Talk:2018 AFL season

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Australian rules football Low‑importance 2018 AFL season is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[22 Under 22 team#2017 team|22under22 team]] The anchor (#2017 team) has been deleted. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I am strongly in favour of providing this measurement of crowd attendances to portray club attendances fairly across a national competition.

The rational behind using this measurement is due two to factors.

• Clubs selling home games interstate and overseas skewing figures.
• Disproportionate number of local derbies for Victorian based teams compared to non-Victorian teams inflating attendances averages.

By using this measurement we create a level playing field for gauging clubs performances at getting their members through the turnstiles without being inflated by local opposition spectators. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose makes it too complicated for something that isn't overly complicated. No other website/publication does it like this and Wikipedia isn't somewhere to be creating new ways to display data but rather take what is from sources. Can also edge towards

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, IMO if this is introduced then it opens the flood gates for every which way to display data, keep it simple and leave this sort of stuff to Champion Data. Flickerd (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Detailed justification for the change: Due to the unique nature of the Australian Football League having one city housing more than half of the competitions teams as opposed to another professional football comparison such as the NFL where of the 32 teams only 3 cities house just two teams, the standard attendance figures for the AFL are skewed to the Victorian based teams. This way of displaying figures provides both an average for all games as well as a FAILRY DERIVED figure for all teams only taking into account attendances against non-local opposition at a clubs home ground.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs based on what you think is fair or not (

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). Stick to reliable sources. Flickerd (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

(

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) is not a relevant argument. This is about how to best portray attendances for AFL teams, not any great philosophical, political or moral point.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

This is about how to best portray attendances for AFL teams is an opinion you've formed based on the fact you think it is unfair based on state by state teams and thus does not adhere

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS are extreme in comparison, but this is still a form of trying to right a wrong. in If it was the best way to portray attendances for AFL teams, then every single publication/website would do it.... Flickerd (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It can be easily argued that it is the best way to compare attendances for AFL clubs, especially within Melbourne! The table is also not overwhelming and is very clear.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in your eyes it is very clear because you have been working on it and know the reasoning behind it, but it is not to the average reader because, to the average reader, there isn't a whole lot of reasoning behind why intrastate games would be excluded when that isn't a common practice for showing average attendances and Wikipedia should be edited for the reader. Please find me a source that does it this way and I may be able to see some justification to do it this way. Flickerd (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused why anyone wouldn't want this more useful figure for comparing home attendance between all AFL clubs as it excludes inflated figures from intrastate derbies where fanbases come from the same geographical locale.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because everyone has different opinions; what you think is more useful, I think is overly complicated and don't believe intrastate games inflate games but is rather an attendance between two teams regardless of which state they are from and where they're from is irrelevant in the scheme of attendances. That is why Wikipedia is about using sources because everyone has different opionions, preferences and so on, therefore using sources is the best way to have a neutral point of view. Flickerd (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified it further to be 'home state games vs. travelling opposition'. There is nothing controversial about including that figure in the attendance table. If anything it would be controversial to exclude it.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also provides a more accurate figure than anything else in the table as it effectively excludes home games that are sold interstate and overseas. When Hawthorn was averaging 50,000 in Melbourne but was playing a game in Tasmania in front of a dozen thousand that was interfering with the figure that the table was espousing as "home". I am just providing the most accurate representation of attendances, no moral crusade coming from me.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does take a little effort to get your head around, though. My first thought was GC v Fre... is that going to count as a Freo home game in the second column, cuz it seems like it might. It's easy enough to tell at this point that it doesn't but it be will harder later on. This discussion indicates it's meant be portray interstate travel, but the second thought I had was "is Geelong going to be a "traveller" to Melbourne? GC to Bris?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.21.19 (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from what 203.59.21.19 has brought up, who also finds it confusing, this isn't just too complex based on face value but also is too complex because the reasoning behind it requires too much explanation. Remember, most people who look at Wikipedia would not be aware of talk pages and therefore presentation of statistics should be self explanatory. The amount of explanation that has been presented for this already shows it is not self-explanatory and therefore breaches

WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH as it is an original way of presenting data which there are no sources that does it this way/backs up that this is the most accurate way to present the data. I'm sorry, but I think you need to accept that most editors and readers will find this too complex and confusing and thus is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and it is too difficult for you to have an objective point of view of its complexity as you know the exact reasoning behind it and know how to edit it. Flickerd (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't understand Flickerd's aversion to this figure. It is easy to determine home grounds, we can just use state boundaries.

Clearer title and framing - "Home state crowds against interstate opposition". SIMPLE! Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're just going to ignore 203.59.21.19's concerns too that it is too complex? This isn't just one person, another person has stated it is confusing. This is just going to go around in circles because you are not even willing to look at it from another perspective aside from your own, I will wait a few days for other editors to get involved, otherwise I will take it to WP:Dispute resolution. Flickerd (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting Australian state boundaries are too confusing? I took into account 203.59.21.19's concerns and set very clear definitions around the inputs, being the Australian state boundaries! SIMPLE! Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying the reasoning behind it is too confusing and requires far too much explanation, I understand face value, but the reasoning behind it is far too complex and there isn't a whole lot of justification for it when I've said it a million times, a) this isn't commonplace to display data like this b) having just home and average attendances keeps everything equal and doesn't require conditions c) an average reader reading this will wonder why is there an average for only games against interstate oppostion, and the answer is not self explanatory d) there are zero sources that does it like this and is therefore original research for what is an accurate way of presenting data and I could go on. Flickerd (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedians we should seek to most accurately represent the data we have access to. Due to the unique nature of the Australian Football League having a disproportionate number of teams based in Victoria the crowds in that state are inflated by the regular occurrence of local derbies. By providing a figure that only includes clubs playing their home games against interstate clubs we provide the wikipedia reader with a figure that they can use to compare all AFL clubs home attendances across the whole competition without the "local derby" effect. SIMPLES! Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that is your opinion of what is the most accurate, if it was the widespread view of what is the most accurate then there would be sources saying so/formatting that way. Your explanation just there is over 70 words and therefore is not simple, and it is not appropriate to have a tool tip of over 70 words explaining it for every reader, therefore it is an unexplained statistic in its rawest form (

WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Like I said, this is going in circles so I will wait a few days for other editors to have their say, otherwise I will take it to WP:Dispute resolution. Flickerd (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Simple justification: Excludes inflation from local derbiesThejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm sure my opposition will not surprise you given previous discussions we've had on attendance tables Talk:2014_AFL_season#Attendances and my general preference for brevity. Nevertheless, I make three points:

From a Wikipedia policy perspective, I support Flickerd's invocation of

WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH

– both policies are relevant whenever we try to recast statistics to try to make a certain point.

Critiquing the adjusted attendance metric that Thejoebloggsblog has put forward, I would say that it's a weak normalisation if its purpose is to use an adjusted attendance figure as a measure of popularity. Crowds are influenced by venue size, current quality of both teams, local support for that opponent (remember that Sydney and Brisbane have a lot of legacy South Melbourne and Fitzroy fans in Melbourne – so a club which plays home against Sydney and Brisbane would see inflated crowds vs one who played GWS and Gold Coast by this adjusted attendance metric), timeslot, weather and so on.

Finally, from a football philosophical perspective, the true main reason for distinguishing a team's home attendance from its away attendance is not as a measure of its popularity, but as a measure of gate takings and revenue. The raw home and away attendances are by far the best measure of this. Aspirex (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have an opinion of someone who doesn't support a Melbourne team? Honestly I don't think there is much of an issue of providing three sets of figures. All matches, all home fixtures, home state fixtures vs. travelling clubs. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been open for quite a few days now and there hasn't been a new comment for a few days now, so I think there is a clear consensus not to add the new column. I am going to restore the existing version on the page. Flickerd (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a bit heavy handed mate. 203.59.21.19 was open to it with clarification, which has now been rectified through a clear definition. Only two negative opinions come from supporters of Melbourne based clubs at the moment. This can wait, no one is getting hurt or confused. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should at least wait until every club has hosted an interstate opponent in their home state so we have a full table. Quite a few this weekend. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone to dispute resolution at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:2018 AFL season. Generally when there is no comment for three days, then there is unlikely to be more and the discussion has gone stale, not a situation of "just wait and see." And how would you know that "no one is getting hurt or confused", we can't read the minds of every reader. Flickerd (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, where a user is from or who they support is irrelevant because there has been zero evidence that I or Aspirex have any bias in this discussion or don't edit from a neutral point of view. This is bordering on a

WP:Good faith. Flickerd (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed. I'm also offended by the insinuation that I'm biased in this discussion. Aspirex (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose Have just discovered this discussion. This is a very odd statistic to want to add. And being argued for by someone alleging bias on the part of other editors. Not a good look. In particular, it's never going to fully "right the wrong" the proposer is concerned about. For example, Melbourne and Geelong based fans are known to drive to Sydney and Adelaide for games, and vice versa. Nobody ever drives to Perth for an ordinary game. Obviously airfares there are more expensive too. Brisbane and Gold Coast would fit somewhere in between. This proposal perhaps has good intentions behind it, but is just far too clumsy. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is hard work for fans to travel interstate to watch their team play. I'm in Melbourne to watch Port Adelaide play Essendon this weekend and it is not an easy endeavour. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A great reason for this figure is it provides a figure of the size of a match attending fan base for each club. Example: Carlton. Currently Carlton's average crowd is 62,241. However, against interstate clubs at home it is only 28,025. This 3rd figure illustrates the size of the Carlton fanbase that attends games. Whereas the first figure is skewed from having local opponents fans being included into the figure. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are making assumptions to justify your argument. Assumptions that aren't justified. I can tell you, for example, that Carlton fans are simply more interested in going to a game against long term rivals Collingwood than to a game with, say, Port Adelaide, with whom they have no particular rivalry. There is no evidence your new figure would prove anything at all. It is synthesis. If major media sources or the AFL began to routinely list such a figure, you would have a case. Right now you don't. Suggest it to the AFL and to the media. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no coincidence that a Carlton game against a local opponent has roughly double the attendance of a crowd against a travveling opponent as half the crowd for that home match is an opposition team. Whereas against a interstate team the crowd would be 95% Carton. If you let this table run to the end of the season this point will become very clear.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that assumption there would be exactly the same crowd for Victoria against Victoria-based teams games if it's the same home team, so how do you explain the difference of 12,000 supporters between Carlton home games in rounds 16 & 17 in 2017. Against Melbourne it was 47,266, against the Western Bulldogs it was 35,157, which was very similar crowds to home games against Sydney in round 6 at 32,678 and Adelaide in round 15 33,433. The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of variables that go into what makes the attendance what it is and as just pointed out, it doesn't make a huge difference where teams are from. Will we start doing attendance tables from now on based on whether it rained or not? Because that affects attendances. Flickerd (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to allow for how many other games are on that day, such as Anzac Day. This really is a silly proposal, trying to prove something that's neither provable nor an issue. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that shows the size of the Western Bulldogs?Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Or maybe not. And that is the point here. No definite conclusions can be drawn from attendance figures. And we editors should not even be trying to draw conclusions. Our job is to report what reliable sources say. Find what you want in a reliable source, and we can report it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come seasons end you’ll see that Victorian clubs play twice as many home derbies as non-Vicotrian clubs which inflates the home attendance figures of Victorian clubs. This levels the playing field excluding local derby matches.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so I decided to do some research on 2017s figures to see whether the assertion "local derbies inflate crowds" is true and that local derbies will be a much higher crowd (i.e. a game against a local opponent has roughly double the attendance of a crowd against a travelling opponent). So I did this based on home state games (i.e. not Tassie for Hawthorn and North Melbourne and not NT for Melbourne), and did it without any variables, but just taking it for what it is.

1. Adelaide's home showdown crowd was 45,028, there were seven Adelaide home games against interstate teams that had higher crowds, Essendon (47492), Richmond (51069), Melbourne (47882), St Kilda (46082), Geelong (50464) and Sydney (51466). Yes there was rain for Adelaide's home Showdown, but this new column doesn't take into variables, so this is an instance where the assertion "local derbies inflate crowds" is not true.

2. Brisbane's home Qclash crowd was 17,772, there were four Brisbane home games against interstate teams that had higher crowds, Essendon (21749), Richmond (21669), Geelong (18769) and Carlton (18847), this is another instance where where the assertion "local derbies inflate crowds" is not true.

3. Carlton had very similar crowds with local derbies Western Bulldogs (35157), Geelong (35460) and Hawthorn (35799) compared with games against travelling opposition Sydney (32678) and Adelaide (33433), this is an instance where a game against a local opponent has roughly double the attendance of a crowd against a travelling opponent is not true.

4. Collingwood had a very similar crowd with a local derby against St Kilda (36650), compared with home games against travelling opposition, Port Adelaide (35933) and Adelaide (33269), this is an instance where a game against a local opponent has roughly double the attendance of a crowd against a travelling opponent is not true.

5. Essendon had a home game against North Melbourne of 40,359 (local derby), there were two games against travelling opposition that had larger crowds, Brisbane (41246) and Fremantle (42265), this is another instance where where the assertion "local derbies inflate crowds" is not true.

6. Fremantle's home western derby crowd was 38722 and had very similar crowds against travelling opposition Geelong (34638), Essendon (34638), Collingwood (34259), Richmond (34204), this is an instance where a game against a local opponent has roughly double the attendance of a crowd against a travelling opponent is not true.

7. Geelong had home games against Melbourne (29733), Western Bulldogs (30275), where home games against Adelaide (30468) and Sydney (30833) was bigger than both and home games against Fremantle (29928) and GWS (30087) were bigger than the Melbourne game, this is another instance where where the assertion "local derbies inflate crowds" is not true.

8. Gold Coast's home Qclash crowd was 12,710, there were five games against travelling opposition with bigger crowds, Hawthorn (14728), Geelong (13648), North Melbourne (12779), Richmond (16207) and Essendon (16817), this is another instance where where the assertion "local derbies inflate crowds" is not true.

9. Hawthorn had home games against St Kilda (27392) and Western Bulldogs (48090) where a home game against Sydney (52181) was bigger than both and a home game against Adelaide (37420) was bigger than the St Kilda game, this is another instance where the assertion "local derbies inflate crowds" is not true.

10. Melbourne had home games against Hawthorn (38693) and North Melbourne (33218) where a home game against Sydney (47464) was bigger than both, this is another instance where the assertion "local derbies inflate crowds" is not true.

11. Richmond had a home game against Sydney (58721) which was bigger than a home game against Hawthorn (58342), this is another instance where the assertion "local derbies inflate crowds" is not true.

12. St Kilda had a home game against North Melbourne which was 29,126, where a home game against Sydney was a bigger crowd (29778), this is another instance where the assertion "local derbies inflate crowds" is not true.

13. Sydney's home Sydney derby crowd was 34,824 and had four games against travelling opposition with bigger crowds, Collingwood (35310), Hawthorn (36221), Fremantle (39821), Carlton (38965), this is another instance where the assertion "local derbies inflate crowds" is not true.

14. West Coast's home western derby crowd was 40836 and had very similar crowds against travelling opposition St Kilda (37749), Sydney (38065), Western Bulldogs (38934), GWS (37057), Melbourne (36622), Port Adelaide (36766) and Adelaide (39367), this is an instance where a game against a local opponent has roughly double the attendance of a crowd against a travelling opponent is not true.

15. Western Bulldogs had home games against St Kilda (34685), Melbourne (33667) and North Melbourne (28263), where a home game against Sydney (42834) was bigger than all and a game against GWS (30672) was bigger than the North Melbourne crowd, this is another instance where the assertion "local derbies inflate crowds" is not true.

And to go one step further, in 2017;

• Adelaide (46650) had a larger average home attendance than Victorian clubs Carlton (38356), Melbourne (35694), Geelong (3511), Hawthorn (33257), Western Bulldogs (31473), St Kilda (31319) and North Melbourne (22678). Therefore, the assertion Victorian clubs play twice as many home derbies as non-Vicotrian clubs which inflates the home attendance figures of Victorian clubs is not true, otherwise all Victorian clubs would have higher average attendances.
• Port Adelaide (38136) had a larger average home attendance than Victorian clubs Melbourne (35694), Geelong (3511), Hawthorn (33257), Western Bulldogs (31473), St Kilda (31319) and North Melbourne (22678). Therefore, the assertion Victorian clubs play twice as many home derbies as non-Vicotrian clubs which inflates the home attendance figures of Victorian clubs is not true, otherwise all Victorian clubs would have higher average attendances.
• West Coast (36751) had a larger average home attendance than Victorian clubs Melbourne (35694), Geelong (3511), Hawthorn (33257), Western Bulldogs (31473), St Kilda (31319) and North Melbourne (22678). Therefore, the assertion Victorian clubs play twice as many home derbies as non-Vicotrian clubs which inflates the home attendance figures of Victorian clubs is not true, otherwise all Victorian clubs would have higher average attendances.
• Sydney (33398) had a larger average home attendance than Victorian clubs Hawthorn (33257), Western Bulldogs (31473), St Kilda (31319) and North Melbourne (22678). Therefore, the assertion Victorian clubs play twice as many home derbies as non-Vicotrian clubs which inflates the home attendance figures of Victorian clubs is not true, otherwise all Victorian clubs would have higher average attendances.
• Fremantle (32375) had a larger average home attendance than Victorian clubs Western Bulldogs (31473), St Kilda (31319) and North Melbourne (22678). Therefore, the assertion Victorian clubs play twice as many home derbies as non-Vicotrian clubs which inflates the home attendance figures of Victorian clubs is not true, otherwise all Victorian clubs would have higher average attendances.

Therefore, most teams have situations where the reasoning behind the new column is not true, so this basically proves that this is not the most accurate way to measure attendances and the assertions claimed also are not always true as there are too many variables for this to be accurate. Therefore, based on this will you finally accept that this new column is not appropriate? Flickerd (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you have provided is a bunch of incoherent points. Lets look at it more methodically using the 2017 values for Home state games vs. interstate opposition ("HSGvIO") as example figures. What the table below instantly shows us is the discrepancy between Victorian and Non-Victorian clubs in their home game breakdown. Non-Victorian clubs have a median of 10 HSGvIO's compared to the median for Victorian clubs who have 4, less than half! This means that Victorian clubs have local fans of opposition clubs attending their games twice as much! Something to also note is that for 2017, HSGvIO ranks the two Grand Finalists 1 and 2 in order of how they finished in the Home & Away season.

Lets do a run down of how the 2017 HSGvIO provides a very accurate representation of home fan attendance at games. We must keep in mind venue sizes.

• The top two teams in 2017, HSGvIO wise, in Victoria were Essendon and Richmond. When they met in 2017 they attracted a crowd of 85,656. The sum of their average HSGvIO was 77,385 (38,820 + 38,565). The meeting between the two clubs was +10.7% of the sum of their HSGvIO. Now lets look at their Home Game (HG) sum of 106,770 (55,958 + 50,812). This HG figure is -19.8% of crowd they attracted. The HSGvIO figure was almost twice as accurate as HG as an indicator.

• Lets next compare the two smallest HSGvIO clubs for 2017, North Melbourne and St. Kilda. When they met twice in 2017 they attracted 26,107 and 29,126 spectators for an average of 27,617. The sum of their average HSGvIO was 41,750. The meeting between the two clubs was -33.9% of the sum of their HSGvIO. Their HG sum was 53,997 (31,319 + 22,678). The game was -48.9% of their HG figure sum. The HSGvIO figure was 30% more accurate. What s*** games by the way.

• Now lets look at Port Adelaide. Their average home game attendance in 2017 was 38,136, well below Adelaide Oval's capacity. However that figure is actually inflated due to the home Showdown against local rival Adelaide. That games crowd of 53,698 was an outlier for Port's season being 15,562 above the average figure. Taking that outlier figure out gives a lower and more accurate HSGvIO figure of 36,580 for Port Adelaide fan attendance at home games.

• Using mid table Victorian clubs is handy as their HSGvIO sum is less than the MCG's capacity. Teams in this category for 2017 were Collingwood and Melbourne. In 2017 their two crowds were 70,926 and 51,223 for an average of 61,074. Their HSGvIO sum was 64,416 (31,220 + 33,196). Thus their average crowd for meetings were -5.2% of their HSGvIO sum. Compare this to a hyper inflated HG sum value of 82,509 (46,815 + 35,694). Their average meeting crowd were -26.0% of their HG sum. That means the HSGvIO was FIVE THOUSAND PERCENT MORE ACCURATE.

Enjoy. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So comparing games and which one's have a bigger crowd is incoherent but comments like The meeting between the two clubs was -33.9% of the sum of their HSGvIO is perfectly clear? Okay... I think you know exactly what I was referring to, you understand what I was saying, but once again choose to ignore and spin your own narrative and I am starting to believe that you are not even willing to try and solve this dispute, otherwise you would be participating in the dispute resolution like all other editors have and actually try and reach some resolution. Flickerd (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just added Collingwood and Melbourne and it shows that Home state games vs. interstate opposition is very very useful and more accurate for illustrating how many fans of clubs are actually attending their games. Its undeniable from what was put above. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your calculations are far too complex. They are synthesis. Wikipedia doesn't do that.

WP:SYNTHESIS tells us "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

My explaining may be synthesis but “Home state games vs interstate opposition” is not, just stock standard sum and average.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands after 2018 Round 4, Hawthorn have the highest attendance but what the proposed column shows us is they have not hosted a game against an interstate side meaning all their home games have been local derbies. Compare this to Richmond who, as the table indicates, have hosted an interstate club yet their figures are comparable only because of Hawthorns figures being inflated which the proposed column indicates.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that we all fully understand the point that you're trying to make with these columns without further explanations or examples. We just disagree with including it for a variety of policy- and non-policy based reasons. I don't foresee any minds being changed. I respectfully suggest that you accept the consensus of the discussion and move on. Aspirex (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So three supporters from Carlton, Geelong and Melbourne, benefactors of inflated crowds from the Victorian derby effect is a consensus? Find someone who supports a WA, SA or NSW team who agrees before claiming a consensus.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again alleging bias and resorting to personal attacks, keep going down this path and you may be reported to

WP:ANI as this isn't the first discussion where you have resorted to personal attacks. It is very clear that there is a consensus and resorting to personal attacks does not help your case at all. This discussion has been going for over a week, if a supporter of a WA, SA or NSW wanted to comment, don't you reckon they would have done so already? Flickerd (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Personal attack? Fair shake. I just stated fact that the three opponents of providing “home state crowds vs interstate opposition” are supporters of Victorian clubs that benefit from the inflation from the derby effect. In regards to the lack of views a Wikipedia talk page isn’t exactly a hive of activity. I’ll approach the Australian football WikiProject to see if I am alone with my view.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked insinuating a bias based on who a person supports when there is no evidence of bias is a personal attack, and people have already stated they are offended by this. Yes, getting people from the Wikiproject is a way to do get more comments and I encourage inviting people here, however if there is no more comments from that invitation, which there is a chance there won't be, will you accept that there is a clear consensus against you? Flickerd (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth I have just made the table look more presentable. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing editors of bias because of their support for a particular club says a lot more about you than it says about those you are accusing. Take your personal attacks and clearly rejected idea somewhere else. Maybe try the AFL itself. If it starts reporting the figure you want, we can too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (full disclosure: I started reading the discussion to see what it's about, but skimmed the last 3/4 as I do have other things to do as well). As was mentioned above, the idea of this attendance figure is not something I've seen anywhere in an outside reliable source, and I def think it should be sourced if it is added. Secondly, we need to ask the question of "what the attendance figure means". As far as I know, it is to show the amount of fans who go to games and the amount of revenue each game gets. Even tickets sold to "away supporters" gives revenue to the home club. So yes maybe there's a bit of an inflation with local derbies, but that is an inflation that is in real life too in the revenue. Furthermore, some clubs will play in their "home ground" but not be the home team, like Collingwood at the MCG half the time (or the Gold Coast vs Freo match that was at Optus Stadium but was considered Gold Coast's home match (on a side note, special cases like that do deserve a note about it)). The question about a club's fanbase is answered much better by looking at clubs' membership stats, which we include. --SuperJew (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and hopefully I can eliminate the concern further up in the discussion of "Can we have an opinion of someone who doesn't support a Melbourne team?" as a proud (or maybe not so proud after Friday night) Crows fan, or the concern shown in an edit summary of "Need opinions of people outside Victoria for balance." as I've lived my whole life in Adelaide (my paternal grandmother was Victorian but I don't like to talk about that), not that these should really be concerns in the first place. I think anything beyond explicitly stating the average attendances and the average home attendances as defined by the AFL itself. For Wikipedia editors to impose their own arbitrary decision to add more information that doesn't come from reliable sources is

• Gold Coast have home games in their state but not at their home ground this year because of their stadium being unavailable, and that's going to mean a big dip in their home attendance figures.
• Some teams just have smaller stadiums than others, so of course there's no way to judge simply based on attendance figures which team is doing better at bringing people to the games, and it's not like the article ever tries to imply that, it just gives a table of statistics.
• What about Geelong? It's not as far to get from Melbourne to Geelong or vice versa as it is to travel interstate, but I imagine that short journey would also have an impact on attendances.
• Teams play different interstate teams in home games. A team that has to play against Gold Coast and Brisbane at home will probably get smaller crowds than a team that plays West Coast and Fremantle at home.

Basically even if there was a fair way to judge which team had the most power to get their members to show up to games, that would be the job of a reliable source to explain, not Wikipedia. If reliable sources give an indication, then it'd be fine to put that information into the article in sourced prose, but come up with an arbitrary definition and putting that into the table with no sources is original research. TripleRoryFan (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose TL;DR, but I'm against any attempt to prove anything by manipulating attendances by anything more than home or away. Weather, neutral games, secondary grounds, etc etc all impact the number. If anyone tries to draw conclusions of teams being the biggest/best based on raw (or manipulated) data, then that's probably synthesis and shouldn't be allowed either. The-Pope (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:The-Pope Would you say that calling a derby a home game is misleading, especially when describing attendances for an individual club? What this figure is basically illustrating is attendances against travelling clubs. Taking out the derby factor which due to the unique nature of the AFL having 10 teams in one state resulting in those teams having 6 derbies annually compared to 1 for non-victorian sides. Thoughts? Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose attendance are in significant to individual clubs and subject to variance on the capacity of the ground, when you have a range 100,000 MCG to 30,000 Kardinya park with some small numbers for random Tassie/Canberra/Darwin games they really are meaning less. Many of the clubs dont play each other twice in the season, and some clubs only play one of the two perth teams in perth other wont play any. With the new perth stadium there will be bigger figures for perth from previous years. Gold Coast were forced to play away from home due to the commonwealth games. Besides performance, there are many external factors that have nothing to do with the game that will influence the attendances, outside of over all attendance there is nothing of encyclopedic value in providing any additional interstate figures. Gnangarra 15:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you understand what the third column is showing. It excludes games hosted by clubs outside their home state. So no figures from Tasmania, Canberra or Darwin are counted.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you have created arbitrary rules about how this will all be done, proving all the more strongly that this is completely unacceptable

synthesis. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I was just seeking the opinions of fans of Non-Victorian clubs and even they are against it. I think this is unanimously not in my favour.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per

I should also note that I became aware of this discussion due to

WP:CANVASSING on the part of one of it's contributors, due to me identifying myself as an Eagles supporter. Bmf 051 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose Too many factors weigh into how large a crowd is, e.g. weather and the quality of a stadium's location, no matter the size of a club. Crowd figures being summarised in that way could be rather misleading to readers - this is what I believe going off my understanding of your idea but I could be wrong. Membership figures are good enough at displaying at how big a fanbase is both inside the state of the club and interstate (e.g. a fan in Victoria could still have a Sydney Swans membership, being an interstate member - so interstate fans aren't excluded from membership figures). Leave page as is. DoctorKaufman (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please verify if this is the first time that Carlton lost 3 matches by +100 points in a home and away or has it happen to them before? 2001:8003:4505:8600:60BB:D2A9:197B:C2FE (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe the times of finals pass

Are you referring to the starting times listed immediately after the dates in the blue boxes in 2018_AFL_season#Week_one and similar subsections (i.e. you'd propose to list just the dates and not the times)? If so, I disagree; I would say the starting time is no less important than the date (i.e. someone interested in the date of a game would likely be equally interested in whether the match was at day or night).

If we're talking the

the ten year test, I think there's a lot more content that we should be stripping away first before finals times get the chop (the entire JLT Community Series article, the week-by-week ladder progression, the week-by-week Coleman Medal progress, aggregate attendances and player milestones all fail the recentism test in my mind). Aspirex (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]