Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Season articles: Reply |
|||
Line 102:
::::::Regarding player movement (now also directed at SuperJew), see [[2023–24 AFL Women's player movement period]] and [[2023 AFL Women's draft]] to get an idea of how I think these types of articles should be revamped – I think that the draft(s) is significant and distinct enough to be [[WP:SPLIT]] from the player movement article, even if the draft plays a role in the overall period – and [[2023 AFL Women's season#Player movement and draft]] for how I think this should be referred to in season articles. My view, a bit like Teratix followed up with, is that there is just as much (if not more) relevant to one season (retirements and delistings) as the next (drafts and other signings), with trades bridging the two, but I also think that timing is a factor. I don't have a problem with both periods being mentioned in some capacity in the same season article compared to only mentioning the former – so no, I don't agree with the "season it will affect" argument and just mentioning the preceding period. [[User:4TheWynne|<span style="color:#00008B">'''4TheWynne'''</span>]] [[User talk:4TheWynne#top|<span style="color:#00008B">(talk</span>]] <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> [[Special:Contribs/4TheWynne|<span style="color:#00008B">contribs)</span>]] 16:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'll clarify that when I say the reigning premiers 'shouldn't be mentioned in the prose', I'm referring to an article with the level of prose we have today; in a properly written 2-3 paragraph subsection which outlines teams' performances and the broader context, I would have no issue making reference to the reigning premiers. But I still can't agree with including the reigning premiers as a standard feature of every season lead. There so many facts which better represent and introduce the subject of an AFL season than the finishing position of the previous year's reigning premiers.
:::::::Defining minor premiership still feels unnecessary to me; I feel it's pretty stock standard to use a sport's understood terminology with links, and assume a general level of familiarity with the sport from the reader. The [[2019 Australian Open]] lead links and does not define 'Grand Slam', 'Open Era' and 'lucky losers' – all of those terms (except perhaps Grand Slam) would be roughly as unfamiliar to a non-tennis reader as minor premiership would be to a non-Australian rules football reader. (Also, our articles do have the complexity of Australian rules football's unusual usages of the terms 'semi-final' and 'preliminary final' – which would be less broadly understandable than 'minor premiership' – and I wouldn't want to get into a position of having to define those as well, since it would make the lead more definition than content).
:::::::I can't understand your point about the infobox getting 'packed with information' and how that does "solve the problem" (in fact, I'm not sure what the problem is here that you think needs solving)? The entire benefit of having an infobox is to quickly relay high point statistical, and listing the minor premier's WLD record next to the minor premier's name seems like a simple approach to doing that.
:::::::I do agree that there can be a consistent lead format and that we're going to avoid a lot of arguments by creating it and sticking to it – I just thought I'd pitch that idea out there as an alternative.
:::::::I thought including the ladder placings would be an efficient way to get a bit more tale-of-the-season information into the lead, and I still don't think it's necessarily a bad option, but I'm not going to push that with any strength.
:::::::I see your point about post-finals finishing positions - although I use them fairly extensively myself, I recognise is the more obscure way to approach it and referring to the week-of-finals-exit makes more sense for the lead.
:::::::Can I suggest the following alternative compromise template. {{tq|The [[Richmond Football Club]] won the premiership, defeating {{AFL Gee}} by 31 points in the [[2020 AFL Grand Final]]. It was Richmond's second consecutive premiership, and 13th VFL/AFL premiership overall. {{AFL Por}} won the [[minor premiership]] for finishing atop the ladder after the home-and-away season, and was eliminated in the preliminary finals.}} Per [[MOS:NUMERAL]], numerals or ordinals zero to nine must be spelled in words; and by choice we agree to use numerals for anything 10 or higher; we would just say ''VFL premiership'' instead of VFL/AFL premiership in seasons earlier than 1990.
:::::::Also worth pointing out and discussing while we're on the subject: when I put the current leads together, I tried to limit mention of any onfield achievement to only the very most significant all-time records and firsts. A full list of facts/records I called out in leads about onfield achievements is as follows: Fitzroy's 1916 flag from the wooden spoon; Collingwood's record 19–0 home-and-away record in 1929; Collingwood's record fourth straight premiership in 1930; Geelong's record 23-game win streak in 1952 (choosing that season to mention it instead of 1953 because the streak included the 1952 grand final); the record grand final crowd in 1970; Essendon's record 24–1 full season record in 2000; Pratt's and Hudson's record 150-goal seasons in 1934 and 1971; St Kilda being the last foundation club to win a premiership in 1966; North Melbourne being the last VFL club to win a premiership in 1975; West Coast being the first interstate club to win a premiership in 1992; South Melbourne/Sydney's record 72-year drought ending in 2005; and Geelong's record 119-point grand final win in 2007. While we're debating a consistent template, we should probably come to an agreement on whether this list of exceptions is worth preserving, or expanding.
:::::::On the subject of player movements, I think at a league season article level (which is what 4theWynne is looking at) it doesn't matter too much; but in the club season articles it makes the most sense to have all player movements grouped with the subsequent season (i.e. the season they effect); that means the subsequent club season page contains both that season's playing list, and all of the changes to tell the story of how the club built that list; the league season article should then fall in line with the club season articles. In my view, the only player movements relevant to the prior season are: retirements of notable players are the only player movements truly relevant to the previous season, since there will be announcements, farewell games, grand final motorcades etc. all historically connected to that prior season; and midseason sackings, for obvious reasons. I would associate delistings more closely with the subsequent season than the prior season because they're more of a transactional list management matter related to building that subsequent season's list. [[User:Aspirex|Aspirex]] ([[User talk:Aspirex|talk]]) 22:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
| |||