Talk:Australian Football League/Archive 4

Timeline of the teams
Hey Guys, It is possible to clean up the timeline of the AFL teams as it appears to be a mess to me. I can barely read the information about each team. Many Thanks, McAusten (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to specify what part of the timeline needs to be cleaned up? Apart from the number of teams from 1910–1920 (which appears a bit squished due to the changes in team numbers that resulted from WWI), it looks fine to me... Jenks24 (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

When do we change the number of teams to 18?
It's started already. An IP editor, no doubt acting in good faith, changed the No. of teams entry in the Infobox to 18. User:Lhb1239 reverted the change with a polite reference to the discussion in the There are 18 teams section above.

That earlier discussion was pretty unpleasant. So far, this time round, all is well. But some time between today and March next year we will change that number to 18. So, when?

There will be more attempts to change the number. We really need to decide now. I'm agonising over raising an issue without having an obvious answer. For that reason alone, I propose 1st January 2012. Perfectly happy to see other suggestions. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't phase me too much, I just hope we don't have the drama we did last year. I'd probably change it now to save the hassle of reverting (no doubt IPs will continue to change it), but January 1st would be acceptable to me as well. Jenks24 (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support 1 January 2012.—Supt. of Printing (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be changed now as GWS are officiall part of the league following Trade week.Anderch (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that we're in 2012, I suggest that GWS be moved from 'new teams' to 'current teams'. Colon el Tom 01:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the move to current teams, but the info box doesn't have to be a single figure, it is an article on the entire league, and the entire history, not just a snapshot of today/this year/season so it should show more than a single number. The-Pope (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with moving GWS to Current Teams, but it's a table. Tables scare me. I broke an article last time I touched one. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Television coverage far too big
This has gone out of control. I just checked the size of the part of the article about television coverage. It's over 3,000 words long. I copied it into MS Word to review it, and it took up over 11 pages!

I really doubt that many of our readers will have this level of interest.

If it really is all notable and due content, maybe it needs to be hived off into another article with just a summary here. HiLo48 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I draw comment from any other editors on this matter please? I really believe it's a major issue for the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's too large, and imho, could be pruned heavily.  One suggestion - the entire list of stste-by-state coverage for 2012-2016 could be excised without harming the article.  I do appreciate that a large amount of work has gone into this. Colon el  Tom 01:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Australian football codes by social media
User:Panfas has just added List of Australian football codes by social media to the See Alsos for this article. I question the meaning and use of that article. Can others please take a look? HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

intro
The Australian Football League (AFL) was started in 1677 by a woman named Sandy. The ball first used was shaped like a foot, hence the name football ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.168 (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It was recent vandalism. It's been fixed. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 17 September 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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia has its own conventions.

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)

Club Table
This has been an issue for almost a year now with Thejoebloggsblog constantly making changes to the table and being reverted by various editors. Maybe try and discuss it here first. As for my recent reverts (ignoring for the moment Thejoebloggsblog's regular attempts to separate pre-1990 premierships from post-1990), I removed the "Age" column because it's already covered by establishment which is sortable, the "years in VFL/AFL" because it had factual errors and is redundant to the joining the league column (sortable), expanded the little cup image to say "Premierships" so people can understand it without hovering, removed frequency which is just a weird stat that has no consensus and is not something you see in official AFL records, and removed the league joined from column because it largely seems irrelevant to me for an article about this league (it also is borderline misleading with GWS/GC). I left most recent premiership even though I'm not totally sold on it, but removed the 'time since' in brackets as unnecessary. I removed the asterisk for "founding member of former league" as irrelevant and the asterisk for "founding member of this league" as unnecessary. I removed all the hovertext about how many flags teams had won in previous leagues as irrelevant. Jenks24 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Australian Football League is a closed professional competition, i.e. it does not have promotion and relegation. The closest professional sports league in this regard is the National Football League on its team table it has a guide to the foundation clubs of the competition. The frequency table allows a better comparison of clubs as some have been in the competition 100+ years longer than the others. I also think previous league is relevant as it is unique feature of the Australian football league that almost every team comes from a previous league. I will make compromises as you address them. Frequency is premierships per year. It doesn't distinguish VFL/AFL. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess if you want to add back the asterisks for founding members of the VFL/AFL I wouldn't argue about it – it seems a bit pointless to me though as surely people can just see that the 1897 clubs are the founding members. I disagree about previous league, I think it is misleading for GWS/GC as they didn't really "join" form those leagues – the AFL only put them in there for a year to help get their footing. And for the others I'm not sure it's particularly relevant, but I'll see what others think (even if they are added back though, I strongly disagree with having huge chunks of hovertext explaining how many flags they won in previous leagues as that is definitely irrelevant to this league). I understand what frequency is, but it's an odd statistic (in this case) that I doubt you would find in any official AFL publication and it's just a weird comparison to be making between teams – obviously flags are harder to win in an 18-team competition than in a 8-team one. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So while I've been typing out this response you've just gone ahead and added all your changes back? Super. Why even bother having a discussion? Jenks24 (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Im fiddling around. I think having previous leagues are important because it shows where they came from. I agree with you about GWS and GC though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejoebloggsblog (talk • contribs)
 * Sandboxes are for fiddling around, not the article space. Jevansen (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm already using my sandbox, I was just trying to accommodate indication that there is significant variance in seasons played by clubs, even foundation clubs, due to war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejoebloggsblog (talk • contribs)
 * Are you meaning to count 2016 in the tally, GC and GWS do, the rest don't. You've also combined the Brisbanes, which has some official backing, but elsewhere on WP, they're usually treated as separate entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.155.208 (talk • contribs)
 * I've removed the frequency again. It is not a valid comparison to be making and is not something that's done by the AFL, we should not be doing it, especially here on the main article. I've also removed the excessive tooltips as unnecessary (people do not need an explanation that the VFL was renamed the AFL when hovering over "premierships", it's obvious it refers to premierships won in this league). Likewise I've removed a few of the "VFL/AFL"s that were littered through it, it's obviously referring to this league. I'm still not sure the seasons column adds anything of value, except I suppose to see that a couple of clubs missed years in WWI. But if you feel strongly about it I won't debate it. Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Premierships
There is little point comparing the table for current clubs to the NFL, as the current NFL is a merge of two leagues, the NFL (before 1970) and the AFL (American Football League), the AFL (Australian Football League) has always been one league, it just changed its name, it's not a merging of two leagues. All non-Victorian teams joined the league (except for Sydney), so to say that half the teams weren't in the VFL is moot, because the league (as a whole) has not changed. The NFL has also had different determinations of championships, before the Super Bowl, it was the champion of each league (NFL and AFL), the Super Bowl was then the determination of champions in the whole NFL league due to the separate conferences. The winner of the grand final has always been deemed the champion (premiers) in the VFL/AFL (except for the round-robins in 1897 and 1924, but were subsequently deemed premiers and it was not an active change in determination like the NFL). Just because a separate sport has a certain table, doesn't mean the AFL should have the same, they have been governed differently. Also there is no point in comparing to the EPL because of the relegation system. Flickerd (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion both VFL premierships and AFL premierships are premierships. However there should be at least some distinguishing between the two as some were won as a state league and others were won as a national league. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Current convention says that they're *not* distinguishable though, portraying them in this way is OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.155.208 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Give this a read. The AFL Commission in early June ruled that clubs can acknowledge their premiership successes outside of the VFL.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.44.221 (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't see how that is relevant. The original "problem" here was j.bloggs removing premiership tallies from a table, which was rebuffed. Then suggesting a separation of VFL and AFL titles, which hasn't changed in its not-ness. Quoth Fitzpatrick: “But it has been the one organisation since its establishment" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.76.74 (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Australian Football League. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/rodney-eade-supports-return-of-state-of-origin/story-e6frf9jf-1226351811775
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121008125149/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112560/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112560/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

other Australian Football League(s)?
I was looking for the sport that is called football anywhere else than North America and Australia, and there is no mention about it? Maybe like it is done in Chelsea, London article: ''This article is about the district in London. For the football club that represents the district, see Chelsea F.C..'' Found out it is called A-League from Soccer in Australia. So it would be something like "This article is about the Australian rules football league. For the association football league, see A-League." 212.50.203.198 (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Level on pyramid
There is a field in the Infobox called "Level on pyramid". I have never heard a player, coach, administrator, fan or commentator use the expression in over six decades of observing. This looks like one of those parameters in an Infobox that people use simply because it's there. It might make sense for those (mostly soccer) leagues where teams get there through promotion/relegation, but not for the AFL.
 * It's pretty obsolete in Australian rules football and I can't find sources which define the different levels of the pyramid. I.e. I know state leagues are the second tier, but I don't know what third, fourth and so on are. I'd say it's a pretty useless parameter to have, especially without sources. Flickerd (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a soccer thing, for those leagues where they have promotion and relegation. (Although they use it for Australian soccer even where they don't have promotion and relegation, probably because they want to look just like every other soccer league.) No relevance to Aussie Rules that I can see. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Most Premiership Wins Discussion
We have an IP editor - 58.170.105.213 - determined to show that Port Adelaide's total number of SANFL and AFL premierships give it the "Most titles" status for the AFL.

Bringing this here to avoid an edit war. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not trying to say Port Adelaide should have the title. I think either Port Adelaide should, or Hawthorn should. Either accept all state based competitions (as the AFL Commission does), or start the tally from 1990.


 * As per this article it clearly states "The AFL Commission - after being prodded by Geelong - has formally accepted the history books on Australian football should no longer start from 1897 when the Victorian Football Association split with eight clubs forming the Victorian Football League."

The discussion stems from the following points:
 * AFL was formed from the VFL, as a result all teams that switched over have those previous premiership wins still counted
 * Port Adelaide moved leagues from the SANFL to the AFL
 * AFL Commission recognises all premiership wins from state levels
 * Therefore Port Adelaide should have the title for most premiership wins (37) over Carlton / Essendon (16)
 * If we start counting from when AFL was started, the premiership wins would go to Hawthorn (5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.143.170 (talk) (UTC)


 * I'll say it again as was said in the edit summary, clubs have the choice whether they acknowledge previous league premierships. The VFL/AFL is one league, it just changed its name in 1990, by saying it's a different league is the same as saying the SANFL was a different league everytime it changed its name, i.e. SAFA, SAFL etc. Leagues change their name a lot, but it doesn't mean it's a different league. Saying SANFL/AFL WAFL/AFL should all be recognised as the same premierships, is the same as saying VFA/VFL/AFL should all be the same. The AFL Commision said each club has the choice whether they include past premierships. This page is about the Australian Football League, not Australian football in general. If there were a page of List of Australian rules football premiers, then it would be a different story, but this page is dedicated to the league Australian Football League (previously the Victorian Football League) not Australian rules football in Australia in general. SANFL, WAFL, VFA, TSL etc. are not a part of the VFL/AFL. Flickerd (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * True. But... What is part of that history is Port Adelaide. Them, as a team, moved from SANFL to AFL. And as per the article again “For that we are very proud and it’s pleasing that the AFL has allowed all clubs to formally acknowledge their premierships outside of the VFL-AFL competition.”. AFL is formally acknowledging that Port has 37 premierships, 36 under SANFL and 1 under AFL. This league, has Port in it... And they have had 37 premierships. Which is more than Carlton and Essendon.


 * I will state again, we should either accept Port having the most premiership wins, or start the tally at when AFL (the league, not VFL/VFA) was formed. Either acknowledge all state based leagues or none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.143.170 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. The VFL IS the AFL. The SANFL isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You've answered your own question, their history is on Port Adelaide Football Club which is in their infobox and history section. The existing clubs in the VFL did not change leagues to the AFL, the VFL/AFL changed its name, Port Adelaide changed leagues in 1997. It is WP:Original research to adopt this change as all AFL publications have Carlton and Essendon as the most premierships. The AFL Commission did not adopt this change as you suggest, they were just saying clubs have the choice to acknowledge how many premierships they've won (as every single club has a history in a different league, except GWS, GC, Frem, WC, BL and Adel). The AFL, the organisation, and the AFL, the league, are not exactly the same, the organisation oversees every competition (directly and indirectly) in Australia, this page is dedicated to just the league. You do realise that VFL (1897-1990) and VFL (1991-present) are different leagues? The VFA changed its name to VFL and the VFL changed its name to AFL. This has been a very, very, very long issue on this page of people trying to re-write history and until the AFL comes out and says the VFL (1897-1990) and AFL (1991-present) are different leagues, this page will not change. Flickerd (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the AFL has certainly not helped clarity with its recycling of the VFL name in recent years. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand the difference between AFL / VFL / VFA... What i am discussing is why is a clubs history dependent on whether they started in the AFL or not. Their premiership wins (as the AFL acknowledges them) are still wins. Maybe it is worthwhile splitting the tally up with pre-1990 wins with post-1990 wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.143.170 (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Because this page is dedicated to AFL the league, not Australian rules football in Australia.... Flickerd (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep, and Port Adelaide is part of this league with 37 premiership wins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.143.170 (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Part of this league, yes, but it has not had 37 premiership wins in this league. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * So... A) They have had 37 premiership wins. B) These wins are acknowledged by the AFL Commission?. I am not following your logic as to why Port should not have their success noted? Maybe we should have another split it up, titles including state based compettions (SANFL / VFL / WAFL), and titles since 1990? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.143.170 (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "I am not following your logic..." Many do, and I suspect that, truthfully, you do too. I have no problem with Port's huge number of premierships in various South Australian leagues being acknowledged somewhere, but they aren't AFL premierships. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Truthfully I think that there should be a differentiation between Pre-AFL titles and Post-AFL titles. I dont care if Port is there, or if its Hawthorn. I think that all teams should have the same criteria applied to it. Not, these teams were in the VFL so their premierships are true premierships, but SANFL premierships are not counted. They both were state based competitions before AFL. I agree, neither SANFL or VFL are AFL premierships. So we should either stick with one logic or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.143.170 (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The AFL and the VFL and the same competition, the SANFL and AFL are not.. which, as was pointed out, you already know.
 * VFL turned into the AFL yes. Port Adelaide joined the AFL yes. AFL recognises Ports wins in the SANFL yes. Which means that Port should have that title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.143.170 (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Should also mention it has been acknowledged by the AFL commission as well. Its not like I am the only one here. Just the only person who is trying to correct the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.143.170 (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're going to correct every publication by the AFL that says Carlton and Essendon have won the most premierships too? As mentioned multiple times, the AFL Commission does not acknowledge that Port has won the most AFL premierships (key difference between AFL and Australian rules football history), if they did, there would be multiple sources saying so, not just one by a South Australian newspaper which chose to cash in on an article by a very minor change where the Commision said clubs can choose to acknowledge previous league premierships. Sorry mate, you're on your own here and it's time to take off those rose tinted glasses and actually realise what the AFL Commission said, not what you believe they said. Flickerd (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Nope, cant change every publication. Can change wikipedia and make sure wikipedia is as accurate as possible. Don't have rose tinted glasses. Just want it to be accurate. at the moment it is not. Pretty much its a difference of opinion right now... How does wikipedia handle these sorts of situations?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.143.170 (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Have a read of WP:Original research, what you are presenting is original research. Also have a read of WP:consensus which is the basic fundamental of Wikipedia, if you want to make a bold change, you need a consensus. Wikipedia is based on consensus, where there is currently a clear consensus against you. Sorry, there is no real other way to deal with this situation on Wikipedia. Flickerd (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * How does Wikipedia handle such things? 1. Consensus  2. Sources. Reliable, independent sources.
 * On the former, all here but one are in agreement. On the latter, the publications you acknowledge you cannot change would be among those sources. A single South Australian publication doesn't help your case much. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * In the words of Mike Fitzpatrick, then AFL Chairman, in the 2015 AFL annual report "Hawthorn enhanced its reputation as the powerhouse of the AFL era by adding the 2015 Toyota AFL Premiership to the premierships it had won in 2008, 2013 and 2014. We congratulate the Hawks who have played in six Grand Finals in the AFL era". If Mike Fitzpatrick as AFL Chairman delineates VFL and AFL surely it is reasonable to provide the two in the table. VFL premierships were ALL won by victorian clubs. AFL premierships have been awarded to clubs all across Australia. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In the words of Tim Lane after the 2018 AFL Grand Final "It’s the club’s (West Coast) fourth flag, achieved at a hit-rate of one every eight years. Behind only Hawthorn in the AFL era. Take note of that because, in time, success will be measured from 1990 onwards. The original team of the west has been formidable from the year dot." Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You don't think you might just be exhibiting the tiniest of a non-neutral POV there, do you?
 * Not my point of view. The point of view of a former AFL Chairman and one of the most respected broadcasters in the history of the game. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would consider "AFL era" in this context as mainly a turn of phrase, a synonym or encapsulation of "the competition as a national entity" rather than a hard delineation. Which, as been mentioned a number of times, isn't clearly supported elsewhere. By this reasoning, if Hawthorn had "four-peated" 1988-1991, this would have to be considered two streaks of two.