Talk:History of Australian rules football in Victoria (1859–1900)

message: Well done to all involved !  --Spewmaster 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantastic Work ! 

message: After putting a lot of work into this page over the last few weeks, I have now virtually completed my personal draft, as envisioned.  I now look forward to seeing what others are able to contribute.
I have now completed the referencing and indexing, although a small amount of work still has to be done to properly align some of the references.
However, I think that the headnote regarding "missing citations/needs footnotes" should now be removed!
Albert Isaacs 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finished Draft 

message: I don't think the list of Champion clubs should contain any entry prior to 1877. There was no competition to be Premier of so why should there be a list of teams for a non-existent title.
The Champion of the Colony list should be removed altogether. There is no evidence that such an award ever existed. Besides that, having Tom Wills listed as the winner in 1856 is a joke. That year he was playing cricket in England and Ireland until the end of August at least.
The date of Wills' letter to Bell's Life is wrong. It was published on 10 July, not 7 July.
Wills did not umpire/referee the Melbourne Grammar vs Scotch College match on his own.
It was not 1858 when the meeting was held at the Parade Hotel. It was 17 May 1859. That meeting did not lead to the formation of Melbourne as the club was officially formed three days earlier on 14 May 1859.
You rely on Atkinson far too much and misquote his book. The "Good Old Days" chapter does not give evidence for the goldfields at all. He simply questions whether there was any football played there.
The 1856 claims for Wills - Geelong - six clubs are mythical at best. No evidence exists, and as noted above Wills was in England anyway.
The section on the 1859 Geelong rules should be removed. Again, Atkinson is a most unreliable source. I wouldn't believe Mullen either.
RossRSmith (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-history of Australian Rules Football  

message: The article refers to the abolition of a "'little mark" - what was that? Albatross2147 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Little mark

message: What is significant about the year 1900 in regards to football in Victoria? Seems rather arbitrary. 1859-1897 (pre-VFL) would make more sense. - HappyWaldo (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It would make more sense to keep pre-VFL and VFL as separate histories with the formation of the VFL discussion into the VFL article as background. Else, this is just a lengthy mess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeframe 

message: In this edit,  removed the citations needed about the early lack of recording of points stating that "The early method of recording points is already noted under "Formation of the VFA". However, the Formation of the VFA section states
From 1878, points were listed but only goals counted towards the score and, therefore, there were a great number of drawn games. Even though behinds did not count towards a result, in 1893 the VFA awarded the Stars and Stripes Trophy to the team kicking the least number of behinds in ratio to the number of goals scored in premiership matches. This was done to encourage accurate kicking for goal. Melbourne won the trophy with a percentage of 78.6, barely ahead of Williamstown at 78.5.[20] The unusual Trophy name comes from the fact that the Trophy was awarded by Messrs Jacobs, Hart & Co., manufacturers of Stars and Stripes cigarettes.[21]
Is footnote 20 (Seagulls Over Williamstown without a page citation) supposed to be for the facts that (a) points were listed but only goals counted; (b) behinds did not count; (c) in 1893 the VFA award went by a scoring based on least number of behinds / number of goal scored (for whatever reason) (d) done to encourage accurate kicking for goals and (e) Melbourne's trophy win over Williamstown? It seems like just (e) to me the way it's written. I don't think it's a crazy idea to actual reference the citations in more detail if we have them as that particular paragraph says a number of things that could be expanded if needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording of points 

message: As I noted above, this article needs to stick to the actual topic of the history, focusing on the rules and only perhaps a bit on the players but it's incoherent to have rules, teams, nicknames, trivia on players and just random piece after random piece. There exists List of nicknames used in Australian rules football so I removed the nicknames from here again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I also note that there are no sources for any of the nicknames in contrast to the nicknames article which has sources for everything there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

text: I think they are too but the article goes and wanders if you can't keep it in one place. I'd prefer we have separate lists for lists of places for Australian rules football and similar articles which would allow for some background on where nicknames came from, etc. I think our end goal is the same of course, getting this article up in quality so it's helpful and useful to most people. You're doing the real work, I'm just trying work around the edges here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Australian rules football in Victoria (1859–1900). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150301110009/http://fitzroyfc.com.au/prominentvfaplayers.html to http://www.fitzroyfc.com.au/prominentvfaplayers.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What has happened to the article on Aussie Rules Football 1959-1900?  Readers find themselves on the general history page, with no hint as to what has happened to the 1859-1900 page.  Very strange!  Can anyone offer an explanation.
Perhaps you can contact me via my Wikipedia page.  ThanksAlbert Isaacs (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked at the article history? --David Biddulph (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! What has happened to this page?