Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AFLGameDetail vs AFLGameDetailed template

[edit]

(Note: I'm breaking this discussion about resolving an agreed format for Template:AFLGameDetailed vs Template:AFLGameDetail off from the above 'AFL finals series articles subsection, as it's turned into somewhat of a separate discussion) Aspirex (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of this new AFLGameDetail template compared with the old AFLGameDetailed template we've been using for many years. Seems superfluous and counter to the usual reporting of scores to list Q4-Q1-Q2-Q3-Q4 rather than Q1-Q2-Q3-Q4. I suggest we stick to the old template. Aspirex (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Aside from the improvements to the formatting/coding (makes it easier to edit, and does away with less important information like injuries and reports to still keep it reasonably compact), it keeps the teams and final score on the same line so that the top line is formatted exactly the same way as AFLGame (keeps the formatting consistent rather than transition to team-Q1-Q2-Q3-Q4 – don't see the need to separate the bold elements) while still including a full score progression for completeness. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the question to everyone as we should resolve this, since we really shouldn't have competing detailed game templates in the project. I do think we can (and should) agree not to include reports and injuries in this context, regardless of chosen template. Aspirex (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created it to replace AFLGameDetailed, not to compete with it – gradually introducing it to the season articles (as a starting point) will take a while. Otherwise, if we can't have a "scorecard" template that improves on the existing template's flaws/is closer in formatting to AFLGame, then as far as I'm concerned, we get rid of it along with the finals series articles, stick to just AFLGame in the season articles like we have been and omit the template from grand final articles. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 04:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that you created it to replace AFLGameDetailed. My point is that we should agree project-level which template (or combination thereof) to use now and get it into the existing AFLGameDetailed name (and subsequently PROD AFLGameDetail), rather than ending up with different templates and having them appear inconsistently across the project. When comparing the pair, my objections to the new template are: the inclusion of the final scores on the top line, since it creates a non-chronology above the Q1–Q3 scores and an unnecessary repetition; and the elimination of the option to include injuries and reports in a full-detailed scorecard – since these have been features of standard Australian rules football boxscores/scorecards for many years (I would just keep it as having the option to include those rows, but then developing the practice of using those options only in game articles, not season articles). Aspirex (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for VFL Women's seasons and more

[edit]

Interesting that an editor here has decided this was a good idea:

Rather than discussing here about improving these articles, especially about women's sport.

If this is the path chosen, there's a whole swathe of articles on Australian football that will soon to vanish into the ether due to this interpretation of WP:GNG. Storm machine (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this "whole swathe of articles on Australian football" can't meet the reasonable standard of having a few independent sources that give their topics some decent coverage, then we'll never be able to meaningfully improve them and it's doubtful they're worth keeping. If a series of articles lack decent sources and you can't find any on your own search, it's perfectly fine to put them up for deletion. – Teratix ₵ 02:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they can be improved. A bulk AfD for every single season article for the VFL Women's, TAC Cup (etc.) and TAC Cup Girls (etc.) seems extremely destructive without at least first making some type of effort to improve any one of ~40 said articles. I am confused as to the willingness of some individuals here to wave the AfD or GNG wand like it is nothing. There is so much more that can be done in WP:AFL than deleting the comparatively small amount of information that we do have online. Gibbsyspin 10:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they can be improved. Well, that's the very point in question, isn't it? If there's no good sources out there, then there's no prospect of genuine improvement. wave the AfD or GNG wand like it is nothing. The GNG isn't a particularly demanding standard, really – there's an abundance of sources that cover past and present Australian football. If we can't find a couple of decent sources covering a particular topic, then how are we supposed to write a decent article on it? That's all GNG is. – Teratix ₵ 14:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they're right or not, I would have at least discussed it first so as to be more collaborative than destructive and not put some people (evidently) off-side. As we've done with plenty of topics before, would have been nice to discuss potential improvements here as a project rather than via mass deletion discussions; given the amount of time/effort put into the VFLW season articles, for example (even contributing photos for the 2024 article), I'd be pretty pissed off too if I was Storm machine. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed club shortcut template deletions or changes

[edit]

Template:WAFL Cla has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.

as well as all other WAFL & WAFLW team shortcut templates. The-Pope (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or is the entry not loading? Gibbsyspin 08:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to go to the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 5 log. The link is to 9 September. Aspirex (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the link. --SuperJew (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, the discussion was relisted/continued at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#WAFL link templates. In addition (some of you, as the templates' creators, might have already been notified), Jonesey95 nominated the AFLW templates for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 14#Template:AFLW WB and other AFLW link templates on the basis of merging to a single template, though there hasn't been a final decision/consensus reached at the WAFL and WAFLW discussions yet – Jonesey95 just said "merge if kept" and started doing it. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The single template solution proposed by Jonesy seems ok, but it then opens up the door to "why even have a template for every league, just have a single {{ARFClubShortCut}} template for all leagues". Whilst {{AFLW}} was available for creation & use for this task, a lot of {{AFL}}, {{WAFL}} etc are already in use for navboxes. Whatever the outcome will be, it will be a fair bit of work for someone to set up and switch over, and then we need to relearn what's worked fairly well for years. I guess that's less important to some people than the horror of having about a hundred entirely fit for purpose, but undocumented, individual templates. The-Pope (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's always blatantly obvious to me that the people who suggest and advocate these discussions are people who haven't and won't edit in the field they are talking about. Very sad tbh --SuperJew (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as the {{ARFClubShortCut}} idea sounds horrifying at first, perhaps we could investigate whether that kind of solution could work for us. It would be interesting to see a short code that works across the AFL/AFLW and the state-level competitions that is as editor friendly as the known codes. Storm machine (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Experimented this morning with Template:Australian Football team which shortcuts to {{AFteam|Team name}}. I've included all the AFL VFL/W, SANFL, WAFL link templates in use and bundled them together into the switch format that the editors pointed us to be similar to the rugby union template. I had hoped to make the shortcut code shorter, but the ones I could think of were being used elsewhere and as this is the first step in creating this so I thought it best to not stray into other territory.
If other editors want to have a look, fix anything I've missed etc, come up with a better shortcut if possible, then we could embark upon the steps to then implement this down the line (if the consensus is to move forward with this rather than the status quo). Storm machine (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have created and/or updated the three merged team link templates, and have completed the migration for two of them, and I will be happy to help in any way this project deems useful. I don't know if One Team Link Template To Rule Them All would be easy for editors to use compared to the existing templates, but I'd be willing to help troubleshoot it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So following these changes we now have {{West Australian Football League}} and {{WAFL}} which from the names I'd expect to be the same template with one redirecting to the other, but they're actually quite different. Sorry, this whole thing has made IMO a big mess. --SuperJew (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to have this discussion after the template merges but before any further action was taken, I think. I moved {{WAFL}} to {{West Australian Football League navbox}} to follow the clear guideline at Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines. When the former template was created in 2005, template naming was much more lax; Wikipedia is moving away from cryptic template names in general. For the subsequent history of {{WAFL}} and {{West Australian Football League navbox}}, you'll have to talk to 4TheWynne, who changed the redirect targets and performed further moves. I see that {{WAFL}} is used in 722 pages; replacing {{WAFL XX}} with {{WAFL|XX}} is a straightforward change in habit for editors, so the change in redirect is probably for the best.
There are many more sets of these templates (SANFL etc.), so it would be good to come up with a coherent naming system for team-linking templates and navbox templates that follows the template guidelines and makes editing easy for editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason you're answering me as if I wasn't an active participant in these discussions. Therefore I will pretend you weren't there either and just quote what I wrote at the TfD: Your whole theory doesn't vibe with the Wikipedia editing reality either. Let's have a look at leagues, shall we? Both locally and internationally. Australia's major sports: {{AFL}}, {{NRL}}, {{Super Rugby}}, {{A-League Men}}. America's Big 4: {{NBA}}, {{MLB}}, {{NFL}}, {{NHL}}. Europe's soccer Big Five: {{Premier League}}, {{Bundesliga}}, {{Serie A}}, {{Ligue 1}}. Out of 13, only {{La Liga}} is the exception, with 12 out of 13 of the biggest sports leagues the main navbox is named after the name of the league. You really believe that your take is the correct one? (and I'll give you WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), start setting the consensus at the bigger leagues before making a change to a state level league which let's be fair only Aussies care about (and even in Australia only the ones in the West). --SuperJew (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Have a good one --SuperJew (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All or most of those template links are to redirects, because the templates were moved to more readable names, as the template guidelines instruct. Maybe you (or someone here) could start with specific concerns about specific AFL templates. As an example, {{SANFL}} does not exist, so making a merged template for the team link templates currently in Category:South Australian National Football League templates should be easy. The navbox {{EDFL}}, on the other hand, exists, so if the project wants to proceed with merged team-linking templates, that navbox would need to be moved to a template-guideline-conforming name before Category:Essendon District Football League templates could be merged into a single easy-to-use team link template. {{NEAFL}} is the same situation as {{EDFL}}. A list of AFL-related navboxes and team-linking template categories would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're raising concerns, you're just ignoring them.
Now, let's see you said All or most of those template links are to redirects, because the templates were moved to more readable names, as the template guidelines instruct. So according to you for most of these leagues, the navbox about the league (not the team-linking templates) should be named "X League navbox" and not at "X League".
Let's break it down 1 by 1:
So you are right about All or most of those template links are to redirects, because the templates were moved to more readable names, as the template guidelines instruct. for 1 out of 13, which is 7.7%, which I would say is not "most" and surely not "all". I'd appreciate if you'd read arguments before you answer them. I checked my information before writing it as a reply to you and I expect other editors to do the same. If you don't want to check before writing incorrect information, then don't it's preferable not to reply or to assume that whoever wrote to you checked it and it's correct. --SuperJew (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: Regarding the first part of your answer, the guideline you quoted says Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates. I'd say that the name of the league as the template name very clearly shows the function -> a template about the league. And 12/13 of the major sporting leagues worldwide being named as they currently are strengthens that. You also wrote Wikipedia is moving away from cryptic template names in general, yet I don't see any evidence for this claim. --SuperJew (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the target for {{WAFL}} because things like {{WAFL team|XXX}} are what those of us who strongly opposed at the TFDs were really trying to avoid, and {{WAFL|XXX}} is more straightforward like you said/far less of an adjustment, so I don't see why you went the other way initially, Jonesey95. I don't, however, think that we need to throw "navbox" on the end of the league template names – create {{<league> navbox}} as a redirect, sure, but otherwise just leave the templates as the league names (e.g. {{AFL navbox}} → {{Australian Football League}}); I also don't think that the team template needs to be fully spelled out like {{West Australian Football League team}} was – {{WAFL team}} would have sufficed (e.g. {{AFL}} → {{AFL team}}). Making these uniform across all leagues would at least be more straightforward and won't require us as a project to completely relearn what's worked for us for years, as opposed to catch-all templates like {{AFteam}} or {{ARFClubShortCut}} floated above, which I'm strongly against (sorry Storm machine). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SuperJew, you misunderstood my point, which was that redirects like {{NBA}} are the result of template moves that followed the guideline about naming of templates, whereas AFL templates like {{EDFL}} do not yet follow that guideline. I think that replacing a space with a pipe in template transclusions (e.g. {{SANFL Ade}} becomes {{SANFL|Ade}}) is ultimately the best outcome for the panoply of team link templates, but I am open to any reasonable naming system that is the result of a consensus discussion and that adheres to template guidelines. I would love to see more participation from project members. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: You wrote I moved {{WAFL}} to {{West Australian Football League navbox}} Why didn't you move it then to {{West Australian Football League}} as is consensus over most of major leagues? --SuperJew (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4TheWynne No worries at all re the idea I floated to work through this external issue. Hence why I did it that way, rather than blunt force approaches. I can see the benefit of the subst route, but it will require consensus to progress any further. Storm machine (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4TheWynne: I understand your point about the ease of editing and updating from previous to current. However, I feel it's confusing that {{League abbreviation}} redirects to {{League full name team}} or to {{League abbreviation team}} when I'd expect it to redirect to {{League full name}}. This is exactly why I was so opposed to this whole concept -> just makes a lot of muck and nonsense bureacracy for no gain whatsoever apart from maybe a couple bytes saved on the server. --SuperJew (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SuperJew, don't get me wrong, I definitely agree that this was forced upon us with little to gain, but it's done, and sacrificing the league abbreviation–league full name link is definitely the lesser of two evils here; that's why I jumped on the WAFL templates, to keep the change minimal. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4TheWynne: Fair enough, it just royally pisses me off that it was discussed at TfD with people for it never touching the project before and will never in the future, while all the project members opposed it. And now one person who was in the discussion is pretending they're trying to help while really not listening to anything being said. --SuperJew (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that all the project members opposed it appears to be incorrect. I see supportive comments from Aspirex and Teratix, for example. Many of the project members appeared to misunderstand the discussion, thinking that the templates would be deleted instead of merged. Widely used and useful templates are almost never deleted outright. I'll sign off for now; anyone from this project is welcome to ping me or drop a note on my talk page if they desire technical help with project templates. I do urge the project to consider thoughtful renaming and merging of these templates rather than waiting for scattershot moves and TFDs that will inevitably come as non-project editors stumble across these template names and structures that are out of step with current practices and guidelines. It's better to take charge of your own destiny than to fight bushfires in an emergency fashion. Best of luck to all of you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, seems you're not bothering to read what people are saying. Aspirex wrote these shortcut templates are a ubiquitous and efficient feature of WP:AFL editing; and their functionality should be so quickly obvious to editors of any experience level that it renders "makes the wikitext harder to read" no more than a minor inconvenience, not a reason for wholesale deletion. and later supported your compromise. --SuperJew (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah shit, look what happens when you subst these type of templates. Do you have a solution for this Jonesey95? --SuperJew (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been adjusted to allow substing to work. FWIW, a downside to substing is that if women's teams ever gets their own separate articles, the template can be adjusted easily to make all of the transclusions link to the new pages, while substed links would need to be adjusted manually. Caveat subster. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the adjustment. I thought one of the main points of opposition to these templates was that they make the wikicode harder to read? substing deals with that. --SuperJew (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon just use the templates normally so that we can continue using them the way we have been and not have to worry about manually changing any of them later. Also, I've started a requested move for the {{WAFL}} template and would really appreciate some input – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark of the Year pages

[edit]

Looking into Mark of the Year, I recalled that there were individual pages per season, but couldn't find it. In the end I tracked down 2013 AFL Mark of the Year. Further searching I found that similar pages for Goal of the Year (AFL) had been redirected to the main page following this AfD. I'm wondering if season MotY pages should be redirected too or if it should go through an AfD process. If not, I think we should have a navbox with all of the links. Thanks to GPT, here's a list of links per year: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 --SuperJew (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While on the subject, thought it worth generating a list of GotY too: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023. Seems all the blue links are redirects to the main page. Would it be worth creating the rest as redirects too? --SuperJew (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better to delete them and set the standard that individual years are non-linked rather than have a whole lot of redirects. Aspirex (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it makes sense to have a redirect if we've decided an individual year isn't notable enough for a page. A reader looking for 2023 AFL Mark of the Year would probably prefer to be redirected to the page about Mark of the Year which will include the basic info (winner) of 2023 than to have to then search for Mark of the Year. --SuperJew (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, a reader who starts to type in "2023 MotY" and sees many suggestions come up will be surprised to find they are all redirects. We don't create season-by-seasion redirects for every annual event that doesn't have season-by- season pages. Aspirex (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Parker

[edit]

I was looking for information about Wil Parker's contract status at Collingwood. He signed as a Cat B rookie in Feb 2024, which as far as I know is a season long contract, and I haven't seen anything stating he's re-signed. From a Google search I came up with Draftguru - does anyone know if this is a reliable source? --SuperJew (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Players can spend three seasons max on a club's rookie list, so Collingwood can keep Parker there for 2025 should they offer him a contract (he might have received a two-year Cat B rookie deal when signed earlier this year). After two years a player is entitled to move on as a free agent if they are offered any deal elsewhere. Storm machine (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yeah I know he can spen up to three years as a Cat B rookie. Was wondering if anyone knows any reliable sources telling us how long he actually signed for. And also if Draftguru is reliable. --SuperJew (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a lot of issues finding any reliable sources on matters of rookie contacts. I would consider draftguru a reasonable way to be best endeavors accurate; I wouldn't trust it for anything BLP-sensitive, but for what you're talking about it should be fine. Aspirex (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_rules_football&oldid=1255570059"