Talk:List of VFL/AFL premiers

message: When the Sydney Swans were called South Melbourne their nickname was the Bloods.
Paul Melville Austin
(grandson of John W. Austin South Melbourne Premiership team 1933)
:Weren't South Melbourne also the Swans from the 1930's onwards because of their heavy recruiting of Western Australians? Blackmissionary 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: Geelong's 2009 Grand Final win over St Kilda is not listed in the Premiership by club page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.96.37 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The VFL/AFL has never counted pre-VFL VFA premierships towards club tallies. Blackmissionary 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo 

message: :Image:VFLLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:VFLLogo.png

message: Fitzroy, Brisban Bears and Brisbane lions deserve extra lines on this table, illustrating various merger / interpretations. The Brisbane bears had 10 seasons without a grand final before becoming the Lions, and Fitzroy had not been successful for a long time before the merge either. The continuity should be acknowledged. After all from the point of view of the fans of these teams they didn't just up and transfer their loyalties; their loyalty did not changed, and masking this behind reverts is in a way, perhaps pre-empting the statistics that a viewer "needs to know" rather than allowing a little amount of leeway for a more flexible interpretation. I think if a user wants to ignore this new, slightly  less strict methodology they are entitled to, but it should not be commanded by the page. Rhonjimbomp (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premiership Frequency list 

message: Aren't they one franchise?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.189 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When Fitzroy and the Brisbane Bears merged at the end of the 1996 season, they became a new legal entity separate from the two previous clubs. This meant that the AFL history of Fitzroy and the Brisbane Bears stopped in 1996, and the Brisbane Lions' AFL history began in 1997. Hope this helps. Lindblum (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And I must point out that Fitzroy was never a franchise. It was a football club in the original sense. Not sure about the two Brisbane incarnations. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

text: To a certain extent, the continuity of a football club is an arbitrary matter. A good example is North Melbourne, which is said to have formed in 1874, but actually disbanded/amalgamated and then reformed as a separate club in 1876-77, 1908 and 1921 – so there have probably technically been four separate North Melbournes. The Northern Blues have an even more convoluted continuity. On the matter of Brisbane, the Lions and Bears are basically always treated as separate clubs in AFL publications, and throughout the rest of Wikipedia. This conventional treatment is to me a more important factor than Lindblum's comment about them being a new legal entity. But the end result is the same, and the clubs will remain treated as separate entities in the table. Aspirex (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fitzroy/Brisbane Lions

message: I have made a few changes to this page:
*I got rid of the 'Time' column. This column of numbers between 2:00 and 3:00 is not particularly useful
*I've rationalised the score into a single cell, which is easier to interpret.
*I colour-coded the different types of Grand Finals which took place in the early days. I think there is a general lack of understanding about what the early "Grand Finals" were, and the fact that some seasons could have had a challenge final after what we now believe to be the GF. I think the colour coding is the best way to draw attention to this.
*I split the VFL section of the table into pre-1931 and post-1931. Mostly cosmetic, it helps make the tables more manageable, I think.
*I removed the "win ratio" table from the 'Premiership tally' table. For the reasons described above regarding challenge matches, etc., these numbers and their true meaning is too much up for debate and misrepresentation.
*I removed the colour coding on teams no longer competing.
*I got rid of the Current Droughts section - if it isn't notable as a long drought, then it's not notable.
*Got rid of the notes per wikipedia trivia guidelines.
*Did my best to eliminate the need for excessive footnoting and clarification of what is and isn't included in different numbers.
Aspirex (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates post 2012

message: There is a difference of opinion amongst various editors regarding whether to list the 1999 premiers as 'North Melbourne' or 'Kangaroos'. To open this question up to a wider audience of WP:AFL editors, and set the consensus as a standard for all pages where it may be of use, the discussion is being held on the following talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football#1999 AFL premiers – "North Melbourne" or "Kangaroos". Aspirex (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I think the discussion should be held here, with the WT:AFL post just a notification/alert, so that the discussion is more really found in the future. Secondly, I initially thought that it should be listed as North Melbourne, with a footnote that they were known as Kangaroos at the time, so that sorting and counting of premierships is clear that the same club that won in 77 and 96 also won in 99. But them I thought what would we do if the Bulldogs won one in the coming years? What about Sydney/South Melbourne? And I don't wasn't to think about Fitzroy/Brisbane. Obviously those name changes are a but more permanent, but they completely preclude the sorting/listing approach/benefit that I mentioned earlier. So, thinking a bit laterally, and using some wiki magic, I purpose that we use the  function to group team name changes together, but show the name of the day, and maybe add a footnote to explain the name changes. This should be used on the SM/Sydney wins too. I'm not sure about having the number of flags in brackets after the team name. If it is to stay then (1) needs to be added to all first flags, but I think it would be best in a separate column. The-Pope (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The team should be listed as "Kangaroos" for any seasons between 1999 and 2007, for the same reasons that South Melbourne/Sydney and Footscray/Western Bulldogs are listed separately, despite being effectively the same club. I agree with The-Pope with regards to using footnotes and sorting. IgnorantArmies 03:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the sort function would be an effective solution. I disagree with the need for footnoting; I think if the summary table includes both names, as it does today with Footscray and South Melbourne, then that is sufficient; plus, as we've seen before, this article ends up as a mess when every little irregularity is given a footnote. I'm fine with adding (1) after the first flag for each event, and I think the parenthetical format is preferable to having a separate column – in fact, I'd sooner remove the numbers altogether than include them in their own column. There's an extra column for number of wins in Norris Trophy, which to me makes that information more difficult to interpret; the parenthetical format is seen at List of NFL champions (which is consistent with not numbering the first win); the format with no numbers is seen at List of Stanley Cup winners. Aspirex (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1999 AFL premiers – "North Melbourne" or "Kangaroos" 

message: 1. What do the numbers in brackets refer to? eg 
"Sydney (5) Hawthorn (6)"
2. Why do we waste a whole column listing who held the TV rights? This is not very relevant or interesting. It would be much more interesting to list the premiership coach and captain. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The number represents the number of times that club has won or finished second (e.g. Sydney's fifth premiership, Hawthorn's 6th runner-up). It's not explained, but it's typical of formatting on some other lists of premiers in Wikipedia. Aspirex (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be explained in the article. And re the TV rights details - who holds them is far less important than what has been paid for them. HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mysteries

message: Substituted at 22:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Australian Football League premiers. 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/20080725010110/http://www.afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=33841 to http://www.afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=33841
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) 05:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , as you requested it – in what way do the tables that I added fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's just it – it's a list, and that doesn't necessarily mean that there should be a limit as to how many statistical elements there should be. If what you're suggesting is that the statistical elements (past the premiers/results table, as indicated in the title) be split into another article (e.g. "Australian Football League premiership and grand final statistics" or something), then that doesn't sound unreasonable. But all of these individual tables contain useful statistics, and aren't just "for the sake of statistics" – if you're going to remove my additions, you might as well remove all of the tables, as they are all just as useful as each other. I disagree with your readability argument (you need not include the rest of point 3, as it wasn't even an issue), as there is no specific limit as to how many statistical elements there should be on any page, let alone a list. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 09:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If no further action is taken/response is made, then I would like to either create the suggested article and move the appropriate content there, or add back the premiership drought tables that were removed still, in my opinion, without a substantial enough reason. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have gone with the former option. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that's the best solution, but I'm satisfied with it. I do however see a need for the overall summary table (i.e. Carlton - 16, Essendon - 16, Collingwood - 15, etc.) to be duplicated back onto the main page, so I'll do that. Aspirex (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, be sure to use the table from the new article – I fixed/tidied each table when I copied them over for use on the new article. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but can you check that Brisbane Bears and Lions aren't combined in any of the tables. I noticed they'd been combined in the new article, and it's the long-standing consensus that these be treated as separate clubs for statistical purposes. Aspirex (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premiership droughts