Talk:Australian Football League

Frame around Template:AFL clubs map
Per WP:BRD, another user says the article looks neater without the frame. I'm not terribly worked up about it but could I have a second opinion please. Moondyne (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Team section
4TheWynne has been reverting my updates of the team table. I have been using the team table formatting style of the professional sporting competitions of the United States. These tables are simple covering only the relevant details. The old table was starting to get overloaded with information such as previous years membership figures which is excessive and likely contravenes Wikipedia rules. I see no reason why the new table is not preferable to the old table. Other professional sporting competitions do not provide tables for old franchises instead linking to pages for defunct teams of the competition in question. This is more efficient.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"Aiming to become a national competition"
I don't believe that the assertion that the league was "aiming to become a national competition" is accurate. While the push for a national competition came from outside of the league, the league's expansion in the 1980s was not driven from an initial desire to become a national competition (there was a lot of resistance to this) but a desire to keep as many of its struggling Victorian clubs financially viable as possible. There was very strong opposition from the very top to the concept of a national competition from within the league. VFL General Manager Alan Schwab was quite outspoken about the risks to the league of expansion. The league wanted a team in Sydney because it saw an opportunity to increase television revenues to prop up the existing clubs and a new market for the unviable Swans. That is also why huge upfront amounts of money for the licenses for the Brisbane Bears and West Coast Eagles in addition to the new TV markets there. If this statement was true it would have granted South Australian and Tasmania licenses back then instead of waiting decades. The more accurate wording would be "Aiming to increase its broadcase audience and keep as many Victorian clubs viable as possible". Most sources suggest that it wasn't until the 1990s that the VFL realised the the Victorian clubs could not remain viable long term and Oakley began to make way for more non-Victorian clubs by actively encouraging the Victorian clubs to merge. Rulesfan (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

AFL has an RFC
AFL has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. echidnaLives -  talk  -  edits  11:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

AFL as competition or company
There's a dispute over whether the lead should characterise the AFL as competition or company. It should be the former.

Looking at the rest of the article, it overwhelmingly talks about the AFL as competition, not as company. The wording characterising the AFL as competition has been stable for many years and was changed without discussion only months back. There is a sense in which you could talk about the AFL as company, but this is not what the term "AFL" is commonly understood to refer to except in corporate (and similar) contexts.

I'm getting deja vu from a similar discussion for the NBL. – Teratix ₵ 05:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)