Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 9

1930 Brownlow Medal
I've sone some research into the 1930 Brownlow Medal, and I'm not sure I'm meeting the WP:V hurdle (or breaking the OR rules) for one conclusion. Looking for the team's opinion and any other info that can be added.
 * I found an article from 1924 in which the original conditions of the medal were paraphrased as: the winner was the player with the highest number of votes; if tied, the umpires would meet and pick a winner.Link
 * An article from 1930 after the Judkins-Collier-Hopkins tie stated that the conditions were now: 'At the end of the season, the player obtaining the largest percentage of votes to games played to receive the medal; in case of an equal number of votes the umpires to be called together to decide to whom the medal shall be awarded'. Link This appeared to be verbatim from the rules.
 * This wording, supporting by this article, heavily implies that the 'percentage of votes to games' was the primary winning condition, not just a tie-breaker as usually seen in modern references. In other words, in a theoretical scenario in which Harry Collier polled 5 votes from 18 games (27.7%), he would still have lost to Stan Judkins with 4 votes from 12 games (33.3%).
 * My conclusion is that at some stage between 1924 and 1930, the 'winner is the player with the highest votes' clause was changed to 'winner is the player with highest percentage vs games', but the wording of the tie-breaker wasn't changed from reading 'in case of equal votes...' to 'in case of equal percentage...' – meaning that there was a conflict between the two rules in 1930, triggering confusion.

I've included all of the above in some way, but been intentionally vague about whether the 'percentage of votes to games played' rule was intended to be the primary criterion for victory or a tie-breaker. At the moment, it's mentioned in the 'tie-breakers' section of the Brownlow Medal article. The main question is does the above represent a sufficiently verifiable body of references to move the 'highest percentage' criterion out of the tie-breakers section and into the primary conditions section?

Annoyingly as an aside, I cannot find any reference to state when 'highest votes' was changed to 'highest percentage vs games', leaving a critical gap in the chronology which makes the above difficult to explain in articles. I highly suspect it was changed only that year in 1930, but definitely can't verify it. My reasoning is that in 1929 per this article it was decided not to award votes during interstate game weekends, presumably to even out the Brownlow disadvantage a player might have by playing in a state game; counting the votes from subsequent years indicates that this policy did not continue – making it highly conceivable that it was dropped in 1930 and replaced with the 'highest percentage vs games' clause which had the same intent. If anyone ever finds something in a reference about when this rule was added, I'd be very interested. Aspirex (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Icons on 2022 (B) AFL Women's season
The user is adding icons to the page, and continues doing so with no explanation (against WP:BRD), despite my reverting and explaining that it is against the consensus. Could someone else please weigh in, as I really don't feel like getting into an editwar over it? --SuperJew (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Tables look much better with the icons.
 * However, if the consensus in AFL/AFLW is for dull tables without the cool looking items, then fair enough.
 * The explanation cited that the icons are redundant, which from a visual point of view is a matter of personal opinion.
 * One might argue that elements of the page are redundant given that fixtures and results information is available online elsewhere - the AFL / AFLW websites and various media outlets. I don't share that view, particularly as these pages serve as stable records for current seasons in the future. From time to time organisations change internet content providers and when that happens, information on past seasons may be lost from the official sites as migrating data of past seasons is not guaranteed to be a high priority.
 * Regards, John Nhoj1898 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think we want this to turn into rugby league (which I thought straight away without knowing might have been a source of inspiration for these edits)., I understand where you're coming from about the season pages serving as stable records, but I'm not sure if that also justifies including icons – that you think tables look much better with icons, and that the tables look dull without them, is also a matter of personal opinion. For this article in particular, I'm personally more worried about trying to add/maintain content and make it look neater, and perhaps raise the standard for current and future season articles, than about making it pop visually; plus, obviously more colours will be added to the tables as the season progresses, and if a team's colours/design were to change, it would probably be more appropriate to keep a record of this at the club article than the season articles. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  13:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:MOSICONS discourages icons as decoration, and using an icon to repeat the meaning of its adjacent word does qualify as that. I recall having this discussion as a project a few years back and concluding no club jumper icons, so I support sticking to that approach. Aspirex (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The article's title
Any reason why you have changed the title to "AFL Women's season seven"? I'm just considering how this will look from an encyclopedic perspective in 20 years time to some neutral reader... 2020 AFLW season, 2021 AFLW season, 2022 AFLW season, AFLW season 7, 2023 AFLW season...seems unnecessarily confusing. Do we now keep the 2022 (B) reference where it is mentioned on other pages and in templates? This is obviously a transition period for the league, from next year onwards the league will revert to playing 1 season per calendar year, so splitting the two distinct 2022 seasons into (A) and (B) seems more logical than adopting the league's own generic long-winded title. Pinging other regular users because I'd like their perspective -, , ,. Global-Cityzen (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey mate, we've been discussing this for a while at the section above . Would probably be better if you read the input there and if you have anything to add, add it at that section to keep the discussion centralised in one place :) --SuperJew (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh dear I am blind as a bat, thank you Global-Cityzen (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, easy enough to miss if you're not following closely :) --SuperJew (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Coaching changes on season pages
Bringing up a discussion I had with (here) for more widespread discussion:

I noticed for a while that the "coaching changes" on season pages list the changes as happening post-season. For example: 2020 AFL season includes Rhyce Shaw stepping down which happened after the end of the season. My suggestion is to have the coaching changes appear as pre-season (or mid-season of course), as this is the season they will affect. If we look at the previous example, David Noble coming in as Norf's coach affects the 2021 AFL season and has no bearing on 2020. With this change, it would also make sense to move the section to the beginning of the page.

Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Certainly I always organize the Carlton season pages that way. It only gets messy with caretakers who come in with few games left - i.e. Noble goes in the 2022 page as replaced by Adams with six games left; and in my view it should be Noble again who is listed as outgoing in 2023's page. (But when Malthouse got the flick from Carlton in early 2015, I probably would have put Barker as outgoing in the 2016 article). Thoughts on how to deal with grey cases like this? Aspirex (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Barassi line
On the Talk page of the above article, I tried to draw attention to a problem I perceived with a recent addition to the article. Two editors have responded with what I consider to be less than helpful responses. Would love to see the thoughts of others please. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Zebra stripes on statistics tables
Hey guys – hope everyone's doing well. Yes, it's back to that old topic again... some of us love them, some of us love to hate them... statistics tables. But don't worry, this one's a fun one.

The way that AFL/AFLW statistics tables are currently formatted, we have manually-added zebra stripes that bunch up and look all messy when you sort a column, so long story short, I went in search of a solution (after trying JavaScript) and was eventually presented with Template:Alternating rows table. All we would need to do is change the format at the AFL player statistics start templates and remove the manual stripes from all of the existing tables, and voilà, we've made yet another accessibility-related improvement to these tables. Take, for example, Tony Lockett's table, as it's currently formatted:

Here is what the table would look like with the start template reformatted, the manual stripes removed and the other changes applied that we've discussed here but haven't yet applied to this table:

! scope=col rowspan=2 style=width:3em | Season ! scope=col rowspan=2 style=width:11em | Team ! scope=col rowspan=2 style=width:2em class=unsortable | No. ! scope=col rowspan=2 style=width:3em | Games ! scope=col colspan=7 | Totals ! scope=col colspan=7 | Averages (per game) ! scope=col rowspan=2 style=width:3em | Votes ! scope=col style=width:2em | G ! scope=col style=width:2em | B ! scope=col style=width:2em | K ! scope=col style=width:2em | H ! scope=col style=width:2em | D ! scope=col style=width:2em | M ! scope=col style=width:2em | T ! scope=col style=width:2em | G ! scope=col style=width:2em | B ! scope=col style=width:2em | K ! scope=col style=width:2em | H ! scope=col style=width:2em | D ! scope=col style=width:2em | M ! scope=col style=width:2em | T ! colspan=3 | Career ! 281 !! 1360 !! 590 !! 2367 !! 500 !! 2867 !! 1760 !! 142 !! 4.8 !! 2.1 !! 8.4 !! 1.8 !! 10.2 !! 6.3 !! 0.7 !! 128
 * 1983 || || 37
 * 12 || 19 || 17 || 76 || 26 || 102 || 44 || — || 1.6 || 1.4 || 6.3 || 2.2 || 8.5 || 3.7 || — || 0
 * 1984 || || 14
 * 20 || 77 || 44 || 146 || 19 || 165 || 108 || — || 3.9 || 2.2 || 7.3 || 1.0 || 8.3 || 5.4 || — || 7
 * 1985 || || 14
 * 21 || 79 || 22 || 146 || 32 || 178 || 112 || — || 3.8 || 1.0 || 7.0 || 1.5 || 8.5 || 5.3 || — || 3
 * 1986 || || 14
 * 18 || 60 || 29 || 119 || 36 || 155 || 85 || — || 3.3 || 1.6 || 6.6 || 2.0 || 8.6 || 4.7 || — || 1
 * 1987 || || 14
 * 22 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 117† || 52 || 226 || 49 || 275 || 164 || 16 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 5.3† || 2.4 || 10.3 || 2.2 || 12.5 || 7.5 || 0.7 || bgcolor=98FB98 | 20±
 * 1988 || || 4
 * 8 || 35 || 19 || 65 || 19 || 84 || 44 || 6 || 4.4 || 2.4 || 8.1 || 2.4 || 10.5 || 5.5 || 0.8 || 3
 * 1989 || || 4
 * 11 || 78 || 24 || 122 || 18 || 140 || 92 || 5 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 7.1† || 2.2 || 11.1 || 1.6 || 12.7 || 8.4 || 0.5 || 10
 * 1990 || || 4
 * 12 || 65 || 34 || 112 || 16 || 128 || 84 || 11 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 5.4† || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 2.8† || 9.3 || 1.3 || 10.7 || 7.0 || 0.9 || 3
 * 1991 || || 4
 * 17 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 127† || 51 || 190 || 33 || 223 || 140 || 7 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 7.5† || 3.0 || 11.2 || 1.9 || 13.1 || 8.2 || 0.4 || 16
 * 1992 || || 4
 * 22 || 132 || 58 || 214 || 30 || 244 || 157 || 12 || 6.0 || 2.6 || 9.7 || 1.4 || 11.1 || 7.1 || 0.5 || 10
 * 1993 || || 4
 * 10 || 53 || 12 || 85 || 26 || 111 || 63 || 7 || 5.3 || 1.2 || 8.5 || 2.6 || 11.1 || 6.3 || 0.7 || 5
 * 1994 || || 4
 * 10 || 56 || 26 || 100 || 16 || 116 || 76 || 7 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 5.6† || 2.6 || 10.0 || 1.6 || 11.6 || 7.6 || 0.7 || 7
 * 1995 || || 4
 * 19 || 110 || 44 || 176 || 42 || 218 || 139 || 16 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 5.8† || 2.3 || 9.3 || 2.2 || 11.5 || 7.3 || 0.8 || 7
 * 1996 || || 4
 * 22 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 121† || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 63† || 212 || 45 || 257 || 168 || 21 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 5.5† || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 2.9† || 9.6 || 2.0 || 11.7 || 7.6 || 1.0 || 14
 * 1997 || || 4
 * 12 || 37 || 21 || 65 || 23 || 88 || 50 || 7 || 3.1 || 1.8 || 5.4 || 1.9 || 7.3 || 4.2 || 0.6 || 1
 * 1998 || || 4
 * 23 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 109† || 36 || 167 || 41 || 208 || 121 || 9 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 4.7† || 1.6 || 7.3 || 1.8 || 9.0 || 5.3 || 0.4 || 15
 * 1999 || || 4
 * 19 || 82 || 38 || 141 || 27 || 168 || 112 || 15 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 4.3† || 2.0 || 7.4 || 1.4 || 8.8 || 5.9 || 0.8 || 6
 * 2002 || || 46
 * 3 || 3 || 0 || 5 || 2 || 7 || 1 || 3 || 1.0 || 0.0 || 1.7 || 0.7 || 2.3 || 0.3 || 1.0 || 0
 * - class=sortbottom
 * 1995 || || 4
 * 19 || 110 || 44 || 176 || 42 || 218 || 139 || 16 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 5.8† || 2.3 || 9.3 || 2.2 || 11.5 || 7.3 || 0.8 || 7
 * 1996 || || 4
 * 22 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 121† || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 63† || 212 || 45 || 257 || 168 || 21 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 5.5† || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 2.9† || 9.6 || 2.0 || 11.7 || 7.6 || 1.0 || 14
 * 1997 || || 4
 * 12 || 37 || 21 || 65 || 23 || 88 || 50 || 7 || 3.1 || 1.8 || 5.4 || 1.9 || 7.3 || 4.2 || 0.6 || 1
 * 1998 || || 4
 * 23 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 109† || 36 || 167 || 41 || 208 || 121 || 9 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 4.7† || 1.6 || 7.3 || 1.8 || 9.0 || 5.3 || 0.4 || 15
 * 1999 || || 4
 * 19 || 82 || 38 || 141 || 27 || 168 || 112 || 15 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 4.3† || 2.0 || 7.4 || 1.4 || 8.8 || 5.9 || 0.8 || 6
 * 2002 || || 46
 * 3 || 3 || 0 || 5 || 2 || 7 || 1 || 3 || 1.0 || 0.0 || 1.7 || 0.7 || 2.3 || 0.3 || 1.0 || 0
 * - class=sortbottom
 * 19 || 82 || 38 || 141 || 27 || 168 || 112 || 15 || bgcolor=CAE1FF | 4.3† || 2.0 || 7.4 || 1.4 || 8.8 || 5.9 || 0.8 || 6
 * 2002 || || 46
 * 3 || 3 || 0 || 5 || 2 || 7 || 1 || 3 || 1.0 || 0.0 || 1.7 || 0.7 || 2.3 || 0.3 || 1.0 || 0
 * - class=sortbottom
 * - class=sortbottom
 * }

Would everyone be onboard with this? I know some might look at it as "another thing to add to the list" when it comes to these tables, but it's a necessary and pretty straightforward change, to the point that I'd be surprised if anyone opposed it; nevertheless, keen to know people's thoughts – thanks. 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  16:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Someone needs to really get through to, again, about highlighting career-high statistics in bold, basketball-style – it should just be a flat no, as we already highlight key statistics in bold (like above), but they keep ignoring me.
 * Seems like an obvious improvement – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fantastic idea! Anything which automates formatting to be more consistent and less of a drain on the editor (wow do I hate copying the stats line from the previous season and then having to manually change the bg colour), is to be blessed! --SuperJew (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Awesome – glad you guys like the idea. I updated the formatting last week and updated some statistics tables accordingly; if anyone comes across any tables with outdated formatting and would like to help fix them, that would be awesome – thanks, guys. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  13:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Silly editing at Australian rules football
Can some other editors, Admin if possible, have look at the recent history at the above article. An editor wants to add some rather silly Distinguish fields. HiLo48 (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * We have a similarly unhelpful editor, Talsta, an obvious rugby league fan who has made disruptive edits to (and even vandalised in the past) the Australian Football League article – clearly the NRL isn't getting enough mentions in the AFL article (who would have thought?) and they want to refer to it at any opportunity they get. If people could please keep an eye out for this as well, that would be great – thanks. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  13:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

State/country flags in current squad templates
In addition to my comment above, in my opinion, is being equally disruptive (albeit in a different way) by adding state or country flag icons next to players' names in the Queensland teams' AFL and AFLW current squad templates; they gave differing reasons for their edits when reverting my reverts to the Gold Coast templates: "State of Origin is important when AFLW State of Origin matches are played" (AFLW) and "Oea represented PNG ... where the players are from has a big influence on player retention at the club and in QLD" (AFL). Regardless of their rationale, I think that this is completely unnecessary detail and should be removed immediately; would appreciate other editors' thoughts – thanks. 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  14:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG and MOS:SPORTFLAG give a fairly clear view that flags have a place for sports where national sporting teams are the pinnacle competition. A specific comment in the MOS is "Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with." I would say that for Australian rules football in the 21st century, this is obviously club level, since representative football is long dead, with any occasional games serving more as exhibitions than genuine competition and the International Cup a lower level amateur competition. So I'd agree that the flags should be removed. (I've been using the flags for a long time on Carlton season pages, and by the same logic should remove them - which I'll endeavour to do when I get some spare time). Aspirex (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd defer to MOS:SPORTFLAG's point that flags are strictly to indicate representative nationality. If players don't represent their state or country in interstate or international football – i.e., the vast majority of players – their flag should not be included. I'd also emphasise Asperix's point that Australian rules football's representative level is less prestigious than its club level and thus even representative nationality is less relevant than in other sports. Flags also impose a heavy, ongoing maintenance burden if standardised across every squad template. – Teratix ₵ 01:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Seventh AFL Women's season and related articles
Hey guys – hope everyone's doing well. I've started the article for the seventh AFL Women's season after the new CBA and start date were announced, but I'm seeing a lot of "season seven" (the recent graphic on the socials even reads "2022 NAB AFLW season 7"), so I've titled it "2022 AFL Women's season B" for now – what do we think? If the AFL sticks with that sort of title when the season rolls around, which could look really messy on Wikipedia, we could use "B" for all related articles/throughout all articles that link to this season and possibly move/change the formatting for all of the articles, templates, etc. for the previous season to include "A", so at least we're using a consistent formatting; things like career spans could then read "2017–2022 (B)" if a player were to retire at the end of this season, for example. Keen to know if anyone has any thoughts or simply think I've jumped the gun/it's a discussion for later in the year – thanks. 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  15:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Well the 6th AFLW season has already been moved to 2022 (Part A) AFL Women's season per this article. I think for now we should move season 7 also to a similar title 2022 (Part B) AFL Women's season for the consistency. Later, we might change based on sources. --SuperJew (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Part A/Part B makes them sound like different halves of the same season, which I don't like. By analogy with the Australian Open tennis, which had two 1977 seasons, the approach I'd adopt given the choice would be put the months in the article title e.g. "2022 (January - April) AFL Women's season" like 1977 Australian Open (January) – Men's singles, put them as 2022 (A) and 2022 (B) in things like premiership lists. If the group doesn't like that, I'd still suggest dropping the word 'part' and styling it as "2022 (A) AFL Women's season". I don't think there's a need to distinguish between the two 2022s in things like career spans which are equally validly interpreted as time ranges rather than distinct seasons. I suppose both 2022s end up in the same club season article for now e.g. 2022 Carlton Football Club season; that's probably going to get messy since those articles have always represented an October-to-September view of the season, and I expect when the inevitable happens (which is, the season goes over new year and they all get retrospectively renumbered to a summer season format e.g 2022/23 season) these 'late year' seasons may need to be shuffled between articles (I.e. 2022b gets retro-considered part of 2023 or a renamed 2022/23 or something) - but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Aspirex (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , I noticed that Black had formatted last season as "part A" as well, but I thought that was just a personal choice given it hadn't been formatted that way by the AFL/I didn't see it anywhere else and disagree that the call's already been made to reformat it that way for that reason (I also agree with just dropping "part" and adding "(A)")., I actually went back-and-forth between naming the article "season B" and "2022 (B) AFL Women's season" and would be happy to move it to the latter title, mainly because it's shorter than including the months (and looks neater, in my opinion) and especially if we're already thinking of including "B" in other areas. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  00:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

, could you please discuss here first before moving? While I understand the rationale to put the months in the title, I think having a consistent format of A and B is better than sometimes having the months, sometimes having A and B, sometimes having I and II, etc. The other thing to consider is, while we might have been given the August and November dates, there's always the possibility of a delay to the start and/or end of the season, so simply having A and B and sticking with it (unless the AFL comes up with a better season name or it gets delayed into 2023) would be easier than having to move all of the pages' titles again should the season be delayed and finish in December. 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  08:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with Asperix's proposals, the risk with the "A"/"B" disambiguation is that readers interpret these as signifying a single season split into two parts or even two different divisions, but it might unfortunately be necessary in contexts where concision is particularly important. Hopefully sources adopt clearer terminology which we can follow. – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree that A/B carries with it an implication of superiority/inferiority, and that I/II or 1/2 would be better short-forms. I'd only go with A/B if that became the common representation in references. Aspirex (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , yeah, I get where you're coming from – I just figured this way might be a little less messy and easier to distinguish. Nicole Livingstone said on Credit to the Girls only hours ago that the AFL will indeed be naming the season 2022 NAB AFLW season seven, and I've just updated the article prose to reflect this. I don't think it's going to get any clearer, and I just feel like it's going to get messy if we adopt this for Wikipedia. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  05:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Tricky one. We're clearly not going to know the final article titles for at least a couple of years. Seems to me that the right approach for now is call them 2022 AFL Women's season and AFL Women's season 7, explain the inconsistent branding in the lead, and wait to see what the future COMMONNAME ends up being. Likewise I suggest our short form (e.g. in stats or lists) be 'Season 7' or 'Season 7 (2022)' for now, and accept that there's likely going to be some future changes.

Circling back to other questions - what do we think about including both AFLW seasons in the same club 2022 season? Important that we get to a consensus on that. Aspirex (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Do we have any indication what will be the dates for season 8? --SuperJew (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Not to my knowledge. What are your thoughts on the different possibilities based on the answer to that question? Aspirex (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that if season 8 goes into 2024, than season 7 can go into the clubs' 2023 season and season 8 into 2024. But if it's fully in 2023, I'd put season 7 into 2022. It's not very clear if this is part of some move of timeframes, or trying to squeeze in an extra season. --SuperJew (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure the league has tacitly implied that they would prefer the men's and women's seasons to be as concurrent as possible - i.e. season 8 is more likely to be 2023 than 2023/24. (I can't find the ref, though). That said, even if Season 8 only slightly overhung into the 2024 calendar year (i.e. ran January to August), I still think I'd probably be grouping it with the 2023 Men's season; the women's season would really have to start overlapping with the men's preseason matches before I'd change my mindset on that. That is to say that I'd probably go with both S6 and S7 in the 2022 club pages. Aspirex (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems some sources are calling it 2022/23 season. --SuperJew (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

With a month passing since last conversation on this topic I guess we haven't really finalised a position. Can I suggest we go with page names of 2022 AFL Women's season and AFL Women's season seven for now? AFLW marketing continues to push 'season seven' over anything else, while also using '2022 NAB AFL Women's season seven' as a longform. The (A) and (B) format does not seem to be getting any common use and should probably be dispensed with sooner rather than later. For club season articles, User:SuperJew I see you've now added Season 7 to the 2022 Collingwood Football Club season page (which you perhaps had reservations about in the above discussion) – are you and others comfortable with finalising this as the standard? Aspirex (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually added it, and I just filled-out what was missing ;) I think for now we'll leave it, and if we see the seasons span change we might move it. Using "season seven", what should we use as short-form? Right now seems there is use of 2022 for both seasons or of 2022A/2022B. --SuperJew (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't look at the edit history closely. I'd perhaps use S7 or S7 (2022) for now. Aspirex (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Are we sure about getting rid of A and B? I've made it more widespread since is was brought back up (e.g. moving all of the affected articles/templates), and thought that we were just going to leave it for now. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  10:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm certain it's the right call because I'm not seeing A and B anywhere other than Wikipedia, which definitely isn't in line with our naming conventions. Aspirex (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If that's the case and we're definitely moving on this, we should agree on the short form and its usage. I prefer S7 (2022), but think that whatever we use, it should also be used in career spans; I think that there's a need to disambiguate between the two seasons rather than just leave it as 2022 for either season so that readers know when players started/retired/moved. For example, we have Katie Loynes who retired last season, and say if Erin Phillips were to retire after this season, I don't think that both career spans should read "2017–2022" if one played one more season than the other; in the case of the latter, it should read "2017–S7 (2022)" so that people know that's the season she retired in (if that happens). When it comes to players moving clubs, an example is Madison Prespakis; instead of reading "2019–2022 / 2022–", I think it should be "2019–2022 / S7 (2022)–" (similar with Phillips). In the grand scheme of things, this wouldn't affect a lot of players, especially if this ends up being a one-off and we're leaving 2022 (as in the sixth season) as is. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  10:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm on board with S7 (2022). Aspirex (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should have differenet short forms for the different seasons, as it is otherwise confusing as 4TW gave good examples above. S7 (2022) feels a little bulky for me, while S7 feels out of context, especially in the future when people read back. A thought might be to use Sx for all the seasons, but that's a massive change and quite against the current consensus. If we're willing to hold off a bit, we can see what sites such as AustralianFootball will choose to do, and make a more outside sources based decision. OTOH, things are already being edited now, so bottom line I'd back S7 (2022) currently, keeping it open to re-visit once the season starts and more off-Wiki sources make a choice of formatting. --SuperJew (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * We could also just use S7 for things like accolades (e.g. selection in this season's AFLW AA team could read S7 under a player's accolades and the captain could have S7 (c) rather than S7 (2022) (c) or S7 (2022; c)), but if using two short forms is confusing, I understand. I feel like if we reach a consensus on how to use them, it shouldn't be too much of a problem, but for the most part, yeah, S7 (2022) was my thinking. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  12:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey all. First time I've checked in here for a month or so, was a bit of a shock to see the article move to 'season seven'... especially since the lead sentence now makes no sense, and obviously was passed over during the page move.
 * I've always thought the 'season seven' moniker the league is using is coming from a marketing/branding perspective and is not encyclopaedic at all. IMO, we have a fairly strong precedent with the yearly Big Bash League articles forgoing marketing terminology like 'BBL|01' in the title. Obviously it's a little more difficult given this upcoming AFLW season won't traverse two calendar years like the cricket tournaments, but I just think 'season seven' seems a little gimmicky to me.
 * I agree that we probably won't achieve a perfect outcome until a few more years down the track when we can look back in retrospect, but given the nascent nature of the league, I would argue Wikipedia also has a role to play in establishing some of that terminology rather than following other historians (of which, unfortunately in the women's game, there are few). Gibbsyspin 08:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , I don't really like the "season seven" name either, but I also understand the need to be consistent with sources, so I'm fine with the current path that we're on for the time being; definitely understand where you're coming from, though. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  18:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

AFL Finals System
Not sure if anyone else noticed, but a user nominated the finals template for deletion with a much less clear bracket in its place. Please go to the template deletion discussion and explain to this user why our template is needed. RoryK8 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Linking the discussion for easier access. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  01:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have tried to revert some of this user's edits, but he has used a bot, and I think it has affected hundreds of Australian football, rugby league and basketball pages. RoryK8 (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , remember that the current finals system has only been in use in the VFL (on-and-off) and AFL since 2000, so the only Australian rules season pages affected were the VFL and AFL season articles (plus finals series articles) from 2000 onwards and AFL Women's season seven. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  02:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Australian Football covering AFLW S7
Not sure if anyone else noticed, but Australian Football hasn't been updating to include the new AFL Women's season yet – only just read here that they just weren't able to upgrade the site to accommodate two seasons in one calendar year in time for the start of season seven, so hopefully they should be onto it soon. Once this happens, I was intending on using this site rather than womens.afl for match stats in the season seven article (on that, one frustrating thing that I haven't gotten to the bottom of yet is the absence of crowd figures and what we might do there – hopefully Australian Football has the missing ones, though I'm not sure how they would). 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  18:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I can vouch for Australian Football – it's a wonderful encyclopaedic resource that I've actually had the privilege to contribute to in a few ways. It's certainly a more permanent solution than womens.afl too in terms of URLs (although archiving the URL undoes that issue). I still think it's quite remarkable how little statistical insight we get on the official womens.afl website. You can't even sort columns! And the app is not much better. Pretty ordinary. As for crowd numbers, they often pop up on Austadiums after a little while, who often seem to have other ways of tracking them down straight from the source. Incidentally, their system is struggling to deal with two seasons in the one year as well. Gibbsyspin 11:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , all parties seem to have come up with (at least temporary) solutions and caught up, so that's a relief – I've updated the article with the Australian Football match pages for stats; hopefully the stats for each game can be added over there pretty much straight away (as is normally the case) so that there isn't as much of a wait to add them to the article. I do understand where you're coming from with womens.afl, but still think that it can be useful for some things stats-related, just perhaps not here. As for crowds, sometimes the crowd pops up on Austadiums first and sometimes it pops up on Australian Football first, so I've added both to the article as sources and am keeping an eye on both from now on. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  03:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox AFL Club season
With all clubs now having AFLW teams, I wonder if it is time to think about a combined infobox for YYYY (club name) season articles. I've put together a dummy template in my sandbox to which skilled editors could upgrade the Template:Infobox AFL club season template. With the current AFLW S7 going ahead, for those 14 clubs with two women's seasons, a secondary infobox could be used if both women's season are being tracked in the one article. I wondered whether or not to include an option for one club VFL/VFLW/SANFL etc seasons in this long infobox, but I think it might be best to keep that information within the section detailing those reserves seasons in articles that have those sections. I've keep the formatting basic to match the current infobox, despite the rugby league fan in me being used to the colours used in WP:RL.

Would like the project's feedback and whether a skilled editor in infobox templates might be able to assist with upgrading the template should the consensus be that some of these changes have utility. Storm machine (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm big on infobox flexibility and just having parameters letting you pair a season name with a season result, both of which you can enter yourself, up to a max of four or five seasons would be my approach. I'd personally only include senior seasons, including historical senior seasons like the afc night series. Reserves information doesn't belong in the infobox. Highest/lowest attendance should be gone as well. Aspirex (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Flexibility is definitely what the current template lacks, hence why my preference is to clearly group the information with the headers. Am mindful that the 1977-2013 articles will require the night/preseason competition information to remain, would it be best grouped above or below the main season? I'm ambivalent on attendance information, but it would be optional in any event. Storm machine (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Junior Rioli
I saw that Junior Rioli's WP page has been moved to that 'new' page name since the passing of his father and the announcement of his 'new' name, but without any real discussion around it. I am pleasantly surprised that mainstream media outlets have respected the cultural sensitivities and referred to the Eagles forward as Junior without hesitation.

But with Wikipedia being more of a permanent record, does that have a say in what we use as the article title? The fact that Junior will only be using the name for a temporary period of 12 months makes it a little more hard to pin down – it's not as easy as the name remaining in perpetuity and eventually becoming WP:COMMONNAME. I'm just thinking of somewhat similar situations like with the passings of Mandawuy Yunupingu and Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu how they became known in the media by different names but their article titles didn't change.

I appreciate this is not an easy topic. Thoughts? Gibbsyspin 23:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Given Rioli is still an active player and his article is still evolving, his current name and common name are one and the same, in my view; and I don't have any particular issue with moving the article now and moving it back in a year (assuming Junior doesn't stick beyond that time). It would be different if we were talking about someone long retired who would not have any media mentions during the temporary period under the alternative name, since I doubt it would meet commonname criteria in that instance; but for a still active player, the move is warranted. Aspirex (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NAMECHANGES has the most relevant guidance here and would seem to support deferring to the media consensus. – Teratix ₵ 15:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Tournament brackets
Hello everyone. As many of you may know, I recently replaced AFL tournament brackets with a different one and nominated them for deletion, and I apologize for not approaching you all first. I've reverted the changes, as the clear consensus is to keep due to the lack of paths from rounds. Nonetheless, I still think we can improve and consolidate these, along with other sports brackets, into one. I have taken the feedback given at TfD and altered my proposed replacement of 8TeamBracket-PagePlayoff to incorporate diagonal paths, which for your WikiProject's brackets would look like this:

If you all agree, this bracket would help to replace the following five brackets being used across Wikipedia: If there is anything that could be improved upon, please let me know. – Pbrks (t • c) 00:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 8TeamBracket-Super League
 * 8TeamBracket-RFL Championship
 * 8TeamBracket-AFL
 * 8TeamBracket-AFL-with-replay
 * 8TeamBracket-NBL


 * Looks good to me, good work, and having the 'cross=yes/no' option is a nice feature. Am I right in saying that the RDm parameter changes the round heading (e.g. to change default 'Final' to 'Grand final' which our project would be likelier to use? Aspirex (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would make these changes in line with how the current AFL template's formatted, as a matter of preference:


 * Space the different stages further apart so that they aren't so close together, and move the preliminary finals closer together.
 * Keep the red lines for losing qualifying final teams – it's necessary to indicate why these qualifying final teams are playing in the semi-finals.
 * Format the headings the same way as they were at the AFL template (Qualifying and elimination finals, Semi-finals, Preliminary finals and Grand final).


 * I personally think that the only thing that could be changed about the AFL template, as it's currently formatted, is the crossing lines for preliminary finals (still trying to get my head around how that can be done at the current template), but if not, I prefer it how it is/making slight tweaks to the AFL template over trying to standardise. I absolutely appreciate the time you've put into making these tweaks to try and reach a solution, but that's just my preference. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  03:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, the spacing can be adjusted (done, seems to be in line with the current bracket). And yes, the headers can be formatted in the described (done). {If the red lines are really absolutely necessary, then we need to find a another way to communicate that information; per MOS:COLOR, color should not be the sole way of communicating important information. Specifically, the red may be difficult to distinguish from black for readers with protanopia. – Pbrks (t • c) 05:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes,  changes the mth round's header. – Pbrks (t • c) 05:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for engaging in discussion - it's much appreciated :)
 * The cross from semis to prelim looks better this way. However, more importantly it is unclear who advances from the qualifying finals (in the current templates there is a different coloured red/gray for the losers who advance to the semis). Also, does this proposed template deal with a Grand Final with a replay?
 * Side note: If we don't change the template, we should make changes for consistenct between 8TeamBracket-AFL and 8TeamBracket-AFL-with-replay. --SuperJew (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, using the parameter 2 will add a second score box in the Grand Final round. I mentioned it above, but I used Oracle, a color-blindness simulator, and the red lines are fairly difficult to distinguish from the black for readers with protanopia. A lighter, but not too much lighter, grey may be appropriate, or, in addition to red lines, have dashed lines or text. – Pbrks (t • c) 06:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not critical that it's red, but yes critical that there's a difference between the winner and loser lines from the qualifying finals. Thanks for the note about the Grand Final - I missed that in the first post. --SuperJew (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The other thing that I would definitely change, if possible, is space out the semi/prelim gap a bit more if possible so that it doesn't look as squished, a bit like how the AFL template's formatted but obviously with the lines crossing over. Otherwise, if there wasn't a lighter red or other colour we could go with for the qualifying loser lines and you asked me whether I'd prefer to leave the lines black or add text, I would lean towards the former, but would definitely like to explore other colours first. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  06:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Greatly appreciate that Pbrks has sought discussion here on these changes. Thank you.
 * I also express the preference for the losing round one teams to have a different coloured lines to round two. Understanding that the contextual cue of the loser appearing in the round two match isn't enough to solve the accessibility issue using red lines, so grey would be my second preference. Storm machine (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've added red lines to the bracket and separated the columns further. After some thought, I believe the red lines are fine. In my opinion, the red lines are not necessary to communicate the information that the two exiting paths represent that the losing team advances to round 2, while the winning team advances to round 3, so being unable to distinguish between the two colors would be compliance with MOS:COLOR. For those interested, here is an image of what someone with a certain color-blindness may see it as: https://i.imgur.com/bdzNPrO.png. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I just spaced out the columns a tad more and changed the lines to grey – thoughts? 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  03:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks good. I think the red or the grey are equally good (I'd give slight edge towards the red, to be honest though). Is there any other changes you think would be beneficial? – Pbrks (t • c) 22:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure – happy to revert back to red; I just tried a lighter shade of red, so let me know if that's any better. I suppose on a similar note, one question that I had would be is there any way of changing the default colour of the lines, or do you have to do it all individually? Was thinking that changing the win colour to blue (in line with a change that I made at one of the season articles) could form part of the solution, but maybe the blue/red colour combination is worse from a colour-blindness standpoint, I don't know. Otherwise, the other question would be is there any way to add a little bit of space between the column headings and the bracket? Just not a massive fan of how a potential heading for the first match (as I've added above, to demonstrate) is squished right up against the column heading, that's all. As a WikiProject, we might vote to have match details (e.g. date and venue) instead of names (e.g. First qualifying final) as the match headings, but we'll still run into this problem regardless – if not, I guess we'll have to put up with it, but thought I'd ask just in case. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  02:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, that shade of red would be WCAG compliant for graphical objects. For other colors, no, the module by design does not support changing the default bracket line colors. It only supports two colors: the default black and one more color (if you tried to add, say,  and   to two separate path, it would make the colored paths red or all blue). The reasoning is for exactly what you mentioned. I'll likely change the module to only support certain colored paths that are WCAG compliant in the future. I added some space from the headers, is that enough? – Pbrks (t • c) 04:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, no worries. Yep, looks good – unless anyone has more feedback, I think we have a winner. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  15:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. I made some of the changes conditional; the extra vertical spacing will happen if RD1-text1 has a value. I also made the horizontal spacing conditional on if there exists a crossing path, but that will always happen for the AFL brackets, so its not something you all should notice. Are there any objections for replacing the brackets? – Pbrks (t • c) 20:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Awesome – sounds fair enough. No objections from me – thanks for taking the time to discuss with everyone and come up with a solution. If nobody else objects, I'll try to replace and fix up as many of the AFL brackets as I can. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  03:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seconding :) Looks good now, and thanks for making the time and place for discussion --SuperJew (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, and again, sorry for any trouble. I will go ahead and begin the replacement. Thank you all! Do you want all of the text to look like that of 2000 AFL season? – Pbrks (t • c) 03:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that would be the way to go – I changed my mind about the added whitespace, so I've just removed it, but otherwise, I think it looks neater how it is currently. I know the default team-width is 150, but I think we might as well include the code on all of them anyway in case some need to be widened; with the more recent finals series involving, the team-width should be 175, but that should pretty much be the only change. I'll leave the completed bracket from the 2000 season here so that others can have a look and leave feedback if they want:


 * After experimenting a bit with what to put as the match text, I think having both the match name and date makes the most sense, but everyone feel free to pipe up if you have any other suggestions. I'm just making some other changes at the 2000 season article first (I've been trying to improve other aspects of the season articles and make them more uniform, a bit like you're doing with the finals brackets) before moving onto the other brackets, or I would have completed more of them. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  06:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This choice does remove the location, which is something that I think would be beneficial. However, having the match name, date, and location makes the text a bit long. Might I suggest, forgo the "First" and "Second" parts, or use abbreviations (e.g., QF1)? – Pbrks (t • c) 04:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I was deliberately trying to avoid using the abbreviated form if possible, as I think that it gets overused on Wikipedia; the main issue with including the venue, depending on which detail it gets paired with, is that it has the capacity to be too long and not fit on the one line in some instances, and I don't think that we should have to increase the team-width of certain brackets just to accomodate for this text. Having the date and venue will only just work (I don't see the AFLW holding a final at Moreton Bay Central Sports Complex), so I wouldn't be opposed to that pairing, especially as I intend on reformatting the results section directly below so that the match names appear above each final (as opposed to just "Qualifying finals", "Elimination finals", etc. and putting the abbreviated form next to the date, which would occasionally make that part not fit on the one line). 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  06:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion relevant to the project
There is an AFD relevant to the project regarding Amelia van Oosterwijck taking place at Articles for deletion/Amelia van Oosterwijck. --SuperJew (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Fram's assessment of the available sources is correct. – Teratix ₵ 14:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Damn. When did WP:NAFL get removed? Gibbsyspin 07:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

First quarter this year, WP:NSPORTS2022 for the full (and very very long) discussion. Aspirex (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting; I ctrl+F'd for 'Aus...' and 'AFL' to try and read everything related to here. Is there the chance that articles will be retrospectively deemed non-compliant and we lose our 100% article rate of every men's player to have played in the VFL/AFL? Gibbsyspin 13:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It will come down to a case-by-case basis. I'd personally expect most VFL/AFL players to meet GNG. – Teratix ₵ 15:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Most is probably a fair bet, but you're going to have to be able to prove it. Hack (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it's a certainty. 50% of all players played less than 20 games, and a good portion of them have articles built solely on database entries, so it wouldn't surprise me if at least 25% of articles ended up gone. On the plus side, SANFL and WAFL players will now have a more even playing field for inclusion, with everyone judged against GNG instead of NAFL. Aspirex (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Copying over my response from the AFD page for those interested: I really didn't wanna see the loss of a professional player's article just for lack of trying, so I put a couple of hours' worth of work into this today. She was clearly a decorated junior and picked up the sport quite easily, to the point where she won multiple premierships and a league best and fairest award. I sourced the Leader articles through the State Library Victorianewspaper search function, which unfortunately can't be linked directly via WP. Hopefully there's enough info there now to justify keeping the article. As an aside, it seems a real shame she left the sport – she seems too good not to be playing. Gibbsyspin 02:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Merv Agars Medal
I've started a conversation on this article's talk page because I think it might fail WP:GNG. Mentioning it here in case other people are able to find independent reliable sources on it (I've failed so far). OliveYouBean (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Identity of The Sporting Globe's football writer "M. M. McC." (a.k.a.  "M. McC.")
Wondering if anyone can provide information about the identity of the mysterious "M. M. McC." (a.k.a.  "M. McC.") the prolific writer for the Sporting Globe? For instance, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-page20616471 and http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article181689929. Lindsay658 (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Name for upcoming AFLW Draft
So I'm debating how we should name the upcoming AFLW Draft. Usually it's by the year of the season that just ended (for example 2021 AFL Women's draft is between 2021 AFL Women's season and 2022 AFL Women's season), but this upcoming one is at the end of season seven (the 2nd 2022 season). So should it be 2022 AFL Women's draft B or AFL Women's season seven draft or ? We can already create the page and start populating it as clubs have begun delisting. --SuperJew (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest start with 'season seven draft' for consistency with season naming conditions. Aspirex (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

(As a side note, given the draft articles cover so much more than just the drafts, I've long thought they should all be reframed as 'Player changes during the 2019 AFL preseason' or something to that effect). Aspirex (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That change makes a lot of sense, especially since e.g. the "2020 AFL draft" article includes the 2021 rookie draft and the 2021 pre-season draft.
 * If not, it makes more sense to me to call it the 2023 AFL women's draft. It's probably not happening until next year so it's likely to be called that by the AFL and reliable sources. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't actually know when it will be. And might create a problem if there'll be two drafts in 2023. And anyway this whole conversation might be temporary placeholder name which will be changed after reliable sources are updated. --SuperJew (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, definately agree with your side note, but perhaps that should be a separate conversation (and should be applied to all "draft" pages across AFLW and AFL). --SuperJew (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Template for sports articles lacking sources containing significant coverage
The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Two points. First, the RfC was limited to sports biographies, not "all sports articles." Second, the template has been nominated for deletion. See TfD discussion here. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the TfD before rolling this template out. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion relevant to the project
There is an AFD relevant to the project regarding Hawthorn best and fairest (AFL Women's) taking place at Articles for deletion/Hawthorn best and fairest (AFL Women's). Storm machine (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

How to describe there being to AFLW grand finals in 2022?
Hi all,

In the "Grand final venues" part of Template:AFL Women's venues I added the qualifiers Adelaide Oval (2019, 2021, April 2022) and Springfield Central Stadium (November 2022). Descriptive enough but not particularly elegant. Your thoughts?

Pete AU aka User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe 2022 and S7 (2022) are the short forms we'd chosen to adopt. Aspirex (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Paddy McGuiness
Please see Articles for deletion/Paddy McGuinness (footballer). Lindsay658 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1902 VFL Grand Final
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1902 VFL Grand Final that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives -  talk  -  edits  06:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Talent League replacing NAB League
With the announcement today of the name changes for the NAB League Boys and NAB League Girls competitions, thought it would be best to discuss the changes here before moving the articles to new namespaces.

Which option should we go with:


 * Option A: Generic names Talent League Boys and Talent League Girls
 * Option B: Sponsored names Coates Talent League (Boys) and Coates Talent League (Girls)

Or variations of the above (with brackets or without), or including Australian football or something else.

Personally, I'm leaning towards Option A, but happy to defer to any consensus. Storm machine (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with either but without the brackets, so would just be a matter of whether or not you want to include Coates in the title. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  01:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

As of right now, I'd say it has to be Option 2, since I can't find any reference out there showing Option 1. Longer term it probably does end up option 1 but we need to wait for the references to drive us there. Aspirex (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The social media accounts all moved to @ TalentLeague without the sponsor in the title. I do wonder whether this is the perfect moment to remove the corporate advertiser from the namespace title in line with the elite and state level competitions. However knowing AFL media, I'm not sure we're going to get good references to drop the sponsor though given the stranglehold they have on reporting about this competition. Storm machine (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. On one hand Wikipedia articles usually don't include sponsor names (for example Premier League not Barclays Premier League, A-League not Hyundai A-League, Hindmarsh Stadium, not Coopers Stadium, Docklands Stadium not Marvel Stadium, etc.) On the other hand, AFL pages don't neccesarily go by this and it's been NAB League for ages. -- SuperJew (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That's the interesting thing – there was no other way under that title, whereas in just about every other instance (e.g. AFL Women's, AFL Rising Star, AFLW season seven, etc.), we don't include NAB in the title. That's why I said I was fine with either, as we would normally drop the sponsor but all sources initially just used the full sponsored name, as Aspirex said. We do have one source which doesn't use the sponsored name, but wasn't sure if that was enough – there aren't a lot to sift through. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  07:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There was always the obscure option of its full name, which was something to the effect of the Victorian Statewide Under 18s League, but this was a rare case where the sponsored TAC/NAB names were so ubiquitous that even the ABC used it. Aspirex (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Season article sequence
I propose to retain the article sequence for AFL season pages (e.g. 2023 AFL season) which has been in place previously. My opinion is that the three sections which has elevated towards the top of the article are lower-importance sections which are list-like or statistical in nature, and less important in telling the story of the 2023 season; the article would be better structured stashed these parts away towards the end of the article. 4TheWynne's proposed sequence can be seen here. The sections in question are: Aspirex (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Coach appointments
 * Club leadership. (For this item, it has always struck me as a superfluous section, better suited to club season pages than the full league season page due to the information being overwhelmingly of interest to club fans rather than league fans. It does not have the importance to be placed so high in the article.)
 * Win-loss table. For this item in particular, I find this table greatly inferior to the round-by-round statement of results, as a sprawling table of partial information (margins but not scores), and would prefer it demoted to second in article sequence.


 * I strongly believe that sequencing the events of the season chronologically is a far more logical way of sequencing the article, rather than just listing in order of importance (especially given our perspectives on which sections are "more important" could greatly differ). Listing coach appointments (which happen the previous year) and club leadership (decided before the season) before the season results just seems like a no-brainer for me, and then we would have sections like coach departures after finals given most happen during or after finals. I had moved the win/loss table up as well to act as a sort of summary for the season, having already reformatted the table to also list the results chronologically along with other little tweaks, but happy to discuss that element; I just don't think having it in the middle of the home-and-away season and finals sections works when the table incorporates both. I was hoping to make this widespread, which would be easier the further back we go given the shorter articles.


 * To clarify, here is my proposed sequence, as per AFL Women's season seven, currently a good article:


 * Lead
 * Background (majority of the article's prose, covering the length of the season)
 * Coach appointments
 * Club leadership
 * Pre-season (a link to the relevant series if it has a separate article or, in this year's case, a table of the official practice match results)
 * Win/loss table
 * Home-and-away season
 * Results (incorporating both archived reports – not just the match centre – and statistics)
 * Ladder
 * Progression by round
 * Home matches and membership (just covers the home-and-away season)
 * Finals series
 * Results (as above; additionally, splitting each game with their respective titles but placing notes at the end of each round as normal)
 * Win/loss table
 * Season notes (after finals given they cover the whole season, including finals)
 * Milestones (not likely to appear in AFLW given the lack of sourcing)
 * Coach departures
 * Awards
 * Major awards
 * Leading goalkickers (covering finals as well, as the databases that we're sourcing also cover finals and don't stop at the end of the home-and-away season)
 * Club best and fairest


 * Keen to get some thoughts, but yeah, my take is just because we're used to doing things a certain way, doesn't always mean we've been doing them right; "stashing parts away" and listing them out of order chronologically just doesn't seem logical to me. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  05:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Nobody? In that case, I've come up with a compromise: I'm happy to move the win/loss table down to after finals, as it's supposed to serve as a summary and doesn't necessarily have to be towards the top of the article, but as coach appointments and club leadership are decided before the season and I still think it makes far more sense to sequence events chronologically than to just relegate certain sections to the bottom of the article because one person deems them less important, they should be placed towards the top of the article. As for whether club leadership should be included at all, I think that because the season articles generate a lot more traffic than club season articles (which don't even exist for every club and/or every year) and there are plenty of readers who take a general interest in the competition as a whole rather than just the club that they barrack for, the table is very much still useful. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  13:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO we should include the club leadership and coaching changes at the beginning, as they are pre-season (for the most part). The win/loss table (and for that matter also the ladder progression table) are in my eyes stats overkill and aren't needed at all. If included they should be at the end of the regular season section as they are a summary of the regular season. --SuperJew (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Things like the position by round graph that's been added in recent years, that's overkill (hence why I didn't include it when building the 2023 article) – not to mention it's a lot harder to read – but I think the win/loss and ladder progression tables are still incredibly useful, as both summarise the season in ways that you just can't get from having just the results and ladder (for example, the win/loss table can show you a team's win streak, and the ladder progression table can show you how that was reflected in their ladder position during the season). If by regular season you mean home-and-away, the win/loss table doesn't just summarise the home-and-away season, as it covers finals as well (at least, I think it does a better job of it with the tweaks I made to the layout), so having it after finals or before the season like I initially had it makes far more sense than going in the middle. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  01:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry didn't realise it includes also finals. So same thing but at the end of all the season fro the table, though I still think it's unneccesary --SuperJew (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would though put the ladder before the details of the individual rounds, as readers want to see the ladder more often. --SuperJew (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * If by that, you mean you want to move the ladder to above the results, I strongly disagree with that change. How would you know which specific sections readers want to see more often? 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  13:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Say you come to the article each round to see the results of that round (=how did your club do) and to see the ladder (=where your club is standing), then over the season you'll come one time to each round and 23 times to the ladder. Why do you strongly disagree? --SuperJew (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be worth remembering that we write articles to be an encyclopedia, not a news service. Articles should be built in consideration of how readers will comprehend them five years from now. Aspirex (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To which point are you replying ? I'm fairly certain also that when people go looking at old season pages and not current ones, the first thing most want to look at is the ladder as an overall of the regular season before (if at all) delving into specific rounds. --SuperJew (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that articles should be written for the person who reads about an old season, not the person who visits 23 times a year. I still am very much of the view that the statistical cruft should be as close to the bottom as possible. Aspirex (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move on Sirengate
Seeking opinions on a requested page move AFL siren controversy to Sirengate. Aspirex (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Season ladders
Hey guys – hope everyone's doing well. As some of you guys might have seen, I've made a few tweaks to certain sections at the 2023 AFL season article with the view of making these the norm moving forward; another such change I made yesterday was the formatting of the ladder section. I understand the argument that the ladder is transcluded at the club season articles, but there's an easy workaround for that; to start with, though, compare the two versions, current to round 4:

Current version

Amended version 1

Updated to the end of round 4, 2023.


 * - style=background:#CCFFCC
 * 1 || align=left |  || 4 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 364 || 227 || 160.4 || 16
 * - style=background:#CCFFCC
 * 2 || align=left |  || 4 || 3 || 0 || 1 || 329 || 288 || 114.2 || 14
 * - style=background:#CCFFCC
 * 3 || align=left |  || 4 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 457 || 305 || 149.8 || 12
 * - style=background:#EEFFEE
 * 4 || align=left |  || 4 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 394 || 312 || 126.3 || 12
 * - style=background:#EEFFEE
 * 5 || align=left |  || 4 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 406 || 332 || 122.3 || 12
 * - style=background:#EEFFEE
 * 6 || align=left |  || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 376 || 298 || 126.2 || 8
 * - style=background:#EEFFEE
 * 7 || align=left |  || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 394 || 372 || 105.9 || 8
 * - style=background:#EEFFEE
 * 8 || align=left |   || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 334 || 358 || 93.3  || 8
 * 9 || align=left |   || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 305 || 341 || 89.4  || 8
 * 10 || align=left |  || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 342 || 388 || 88.1  || 8
 * 11 || align=left |  || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 262 || 344 || 76.2  || 8
 * 12 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 299 || 286 || 104.5 || 6
 * 13 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 366 || 333 || 109.9 || 4
 * 14 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 304 || 318 || 95.6  || 4
 * 15 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 326 || 352 || 92.6  || 4
 * 16 || align=left |  || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 312 || 402 || 77.6  || 4
 * 17 || align=left |  || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 274 || 385 || 71.2  || 4
 * 18 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 227 || 430 || 52.8  || 4
 * }
 * 14 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 304 || 318 || 95.6  || 4
 * 15 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 326 || 352 || 92.6  || 4
 * 16 || align=left |  || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 312 || 402 || 77.6  || 4
 * 17 || align=left |  || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 274 || 385 || 71.2  || 4
 * 18 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 227 || 430 || 52.8  || 4
 * }
 * 17 || align=left |  || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 274 || 385 || 71.2  || 4
 * 18 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 227 || 430 || 52.8  || 4
 * }
 * }

Rules for classification: 1. premiership points; 2. percentage; 3. points for Source: afl.com.au

Amended version 2

Updated to the end of round 4, 2023.


 * - style=background:#CCFFCC
 * 1 || align=left |  (Q) || 4 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 364 || 227 || 160.4 || 16
 * - style=background:#CCFFCC
 * 2 || align=left |  (Q) || 4 || 3 || 0 || 1 || 329 || 288 || 114.2 || 14
 * - style=background:#CCFFCC
 * 3 || align=left |  (Q) || 4 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 457 || 305 || 149.8 || 12
 * - style=background:#CCFFCC
 * 4 || align=left |  || 4 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 394 || 312 || 126.3 || 12
 * - style=background:#CCFFCC
 * 5 || align=left |  || 4 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 406 || 332 || 122.3 || 12
 * - style=background:#CCFFCC
 * 6 || align=left |  || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 376 || 298 || 126.2 || 8
 * - style=background:#CCFFCC
 * 7 || align=left |  || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 394 || 372 || 105.9 || 8
 * - style=background:#CCFFCC
 * 8 || align=left |   || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 334 || 358 || 93.3  || 8
 * 9 || align=left |   || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 305 || 341 || 89.4  || 8
 * 10 || align=left |  || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 342 || 388 || 88.1  || 8
 * 11 || align=left |  || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 262 || 344 || 76.2  || 8
 * 12 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 299 || 286 || 104.5 || 6
 * 13 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 366 || 333 || 109.9 || 4
 * 14 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 304 || 318 || 95.6  || 4
 * 15 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 326 || 352 || 92.6  || 4
 * 16 || align=left |  || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 312 || 402 || 77.6  || 4
 * 17 || align=left |  || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 274 || 385 || 71.2  || 4
 * 18 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 227 || 430 || 52.8  || 4
 * }
 * 14 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 304 || 318 || 95.6  || 4
 * 15 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 326 || 352 || 92.6  || 4
 * 16 || align=left |  || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 312 || 402 || 77.6  || 4
 * 17 || align=left |  || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 274 || 385 || 71.2  || 4
 * 18 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 227 || 430 || 52.8  || 4
 * }
 * 17 || align=left |  || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 274 || 385 || 71.2  || 4
 * 18 || align=left | || 4 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 227 || 430 || 52.8  || 4
 * }
 * }

Rules for classification: 1. premiership points; 2. percentage; 3. points for Source: afl.com.au

I explained my reasoning here, but to expand, I wanted to:


 * make some of the columns (position, points for, points against and percentage) sortable, which doesn't seem to be possible at the module;
 * remove the green for finals qualification until teams actually qualify; the key would be hidden initially and then become visible once teams qualify, and also renders the "qualification" column unnecessary;
 * change from "point percentage" and "points" to "percentage/%" and "premiership points", as the latter terminology is more widely also used in the sport and distinguishes from "points for/against";
 * slightly reduce the article size (the amended version is nearly 1,000 bytes smaller), as the article is over 80,000 bytes in size already; and
 * use the more widely used "Updated to..." instead of "Updated to match(es) played on...", so that we can be more specific.

When it comes to club season articles – there are only seven at the moment, and I'm not sure of any other articles which transclude the ladder in its current form – all you would need to do is copy a small portion of the ladder across (e.g. two positions either side), put that as the ladder section, and simply update at the end of the round. For example, at Collingwood's 2023 season article, you could have:


 * 3 || align=left |  || 4 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 457 || 305 || 149.8 || 12
 * 4 || align=left |  || 4 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 394 || 312 || 126.3 || 12
 * - style=background:#C9F0FF
 * 5 || align=left |  || 4 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 406 || 332 || 122.3 || 12
 * 6 || align=left |  || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 376 || 298 || 126.2 || 8
 * 7 || align=left |  || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 394 || 372 || 105.9 || 8
 * }
 * 6 || align=left |  || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 376 || 298 || 126.2 || 8
 * 7 || align=left |  || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 394 || 372 || 105.9 || 8
 * }
 * }

All it takes is an agreed-upon way to highlight the relevant team and one simple copy-paste edit at the end of the round for each article – is it really that much of an inconvenience, given the articles are updated after each game anyway? I strongly believe that this formatting is an improvement on the current version, so keen to get some thoughts; as alluded to, I'm happy to be the one to update the ladder after every game, both for AFL and AFLW, so no need for anyone to worry about manually updating more of the columns (it's easy to do anyway). And, as for "personal fiefdom", I know change can be a wittle scawy sometimes, but at least I'm trying to make improvements instead of just going with the status quo 100% of the time. 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  05:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sortability, I oppose. The ladder is an ordered list by both definition and convention, not a statistical table to be sorted.
 * Clearing the colours out and highlighting green only upon finals qualification, I oppose. Mostly due to local convention, as Australian references always highlight the top eight somehow during the season and this approach would make Wikipedia stand apart from all of its references.
 * Change from PP to %, I Support on your reasoning.
 * Change from Pts to PP, I oppose. I disagree with your argument, plenty of references including afl.com.au use Pts.
 * Slightly reduce article size, no opinion, but I don't see this as justifying the change.
 * Updated syntax, support, its slightly better.
 * As for your response to the personal fiefdom comment, Steenkamp clearly told you that you broke a bunch of pages, and you pressed ahead and rebroke them and are now doubling down when called out on it. BEBOLD isn't an excuse for that and others in the project are right to be tetchy with you given the circumstances. Aspirex (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I still believe sortability would be useful, as not every website/database (including afl.com.au) gives you the ability to sort columns, and I still think it would be beneficial to be able to sort by points for, against, etc. and get other angles on teams' performances (e.g. best attack or defence) throughout a season outside of just their finishing positions. I have no opposition whatsoever to still highlighting the top eight throughout the season (see above), more that I just think it should be done differently to how it is currently. I do think, however, that it doesn't make sense to have "points for" (PF), "points against" (PA) and "points" (Pts), whereas "premiership points" distinguishes from the first two. And no, I didn't believe Steelkamp was clear initially – I actually thought that they might have been referring to previous season articles, as club season articles weren't mentioned until they reached out on my talk page – which is why I initally went "What do you mean?", but eventually I understood what they meant. I don't believe any of this warranted "personal fiefdom", as I was trying to make a genuine improvement and didn't understand the reason for the revert initially, so I took (and still take) umbrage at that comment; Global-Cityzen has disagreed with other edits of mine previously as well, so I don't think it only came because of this one instance. Nevertheless, still keen to keep it friendly and get some other opinions, as I'm very keen on this change. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  07:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not really fussed as to which table is used, as long as the transcluding onto the team season articles still works, which is why I had to revert the changes initially. I now realise that it is the and tags which allow that functionality. Steelkamp (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * After reading through your reasoning and sample ladders, I opppse your proposed change on one ground alone; lack of trancludability. Your ladder offers more functions than the existing one and takes up less space with the removal of the "finals qualify" column. In short, I prefer it (though why you want to change the clearly identifiable "Pts" tag to a confusing "PP" label is a mystery).  However if I am reading you right, your version cannot be automatically transcluded onto club-specific articles, and I for one think making an already-underutilised part of Wikipedia, that will provide useful historical information going forward, require further editing from others on a weekly basis, isn't in the best interests of the project. If that issue can be resolved I'd switch from oppose to support. Global-Cityzen (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * , as above, I was only talking about one extra edit per week for each editor that goes out of their way to create/maintain a club season article. If you really wanted to, you could just put  – this would obviously just copy the whole ladder and not enable you to highlight the relevant team or make other changes, but there's one less edit...


 * , I explained in my last comment why I wanted to change from "Pts" to "PP" (to distinguish between "points for/against" and "premiership points"), so it shouldn't be a mystery. If you think that only one extra copy-paste edit a week for each season article – currently totalling seven for 2023, each updated by a different editor – "isn't in the best interests of the project" (even though it's for a version of the ladder that you just said you prefer), then that's very concerning... 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  09:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with most of the issues brought up here as positive points by 4TheWynne - sortability, the colouring, the terminology, the slight size change. These are mostly minor issues which imo are not worth it as for consistency they should be changed in previous seasons too. Regarding the "update" syntax, I think the "matches played on" is much more accurate, not when the editor happens to get around to editing. The main reason I oppose to this though, is the table formatting is much more annoying for the average editor to use, especially opposed to the module which is a lot more intuitive. Another reason to oppose is the lack of trancluding on other articles which use the ladder - your comment of "only one extra copy-paste edit in a week" is quite lacking - there's no need to bundle editors with extra edits if there is no need for it --> the whole point is that you don't have to copy-paste edit same information. --SuperJew (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Btw, regarding the colouring, your suggestion of having the top 8 in blue until a team has qualified for sure and then colouring in green is a more complicated solution to something the module already adresses - using statuses in which you can have a (Q) next to the teams already qualified which is much neater and less work. --SuperJew (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * If we want to compare it to an outside site, say the official AFL site: Sortability - the ladder on AFL site isn't sortable by columns (I also really don't see the need for it), Colours - as I said above - also AFL site has "Top 8 go through to finals!" marked to differentiate top 8 from the rest even after 4 rounds, Terminology - AFL site uses "points" and "%". The rest are wiki issues and I've addressed them above. --SuperJew (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I object to only one thing - the heading on the last column. It's not Premiership Points, as you claim, but PP. Been a fan for three quarters of a century, and had no idea what PP meant until I read the explanation. "Pts" works for me. Maybe "Points" in a smaller font. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a fan of the change away from using the module that is adapted across multiple sports articles, back to a template table. Seems rather regressive. The transclusion issue is especially worse with this new table. Storm machine (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * , what I've now done as a compromise is reverted back to "Pts" but kept the long form as "premiership points", as I still think there's a need to distinguish between "points for/against" and "points"; at least this way, people will see "Pts" and think "points", but then if they look into it further they'll know it actually means "premiership points" (the AFL does formally refer to them as "premiership points", even though they're often referred to informally as points; even the NRL formally refers to their equivalent as "competition points") – hopefully that resolves this particular issue.


 * and, I still think the transclusion issue isn't a great argument when you can either just transclude the whole ladder (just without the ability to highlight the relevant team) or only take a few seconds to make a simple copy-paste edit; if some of you guys are so tightly wound about this particular element, I'll make the edit to the club season articles each week – would only take maybe 2–3 minutes at most to do them all. SuperJew, regarding the highlighting of finalists as opposed to just the top eight during the season, I've added another amended version (see above; of course, the top eight colour's not set in stone – we can agree on one if we went down that path), but you make a lot of these things sound like so much more work than they really are – you either add , change the background colour or add   – neither is "less work" (or "much neater", for that matter) than the others. In a previous discussion around statistics tables, you said "Wow do I hate copying the stats line from the previous season and then having to manually change the bg colour" – I don't really understand the pushback over only a couple of seconds' work. Regarding the syntax, how is "Updated to match(es) played on 15 April 2023", which can refer to any of the games played on that day without being specific, more accurate than "Updated to Melbourne v Essendon (round 5, 2023)."? At least then you would know exactly which match any given section is updated to. And Storm machine, if this gives us the ability to make minor improvements and add more functionality to the table without it appearing any more or less basic/changing the shape or size, then I don't see this as being regressive at all.  4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  04:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Moving away from the module creates an issue that the module catches automatically – potential data entry errors. I know I appreciate that the module will catch errors upon preview when updating the ladders in other articles. If you're willing to make changes, why not make the changes via the module to the table headers? Further, I agree with the other editors regarding the sort functions being unnecessary, and if there are savings to be made in the bytes of the season articles that are light on prose as it is, I'm not sure that this is the way. Storm machine (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You can copy-paste a lot of things - that doesn't mean that's the way Wiki wants to go. This isn't about you, or about me, or even the project, it's a Wiki-community direction, trying to have as little copy-pasting and hardcoded repetition of same information. Regarding the highlighting and colours, sure you can make the table look like the module, but then why change it? My point wasn't which fmt/colour looks better, but that there already is an easy solution for the problem you claim exists. A couple of seconds' work for you can be more for someone else, it can build up (second plus a second plus etc is more time editing Wiki), and also the less friendly it is, the more it pushes away new editors trying to get into it. We're trying to build an encylopedia, not code. Regarding the "update" syntax, my apologies - I didn't understand that meaning - I thought you were saying to change to "Updated to date/round", as in making it less specific, not more. Either way I think is fine. As I said though, my main issues are the tranclusion issue and the intuitivity and ease of editing. --SuperJew (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, if all of this really only comes down to ease of editing, what would be wrong with going and editing ladders (and club season articles) for previous seasons and simply avoiding the change in-season? If ladders are still viewed by readers but otherwise never edited again after each season, and we can make minor improvements and add more functionality but not have to worry about pushing newer editors away by waiting until post-season (and of course it's not simply about making them look similar to the module), could simply using the module in-season and then changing later be a reasonable compromise? In the meantime, I've restored the "Updated to..." text but otherwise continued to update the ladder using the module (with  set to "complete" to hide the syntax below).  4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  04:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole just feels like a lot of work for little gain, especially if it's changed only post-season - what do you feel is actually gained? BTW, also post-season has it's own problems, as building new pages many times editors will copy the base from a previous season, but this is less. Also, it can cause a consistency issue between seasons. --SuperJew (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Tasmanian AFL bid/team article
Just wanted to draw attention to a comment I made at Talk:Tasmanian AFL bid. The announcement is likely to occur in the next couple of days - thought I'd notify this WikiProject as it will be a lot cleaner if the split is carried out in a planned way. -- Chuq (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

North Melbourne women's team template
I've made a bold change on changing the AFLW NM template to display 'Kangaroos' instead of 'North Melbourne'. It is my understanding that the team is the North Melbourne Tasmanian Kangaroos officially, and that all references which are treating the situation appropriately (e.g. AFL match centre) are calling them 'Kangaroos' only. Many sources do use North Melbourne, but imprecisely - so of course there's a COMMONNAME argument which could be made - but I think this is the right thing to do. I've also created an AFLW Kan template. I suggest we start using the AFLW Kan template, gradually change (or ask a bot to help) with changing all existing AFLW NM templates to AFLW Kan, and that then frees up the use of the AFLW NM template for a potential future state where the North Melbourne-Tasmania partnership ends and AFLW NM and AFLW Tas are distinct. Aspirex (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, dunno about that – will mean more work making changes to accommodate something where I think the COMMONNAME argument holds up, plus we haven't exactly made a point of formatting absolutely everything the same as how the AFL/AFL Media does; even broadcasters still use "North Melbourne". 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  02:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought we don't use the nicknames. Some media uses the nicknames, some the place name, and some a mixture. Is this any different (I am asking honestly, not as a jibe or anything)? --SuperJew (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally not, but past examples of mixing it up include the Kangaroos between 1999 and 2007 when they dropped the North Melbourne from their name, or the NRL's Dolphins. Not identical, but a reason why an exception could be made. Aspirex (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:1999 TAC Cup season
Is this Australian football season notable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Players that look potentially notable also draftified: Draft:Corey Warner Draft:Hugh Davies (footballer) and Draft:Jacob Van Rooyen. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Warner and Davies are both definitely WP:TOOSOON, only online refs I can find are databases, draft trackers and debut notifications, nothing which would suggest significant coverage. Van Rooyen, I've found one WP:SIGCOV article on him from the Age so he doesn't quite meet GNG yet but is the closest of the three. Aspirex (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The only reference for the TAC Cup season is the bigfooty message board, so it certainly fails GNG at the moment. I doubt it ever meets GNG since under18 seasons only really get WP:ROUTINE coverage. Aspirex (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Brisroy Fitzlions hoo-hah here
Hi all,

Your thoughts about this?

(Also: Half-time: Queensland 10-6 NSW - go my mighty Maroons!)

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Assistance please w.r.t. 1961 Tasmanian Squad
In relation to the Tasmaninan Squad at the 1961 Brisbane Carnival, can anyone assist with the following in relation to three of the footballers that appear in the squad photograph at :
 * (a) The given name and team affiliation of "E. Banks" (fifth from left, back row).
 * (b) The given name of "L. Ranson", apparently from Scotsdale (second from right, back row).
 * (a) The given name of "M. Lawrence", known as "Casey", from Longford, and brother of Barry Lawrence (fifth from left, middle row). Lindsay658 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The squad photo you cite is actually the squad that played the VFA in Hobart a few weeks before the Carnival. E Banks is Ted, not sure who he played with. M Lawrence is Maurice, and Leon Ranson can be removed as he didn't go to Brisbane.

Accessibility of the Ladder on the 2023 page
On previous years' pages, the Ladder is easy to access. On 2023, on mobile view, you have to click on Home and Away Season and then scroll through 24 Rounds of results. This is very much not a Good Thing. That the win/loss table is worthy of its own section, and the ladder is not makes me suspect unchecked personal preference. This is a recently introduced problem that needs addressing 80.2.107.84 (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree and would support making that change. I believe mobile accessibility outweighs the argument that 'the ladder is part of the home and away season'. I also feel that it is a section of its own standalone importance, on the basis that the article would be fine with the ladder and without the results, but the reverse of this would not be true. Aspirex (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As far as accessibility issues go, I think this is fairly minor (if at all); to suggest that these articles would be fine without the results is as ludicrous as claiming that this is all just personal preference – I think that the subsection's pretty commonsensical. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  16:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that there are many examples of articles (for example I can think of is many soccer leagues) which have the ladder, maybe a results table, but don't have a match-for-match detail. On the other hand, I'm not familiar with articles which have match details for each match but no ladder. --SuperJew (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Likewise, the NRL project forks all of its home-and-away results (e.g. 2021 NRL season and 2021 NRL season results), a good way of keeping the main season page more readily digestible, retaining the ladder as a primary section on the season page rather than subsuming it in the results page. I wouldn't mind discussing adopting that model outright at a later date - but on the topic at hand it supports a standalone ladder section. Aspirex (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In any case, I see a genuine accessibility/ease of readability issue, I count at least four different editors (none are me) who have attempted to return to the ladder being its own stand-alone section over a period of months ( , all reverted by 4TheWynne), and my own support. Absent any other dissenting views, consensus looks strong for restoring the stand-alone section. Aspirex (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Great Britain on Template:Arf
The Template:Arf is used in several articles but the link to Great Britain goes to a disambiguation page Great Britain national Australian rules football team. I put a note on Template talk:Arf asking for help with disambiguation, but had no response. Do you know how to resolve this?&mdash; Rod talk 16:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Use Module:Flagg, override with the desired link. To be honest, I'm not sure why Template:Arf exists in the first place, it has few transclusions and doesn't seem to add much that couldn't be done with the standard module. – Teratix ₵ 01:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Mark of the Year – missing winners and other assorted problems
I've been putting some effort into overhauling Mark of the Year with an eye on getting it back to featured list status. At first I thought its problems were mostly aesthetic, but as it turned out there were many factual errors as well – notably, completely overlooking the existence of separate Seven and ABC competitions. A trip to the library showed one particular credible-looking physical source did not turn out to support the things the citing editor claimed it supported, causing errors that propagated as far as AFL.com.au's own list of winners. I've reconstructed and referenced the pre-2001 lists almost from the ground up, but there's still lots of missing information and problems, so please take a look if you get a chance. – Teratix ₵ 00:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Nice work. This is one of those instances where the AFL's grasp on its own history is so poor (because they don't really care), that the accepted history becomes fact. I can recall seeing full lists of winners going back to 1970 on the AFL website not too long ago, even though, as you said, it didn't become official until 2001.
 * I'm glad you got rid of all the flowery language around how the mark was taken; the references/notes section was a shemozzle at one point. Some of those early refs still need a bit of work on them, and I've never been huge on using droppunt.com as a primary source (it hasn't been updated since 2011).
 * I also think it would be well served with an infobox, which I'm happy to add. I'll go through and give it a quick copyedit now, but I won't be able to get around to the refs until later on. Gibbsyspin 03:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Teratix I'll leave you to correct and update the information itself as I'm sure it's still a work in progress; the prize(s), selection process and voting all appear to be pretty outdated now. The AFL website itself has some info on the latter two. The current players' prize is $10,000 cash. Gibbsyspin 04:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

RM for Kicks after the siren in Australian rules football
I've suggested a requested move here which should be of interest to those on this page. After six years of dithering since my initial suggestion to limit the page to simply VFL/AFL, I think it's time we go through with it. I welcome your discussion on the talk page! Cheers, Gibbsyspin 14:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If anyone has skimmed over this notice but hasn't weighed in on the discussion – now's the time! – Teratix ₵ 05:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Karen Paxman name change
Some chat over here on Paxy’s page re: her recent name change. I appreciate the page move was made in good faith but as I said on the talk page, this seems like a more complicated move (we have never had a mononym in the AFL/W) and I also think there is arguments over WP:COMMONNAME given she is a five-time All-Australian, top 5 in the league for games played etc.

Would be grateful to hear some outside voices. Gibbsyspin 23:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Splitting sign/trade content from draft articles
I feel like this is an absolute no-brainer, but thought I'd put it out there anyway. I feel that, especially in recent years as more sign/trade mechanisms have been introduced, the actual drafts get pushed further down the page and buried beneath content which could be split to its own article – compiling an entire sign/trade/player movement period which is followed by the draft in a single article titled "draft" doesn't seem right to me; for example, if someone clicks on a link to a draft article in a player infobox, instead of finding the national draft towards the top of the article like you'd probably expect, they would have to go more than halfway down the page to find it. I reckon draft articles can just be for the national, rookie and pre-season drafts, and anything else (including retirements/delistings, etc.) can come under "sign and trade period" or just "trade period" – thoughts? 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  13:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think in general it makes sense to have everything together in one page on player movements. The method of movement isn't as relevant to split it. If so, do we intend to have separate pages for draft, retirements, delistings, trades, rookie signings, etc? But I do agree that having all the movements under the name "draft" is misleading, so I'd support a change of name. --SuperJew (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * All I'm saying is that I think the draft(s) should be separate from player movements, as they're different things; as above, everything else can remain in the one article under one of the suggested titles, while the draft is in its own dedicated article (as the title would suggest). 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  15:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How is a draft not a type of player movement? --SuperJew (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, the draft's solely for bringing (mostly) new players in, which I think is a fair distinction from players moving clubs via free agency, trade, etc. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  00:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with SuperJew, I'd change the title of the article to be more all-encompassing about player movements, without splitting, in order to preserve the chronological order of the article. Aspirex (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * What would you have the title format changed to – " AFL player movement period and draft", or even remove "draft" from the title? This is where I fear it might get messy; I think that the draft is a significant enough event on its own that it should have its own article (rather than get completely buried in another) and still be mentioned at the bottom of a player movement article – the chronological order of the latter article wouldn't have to change. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  00:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

AFL Women's 2022 seasons naming conventions – revisited
Hey team, you may recall the discussion we had almost exactly a year ago on how to name the season and related articles for the seventh season AFL Women's. We eventually landed on AFL Women's season seven and an abbreviation of S7 (2022), with a view to reassessing that decision when more 'outside sources' had made their own view. The 2023 NAB AFLW Season Guide was released two days ago ahead of the upcoming 2023 AFLW season, and for the first time we have both 2022 seasons listed next to each other in an official record-keeping sense. This publication is, of course, the quasi-equivalent to the AFL men's competition 'bible', the 1200-plus-page AFL Record Season Guide 2023. So, in my opinion, it holds a decent amount of weight on what nomenclature is chosen here. The AFL has landed on 2022 (Season 7) and an abbreviation of 2022 (S7). For context, the previous season is described as 2022 (Season 6) with an abbreviation of 2022 (S6), and prior to that, standard season names – 2020, 2019, etc. – are used. You can see this for yourself on pages 55 and 56 here. I think this opens up the discussion again for naming conventions on WP. I am ambivalent on the season article name for now, but am pretty strongly in favour of the 2022 (S7) abbreviation, as I think it works better for continuity purposes, especially in infoboxes. Penny for everyone's thoughts, please! Gibbsyspin 10:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * are you suggesting only to change S7 (2022) to 2022 (S7) or also 2022 to 2022 (S6)? -- SuperJew (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the latter. The other sporting comparison point I can think of currently is the Australian Open with its 1977 (Jan) & 1977 (Dec) editions. In my eyes, just having 2022 on its own now would imply only one competition in the year. To me, 2022 (S6) and 2022 (S7) is less confusing. Gibbsyspin 02:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with renaming seasons 6 and 7 as suggested. It's not that unusual to retrospectively rename things once they become ambiguous at a later date (great war/world war 1 a slightly more significant example, but the Aust Open is a good one too!) The-Pope (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's do it. The big problem in the last discussion was we hadn't yet seen many instances of how outside sources named the respective seasons. Now we have, and it's pretty clear 2022 (S6) and 2022 (S7) are the way to go. I would also favour changing the main article titles. – Teratix ₵ 02:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support for "2022 (S6)"/"2022 (S7)"! "S6 (2022)"/"S7 (2022)" are also okay. Really, anything is good if it's a change from "2022" referring to only one of the seasons. Jjamesryan (talk &#124; contribs) 02:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * If the general consensus is to change the short form for season six, I still think "S6 (2022)"/"S7 (2022)" would be the way to go, as we also use the shorter form of S7 for listing seasons under accolades, etc.; I'm not in favour of changing the article titles for the season and its associated pages, but if everyone feels strongly enough about its inclusion in some form, a compromise could be to mention "season six" in the lead? 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  05:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I support adopting the AFL Record convention of 2022 (S6) and 2022 (S7) for short forms, the moving of the two articles to 2022 AFL Women's season (season 6) and 2022 AFL Women's season (season 7), and changing 2022 AFL Women's season to a dab page. I approach perhaps with some caution that we are yet to truly understand what the majority of historical literature will adopt, but I do agree that in this case we have a reference which should be afforded large weighting. Aspirex (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support all of this @Aspirex. An elegant solution all round. Storm machine (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you like to make the change to those particular pages @Aspirex? I was just taking a look at the AFL Women's Rising Star page and saw the uses of S7 (2022) and thought about getting this proposal into motion now that we have consensus. Gibbsyspin 05:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I see has started making changes (like at Ruby Schleicher. In some places (statsend in infobox and update date of Statistics section) they're using season 7, I thought as per above that we're using 2022 AFL Women's season (season 7) for the full form, or if like in Schleicher's case it's obvious that it's AFLW we can use 2022 season (season 7). But I def think it's wrong to have only the season+number and not include the year, especially in a field which is an update date. --SuperJew (talk)


 * I don't see the need to have "season" twice in the title; if the AFL has landed on 2022 NAB AFLW Season 6/7 and that's what we're choosing to run with, why would you not format it as 2022 AFL Women's season 6 and 7 and format the related article titles similarly? The update date is a non-issue, as that soon won't apply anymore. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  17:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * so we can have it that way. but it's important to have the year. SuperJew (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

AFLW Kangaroos nomenclature
Despite the AFL men's team reverting to North Melbourne ahead of the 2008 season, when North's women's team entered the competition in 2019, they did so under the name Kangaroos (similar to the men's team from 1999–2007). This is because the women's team, which splits its base between Arden Street and Bellerive, is officially the North Melbourne Tasmanian Kangaroos. This full name is used in every media release for the club and has been since its inception. The official 'short name' for the club is Kangaroos, which is seen on league fixtures, ladders, etc. I propose that all instances of 'North Melbourne' on AFLW infoboxes, statistical tables etc. for season 2019 ongoing be changed to 'Kangaroos'. Obviously this is quite a significant task, but better we do it now than wait until even more time passes. EDIT: This actually should be pretty simple if we just update Template:AFLW NM. Gibbsyspin 05:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * work-wise as said it hopefully won't be too tough with the template. However this does raise some questions for me. Looking at the ladder you linked, seems there are some clubs which are in the format of place name only and is consistent between the ladder and us; other clubs ( as well as  (AFL)) are formatted with place+ nickname consistently; while others  are formatted with nicknames on the AFL ladder but without on Wiki. This begs the question to what is our decision - do we format same as the AFL/other media (which in itself isn't consistent in itself)? Or do we pick one format (either place name only or place name and nickname) and go with that for all clubs? Anyways seems odd to me to make this change only for Norf if we are making it. --SuperJew (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We have a pretty well-established style for club names that shouldn't change in my opinion – stylised names such as Geelong Cats and Adelaide Crows are for marketing purposes, and nothing else. Kangaroos, in my opinion, differs – insofar is that it is the only team name on said ladder without a 'location', essentially due to the fact they represent two states. Gibbsyspin 08:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I made this same point here back in May and created an AFLW Kan template as an alternative. I'm on board with switching to Kangaroos. Aspirex (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * My stance is still the same (see the discussion) and, as alluded to, the "Kangaroos" usage is still pretty inconsistent; they've always played more home matches in Melbourne than in Tasmania, too, so I'd argue they do have a "[main] location". 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  09:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Can we semi-protect 2023 AFL Grand Final
The 2023 AFL Grand Final article is having multiple vandalism edits because of the ongoing controversies. It would be ideal to have this one semi-protected. FastCube (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * requests for protection need to be made at WP:RFPP. Jenks24 (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Current club information for Clayton Oliver
I came across this article while patrolling recent changes. There seem to be several editors changing the current club from Melbourne to Adelaide and others changing it back, so I'd appreciate some feedback from more knowledgeable editors. From what I can tell based on news articles I've found, there is some speculation about a potential trade, but nothing's been confirmed yet. Anon 126  (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 13:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Please leave comments at Talk:Clayton Oliver  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 13:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

State league notability
Firstly: an admission. I don't think WP:NSPORTS2022 is all that bad a thing. Removing the 'one VFL/AFL game = notable' requirement gives, in my eyes, greater weight to the achievements of players in state leagues over the journey. While the VFL/AFL obviously has the biggest and most accurate statistical database, lending to ease of use in creating WP articles, there is plenty of information out there to be uncovered re: VFA/SANFL/WAFL players if one knows where to look. To me, the lack of coverage of non-VFL/AFL players is a massive blindspot for our project, and I hope the new ruling goes a way towards correcting that by encouraging the (well-sourced) creation of state league player biographies. There should be no reason why, as an example, any of the players to have won a J. J. Liston Trophy would fail WP:GNG – especially someone like Tom Gribble, who was last night awarded VFL life membership off the back of two Liston Trophies and more than 100 games at Werribee over 10 years. It is their mere failure(?) to make the top grade that has so far excluded them from a Wikipedia article, even though in theory are much more notable than 'Joe Bloggs' who played three games for in the 1940s and then gave up the game to become a tiler (as an example!) The sheer discrepancies between association footballers on WP, who have every club appearance known to man on their page/infobox, versus Australian footballers, who are generally limited to the VFL/AFL, is quite ridiculous. My reason for this preamble is to discuss player infoboxes and the value of having state league information in that infobox alongside VFL/AFL information. Obviously there will forever be conjecture about when the VFL/AFL truly took the title of 'national league', and you can read plenty of digressions on 'first-class' statistics to dive into the weeds there. But there is no reason to suggest that state league information cannot live in a player infobox, either alongside VFL/AFL information, or on its own (if the player did not play VFL/AFL).

A selection of current infoboxes
I was actually inspired by when I was updating the AFLW coaches articles last week and became quizzical about the playing career of former Freo coach Trent Cooper – the fact that he was relatively young but did not have any playing information in his infobox intrigued me. After doing some googling and finding his WAFL FootyFacts profile, I found that Cooper played 16 WAFL games over three seasons in the late '90s. This is not insignificant information, and certainly adds to the value of the infobox – which, like all infoboxes, is there to provide a snapshot of the article. Another infobox, this time for Hall of Famer and Team of the Century representative Alec Eason, omits his three fruitful seasons with  in the VFA from 1922–1924, despite the fact he was reportedly the highest paid player in the sport at that time. This information is sourced in the article, but missing from the infobox. David Mirra played 155 games for Box Hill over the course of a decade, captaining 78 of those – a club record – yet only his 11 AFL games for rate worthy for inclusion in his infobox. As is the case in many of these instances, however, his state league achievements are well documented in the wildly inconsistent free-text area that is 'career highlights'. Brad Gotch is a player whose state league exploits are only partially included – his single (half)season for in 1985 is there, but his three seasons with Dandenong from 1991 to 1993 are not. His infobox also falls foul to the inclusion of league abbreviations in the timeline, which are essentially useless as there is no need for disambiguation given clubs do not share names (above a country-league level, anyway). Geoff Austen, like Mirra, is another whose infobox contains timeline information only about his stint in the top league, yet whose highlights section is filled with information on his VFA achievements (in a messy manner, mind you, which I chose to illustrate the point about a permanent style being required).

Each of these infoboxes have been chosen to display the vast differences and inconsistencies that currently take place between players across the sport. Unlike some of the bigger sports on WP, there is (despite the best intentions of many) a lack of uniformity that goes a way to hindering WP's potential as an authority figure on Australian football.

The 'gold standard'/our current template – how do we improve it?
Joel Selwood 's infobox (see right) is held up as the supposed gold standard, but even that contains some odd stylistic inconsistencies as far as I can see – as a start, using both a colon and parentheses for the years of achievement in the career highlights section (it should be one or the other); using individual years rather than a date span for international representation (see soccer player infoboxes for best use); shuffling the order of team and individual achievements; omitting the years/team/games headers from the international representation section (although this is actually a template issue); and using abbreviations such as '(c)' in the All-Australian listings which are wikilinked to pages that don't explain what the '(c)' means.

It would be remiss of me to write all this up without providing some suggestions and/or jump-off points, so looking at some of the parameters where I think there are points up for discussion:


 * caption: Should just be, as opposed to the current documentation that suggests.
 * birth_place/death_place: Obviously wikilink the town, but do we wikilink the state as well? Bendigo is a bad example as it doesn't have the state in the title, but for something like Golden Square, Victoria, the state is part of the wiklink. As the current documentation says, including Australia is unnecessary unless the player is born overseas.
 * originalteam: The AFL Record is very extensive with their 'previous clubs' lists these days, which I think is a good thing. If we continue to go by the documentation rule that previous AFL clubs and state league clubs are avoided, do we include every other previous local level club? For a lot of Victorian draftees, they would have three 'original teams' – junior team, school team and Talent League team (for Nick Daicos, these are Kew Rovers, Camberwell Grammar and Oakleigh Chargers respectively).
 * position: There should really be a finite list of positions to choose from, with consistent formatting (e.g., not  ).
 * currentclub: Should be used if the player is either currently on an AFL or state league list. It currently appears to be used only for AFL-listed players.
 * years1/2/3 etc.: The date span should always be, rather than   as many seem to be. If a player plays for a club in a notable league, departs for another club in a notable league, and then returns to that first club, the two stints at said club should be listed as two separate 'years' spans. I would also argue that if a player departs for a club in a non-notable league (e.g. Colin Watson) and then returns to the first club, that the stints should also be separated. While this would give Watson three non-consecutive 'stints' at St Kilda in his infobox, I think it makes for a more accurate representation of his career transfers, rather than the reader assuming he was either injured or playing reserves in those fallow years.
 * club1/2/3 etc.: As proposed above, include all senior clubs played for at either a national or state league level, ergo: V/AFL, VFA/L, SANFL, WAFL, TFL, QAFL, NSWAFL, ACTAFL, each from league inception to the current day, with no omissions based on time period or perceived standard. Note that reserve teams would not qualify for inclusion in the infobox, so someone like George Horlin-Smith's 73 games for Geelong reserves from 2011–2018 would not sit alongside his 51 games for Geelong from 2012–2018. However, his date span would read 2011–2018, as he was on the senior Geelong list from 2011 onwards.
 * games_goals1/2/3 etc.: Should only be included if sourced from a reputable database site such as AFL Tables / AustralianFootball.com. WAFL FootyFacts is mostly complete too, and is just as good if not better than AFL Tables. The VFA Project is unreliable for totals, but good for year spans. There are nonesuch other state league databases. If a games/goals total cannot be sourced, we shouldn't be putting  or   like I see on some infoboxes. It is messy and not authoritative. There is an argument to include , but I think it's probably best to just leave the space blank.
 * games_goalstotal: Right now, totals generally seems to be included if a player has played for multiple clubs in the same league, but not multiple clubs over different leagues (essentially creating a quasi-'first-class' total). However, examples like Craig Bradley show that this application is inconsistent. We should come up with a ruling for when totals are included.
 * sooyears1/2/3 etc.: Should be a date span from first representative appearance to last representative appearance rather than individual years, unless the player played for multiple representative teams (in that case, use multiple 'sooyears' spans).
 * sooteam1/2/3/etc.: In my mind, this covers all of the state representative teams—which, apart from a couple of one-offs, stopped competing after 1999—as well as the league representative teams such as the VFA rep teams of the 20th century and the modern-day state league rep teams which compete against each other to this day.
 * soogames_goals1/2/3/etc.: These are not listed in any database so are nigh on impossible to source unless listed on the league or club websites, or occasionally AustralianFootball.com. Hence we should act with caution when including these figures.
 * nationalyears/team/games_goals: While this is almost always going to be for those who played for Australia in the International Rules Series, it can also include those who represented their country at the AFL International Cup – Hewago Oea is a good example whose playing record for Papua New Guinea is currently listed in his infobox (although whether the feat should be repeated in the career highlights section is debatable). This section should, in my eyes, also have headers for years/team/games_goals. Given every other subsection has headers, it looks odd without them.
 * coachyears/club/games_wins: The same qualification levels of state league or above should apply to the coaching section. AustralianFootball.com's coaching database is pretty comprehensive. Whichever ruling we come up with for player totals should also be applied to coach totals.
 * umpireleague1/2/3 etc.: The same qualification levels of state league or above should apply to the umpiring section. The AFL Umpires Association does, quite frankly, an incredible job with maintaining their records and statistics, but the same will note exist for other leagues, so sourced date spans should suffice.
 * statsend/repstatsend/coachstatsend: Firstly, we are missing  parameters for   and , and   should be renamed to   if not too technically difficult. The date style should also be formalised to avoid confusion; I see probably five different styles on a regular basis. My suggestions: for post-season stats updates –  ; for mid-season stats updates –  . Currently the template differs in the way it auto-formats these   parameters – if you just enter a   year, it will say   for  , but   for   and  . This should be made consistent and, again, formalised.
 * careerhighlights: This is almost worthy of a post of its own! There should be an overall style preference for less capital letters as per MOS:CAPS, which at least appears to be followed in the Selwood example. I then think we can draw on something like the basketball player infobox as an example. Team achievements come first, followed by individual achievements. Achievements should be in a bulleted list, formatted such as . It's getting too late in the evening for me to decide what achievement should and shouldn't be included, and in what order they should be listed, but we can get to that as a group.

Time to discuss!
I know it's a long post, and I appreciate if there's a lot of detail, but I am almost certain that most of the people on here have at least a base level of pedantry and/or thirst for accuracy and consistency that can see us get some good outcomes here. I'd love to know what the WP:AFL member base thinks of the above suggestions, and where we can go next in terms of improving not only our infoboxes, but also the amount of notable state league footballers on WP. Gibbsyspin 13:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll have a more detailed review when I have a little more time, but I like the proposal mostly and have the following initial thoughts/concerns:
 * * Original team has long been problematic, and will be tough to define. I feel it should be the last team the player played for before being recruited to any one of the designated state leagues, perhaps reworded as 'recruited from'.
 * * For the listed clubs which qualify, I don't think I agree that every state body should be viewed equally across the full range of history as valid for inclusion, but I'll need to think a little more about it. Case in point is the Goldfields Football League: it went from the WAFL's equal to being just another country league at some point, and we'll need to define it. I'm also not sure Ron Barassi's couple of games for Port Melbourne in 1972 have would be appropriate to Infobox against the rest of his career - I.e. players with strong careers in the 'big 3' arguably shouldn't necessarily have bit part roles in the smallet leagues mentioned. That would be case-by-case rather than standardised though. I'll think a bit more about it.
 * * I'd be pretty strongly against making a cross-league total for games/goals, because we'd need to invent that quasi-first class definition for ourselves, and it doesn't really exist. But listing clubs chronologically, then League totals in bold, makes sense to me. Aspirex (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, not sure if it's intentional, but I notice Selwood's example doesn't include 'debut', and I'd be well in favour of dumping that from all players' infoboxes. A) i don't think anything other than the year of debut (which you get from the list of clubs) matters enough for the Infobox, and think including round/opponent/venue in the debut box is probably the lowest value information that we currently include as a matter of course; and b) once we say all senior state level clubs qualify for the club list, it follows that VFL/AFL debut isn't the same as senior debut in a lot of cases. Aspirex (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't intentionally miss discussing the 'debut' parameter, but I agree that it's superfluous information. Any other thoughts on the proposals? Gibbsyspin 05:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are some of my thoughts:
 * * Draft, Original team(s) and Position(s) can be moved from Personal information to Career information (retitled from Club information) – this is similar to Template:Infobox basketball biography.
 * * Agree that Debut is not necessary to include in the infobox.
 * * Format Games {Goals) so the indenting is aligned – see Template:Infobox football biography for an example of this.
 * * Combine Representative team honours and International team honours into one section, titled Representative teams or Representative career.
 * * Should Playing career yearspan include all listed years or just year from debut until last game played? It seems typical of most stats websites to record only years when games were played.
 * * Using the example of George Horlin-Smith mentioned above, are we saying that we would not include his VFL games but we would potentially include VFL games for other notable non-AFL listed players? If the argument that we should include State-level leagues, then should we not include both for consistency? There would be many examples of VFL players being drafted by an AFL club, and then playing both VFL and AFL games. Although I do agree that this could be a bit messy to manage.
 * * Agee that Totals should avoid being a total of all leagues' stats. Either we come up with away to neatly distiguish between leagues, or perhaps even remove overall totals completely?
 * Allied45 (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a fair bit I'd like to say about this: just leaving this as a placeholder for when my computer comes back from repairs and I can edit more easily, I don't want this proposal to be forgotten about. – Teratix ₵ 02:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Similarly, I have some thoughts on this as well, but for now, I think that the original team should just be the highest-level team that the player played for before entering the AFL/AFLW (e.g. could be NAB/Talent League, could be VFL/W), playing career should be all seasons on a list and not just seasons played, and I have an order that I've been using for career highlights that I'd like to suggest, which I'll chase up when I can. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  06:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Upcoming potential draftees now provide two listings: state league club (which is a bit of a misnomer as it usually refers to a Talent League team, although it can also refer to SANFL/WAFL/etc. teams), and community club, which is your Manangatang thirds, etc. I think it would be best to modify the template to allow both these parameters and editors can then utilise either one or both fields. Gibbsyspin 12:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Good discussion to have. Some thoughts from me, feel free to take them or leave them as it's been a while now since I've been active: Jenks24 (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Overall the biggest issue I think we have is that they're too cluttered. Anything we can do to reduce the info we have there I think would be beneficial.
 * Get rid of career highlights completely. The Selwood article is actually a good example in that the article itself already has an "Honours and achievements" section. No need to duplicate that information to the infobox. It's this section in particular that often makes infoboxes way too long.
 * Birth place / death place -- just link the town, don't link the state as well. MOS:GEOLINK.
 * Original team -- I have previously tried to include the club they are actually from as well as the Talent League. This is what the AFL typically does on draft night, etc. Also I generally feel that for players not from Melbourne the club they're from has a much bigger impact on their footy development. But I get it would be easier to have a hard and fast rule and having multiple clubs can clutter it. If we do change to just the last club they were at, I agree "Recruited from" would be better than "Original team".
 * Years -- in general I agree XXXX–XXXX is preferable but can become unwieldy on some articles for older players, especially if their career was interrupted by WWI or WWII.
 * Totals -- might be easier just not to have them?
 * Statsend -- why not just have one field and have it apply to all stats in the infobox?
 * Agree about getting rid of all debut parameters
 * Agree about having rep teams in one section
 * State league stats -- include if they were playing seniors/firsts, don't include if they were playing reserves and listed for an AFL club.
 * Agree playing career should be all season on a list.


 * I disagree with getting rid of career highlights, but do think there should be a standardised limit and ordering (as discussed below). The fact that Selwood won the Robert Rose Award a few times or the Herald Sun Player of the Year in 2014 is best suited to prose, and shouldn't be held up alongside All-Australian team honours and best-and-fairest awards as some sort of major achievement.
 * Agree with just linking the town per MOS:GEOLINK as described. See my reply above for 'original team'. A singular span of years is preferable too, in my eyes, even if a player (for instance) missed a whole year through injury. Daniel Menzel's career span is not 2010–2011; 2015–2018 for instance, but simply 2010–2018. The difference is when a player left to go to a non-notable club and then returned to that same notable club not long after (which would have happened on occasion in the early years). That is when the 'span' cannot continue.
 * Agree with having one 'statsend'. Agree with all your other 'agrees'!. Gibbsyspin 12:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Clubs: Having thought more about it, I remain of the view that we need to apply a case-by-case approach to which clubs appear in the club list. In my mind, the leagues are split into tiers: if a player's career at a lower tier is not generally considered of at least comparable importance to his career at a higher tier, then the lower tier leagues would be excluded from the table.

My view of the tiers is: Since the mid-1990s: 1. AFL; 2. VFL/WAFL/SANFL; 3. the rest From the WWII until 1990s: 1. AFL(VFL)/WAFL/SANFL. 2. VFA/TANFL/NTFA/NWFU. 3. The rest From WWI until WWII: 1. AFL(VFL)/WAFL/SANFL. 2. VFA/TANFL/NTFA. 3. The rest Until WWI: 1. AFL(VFL)/VFA/WAFL/SANFL/TFL/Goldfields/Barrier Ranges

I always like to use Barry Round and Peter McKenna as examples for how it works. Round's time at Williamstown, while not as notable as his time at South Melbourne and Footscray, is still looked back upon as a notable time in his career. But McKenna's one-year stints at Devonport, Geelong West, Port Melbourne and Northcote are all very much of lesser note than his time at Collingwood (and Carlton).

Original team/recruited from: Thinking through it, I do think 'recruited from' is the more suited piece of information for the infobox. In the zoning era, this would usually be the local club from which the player was first zoned to a state league team. In the draft era, it would usually be the state league under-18 club for which he played. For me, the most important thing is that we should never have a WAFL/SANFL club as 'original team' prior to the 90s. I think it's important that if a player had a notable senior WAFL/SANFL career prior to playing in the VFL (notable enough to go in the list of clubs) then his 'original team' should be a local club which preceded that. Good example: Andrew McKay. Bad example: this revision of Tony Antrobus. If we get nothing else from this discussion, let it be that. Aspirex (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure McKenna's stints are of lesser note, but I don't think they aren't notable. I am someone who prefers objectivity to subjectivity, hence trying to draw a line for inclusion where possible. FWIW, McKenna booted almost 300 senior goals in those 4 non-League seasons – pretty handy. If we choose not to include, in my eyes it just means an incomplete record, as opposed to AF.com where we can see it all.
 * Agree that WAFL and SANFL clubs should never be 'original team'. McKay is a good example in the local club, but bad example in including league abbreviations in the clubs list when unnecessary. I've made an edit to remove them. Gibbsyspin 12:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, to start off with I'll list some small things which should be uncontroversial:

Now onto major or new suggestions:
 * fullname should not be used unless different to the article title.
 * I agree with Allied's idea to follow basketball's lead and move draft, position and originalteam into a career information section.
 * Another practice from American sports we should adopt is having currentclub control the infobox colours (so e.g. Oscar Allen would have blue and gold infobox headings). See LeBron James or Russell Wilson for examples of how that looks.


 * Instead of one originalteam parameter, we should have multiple optional parameters and use whichever is appropriate. Off the top of my head: localteam, schoolteam and u18team, but these can be refined if necessary, the point is to move away from a single-parameter approach.
 * Considering which leagues to list in playing career: this will inevitably involve a trade-off between ensuring cross-article consistency and avoiding triviality. Similar to Aspirex I would opt to split leagues into three tiers:
 * First-tier: The "big three": V/AFL, WAFL, SANFL. Senior (non-reserve) stints in these leagues will always warrant an infobox mention.
 * Marginal: Senior stints in these leagues likely merit an infobox mention, but editors, at their discretion and subject to consensus, may choose not to list stints. Editors should consider the league's strength and reputation at the time; the stint's length and relative importance; and whether the player had any significant achievements (or absence thereof). Examples: VFA/L, TFL, etc. This could be split into two tiers, one where inclusion is presumed and one where exclusion is presumed.
 * All other leagues, which should not be listed.


 * Note these tiers are very preliminary and I deliberately haven't attempted to give comprehensive examples – it's the principle of first tier, marginal, others which I'm putting forward as an approach.
 * As for whether to include all years listed or only years where games were played – overall I'm neutral, but lean towards the latter since it appears to be the status quo (don't want to spend a lot of effort changing) and my impression is most statistics sites follow this convention.
 * I agree with Gibbsy that coaching career should follow the same principles as playing career, whatever we settle on, but umpiring career should probably be restricted to first-tier leagues given the more restricted coverage of umpires.
 * Representative honours and international honours should be listed as career highlights rather than having their own sections – these just don't have the same importance to an Australian footballer's career as in other codes (rugby, soccer), reliable information on precise numbers of games and goals is scarce for representative football, and no-one plays more than a handful of games in these formats anyway. Even if we go with a combined section, we should not be listing numbers for games or goals.
 * I agree with the general sentiment to standardise and trim back careerhighlights, but disagree with removing it altogether. Might wait for 4TheWynne to post his proposed order rather than reinventing the wheel.
 * I agree with Jenks about having a single statsend parameter. – Teratix ₵ 13:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Re: playing career: I think I prefer your tier wording to @Aspirex's; although there is merit in both, I take your wording to be more inclusive than exclusive. Re: year spans, we have actually tended to lean towards 'listed' years on WP rather than only 'games played' years as on AFL Tables et al. The best source for player listings is Draftguru; they actually have a phenomenal amount of information not seen anywhere else online and it is a reliable source. It's also great for 'original team' listings in the national draft era.
 * I don't think there are many umpires who would be meeting WP:GNG that haven't umpired in the VFL/AFL, so we shouldn't have to worry too much about that. However, both the SANFLUA and WANFLUA do seem to keep detailed records, although they aren't as searchable as what the AFLUA records are. Take someone like Brett Rosebury for instance, though, if we can source his WAFL umpiring stats then they bear mentioning – youngest ever WAFL umpire, umpiring senior grand finals at 19 and 20 years of age. It definitely forms part of his story.
 * I would support combining representative and international into one section, but removing stats only if unsourced. Gibbsyspin 06:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey again – thanks for the patience. Here's the order that I've been using for career highlights (for AFL and their AFLW equivalent where applicable):


 * Premiership (just include "(c)" here for captains rather than list as a separate honour)
 * Norm Smith Medal
 * Captaincy
 * Brownlow Medal
 * AFLPA best player
 * AFLCA champion player
 * League games record
 * League goalkicking record
 * Club games record
 * Club goalkicking record
 * All-Australian team
 * Gary Ayres Award
 * Club best and fairest
 * Club leading goalkicker
 * AFLPA best captain
 * AFLPA most courageous
 * Rising Star award
 * AFLPA best young player
 * AFLCA best young player
 * Major individual game awards (e.g. Anzac Medal, Neale Daniher Trophy, Yiooken Award, etc.)
 * Rising Star nomination (don't include if the player wins, except perhaps they're also nominated in an earlier season – thoughts?)

Feel free to discuss any potential tweaks, additions/removals, etc., but I feel like this will be pretty close to the mark. I've intentionally left out fan-voted awards like the 22under22 team and media awards so that we're just left with premierships and the main individual awards voted by the league, umpires, players, coaches and clubs (e.g. don't include third place in the club best and fairest even if the club has an official award for it, All-Australian squad, indivdual game/other club records, etc.), which I reckon most/all of us would feel are the most important; consequently, as we aren't going to see many players win all of these, most players' sections won't be too long. Otherwise, I still feel pretty strongly about all years being included in career (e.g. a player could spend three years on a list without getting an AFL game due to injury, etc. before landing at another club – you just going to leave that out?) and state leagues being an option for "recruited from" (e.g. a 22-year-old could be drafted after playing VFL for three years), as I think the team included should be the highest level before making the AFL/AFLW, even for 17-/18-year-old draftees. 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  05:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest the following tweaks:


 * Premiership (just include "(c)" here for captains rather than list as a separate honour)
 * Captaincy
 * Brownlow Medal
 * AFLPA best player
 * AFLCA champion player
 * League games record
 * League goalkicking record
 * Club games record
 * Club goalkicking record
 * All-Australian team
 * Club best and fairest
 * Club leading goalkicker
 * Norm Smith Medal
 * Gary Ayres Award
 * Other major individual game awards (e.g. Anzac Medal, Neale Daniher Trophy, Yiooken Award, etc.)
 * Mark of the Year
 * Goal of the Year
 * AFLPA best captain
 * AFLPA most courageous
 * Rising Star award
 * AFLPA best young player
 * AFLCA best young player

The only three changes made are: relegating Norm Smith and Gary Ayres to be among the major individual game awards (but top ranking among them); and, elimination of 'rising star nomination' (which I see as a much lower bar than, for example, placing in a club best and fairest); and addition of Mark/Goal of the Year, which even if fan voted are still very much distinguishing awards. It would follow that any club/league notable enough to be listed in the 'Clubs' list would have its equivalents included. Aspirex (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but given the Norm Smith Medal's importance (e.g. you would think a lot of players would rather – second, of course, to a premiership – win a Norm Smith Medal than a Brownlow Medal, hence why I had originally placed it as high as I did), if we're going to group it with the other major individual game awards, I reckon they should all be moved up a tad; as a compromise, I've placed them just under the club awards. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  15:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of All-Australian Coach from the achivements category of premiership coaches
Hi all. Not sure if this has been discussed before, but I am wondering if, for the achievements profile for premiership coaches, it is worth merging "AFL premiership coach" and "All-Australian Coach" into one achievement by deleting the latter. The "All-Australian Coach" award is literally just given to the premiership winning coach, and is the exact same as the "AFL premiership coach" title. I feel as if it is superfluous to put on the achievements list on the page of each premiership coach and clogs up the section. Hroutley (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a very long time follower of the game who wasn't aware that the "AFL premiership coach" and "All-Australian Coach" are always the same person. Is this documented anywhere? I can imagine situations where it may not be the case, such as an assistant coach taking over as premiership coach at the last minute for a "real" coach who falls ill just before the Grand Final. Happy to see it all clarified. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The All-Australian coach has been the premiership coach since 1999, so any instances from that year onwards, of course, definitely remove from their accolades; prior to then, however, any coach could have been given the nod (like AFLCA coach of the year), so 1998 and earlier should remain. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  02:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree, from 1999 onwards it is redundant. Jenks24 (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Port Adelaide player categories
I've noticed that we currently have:
 * Category:Port Adelaide players (overarching category that holds the below categories)
 * Category:Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL) players (anyone who played for Port in the SANFL before 1997 or after 2010)
 * Category:Port Adelaide Football Club players (anyone who played for Port in the AFL)
 * Category:Port Adelaide Football Club players (all competitions) (anyone who played for Port at any level? but not AFLW?)
 * Category:Port Adelaide Magpies players (anyone who played for Port in the SANFL from 1997 to 2010)

This seems like a mess to me. I would propose changing it to:
 * Category:Port Adelaide Football Club players (anyone who played for Port in the AFL)
 * Category:Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL) players (anyone who played for Port in the SANFL regardless of whether that was senior (pre-97) or reserve (post-97))

And then delete the Magpies, all competitions and simply "players" categories. This seems to be how we handle it for most other clubs (e.g. Category:Melbourne Football Club players for all VFL/AFL players and then Category:Melbourne Football Club (VFA) players and Category:Melbourne Football Club (pre-VFA) players for competitions prior to the current league the club is in). But I bring it here for discussion first because I realise Port are a unique situation. Jenks24 (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I would have thought Port Adelaide Football Club (AFL) players and Port Adelaide Football Club (SANFL) players, given the complete distinction between the leagues and competitions. And I believe whichever approach we end up using for our discussion of a couple of months ago about which clubs are listed in a player's infobox should be used as the basis of qualification for a category - so, for example, players who played colts for Port Adelaide before being drafted to the AFL wouldn't qualify for the category. Use those two discussions to get a sense of consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirex (talk • contribs)


 * I would be OK with adding "(AFL)" for clarity. Agree it should only apply to a senior game in the competition not juniors/reserves. Jenks24 (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Player articles being deleted?
I may have missed an important debate here but I've noticed that some articles of players that have played senior VFL football or otherwise notable have been deleted. For example Clarrie Calwell, who played two senior games for Carlton in 1920, now just redirects to a list of Carlton players article. I noticed a similar situation for a Collingwood player who played one senior game in the early years of last century and Darren Bartsch, notable for being the only player drafted four times but never a game, also lost his article a while back.

Back in the day (probably a decade or so ago now) I recall being part of a discussion that led to an agreement that a player with one VFL game met notability requirements. What's the current thinking? Roisterer (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like they're being boldly redirected. After some recent sports drama, all sports articles must now pass WP:GNG and Calwell was only sourced to the AFL Encyclopedia, which should be one of the two sources needed to pass WP:GNG if that's the one I remember. There should only be very few players who don't have pages since the AFL/VFL has been so well covered over the years - the Blueseum on Calwell is pretty comprehensive.I think it's pretty terrible these are being boldly redirected, but you can just undo the redirect, though I'd recommend finding an additional source to add to the article when you do, just in case. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NSPORTS2022 is the discussion in question which supersedes the old WP:NAFL discussion Roisterer refers to. I'm the one who bold redirected Calwell and others in response to NSPORTS2022. I've done due diligence to verify that none of them could be reasonably considered to meet GNG, I've targeted only single-digit game count players from before the 50s so I can do a decent newspaper check via Trove for contemporary sources as well as modern sources, and my complete rationale (essentially in the form of a draft AfD nomination in case it's ever needed) is documented on each redirected article's talk page. If you can find sources meeting a WP:SIGCOV standard, that's great (and indeed I have successfully expanded some cases I've looked at rather than redirected, e.g. John Culhane), but I'll be surprised if you can find a GNG case for the ones I have redirected. Aspirex (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Darren Bartsch was actually deleted in 2009 on the grounds he never played AFL. He should probably be eligible for an article based on WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And it makes me feel old that the Darren Bartsch article I remember was deleted 14 years ago. Roisterer (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Inspired by this discussion, I've converted Bartsch's redirect into a new article. I think his might be my favourite player biography I've written – comical, but a little sad towards the end. – Teratix ₵ 05:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia has mostly moved on from participation-based notability criteria towards source-based notability criteria. The unfortunate result is many articles diligently created under the old "one game = notability" criteria are no longer considered notable. However, in my view this will be a good thing for Wikipedia's Australian football coverage in the long run, as it will encourage editors to build more comprehensive and reliable articles with solid sourcing, rather than relying on the NAFL safety net. I agree with SportingFlyer that more often than not players who meet NAFL will also meet GNG, although I know Asperix is more pessimistic.
 * The main danger is well-meaning editors doing drive-by deletion nominations or bold redirections for undersourced articles created under the old criteria, without adequately checking for sources not currently present in the article; for example, searching Google but not Trove for a 1930s player. (Asperix is absolutely doing the right thing here – if you do an adequate check for sources and still can't find anything, redirecting to a player list and documenting your failure to find sources on the talk page is the right approach). – Teratix ₵ 03:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles_for_deletion/Ray_Ritchie_(Australian_rules_footballer) . Lindsay658 (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability of pre-drafted / yet-to-debut players (read: Harley Reid)
Are we, as a project, doing Wikipedia a disservice by not already having an article on Harley Reid? I remember eons back there being discussions around articles for players who were either yet to be drafted, or who had been drafted but not yet played a game, and the general consensus was to wait until someone had played a senior AFL game to then create their article – even if that person was a number-one pick.

The interest in draft classes, underage championships and the Talent League has grown exponentially in recent years, probably coinciding with the move to allow future pick trading in each year's national draft. It is fair to say that Reid is the most talked about potential number-one draft pick we have seen, simply going by the online interest in his destination and his performances on the field. This article on AFL.com.au today by Cal Twomey goes a long way to demonstrating his celebrity status. Wearing casual clothes as a spectator on level 2 of the Carlton v Melbourne semi-final this year, he was stopped on six separate occasions by fans wanting a photo!

By any standard, Reid smashes the WP:GNG guidelines. He could break his leg tomorrow, go undrafted, never play a game and would still meet that criteria. It seems reductive to not have an article about him already. It is also fair to argue that by creating the article prior to his drafting, it will in turn increase the quality of the article as a whole as it will not suffer from WP:RECENTISM when he inevitably makes his debut. While I think Reid is the only player listed in Twomey's phantom draft who could feasibly cover WP:GNG, who is to say that can't change in future years, particularly if two players had an equal showing of going as pick number one. Where does everyone sit on this? Penny for your thoughts. Cheers! Gibbsyspin 10:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I would agree that he meets GNG already. Aspirex (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Reid is notable. Fingers crossed our list managers show some sense and hold on to pick 1... – Teratix ₵ 15:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering The West Australian published a two page spread "101 things you need to know about Harley Reid" yesterday, pretty sure WP:GNG is well and truly established. Storm machine (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I had a crack at creating one but ultimately there was just too much information out there to condense down in one night – assistance welcome at Draft:Harley Reid. – Teratix ₵ 13:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Made a few edits where I could; he is seriously credentialed for a junior! Gibbsyspin 10:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

A request for assistance
Does anyone here have a copy of AFL Record Season Guide 2023 and can confirm (an image would be amazing, but I trust most editors here) that John Noble was elevated by Collingwood from rookie status? It seems to be what everyone thinks is true, and also appears here supported by a cite to the AFL Record, but I can't find an actual official/verifiable source for it online, and that is odd to me as I feel it would've made the news. If anyone has seen or can find a source for the information online, that would be great too! Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I can't assist but can sympathise. Had similar difficulties with Matt Cottrell (and I wasn't 100% happy with the ref i ended up going with), it's proving very difficult to track the rookie elevations thesedays. Aspirex (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Page 98 of the guide will be your source for Noble. Text is as follows, below his player profile: Draft history: 2019 Mid-Season Rookie Draft selection (Collingwood) No. 14; 2022 NAB AFL Draft rookie elevation (Collingwood).
 * As for Cottrell, I assume this article wasn't yet created at the time you were sourcing @Aspirex, but this is perfect. Gibbsyspin 00:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You've highlighted the issue further though - that reference you found is contradicted by this vaguer one and another vague one I saw on the Roar, which both imply the elevation happened a year earlier. I will have to change some other things with this better reference. Aspirex (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help and the sympathy . Yeah, it's quite frustrating. Also it's hard when I try to track such info via Twitter, most don't understand what reliable sourcing is haha. --SuperJew (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong, but given the context of this article, that would presume that Noble was elevated at the end of the 2021 season, as I'm almost positive that an AFL rookie-listed player can't sign a new contract without being automatically upgraded to the main list. Plus his absence from this article in 2022 would add further weight to that theory. Storm machine (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate! It's quite frustrating all the guesses one has to do based on partial information. I am mostly happy though that we managed to confirm for sure that he's currently on non-rookie status. --SuperJew (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tom Hawkins (footballer, born 1988)
Tom Hawkins (footballer, born 1988) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

New format for display of trades
I see that has been using a new format to display trades, for example on the current AFLW trade period page (for comparison the previous format can be seen on the previous period's page. This format seems quite unclear for trades that involve more than two clubs (which seems to be a big percentage of AFLW trades). For example, the latest trade involving Brisbane, Collingwood, and Gold Coast. From the table I understand Howarth joined Collingwood but was she before that with Brisbane or Gold Coast? Smith joined Gold Coast, but was did she play before that for Collingwood or Brisbane? Who were picks 59 & 68 traded from? It gives an incomplete picture. --SuperJew (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Also another minor point I have with this format is that I don't think we need 3 references for the same trade if all the information is contained in one of them. --SuperJew (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've addressed your first point in my most recent edit. As for sources, I don't think we should just be using a single source for the whole table, and if you were to use one source for each trade, how would you choose which one to use? At least sourcing per club per trade means each acquistion is sourced, as not every source (e.g. for trades involving three or more clubs like you referred to) contains all of the information – for example, this doesn't highlight the Ella Smith component. I don't see how this is an issue whatsoever. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  10:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue. It's a minor point. If not all the information is in one reference, then sure we need to have citations sourcing all the information. But if it's just a repeat, there's no need that's all. (for example both Gold Coast and North Melbourne show the same information exactly about the pick swap.) --SuperJew (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see the change now. Thank you, that's a definate improvement and much clearer. --SuperJew (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 AFL Women's Grand Final
Looking for a DYK hook for the 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final. Barnstar awarded for suggestions at Template:Did you know nominations/2023 AFL Women's Grand Final. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  03:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Template data for Template:AFLGame
Howdy all. I've just added template data for Template:AFLGame which will theoretically make it a whole lot easier to add, update and edit games using the visual editor. Rather than parameters appearing simply as '1', '2', '3' etc. (thereby needing to know what number represents which parameter if updating a game with missing data), the parameters should all appear properly labelled, with the unnamed params serving as aliases for the named params. I've tested it on existing game templates and it works well, particularly the dropdown list of options (V, H, A, D) for the match result.

The only fields I determined should be mandatory 'home team', 'winner' (result), and 'away team'. Everything else (such as 'date', 'venue', 'crowd'), even the scores) has the potential to be missing data, especially in the case of olden times. This is my first time editing template data, and while I consider myself a fairly experienced Wikipedian having been here 15+ years, I'd still like someone with experience in the field to take a glance over it all — and, if possible, remove the existing parameter descriptions from the transcluded /doc so that only the new parameter descriptions appear on the template page.

In time, I'd like to complete the template data for Template:AFLGameDetailed, Template:AFLGameHeader, Template:AFLGameFooter and Template:AFLGameBye too. It'll make everything a lot cleaner. Cheers! Gibbsyspin 01:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've now completed inputting template data for all five AFLGame templates! The detailed match template in particular took a long time, but I'm very satisfied with how it's turned out. Again, feel free to take a look over it and see how it appears from your end. Gibbsyspin 05:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Nick Blakey nickname - Thinking Man's Warwick Capper
Input is requested at, regarding whether that is a legitimate nickname. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Australian rules football
Australian rules football has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Move request on Talk:Fremantle Football Club
Visit if interested. – Teratix ₵ 09:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Brian Wilson
Noticed some inconsistency in the article naming convention at Brian Wilson (disambiguation), I'm not sure how you guys do the naming but one is labelled footballer and the other is labelled Australian rules footballer. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to be WP:BOLD this article probably should be at Brian Wilson (footballer, born 1961) per WP:TITLECON. As a Brownlow medallist, Wilson's article was very stubby, so I've taken this as a chance for a modest expansion, but if others have some further expansion ideas, that would be great. Storm machine (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Reserve seasons
Hey, I've added the full fixture for the 2024 VFL season. If someone has some time to help and add it to the 2024 VFL Women's season that would be great, as I don't have that much free time currently. Also another couple of people to keep an eye on these and update match results and ladder would be great :) --SuperJew (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Do the VFL Women's seasons really even meet GNG? Other than sometimes having a news article about the grand final result, there's scarcely an independent reference in any of them. (Same goes for Coates Talent League and some of the other minor grade season articles we have floating around). I'd suggest working on baseline referencing to test whether this would even survive an AfF before putting any time into transcribing scores off AustralianFootball.com. Aspirex (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah good question. I was just looking and see for 2023 VFL Women's season the results weren't added, so won't waste my time for this season. --SuperJew (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aspirex there's enough paywalled articles from News Corp, and other primary and secondary sources to withstand a GNG related query for the top level women's football season articles (VFLW/SANFLW/WAFLW). I can't say I care enough about the U18s competition to bother finding stuff about that, but I know there's a dedicated following because of the draft/recruiting process.
 * @SuperJew I think it's fine not to have the round by round results, but to have it as an external link to either the AustralianFootball.com page or the official fixture list. My preference would be to have this consistent across all the men's and women's subelite competitions, but I'm ambivalent when other editors are happy to keep the VFL/SANFL/WAFL results updated. With the VFLW for 2024, I've been trying to work out how to tackle the presence of the two NSW AFLW teams in this competition and whether to have them in the ladder with the note that neither team can make finals etc, or keep the ladder as it currently is. Storm machine (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just follow the last couple of NAB League seasons lead. List the WLDs at the bottom of the ladder table without giving them a finishing position. Aspirex (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say go with how the AFL site lists them on their ladder. On a side note it's interesting that they chose this format, when Gold Coast won the 2023 VFL season. --SuperJew (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * well now I'm totally confused. They have Sydney & GWS in 3rd-4th place, even though they have only 4 points and places 5-8 have more points than them. Not sure what they're ranking by... --SuperJew (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The AFL website will likely have hardcoded match ratio as the deciding factor and should be ignored. Either put Syd/GWS at the bottom of the ladder without positions or put their results in a separate table, but they should absolutely not be ranked in the ladder of a premiership they aren't eligible for. Aspirex (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And your reliable source for this is? --SuperJew (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a style and understandability choice, not a sourcing choice. There is no argument in the world that would convince me that the way the academy teams are presented in the ladder in this old revision is anything but nonsense. Aspirex (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That ladder doesn't cite a source. But looking on quick Google search, AFL Victoria present the info as such. I personally think the version you showed is correct if they were playing for points (just needs the addition of a note explaining the difference in background colour). The way it is presented now with there being a skip between places 11 and 14 (and also no note), it looks like there is missing information. --SuperJew (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's just a mistake, it should be 12 and 13, which I've now fixed. Aspirex (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're doing whatever you think is correct, not relying on reliable sources. Regardless I'm not gonna start getting into a war over a youth league ladder from 5 years ago. --SuperJew (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)