Talk:2020 AFL season

The stadium map

I just saw this and it's a great inclusion. I was just wondering what is the meaning of a finals venue? I ask because Adelaide Oval, the Gabba and GIANTS Stadium have all hosted finals matches but aren't listed as so. WDM10 (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If I were to speculate (and that's all it is, since the map comes from a template), a previous year's map which only shows that year's finals matches has just been copy pasted in. Best option in my view is to remove the finals/ non- finals distinction. Aspirex (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ladder progression

Thought I should open a discussion on how to handle the ladder progression/ Coleman progression table given there will be postponed games. Should the table reflect rounds as numbered (which would require recalculated ladders later on) or reflect status as of the scheduled end of the round with any games played between rounds just reflected in a single box (e.g. Essendon credited with two wins in one round of they win their make-up game and scheduled game, and a footnote/ format indicating that a box includes two matches) Aspirex (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Treat it as if it were a bye as I have done. --RoryK8 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the table should reflect rounds as numbered, as the Essendon vs. Melbourne match is still a round 3 match (despite the AFL being a bit looser with the terminology this season because of matches being squished together, etc.) – I don't think it will be that difficult to recalculate ladders/totals. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a bad idea. A ladder progression suggests that to measure the ladder over time rather than by round. It just so happens that rounds and matches are generally chronological. Say Essendon beat Melbourne. It would be wrong to say they were second after Round 3 because the ladder after Round 3, though incomplete, had Essendon in fourth. This is also more complicated to re-calculate than you think. It has a run-on effect for each successive round that the match is not played. It is both inaccurate and inconvenient.

Furthermore, on other sports pages with ladder progression, when a game is cancelled and replayed, there is a footnote at the bottom explaining that the ladder is taken at the end of the scheduled round. To be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, we must treat Round 3 and 4 as if they are over, and add a note to Essendon and Melbourne when their game is rescheduled. --RoryK8 (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with RoryK8. A recalculated ladder is a fictional construct - a reflection of something that never really existed - and a chronological table better tells the story of the season. Aspirex (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Rescheduled games

As it becomes clear that there are going to be lot of rescheduled games, I suggest we only specifically call out reschedules which occur within 7 days of the planned game day - I.e. what's happening now to round 5 gets explained in full, but whatever happens to round 6 and 7 as a result of the quarantine on Victorians does not. From a long term historical perspective, this feels like appropriate weight. Aspirex (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is a significant shake up after this week's games, I think it is best to make a footnote on Round 6 that says there were significant changes to the fixture.--RoryK8 (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Crowd per game

I'd like to get rid of the 'crowd per game' figure for the 2020 season. It's of dubious value at the best of times, but it's meaningless in a year with so many locked out crowds, neutral state games and games with tiny imposed limits. But we need a template guru to figure out how to do it. Aspirex (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It is part of the template. Not really much we can do. RoryK8 (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Elimination and Qualification Status

On the ladder, many people have reverted my edits showing Adelaide to be eliminated. Though Adelaide can get 24 points, which is 8th placed Melbourne's point total, as Melbourne are playing Greater Western Sydney, who are also on 24 points, Adelaide can not catch both of these teams. Please do not revert my qualification and elimination status edits, there are not sourced, however, I did code a python script to compliment an integer solving programme, which means my edits are sourced in mathematics. RoryK8 (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit troubling that in one of your recent edits, you said that "Please leave the status updates to me. I am the one who uses a computer programme to determine said statuses". As you may be aware, article content must be verifiable. More specifically, articles must not contain original research. Your appeal to your 'computer programme' potentially fails the verifiability requirement and definitely fails the no original research requirement. Chrisclear (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I will try to be more clear in future. When the model tells me that some event is infeasible, I general have to prove to myself why. In the case of North Melbourne a couple of weeks ago, there were five matches I needed to list. What is the best way you would suggest I do when making one of these updates. For example, say Sydney lost today, which they didn't, would an explanation of "Sydney's maximum points is 28, Melbourne (8th) and GWS (9th) are on 28 points and they play each other" suffice. RoryK8 (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, this isn't original research. I can link you the article where I found the mathematics for the programme. RoryK8 (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Model was built of the mathematics from this paper. Points for wins and draws were adjusted, as were other variable in relation to how many teams there are, how many teams play finals etc. https://www.academia.edu/19804225/An_application_of_integer_programming_to_playoff_elimination_in_football_championships RoryK8 (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, it is clearly original research. It's also unimportant, since three weeks from now the finals will be decided and all the Qs and Es will come off the ladder. Aspirex (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think this is original research, the source verifies the mathematics. Besides, if I can explain in the edit summary why a team is eliminated then there isn't a problem. RoryK8 (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It's using a scientific method to draw otherwise unpublished conclusions. Textbook definition of research. Like I say, it doesn't bother me because it's temporary content anyway, but in a debate on policy I do have to side against you. Aspirex (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Then why is this seen as appropriate to do on FIFA World Cup qualification pages when FIFA doesn't do this either. RoryK8 (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Length of quarters

I saw some games yesterday where the quarters seems to go for periods of time well up towards the mid-twenty minute mark. Are they still limited to 16 minutes plus time on? Or has this changed? Or is this just quirk of the way games are currently being played? HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's still 16 minute quarters plus added time. This will stay in place for the rest of the season per this article. WDM10 (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. My concern is that that article is dated back in May. Many unusual changes have happened "on the fly" during this unusual season, and my observations are here in mid-August. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Highest attendence

The highest attended game is the All Star game. It should be listed in the infobox. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a fair point. I'd agree with that. The "2020 AFL season" is more than just the premiership matches contained within it. Aspirex (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree, but the template does specify that it is the 2020 premiership season. Whilst the All Stars game was the single match with the highest attendance, it was not a premiership point match and should not be considered for this position. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility Fix for Win-Loss Table.

As it stands, the Win Loss Table only conveys information about Wins and Losses via colour. The problem with this that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's web accessibility guidelines. I propose that we choose to convey the information with a symbol as well as the colours already in place, using a +, - and = sign for Wins, Losses and Draws respectively. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind this, but you would have to do it for all of the other VFL/AFL season pages to remain consistent. RoryK8 (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Also a draw doesn't need plus, minus or equals as it's a neutral number, and therefore, 0 on its on would imply a draw. RoryK8 (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair Call in regards to the Draw, but if we're going to implement it I'll work from 2007 through to this current season. (2007 is the first season with the Win-Loss Table present). We'd also have to update the Legend for the Table. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I did a few win loss tables from 1897 onwards. Will have to do those as well. RoryK8 (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, are pluses really necessary. Doing only minuses should suffice. RoryK8 (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, another discussion is whether to put the pre-finals ladder rank, or post-finals ladder rank in the "Ladder" column. This seems to be inconsistent between pages. RoryK8 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It covers both the win and loss side of it - if you have one unmarked and one marked margin it may get confusing (even with a legend). It's more for consistency than anything, really. Not necessary, but practical. In regards to the Ladder rank, we could simply do what many others do and do the Home-Away Ladder rank, then specify the Premier among those. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I take issue with home-and-away rank. Post finals rank is what is used by the Football Record. RoryK8 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You could also do both, ordered in the Post-Finals rank then adding an additional column with the Pre finals Rank (I.E, Bulldogs from 2016 would be 1st, but the additional column would have the seventh they initially finished. Additionally, would this work for an updated legend?

Colour	Symbol	Result
Green	+	Win
Red	-	Loss
Blue	N/A	Draw

Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Legend looks good. For the Ladder rank, using your example, I think 7 (1) would be better. Bold meaning finals. Brackets is finals rank. RoryK8 (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've got no problem with your version, would just need to specify in a legend what the additional number means so as not to confuse people. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I think this is resolved, unless there are other issues. RoryK8 (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. No further issues. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

What should we do for the Round 6 1909 forfeit? RoryK8 (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant as there's no Win/Loss table for the 1909 page, but it could simply be resolved by attaching the already present note to the result (St. Kilda 'won' in margin and in colour, but the note attached makes shows the actual winner of the match?) Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Coleman Medal Table.

Just wanted to ask if we should subscript number for running tally like previous seasons tables. Also, like previous season, should we also add a blue background for the current leader. RoryK8 (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason not to have consistency across the seasons. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ladder Vandalism

A user with IP address 49.193.52.123 vandalised the ladder on 30 September. Today, he has made error with the ladder after it was updated. I will assume good faith. Is there anything we can do if this behaviour continues. RoryK8 (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The same person today has preempted a result. Is there anything we can do? RoryK8 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe there is, barring of course reverting said edits if they are not constructive and asking said user not to partake in that said behaviour any longer. We don't want to scare them off, but we do want them to operate inside the rules. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Different IP. More vandalism. I think we need to do something now. RoryK8 (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand, but we can't do much except request the page become protected against IP users for a limited period (That is, only autoconfirmed accounts can edit). If you want to take that actions, I would not be against it. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't have a problem. Issue seems to spreading to other sections of the article. RoryK8 (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Teams and 'Hubbing'

Initiating this chat because this has suddenly become a point of contention.

What do we consider to be a 'hubbed' team? I bring this up because Port Adelaide in particular is having multiple edits performed in regards to whether or not they were still considered 'hubbed' in Round 7. This could also extend to Round 6, as the same circumstances were present there. Both the South Australian teams were permitted to leave the 'hubbed' region after Round 5, flying back into the state for their round 6 matches, with Port Adelaide repeating this for their Round 7 match.

As I understand it, the two SA teams should be established as having been in the hub until Round 5, then flying in/out, whereas the two WA teams left the hub after Round 6. I believe this is how the page should represent the situation.

As there is clearly contention over this currently we must come to a consensus quickly. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't be any contention. If they weren't living in Queensland, then they weren't hubbing. No argument. Aspirex (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree there shouldn't be argument, but it appears the general consensus is that the SA teams were considered 'hubbed' in Round 6 as well, despite the FIFO. I'll change this preemptively to my earlier proposal, and ask it remains that way until we come to a final decision. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that they left the hub before round 6 when I contributed to that section. I had cites from when the hub started but hadn't seen one where they left early. Aspirex (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Guy's i accidently messed up Week 1 of the finals

and i dont know how to fix it. Whoops. Sorry

Fixed it. WDM10 (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't stress. RoryK8 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Milestone Games

Alright, just thought I should bring up this conversation in regards to the Milestone Games for Players.

Under the AFL's website, they consider every game that is a multiple of 50 to be a milestone game, which can be confirmed when looking at the given player list for a game. I'd like to open a discussion about where we should draw a line in regards to milestone games. Currently, it's drawn at 200 games. Should we increase this to include all games (50, 100 150 etc.) or redraw the line at say, 150?

Thanks, Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The current norms were set up in 2013 here: [1], setting milestone notability for the AFL season page at multiples of 50 games starting at 200 and multiples of 100 goals starting at 500. I led the push at the time (I've always been keen on keeping the main season page lean and letting the individual club season pages house some of the lower level achievements) and still stick to my view that this is the appropriate level of detail/importance for the top AFL season page; and that any multiple of 50 games is notable for individual club season pages. Aspirex (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Overuse of nicknames

It seems to be becoming more prevalent for editors to add nicknames to club names in AFL articles. Overnight we had "Richmond tigers or west coast eagles or Geelong Cats" added. I see no need for the nicknames. What's wrong with "Richmond or west coast or Geelong "? HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Stylistically I'm very much in favour of dropping the nicknames. Certain combinations (especially Carlton Blues and St Kilda Saints) are almost never spoken. That said, if we want to be precise, official AFL records (fixtures, etc.) always style the following eight clubs by name and nickname: Adelaide Crows, Brisbane Lions, GWS Giants, Geelong Cats, Western Bulldogs, Gold Coast Suns, West Coast Eagles, Sydney Swans; and the other ten clubs by name alone. Aspirex (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

OK. For the new interstate clubs I can perhaps understand the nicknames being there, though they surely aren't actually needed. Western Bulldogs would be the official club name. (I think that was an unfortunate name change, but...) For Geelong though, this ageing fan sees no point in using the nickname. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

From the looks of it, these edits were made an IP User with no understanding of the practices employed. What you have suggested is primarily encouraged by the AFL WikiProject. A consensus has clearly already been made on this issue prior, and any further discussion in regards to nicknames should probably take place on its talk page rather than here. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Stadium Sponsor Names

Why does Wiki Project Australian Football insist on using sponsor names of venues. Personally, I prefer non-sponsor names, especially considering that some venues are mainly known by their non-sponsor name, i.e. Kardinia Park. RoryK8 (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree. This old timer gets very confused by the sponsored names. They do not assist reader comprehension of our articles. And those sponsors aren't paying Wikipedia anything to mention their names. I would support any campaign to revert to the non-sponsored names. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Use of the current sponsored name is basically universal across Wikipedia sports projects as a whole. Our job is to help the interpretation when talking over numerous name changes. I'm sure this has been agreed to somewhere before, but I'd have to go searching to find it. Certainly nothing has changed to drive any different treatment of it today. Aspirex (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand "Our job is to help the interpretation when talking over numerous name changes." Are you saying, yes, there IS a problem with numerous name changes because of sponsored names? HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying it can be an inconvenience. But that doesn't mean that incorrect/uncommon names can be used. Aspirex (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the formal, long term, non-changing names? HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"Doesn't mean incorrect/uncommon names can be used". There are many issues with this statement. One, non-sponsor names are neither incorrect nor uncommon. Two, why would the wiki articles of said stadiums use their "incorrect/uncommon" names. Example Perth Stadium, Kardinia Park, Carrara Stadium etc. RoryK8 (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel the strong urge to argue a point which was settled ten years ago (talk page of 2011 session) but basically:

1) the search engine test had been done before and always favors the sponsored name in the context of the season being chronicled 2) when chronicling the history of a season, the existence of those sponsored names is indeed a part of that season's history (which is where the distinction between using traditional name for stadium page vs sponsored name for season page is justifiable) 3) The use of sponsored stadium names is pretty much universal in this context across other sports wikiprojects. Nothing has changed since the last time this was debated nine years ago to prompt a change to existing consensus.

Aspirex (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was clearly not reached there either. The main issue is, with sponsor names constantly changing, a casual fan may be unable to recognise what GMHBA Stadium means. Kardinia Park is the most well known name. I fundamentally disagree that GMHBA Stadium is the common name, and in conversation, it is rarely used, probably due to the absurd name. RoryK8 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

GMHBA probably does have less cut-through than any other AFL stadium name at present, but it's still in pretty wide use compared with Kardinia Park (especially when you exclude metonymic references to the GFC itself). It's certainly not an obscure name. Aspirex (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that "it's still in pretty wide use compared with Kardinia Park". Maybe we mix in different circles. The name Kardinia Park hasn't changed for 100 years. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to side with Aspirex on this issue - whilst the grounds in use do have a common name which is applicable under certain circumstances, pages such as this - which are current to the season at hand - should almost certainly use the name that is under common use at the time. The AFL, as an example, uses the sponsored name "GMHBA Stadium" in an official capacity as opposed to "Kardinia Park". Aspirex is right in this regard - the Stadium's current sponsered name should be used for the time period covered. Furthermore, Stadium pages are named after their unsponsored title and contain information which clarifies the distinction between Sponsored and Unsponsored name. I would like to request any further discussion is moved the the Wikiproject talk page as this discussion is applicable to all pages, not just this one. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The AFL (or it's member clubs) get paid to use the sponsored name. Hardly an independent source. Wikipedia doesn't get paid, and it's not our job to do the sponsors' advertising. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

HiLo, I have opened a discussion here for this conversation to continue. Please refrain from further adding to this thread and repost your contention on that thread. Thanks. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy for sponsored names to be used in the season articles, but all piped links to unsponsored articles. This page is to reflect the season as it is at the time, basically a snapshot. We would use players names as known at the time (Harris/Lake, Wilkes/Meister, Donnellan/Antonio), so I don't see any difference for grounds. And, we haven't renamed the 90 odd season articles from VFL to AFL when the name changed, have we. The-Pope (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is becoming an increasingly big problem on the 2020 AFL finals series page and this page. I am calling for a ban on users without accounts editing, moving the pages to semi-protected status. RoryK8 (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

My experience is that the vast majority of these individuals do not persist past two attempts. All it needs is a reasonable amount of vigilance and reverting to discourage them. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Total Attendance / Matches

I've noticed that at one point during the season, an error has been made and the totals have not been correctly updated. However, I do not know when this occurred. I would be extremely grateful if somebody could go back and check the crowd for all 153 matches and update the statistic accordingly, as currently we have only recorded 152 matches. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"unauthorised" vs "unauthorized"

This is a bit of a minor nit, but I'm not sure which spelling is preferred in Oz. Today I found both "unauthorised" and "unauthorized" used a couple of times each in the Club medical restrictions section of the article, which looks odd. Would an Australian editor straighten this out, please? Thank you! PKT(alk) 19:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC) (in Canada)

Fixed! Just for future reference if you'd like, it's the former spelling which is the preferred spelling. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeking other editors' input on a style dispute in Round 3 regarding how to present Essendon and Melbourne in the schedule.

The display options are as follows:

• A bye (AFLGameBye template), on the basis that Round 3 was ultimately considered to have been the clubs' bye for the year.
• A listed match cited as postponed (AFLGame template), on the basis that the rescheduling was at short notice and the game's original schedule is of sufficient importance to include.
• Both of the above options. (The currently used display)

The game notes will explain the situation whichever way it ends up, so there will be no loss of content; this is just to determine the primary presentation of the information. The disputing editors did not reach a consensus or compromise, and are happy to take other editor consensus or majority vote. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)