Talk:2006 AFL season/Archive 1

This 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

separate

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As this article gets bigger we'll have to separate it Round by Round I think. R o gerthat ^Talk 06:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Structure

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

For those expressing concerns on the structure of this article and the fact that it may become too large, I suggest following the lead of the Frizzell County Championship Division One in 2005 - the article for Div. 1 County Cricket in 2005. R o gerthat ^Talk 12:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with that style of article. It is packed full of emotive language that runs contrary to the fundamental Wikipedia principle of NPOV. There is no place for commentary in an encyclopedia article. The article would be just as informative as it is now, as well as adhering to NPOV, if we removed the commentary and instead linked to a news article that discussed the game. That would also have the added bonus of not being horribly bloated. Remy B 10:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

To be completely honest, there won't be any space for a paragraph to each game. I think a simple "Team X 14 9 93 defeated Team Y 13 10 88." Gizza^Chat ^© 12:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am keen to get the formatting for this article down pat rather quickly once the season has started and we have content to work with. This is what I propose:

Renaming the article to 2006 Australian Football League season, to be consistent with most season articles on Wikipedia (eg. 2006 NFL season, 2004-05 NBA season, 2005-06 Indian cricket season, 2006 Commonwealth Games, etc.).
Majorly cutting down the Pre-season news section (if leaving it in at all), as most of it is fluff, and most of it is unsourced.
A section for each round containing:
- A table of the 8 games, including scores, venue, crowd size, major goal kickers, link to AFL.com.au report.
- Basic information on injuries, and reports (including verdicts when available).
- Major events of the week following the round (like controversies, coach sackings, etc).
- Maybe an at-this-round ladder table to the right-hand side, with small text to keep it unobstrusive.
A finals section, although we can think about that later when September comes around.

What are others thoughts? Remy B 15:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the article keep in trend with the other seasons. Have a link to Draft results pre-season grand final result, afl grand final result, a full premiership ladder and the medal winners. If we do what Remy B suggests we have to do it to the rest of the season articles which will be a REAL pain finding out what incidents happened in week 12 of the 1901 season, for example. Normy 09:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not suggesting we have to use this structure at the same depth for all the other seasons. I dont agree at all with having less information in this article for the sake of the fact that it is difficult to find similar information for a season over 100 years ago. For example, the article for the year 2005 is quite large, but I hardly think Wikipedia's editors should cut it down to a couple of lines because it is a real pain to find such depth of information on the year 1005. Regardless, I think the incidents section would be fairly minor, and the results of the round's games would be the primary content, and those results could easily be written for any of the previous VFL/AFL seasons. Remy B 13:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the pre-season news into its own article (just like there are articles for final series', NAB cups, and drafts). Personally I think the pre-season news content is mostly non-notable and needs a lot of sources, but I also dont want to delete it without giving other editors a chance to fix it up, so moving it to its own article seemed like a good idea. I have also started the table structure for the rounds, and it would be great to get some feedback on them, so we can get it right as soon as possible, because once the season is well underway it will be a lot more annoying trying to change it rather than now. Once we are overall quite happy with the format of the article it would be good to use it as a template of sorts for previous year's seasons. Remy B 13:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Article naming convention

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have organised a vote of sorts for the naming convention of AFL season articles. If anyone is interested in participating, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL#AFL season article naming convention. Cheers. Remy B 13:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Pre-season

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know if the word 'pre-season' is used correctly in the section heading, or in the title of the article it links to... isn't it normally just used for the pre-season competition, aka the NAB Cup? I think the period between seasons is better termed as the 'offseason' (and the year should probably then be 2005-06 instead of just 2006). Mn1 21:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that in the AFL the period between seasons where the players begin training again is referred to as the pre-season. Remy B 03:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've done a quick search of news articles on Google and it looks like pre-season is the more common term for describing the summer. But 'pre-season competition' is also widely used for the Ansett/Wizard/NAB Cup, and sometimes shortened to just 'pre-season'. Also, in the Wikipedia articles for previous seasons, the Ansett/Wizard cup result is written under the heading 'Pre-Season', but in the 2006 article, the same heading is used to mean all other events during the pre-seaon, excluding the NAB Cup, which seems confusing. Maybe the two sections (and the two connected articles) could be combined (with 2006 NAB Cup redirecting to 2006 AFL pre-season, or something like that), since they basically cover the same period of time (well, I mean one is a subset of the other)? Mn1 14:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to games

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Links to games are pointless - most have now been removed from the AFL site. R o gerthat ^Talk 02:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I just clicked on a few from the start of the season and they were all still working links. Do you have any examples? Remy B 05:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The fifth one in round 2 - just one I clicked on [1] --Astrokey44 13:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed fifth one in round 2. It was a mistake by whoever put it there (simply a wrong link). AFL will keep all reports on their site for at least until the end of the 2006 season! If you come across any other broken links, either fix them yourself or leave a message on My Talk Page and i'll fix the ones you let me know about. Alien- 12:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Rounds in advance

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please keep rounds in advance to only one round ahead. It simply makes it easier for users. If someone thinks that it should show more rounds, feel free to say so in here, but for ease of use (and the fact that future rounds can be changed more easily by the AFL at anytime) please keep rounds in advance to one. Alien- 11:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Personally I'd rather no blank rounds at all, but one is the most I would like to see. Remy B 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No blank rounds at all is a bit harsh. That means that the updater of the first game (usually on a friday night) would have to add the whole game table, and that's where errors can occur, this way it's all ready for them just to input the data! It's a bit useless having the whole season on the site, so 1 is good! And it looks like the limit now (If anyone wants to add their opinion feel free)! :P Alien- 09:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

New templates

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just wondering what people think of the new templates for all the tables on the page! Post your thoughts on them in here. Personally i liked the old style better, more user friendly and better looking, links and text were smaller too! So basically the question is "Should we change back or should the new table template stay?" Alien- 10:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I liked the old ones. I dont know if there is any policy that you have to use the format it was changed to... so I'll revert it back. Remy B 11:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Remy B! I took a look at Wikipedia:How to use tables and it doesn't say it has to be in the format that it was in! So i think it should stay as the tables it is. If anyone disagrees, post in here, but do not change the table layout without discussing it first! Alien- 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Times

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I dont like the idea of putting times in the tables. The tables really need to be the minimal information, otherwise they become too wide and bloated. There really isnt anything you can do with the time, whereas the date seems fairly significant. Anyone mind if I remove it? Remy B 08:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! The times are useless! And changes like that should be talked about first before being implemented! Keep it like it is, because it is running well like it is now, iw as going to goto that user's talk page, but Remy B, you beat me to it! :P I says get rid of the time, i'll see if i have time to do it, otherwise anyone can remove the times! EDIT: I have just removed all the times! If someone wants to be kind and remove some of the spaces that i left in the table formatting you can, i just didn't have time to do it myself! But a simple script could do it. Alien- 07:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Retirements

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone else agree that the Retirements section is too bloated? There is no need to list individual stats on each player who has retired - that is the purpose of the player's individual article. A simple dot point list would surely suffice. Remy B 08:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

GF

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a separate article on the GF? (If so, please link it) If not, a section of prose might be nice on such a tight game! pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 AFL Grand Final Remy B 08:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC){{subst:image source|Image:2006AFLGrandFinal.png)) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

{{missing rationale2|Image:2006AFLGrandFinal.png

Image copyright problem with File:Australian Football League.png

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image File:Australian Football League.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)