poorly written and it requires a total rewrite. I actually find it difficult to read because it is not structured well and has repetitive info and also a lot of info particularly in the main table that doesn't need to be there. For example: 1. The history section should directly follow the intro and contain much of the information that is in the Intro, expansion sections and existing small history section. Further the History of the AFL page should be merged into this one. 2. Why is there an empty Guernsey column in the table???? also membership info is not required and in addition the location and training ground columns should be merged. 3. The former clubs section should also be made part of the history section too with the table scrapped and 4. the Intro is way too long (see point 1.) This are just a few things wrong with the page. I am just bringing this up to promote discussion, as input is needed. Anderch (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- I broadly agree with you. Do you have the time and skills to tackle it? HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Skills yes. Time not really. It is something that would be done over a period of time. Also two other pages that are structured well and are good to get ideas on layout and the sort of content that should be included are the NRL article and also the NBA Article. Anderch (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- All I have made some major changes to this article and restructured it, My hope is that it now reads better. It still requires a bit more editing to condense it a bit but the structure is there now and it flows a lot better. I have also removed a lot of information that was doubled up and moved information around in the article. Anderch (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Skills yes. Time not really. It is something that would be done over a period of time. Also two other pages that are structured well and are good to get ideas on layout and the sort of content that should be included are the NRL article and also the NBA Article. Anderch (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Though I'm hugely supportive of the changes made, is there a reason why, throughout the article, clubs are referred to inclusive of their nickname? (ie: the 'Hawthorn Hawks' are the current premiers and the club table which lists clubs as 'Collingwood Magpies', 'Port Adelaide Power' etc...) Is this not informal and against Misplaced Pages policy with respect to this issue? See here: Wikiproject: Australian rules football style guide Jono52795 (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. It's also a quite unnatural way to refer to the clubs. No regular fan would use the names that way. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I can't believe there is a style guide! really! Anyway if it really bothers you change it but I was just trying to simplify it. AFL Club names are generally confusing when you think about it because some use nicknames and some don't in their names and there really is no uniformity. Anderch (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you find it confusing, maybe you shouldn't be touching that aspect of the AFL article. Hundreds of thousands of fans of each club know about the naming tradition of their club, so you will inevitably be picked up if you get it wrong. Anyway, wouldn't the names be clear at the individual club articles? HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- The AFL uses nicknames for some teams and others not, but it's not immediately obvious why (other than the Dogs, and perhaps Lions) http://www.afl.com.au/afl/ladder. OF course Misplaced Pages has its own conventions.
- If you find it confusing, maybe you shouldn't be touching that aspect of the AFL article. Hundreds of thousands of fans of each club know about the naming tradition of their club, so you will inevitably be picked up if you get it wrong. Anyway, wouldn't the names be clear at the individual club articles? HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The AFL is NOT the VFL.
This needs to be reflected throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.41.145 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- If that's a justification for claiming Port Adelaide's earlier premierships as AFL premierships, which you did on the Australian Football League page without an Edit summary, it doesn't work. The VFL was effectively just renamed to the AFL. Carlton didn't have to join the league. The league's name changed around it. Its premiership count simply continued on. Port Adelaide had to join the league from outside. Premierships from that outside competition do not count in the AFL. HiLo48 (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Anti-AFL POV pushing at Queensland rugby league team
Can I have some more eyes at the above article please. Only two of us have played on the Talk page for this issue, so we need more input. An editor who is happy have players simply play for different codes when they move from one form of rugby to another insists on describing them as being poached when they choose to play Australian football. I think even the editor involved agrees that "poached" is a non-neutral term, but argues that it is what actually happened. I believe it would do no harm at all, and be a much better look for Misplaced Pages, if we used the neutral term "recruited", but he won't have a bar of it.
Note that this has already been taken to the NPOV Noticeboard. No real support for our AFL hating editor's position. But he persists. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Categories: