Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We should note that Wikipedia:Categorization suggests in general avoiding categorising an article in both a category and it's subcategory. For this reason, footballers should only be categorised by the clubs they played for, and not also included in the broader category. JPD (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, so how can the Australian Rules footballers category be removed from each players page? Rogerthat 09:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it needs to be removed from each page individually. I haven't considered it a particularly urgent matter, and so have only removed it from pages that I have been editing anyway. JPD (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

For clarification, is this WikiProject intended to focus solely on the professional League, or is it also for wider Australian Rules articles? eg. Football Victoria, Auskick, Victorian Football League, and the other things in Category:Australian rules football. pfctdayelise 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This is solely for the AFL (formerly known as the VFL). Rogerthat 08:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this can't be a sub-page of

the participants here should know that. --Scott Davis Talk 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on this Categories for renaming debate: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_20#Australian_rules_football. (I realise, not technically AFL, but I am sure people here might be interested.) pfctdayelise 05:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Biatch has spent a great deal of time an effort uploading lots of AFL nosource/nocopyright images to wikipeda. I've left a couple of messages on his talk page about this but have had no response. Most of the images are copyvio's, they'll be deleted soon enough, if he reads this he needs to get in touch so that he hasn't wasted his time doing this. Cheers Agnte 15:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I went and actually took some photos of my own then uploaded. Just wish others would do the same. --Biatch 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you're not getting a whole lot of support with this, Roger, but this is by far the best setup for a sports WikiProject I've ever seen. You've clearly set out all the work that needs doing and tied them in with useful resources in a way that I could only dream of getting set up for netball. :) Ambi 05:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Could people please take a look at

I'd personally move it to

New Zealand national soccer team). Ambi

06:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ambi,

TAC Cup. New Zealand national Australian rules football team it is. Rogerthat

09:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I came across a site called BigFooty, which is an AFL fan forum. I think by contacting the administrators and asking them to promote this project on that forum in some way we could potentially recruit a wide range of people for this project. Thoughts? Rogerthat 11:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, did you contact the site? Diverman 11:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We currently have the {{

I've made one here:

Template:Afl-bio-stub, I hope that's acceptable?, Rogerthat

08:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did the lists of players come from for this? Ambi 07:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

These are just many requested players that I think we should document on the site. As you can see I've deleted them from the list as the articles have been made (around 95% by me, I might add!). Check out Resources on WP:AFL to see where you can get stats from. Rogerthat 12:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear - I meant the total numbers of players in the clubs' histories. Ambi 12:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I went to that site listed under "Resources" and checked the number of all the players listed for each club (using Excel). Rogerthat 12:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Checked them against other sources? If not, it's a good idea.. the basis for my lists used data that used to be here - but crosschecking was too formidable a task, so caveat emptor applies --Paul 15:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add a section on television and radio brodcasters?

There's already a section on TV commentators/personalities. But feel free to expand the sections and narrow it down to what you like. Rogerthat 13:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok Just to be clear I meant on Television stations and radio stations that brodcast AFL

Mike

13:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Australian Rules footballers is getting unwieldy. How would it be if we created a subcategory Category:AFL players, and broke it up as follows:

• Category:AFL players
  • Category:AFL players by name (to contain every AFL player sorted by surname)
  • Category:AFL players by team
    • Category:Adelaide Crows players
    • etc - other AFL teams
  • Category:Brownlow Medal winners
  • etc - other AFL medals

Snottygobble | Talk 12:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

According to my understanding of the Categorisation policy, all the players who are in categories such as Category:Adelaide Crows players should not also be in the partent category Australian Rules footballers. To put this into practice, we would need to remove the category from the template. JPD (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've sorted the players by teams into leagues, so we got Category:VFL/AFL players, Category:SANFL players and Category:WAFL players under Category:Australian Rules footballers. Rogerthat 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ive added TV Broadcasters and Melbourne Radio and National Austereo through Triple M, I Dont know outside of victoria so please if you do add them

I may be a stupid newbie but is it me or does this template not work?

Jabso 12:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at all mate, I put in the wrong infobox template. Cheers for bringing it to my attention, it should work now. Rogerthat 02:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Something seems to have happened to the infobox template, there's a bunch of info missing because i believe someone well-meaning has gone around and tried to put a 'captains' section in them. Is there anyone who can fiz this, and maybe accomodate captains as well? Apologies if this has already been noted. Blackmissionary 11:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that there exists both

Sorry if I confused you mate, the

Football (Australian rules) positions was my idea because i thought it was quite pointless to have an individual article on each position when really they can only just make up one decent article altogether! Those individual articles should really be deleted because really they're useless and I wouldn't have a clue how to delete articles so if someone wouldn't mind... Normy132

11:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree about having one article describing all positions, but before the old individual position articles are deleted, the players articles etc. that wikilink to the individual articles need to be modified. e.g. the separate page,

Rover (football), has 28 pages linking to it.Ibroadbent

00:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm well sees no one has replied to this, I would say that Australian Football League and Australian rules football NEED to be included. I would also like to see all of the club's articles on it. Jasrocks ^(talk) 08:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that Australian Football League is far from a good article. It's a notable topic as far as Australian sport goes, but it needs a major cleanup to reach respectable standards like Wikipedia 1.0. Remy B 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that they were good articles. How bout us two plus anyone else started to clean it up Jasrocks ^(talk) 08:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I always hesitate from dissecting large articles like this because so many people have obviously put effort into it. In this case it really needs an overhaul, but if others were willing to accept that then I guess I could give it a go. It might have to be done in spurts though due to the time commitment. Remy B 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yer that's kool. Havent started it yet, but we can edit it to how we like at Australian Football League/New article. Dont expect you to do much of it, just that i've got holidays and have plenty of spare time. Cheers, Jasrocks ^(talk) 09:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put anything at Australian Football League/New article, or use any subpages that like in the main article space. If you want to make a draft new version, move it to your user space (User:Jasrocks/Australian Football League) or maybe the Talk page (Talk:Australian Football League/Draft). It's definitely a good idea to clean that article up, though! JPD (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)use

Sure. Delete that article then. Got the idea from the Futurama page :-P

asrocks ^Talk

} 10:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody give me brief explanation on what this article is to be about? I've got more than enough information to write about the all-time goalkicking record, though I'm a bit unsure if it should be just a list of all the people who broke it, a biography page on the history of it or a list that ranks the top goalkickers. Normy132 00:30 February 4, 2006 (UTC)

Something in the vein of

Rogerthat ^Talk

00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep it looks good mate. Good work

Rogerthat ^Talk

12:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If the players aren't created, then why name them as such? I've checked each of them up, and I've only put up the ones that have profiles. Boomtish 10:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The players listed here should be ones that don't already have profiles. You can see the ones that are started at

Rogerthat ^Talk

12:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but I would have assumed that this page refers to guys who are done, that is, we have 'whatever number' out of 1004 guys done, and that we're 'whatever percent' complete on all Geelong profiles (assuming the aim of this project is to profile all players). No?Boomtish 10:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a project page, to help co-ordinate the creation of new articles (as well as improvement of old ones, I guess). The numbers show how many are already complete, and then the lists give some examples of what needs doing. If you want to know what is already done, then you can look at things lke the Category pages in the encyclopedia proper. JPD (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, look at

Rogerthat ^Talk

09:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've got it under control now. The changes make it much more easier to understand. Though, does my Jimmy Bartel article really need to be expanded?Boomtish 05:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think someone just added Bartel assuming there wasn't an article on him...he should be removed from the list

Rogerthat ^Talk

08:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have come across the same problem... and I have been creating mine with (Australian Footballer) after the name. SethCohen 02:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the rule I've been going by is to create a disambig page whenever the person isn't notable and having, say

Rogerthat ^Talk

06:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

that was my footy club name - I hope I haven't blown my cover!

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

07:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add that I think Rogerthat's suggestion is probably the way to go (even if it is a mouthful), i.e.

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

09:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of initials, I am using the Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers as my main source (which I am referencing as I go) - so if they show an initial or middle name, I am using it (helps against too much disambiguation) - but if they show a nickname in quotation marks - I won't include that in the title, but I will include that in the opening sentence - I think that is a fairly normal convention. Now here is a curiosity for you all, who would have believed that there have been two players officially called Peter J. Welsh - so for the moment I am calling the Footscary one

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

09:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good pippu. Now what's the bet both Peter Welsh's middle names were James? ;)

Rogerthat ^Talk

01:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

With Portals being one of the two main Wiki-crazes currently (other being userboxes), I believe its time to make one for AFL. If you are interested in helping me make it please comment below. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should name it Portal:Australian rules football instead of just AFL, because it would involve explaining the actual sport rather than just the main league. Also, not sure if we have any real "featured articles" in Aussie rules/AFL (there are plenty of stubs on players, for example). But by all means, tell us your thoughts mate and we'll see what we can do. Cheers,

Rogerthat ^Talk

07:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I will be working on the Portal here -

Rogerthat ^Talk

11:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be called

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work Lonie, if you keep this up we might have to give out a "WikiProject AFL Contrbiutor of the Month" award - In fact that's a good idea :)

Rogerthat ^Talk

05:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would personally suggest having the current article split into

Remy B

13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to make it look as similar to the other

Adelaide Crows, Collingwood and Fremantle are currently competing in the quarter-final stage of the competition." or something similar. Normy

06:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we could also set up the article in the vein of this:

Rogerthat ^Talk

10:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems arising with this is that there could have been hundreds more players who never played a senior game through the early 20th century for Victorian clubs which makes the task of tallying players a little harder. I still think that currently listed players yet to play a game deserve to be listed under

Rogerthat ^Talk

10:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Rant over.Boomtish 05:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from mate, I've seen your work and you do a great job. Check the discussion page of the

Rogerthat ^Talk

06:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as nice as it may be to talk about how good a player was in their under-12 team, or discuss when they once had 12 kicks and 7 handballs against the Kangaroos in a losing match, that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. I have had to wholly cut back your articles, and delete your copyvio images, as both

Harro5

07:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not my problem if no one is up to writing Stynes up. As for Hawkins himself, why does it matter whether or not he hasn't been drafted or not? He's a person, and a rather particular one at that for any Geelong fan. Look at the NBA for example. You've got alot of undrafted guys with profiles up (see guys like Rudy Gay, LaMarcus Aldridge). So, in going with your rich vein of consistency, why not go delete those people?

Nothing personal, but you want people to contribute, to write good articles for the site, yet you set in place all this rules (most of which are reasonable and understandable, I don't dispute that) which restrict us from writing nothing but: Chris Judd is the captain of the West Coast Eagles, he has won a Brownlow Medal. Well, blow me over, I've come looking for some info on who this Judd-bloke is and that's all I've got. Brilliant.Boomtish 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Disappointing response Harro, you've convinced me Boomtish, more evidence of this site becoming a joke.

Rogerthat ^Talk

10:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to comment how much should or should not be removed from articles, or alternatively modified, but it is worth noting that encyclopaedia articles are not meant to be written the same way as newspaper articles, or footy magazine profiles, or anything like that. We can't use phrases like "obvious class, athleticism and uncanny goal sense" or "perhaps more tragically for the team than anyone else". This site is meant to stick to facts, and if you think that ruins it, then you haven't understood the point of the site. I don't think this has to make the articles useless, though - look at Steve Waugh and Shane Warne. These articles are fairly informative, aren't they? A fair amount of the Chris Judd information should probably be in the article, but it needs to be written in the appropriate style. JPD (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that and I agree with you. I understand the neccessity to include NPOV in articles, but I'm annoyed in how Harro has gone about removing the sections. It seems he's just looked at an article, saw a few phrases that were questionable, and then deleted the massive surrounding segment of the article. So much of that information is useful, but it seems Harro is too lazy to really rectify it and bring it up to standard.

Rogerthat ^Talk

08:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

C'mon everyone - JPD is right - let's stick to wikipedia conventions and try and churn out the best stuff possible. There was a similar discusion on the Australian noticeboard. There is certainly a consensus that if you have rock solid references, you can be a bit more descriptive about a player's skill set.

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

12:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what I added to

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

12:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of that material is the info in the Judd article, which is clearly usable but needs to be discussed and improved, not just chucked away.

Rogerthat ^Talk

08:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if its the same person then it definitely needs to be within the same article. Just add the AFL infobox below the cricket one and merge your text into the cricket stuff.

Remy B

12:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

See

Rogerthat ^Talk

01:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A good guideline on whether the AFL or cricket templates should go on top or below would be the amount of matches, fame and influence he had on the game. This issue would probably have to be discussed with the

WP:CRIC guys. Perhaps a merged template can be made? There is a sufficient number of people who played in both sports before professional Aussie rules emgerged. DaGizza^{Chat ©}

01:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. See

Rogerthat ^Talk

04:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed to all the above - excellent idea Rogerthat. On a different subject, I'm having a problem with a red link appearing to the infobox template in funny spots - don't know how to get rid of it - see
  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)
  02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • All fixed pippu, take a look at the changes I made to the boxes (there was nothing under "dead" - the value there should either be "alive" or "dead", and also coach should have "coach" or "notcoach" next to it). Cheers,
    Rogerthat ^Talk
    09:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I get the picture now. Hey, I'm Sicilian, you have to explain things 3 or 4 times before it sinks into my testa dura.

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

12:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed the same thing when I originally put those lists up re, particularly the Saints having a massive number of players. They were always the weakest club, therefore it would have been easier to get a game for them is my logic. Anyway to get the lists up, what I did was went over to RLeague (

Rogerthat ^Talk

08:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also pippu I should add you're doing a brilliant job with the Doggies players - I like the way you've referenced players skill levels from the Record, top idea.

Rogerthat ^Talk

08:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I reckon it's good. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this info goes better in the infobox than in the main article, and need only every be mentioned there, unless there is something interesting or quirky about it that needs to be emphasised. I am happy to back through my articles and fix up.

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

03:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The height or weight might only be notable to mention for someone like

Rogerthat ^Talk

03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea to have this information in the infobox but this now means that nearly 400 articles now have {{heightweight}} in their infobox. Is there going to be a concerted effort to have these missing values entered? --The Brain of Morbius 10:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the 'Height/Weight {{{heightweight}}}' text that is now in most player articles looks pretty ridiculous. The height and weight of the player isnt even really much of a concern, unless they are notably tall or short, and then it can be in the article text. As for weight, that can change at any given time if a player bulks up or whatever.

Remy B

12:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I share Remy B's concerns about the relevance of the weight of players. It makes a limited amount of sense in a club's team list for a season, let alone in an article about the player's whole career/life. Having said that, if a value being missing from a lot of articles is a problem, it's possible to make the parameter optional. See Template:Infobox Australian City for an example. JPD (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Making it optional sounds like a good idea, although I have no idea which bit of the IAC box refers to making something optional...

Rogerthat ^Talk

00:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I just made it optional. Where there is no heightweight parameter, the infobox skips that row. So that should leave all of those pages without heightweight appear unaffected.--The Brain of Morbius 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I take that back. Justin Longmuir is now no longer displaying a heightweight value when it should. I'll leave the infobox as it is for now (as it's doing no real harm) but I'll investigate it further later.--The Brain of Morbius 06:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are all familiar with the generic article Football, which goes through the related history of all the football codes, and puts aussie rules in its rightful historical context (i.e. right up there in terms of age and historical firsts). There has been a concerted effort over the last few months by some rugby diehards to completely downplay this history. On the talk page, link above, there is a poll underway at the moment, to change the descriptor of the section on aussie rules from Australian to Victorian. I know it is too idiotic to be true, but only weight of numbers will crush this idiocy once and for all. Please make an effort to visit the page and to disagree with this absurd poll. Ignoring it because it is just too stupid will simply mean that it will continue for a long time. This is the wording of the poll:

That the section featuring games that are descended from Victorian Rules and Gaelic Rules should be headed "Games descended from Victorian (Australia) and Gaelic Rules"

Thanking you all in anticipation.

I have created the

Hello. Recently,

I would like people to consider that there is a definite difference between comps like the BARFL and the DAFL that have been around for 15 years or so, and other overseas comps that are just starting out or are simply a means for people to have a bit of a kick around the park. So when we talk of some of the older clubs in the BARFL and DAFL that may have won a few premierships, names that are actually known to many footy followers in Australia - is there something really wrong with writing about that? Also, aussie rules is the national code of Nauru - so why shouldn't its older clubs get a bit of a write up if necessary? Wouldn't it appear a touch condascending to say to them: "you can't talk about your own clubs, but you can mention your league"? Aussie rules also has a reasonably long history in PNG and has been played in New Zealand as a minor sport for 100 years. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me that you might be able to find an aussie rules club in New Zealand that is even older than any soccer club in Italy. Lastly, it is well documented that aussie rules was played as a minor sport in both Scotland and South Africa around 1900 before dieing out (only to be reborn in the latter country more recently, under very different circumstances). Let us also not forget that two Japanese born players are currently trialling with Essendon, and when people say that only 5-10 AFL/VFL players have been born overseas - I would submit to them that they are out by a very large margin.

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see that dozens of AFL players were not Australian born, but they all learn their football and football culture in Australia. With respect to the teams not being notable, but the league being notable - it is similar to a school article noting that it consistently tops the examination tables; however, the individual students which are responsible for this are not really notable. I'm not saying we can't have information on the actual clubs - simply putting the paragraph under a listing of the national league is totally fine.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is a reasonable starting point, but then eventually it is possible for a league to pass a certain threshold where the clubs may be considered sufficiently notable. The US and Canadian leagues may not yet be there - but the BARFL and DAFL may almost be there because they have been well organised competitions for at least 15 years, and some of the clubs are known even to Australians. This isn't a principle just for oversease aussie rules clubs - its for all sports clubs across the world. I have seen a similar debate in it.wiki discussing amateur level soccer clubs. The same debate could be had for suburban aussie rules (or league or soccer or lacrosse or

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comment regarding

Libby Lenton, Leisel Jones and Susie O'Neill in the last decade. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!!

06:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC).

I was being cheeky about Melbourne Victory (afterall, this is the AFL project page, no non AFL people are reading, right?) - everything you say is reasonable (I am still struggling to understand how they beat Sydney 5-0, definitely warrants a stewards' enquiry).

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia as a tool for documenting the history of these clubs. Afterall, many do not have websites and should at least have their date of formation and where they are based somewhere. It is fair enough to merge them into the USAFL article and I have added this basic information to that article. --Rulesfan 01:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

When you loooks at the soccer teams, virtually all listed players have a short bio. They should list all the players on the site for the teams and give them a short bio (it's not too hard, just read they player site on their site and it'll give their stats). Also there are more Rugby league player pictures. They must be getting the permission somehow. Anyone would think Soccer and Rugby are much more popular due to all the time and effort put into their site and hardly any on the AFL sites. I say get behind ALL yteams and help build AFL up on this wikipedia. It makes it look like a small sport compared to soccer federation and nrl and Afl had more money and is more popular than both of them. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliat1981 (talk • contribs)

If you think the quality is poor now, you should have seen the AFL coverage when I stumbled upon wikipedia in late October of last year. Articles on such greats as

Rogerthat ^Talk

09:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sliat1981, you are right, the AFL project is a long way from any form of completion. I personally expect progress will pick up once the AFL season begins in the next week or two. I look forward to when we can boast blue links in the order of this:

Remy B

10:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of lists, I think there is not a list of footballers for Aussie Rules. I saw many for other codes in Category:Lists of sportspeople. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

sliat_1981 here. But these people from the Rugby are obviously getting the permission somewhere. There must be a way. Also, it's strange to have more information on the soccer federation when it just in it's infancy to have not nearly as much on the game which has existed much much longer. Just a trick to make overseas visitors think it's our national game.

speaking of more needing to be done - why aren't more voting in favour of the

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

05:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am currently writing an article on the former Premier of South Australia, Lionel Hill. In one biography of him it mentions that he was a champion Australian Rules footballer who represented South Australia but does not mentioned which South Australian National Football League club(s) he played for. As he was born in 1881, I would presume he played league football from about 1900 to 1910. If anyone has the time and resources to find out who he played for, I'd be extremely grateful (if anyone in Adelaide wants to find out, there is a booklet in the Mortlock Library listing all the players to have played for South Australia; I'd do it myself but I'm some thousands of kilometres away from Adelaide). Cheers. --Roisterer 08:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• I can do this. My office in the physics dept at Adelaide University is just 100m away! Do you have a name for it? Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure some of you participating in WP:AFL would have seen the notice on the front page, where

At the risk of sounding like a dunce, I don't quite understand this portal idea (in the wikipedia context, I obviously know what a portal is generally speaking). For instance, what does it achieve over and above the AFL project page?

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

11:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have no idea what the portal does that the project doesnt. It just seems to be something confusing which splits everything up into two different areas, so inevitably people will miss things when they only go to one of the two pages.

Remy B

11:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the portal is like a main entry point for those new to the sport. It will have links to the project, terminology used in Aussie rules, rules of the game, clubs in the AFL, other leagues, etc. Much different to the project page, which is basically a listing of all tasks that need to be done.

Rogerthat ^Talk

22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Portals are meant to be easy access pages for both editors and readers (ie. people who don't edit but use Wikipedia). The project page is just for editors. Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I see it as a portal for the sport. Being a player in the amateurs who is more interested in local footy than the "AFL" I think it is a great idea. Gives lesser leagues the recognition and exposure they deserve. The AFL is not the be all and end all of Australian Rules. What about those who live overseas, or live in places like the Tasmania, NT and ACT where there isn't an AFL club and like myself don't really follow or are interested in following an AFL club. If the AFL were to dissapear, people would still play and watch the sport of Aussie Rules.--Rulesfan 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The season proper is almost upon us I've been asked to find some good and free footy tipping competition software for our company. Or any websites which host. Can anyone help? -- Ian ≡ talk 09:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The AFL FootyTips competition looks pretty good. Probably the best of the web-based ones.

Rogerthat ^Talk

22:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it by ending the table in the player's list section. JPD (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)