Talk:Australian rules football/Archive 1

message: The history section on this page needs to be corrected to bring it into line with the information on this site http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/melbourne.htm, but I'l leave that to the Aussies. Mintguy (T) 14:21, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I think the section on the rules could be expanded. Basic information like the number of players is lacking, and can only be deduced from studying the images. Abigail 10:48, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
It seems that I am far from the only one who has mixed up the various games played in 1858.  Mintguy (T) 13:13, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - done! Revisions welcome.  --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I now understand why when the clock showed 10 minutes the commentator said we were half-way through the final quarter of the GF highlights I saw. The quarter eventually ran to 32 minutes... Deadlock 23:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules

message: Seems an obvious thing to have, yet it's currently missing. As far as I know it's four quarters of thirty minutes, but I don't know who keeps time and whether it can go over thirty, or what happens if the scores are level at full time. Aussie input welcome! Deadlock 19:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - done! Revisions welcome.  --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I now understand why when the clock showed 10 minutes the commentator said we were half-way through the final quarter of the GF highlights I saw. The quarter eventually ran to 32 minutes... Deadlock 23:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of the Game

message: Anyone want to have a go at adding the new centre circle into the diagrams? --The Brain of Morbius 02:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams 

message: Is this section really necessary or appropriate?
:Neither - it's vandalism, now reverted.--The Brain of Morbius 06:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footy 

message: The latest anonimous edit looks like a bit of POV mischief from a banana bender with taped back ears and no neck who doesn't mind sniffing the odd backside.  Anyone with sufficient powers out there agree on a roll back?  --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'coz!) 08:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pippu, absolutely agree to that. Be bold. You don't need special powers to roll-back, just go to the edit history and select the previous edit (the good one) and press edit and save.  You will get a warning that you're going to overwrite the current version but just say OK to that. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edit 

message: The Sport in Australia article is the current Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight - just wondering if anyone here would be interested in adding to the Aussie rules section? (or any other section) thanks --- Astrokey44 04:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aussie rules in Australia 

message: The Rules section is getting rather long and unwieldly, especially the holding the ball subsection (which I started, when it actually was "easily summarised"), so moving it to another article seems like a good idea. But the name of such an article is an interesting topic - I would suggest "Australian Football Rules", just to confuse people (and to make User 139.132.1.1 happy). Possible alternatives are "Australian Rules Football Rules", or "Rules of Australian Rules Football", or even "Australian Rules". Seriously, probably the best name would be "Rules of Australian Football", regardless of whether you think that Australian Football is a good name. Incidentally, my copy of the rulebook has on the cover "Laws of Australian Football", so maybe thats an even better one (or "Laws of Australian Rules Football" come to think of it). If someone else wants to actually move the stuff, that would be good, or I'll probably do it in a week or two when I have more time. Of course the alternative is to just delete half the stuff, but that's probably not a good idea.
On an unrelated note, exactly how high is "elbow height"? Bjmurph 17:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can get hold of an old video of Dipper playing, that will give you a pretty good idea - the range is from throat level to black eye level.  --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was refering to the thing about the goal umpire signalling with hands at elbow height, but you've illustrated my point anyway. Maybe Belly-button height is a better description? Bjmurph 06:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a formerly accredited goal umpire, I can tell you that the upper arms should be vertical and the lower arms horizontal, making it the height of the elbow when standing with arms by your sides. JPD (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Laws of Australian Football sounds good to me, since that's what they're called. Law of Australian Rules Football if anyone really wants to kick up a stink. JPD (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ok I moved it across to Laws of Australian Football. Probably still needs a good short paragraph in this article Astrokey44 23:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules 

message: Spectacular high marks ("speccies") are regarded as one of the game's main attributes as a spectator sport.
From who's 'point of view' is it spectacular?
:Spectators. That's why it says "...as a spectator sport". If this is "POV", then you presumably believe that some other attribute of the game is more important to spectators.  Which? Stevage 14:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Openning Paragraph

message: The most powerful organisation and competition within the game is the elite, professional Australian Football League (AFL)
Oh they're elite.  Is that another non-NPOV comment?  how about quoting somebody saying that?
#Stating a rank is completley meaningless when there is so much of an argument over what that rank is. The very fact your arguing illustrates that "one of the most popular" is the most neutral thing we can say.
#It does not matter how unpopular it is, it is saying how many countries it is played in. Does it say, "AF is the best sport ever, with national leagues in 20 countries"?
#We don't need a quote to prove the AFL is the elite league - to quote Macquarie, "a group of people with the most power, money, education etc." elite is just an adjective. Would you argue the AFL does not have the most money of any organisation of the game? And they set the rules, how much more power can you have?
I notice that all your arguments come from the sections that were removed from the intro. They are terefore summarising what should have been further into the article. I was not a fan of the leagues section, seeing as there is a teams and leagues section further in.
bjmurph talk‽ 15:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No I merely read through the first few paragraphs looking for non-npov statements.  I stopped at the leagues section due to time constraints.  I intend to go through the remainder of the article.  I don't want to go making changes without discussing them first.  That sort of thing leads to reversion and wasted time.
#With regards to rank, there is no dispute regarding the ranking as a participant sport.  The ABS provides these figures and even if we disputed it, it wouldn't matter.  You can still say "the ABS says...".
#How popular it is in those countries is very interesting and usefull information.  The absence of this information can be interpreted as non-npov writing.
#As for your 'elite' comment, there should be nothing in this article that can be interpreted as 'original material'.  Everything in this article is supposed to be sourced from somewhere.  This rule applies to all wikipedia articles.  This one is not an exception.
Factoid Killer 16:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leagues

message: I notice that some of the lists in the article have been columnised, drawing attention to something I was planning to raise earlier - should we really have that many external links listed? Most of them seem to be fairly good sites, but we aren't meant to be a link directory. The links at cricket have been deliberately kept at a much smaller number, so maybe someone should do a bit of a cull here? JPD 17:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend doing what they do at Association football: have only high-level links in the main article, and place other links in more relevant articles (e.g. the articles on the actual organisations the refer to). --Daveb 09:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I ask again:   are these the very best photos we can get our hands on of the great Australian game?  The one photo we show, looks more like the old Sun "Spot the Ball"  competition.  C'mon, let's lift our game!  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry mate, footy season coming up soon, plenty of opportunities coming up. Cheers, Rogerthat Talk 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've uploaded some pictures I took at a match between Essendon and the Lions in June last year. They're not great, but are better than what is there now. I haven't added them in yet, I'll leave that for someone else to do. They could also possibly be re-cropped and resized, I can do this if someone asks. Locations: Australian_rules_01.jpg, Australian_rules_02.jpg, Australian_rules_03.jpg --Joshd 15:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cropped the one with the banner, uploaded it as :Image:Footybanner.jpg and put it in the section of this article mentioning the banners. JPD (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Piccies

message: Well, this article is pretty good, so congrats to the people involved. I do feel however, that it glorifies the sport a bit much, I know it is popular, but this article is a tad misleading, reading through it, it reads as if AFL is the be all and end all of Australian sport. Im not here to bag AFL by any means, and I know that there are sources provided and so on, but I do feel the article is not really written in a NPOV. Forever young 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About once every few months, someone comes along questioning the stats about the TV audiences, participation, live crowds, membership, etc.  Rather than go through all of it a gain in tedious detail, could you please highight a few areas that are POV, especially via direct quotes from the article. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it non-NPOV, but the Popularity section, particularly with it positioned as the lead item (in front of what the game actually is, and its history) and its length, reads more like a fan site than a encyclopaedia --Paul 09:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's a fair point - I am wondering whether it has always been there at the start, or whether it snuck in there during some of the many reorgs of the article...ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: in fact I just checked a version I edited on 25 September 2005 and noticed that there was no section on the popularity of the game - so clearly it has been added in since - nothing wrong with that, but as you correctly point out, it may be best appearing after the game is actually described - I have to agree with you on that one - anyone else? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the intro understandably said something about where the game was played, which then became a lengthy explanation of it's popularity in Australia, etc, which became so long it was correctly made a separate section from the intro. I agree that it shouldn't really be at the beginning. JPD (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: A few soccer fundamentalists are hijacking the term football in Australian articles. See, for example, Category:Football_in_Australia. We need concerted action to stop this. Grant65 | Talk 10:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put the category up for renaming. That name can't really be justified, so you should get support. JPD (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help!

message: I propose a section in the article on some of the tactics and terminology used in the game, drawing from Australian Rules slang and :Category:Australian rules football terminology. Any thoughts or suggestions on this? Rogerthat Talk 11:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already quite long. If we were to add anything like this, we'd have to prune the rest of it, I think. If things are covered in another article, they don't need to have too much detail here - the attendance records could be removed, for example. JPD (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tactics/Terminology

message: ...in a poll on references to Aussie rules in the Football article. Grant65 | Talk 03:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please vote

message: I've just reverted the additional of a generic football forum a couple of times.  Could someone more knowledgeable go through and trim the external links? -- Chuq 06:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the links that you have removed were definitely aussie rules specific, so I don't understand your edit summary. However, there were way too many links. I have cut quite a few, but there are still more than there should be going by Wikipedia:External links. JPD (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one was SANFL, one was North Melbourne, one appeared to be a Coke promotional site.. and one other. -- Chuq 12:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links