Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Images

Many players don't have up to date images. For instance, the pictures of Jordan Dawson, George Hewett, Darcy Cameron are all of them playing for the Swans. There are no images in Wikimedia of them playing for their current team. What can we do about this? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convince @Flickerd to come back to Wikipedia/? Most of the current era pics seem to have been shot/uploaded by them through that 2017–2019 period. Short of taking your own images, there's not really much that can be done (free sources are hard to come by). Gibbsyspin 09:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me! Maybe we can do some sort of collaboration with the AFL/clubs for this. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from having users take images and upload them, trying to reach out to official channels (I'd think maybe photojournalists) and check if they're willing to publish a limited amount of pictures under a license relevant for Wikipedia could be an option. Also maybe to look through appropriately sourced sites, such as Flickr, if there are relevant pictures. --SuperJew (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok great! MaskedSinger (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the AFL would be receptive to a collaboration. They have strict conditions on stadium photography for a reason – there's a commercial interest in maintaining control over the distribution of high-quality photography and video. Even if they were receptive to collaborating I'm sure they would require something like a non-commercial license, which isn't free enough to be compatible with Commons licensing.
I've trawled Flickr and Commons pretty thoroughly for freely licensed images and they're hard to come by. Commons already has much of the low-hanging fruit. There's probably a little bit to squeeze out of the images we already have (cropping group shots to show individuals), but not much, and not in the long term.
Ultimately I think we have to accept, to some degree, we're a small project with a high bus factor. We were blessed with high-quality freely-licensed photographs for a few years, but that was never a guarantee we would always have them. We should be pleased we had a talented volunteer willing to contribute them in the first place. – Teratix ₵ 15:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, on reflection this is a little pessimistic. We still have editors contributing a few decent pictures – I shouldn't make it out as if Flickerd was the only guy doing this, just that the quantity and quality of his images were especially high.
I think a potentially under-investigated direction is asking photographers in the broader online fan communities if they would consider licensing any useful pictures. – Teratix ₵ 16:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what if i speak to someone from the AFL? Could we come to some arrangement? Does this work? What would we need from them? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plainly put, Wikipedia and the AFL are at cross-purposes here. The AFL is interested in making sure its commercial rights are protected so the business can make money. We're interested in writing and illustrating a freely-licensed encyclopedia. This goal is necessarily incompatible with the AFL's goal. It's not a matter of "oh, we just need to speak to the right people and say the right things". – Teratix ₵ 16:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So then what about the clubs? Wouldn't they want their players to be displayed accurately? If a Magpie is now playing at the Bulldogs, don't think they would want to see him wearing black and white. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but again you have to consider the commercial aspect of things – clubs might prefer up-to-date pictures, but they would probably require payment for their use. At best they might be amenable to releasing images under noncommercial licenses, which aren't suitable for Commons. – Teratix ₵ 03:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I think you are overestimating the importance of a player’s Wikipedia profile to a football club. They would not care one iota.
We do as much as we can here but 90% of current player profiles are years out of date in terms, and that to me is much more important than an image. Take Tom Hawkins for example – a wonderful article in 2016, of GA quality, and then two sentences since then have been written on the last 8 seasons of his career, in a time where he has undoubtedly peaked as a footballer.
Images are small fry here. Gibbsyspin 03:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or perhaps in general to put out to online fan communities if people who are going to matches or training (which would probably easier for the average fan to take photos), could take photos and upload them freely-licensed to Wikipedia. --SuperJew (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That means finding fans who love dealing with our arcane processes for uploading pics. Not a large group of people there. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'd say the problem is in the other direction – it's so straightforward to upload images, you regularly get new editors uploading random ones they found on the internet without understanding they're not free to use. – Teratix ₵ 08:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it has gotten much easier and better (I still remember using the UploadWizard and each photo was a story to upload (with dial-up internet too hahaha)). --SuperJew (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping this, to point out that technically, you can't take a photo of a player at an official match venue or even any official event, according to the conditions of entry for anything but "private non-commercial purposes". Training is less clear, as you don't need a ticket to go that. Quite a few of our photos were taken during matches, so could be challenged by the AFL is they wished to do so. The-Pope (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall some discussion on Commons about this. Because these conditions of entry are non-copyright restrictions, I believe the consensus was disputes over whether pictures breached the conditions were a matter for the photographer and the AFL – the logic is supposed to run that Wikimedia sites themselves are not bound by restrictions in a contract they were not a party to in the first place, similar to how Commons accepts museum photography even if the photographer breached the museum's "house rules" on cameras to take the picture in question. – Teratix ₵ 05:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that there should be a policy that if the photo is too old, it shouldn't be used as the main photo.....especially if they have an older team's uniform on Rhnu2008 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it's preferable to have no photo instead of a photo which is too old? --SuperJew (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton colour

Bringing a small dispute here before I get a 3RR violation. Simple dispute: is Carlton's main colour described as 'navy blue' or 'dark navy blue'. Both appear in references from time to time. The club's constitution states 'navy blue', and given the self-defined nature of club colours, I'd say this should automatically trump any other reference. Constitution Aspirex (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navy blue sounds right to me. Have never heard the phrase "dark navy blue" outside of the club's theme song, let alone anywhere else in society Gibbsyspin 08:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither, it should be "M&M blue". – Teratix ₵ 12:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With no other engagement and three editors (including this IP favouring the longer term consensus navy blue over one favouring dark navy blue, I will revert to navy blue until any subsequent consensus is reached. Aspirex (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aspirex, excuse the late response as I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing and I'm just learning how to use the site. I've been trying to find this talk page.
The colour is described by carltonfc.com.au as "dark navy blue", the hex code is #031A29 and the official name for the colour is "Dark navy". The colour name is used in the online merch stores and it's the official colour that Carlton wear.
Dark navy is still a shade of Navy Blue and does NOT go against the constitution.
Geelong wear standard navy blue and white, Carlton has always worn a darker navy blue and as the guy stated above, it is even referenced in the club song: "the old DARK NAVY BLUES".
I also changed the colour to the official hex code, as the incorrect one was being displayed, possibly for many years 03norh (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that your references 'outrank' the club's constitution, or the many other references which refer to navy blue without the dark modifier. You provided one article reference from 2011 (the constitution dates to much more recently), and a website called teamcolorcodes which includes the disclaimer "Teamcolorcodes.com is not affiliated with any teams or leagues that have their colors displayed". And given the club song refers to navy blue, old dark navy blue, and famous old dark blue, this is clearly not a strong reference in favour of any particular shade name. Aspirex (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The club song is not a good source for this. Where it's used, I suspect that the word "dark" is there only to maintain the metre of the song. Lots of liberties are taken with language in poetry and song. Dark is really just another way of saying navy. Saying the same thing twice in a song is just poetry at work. The club itself says that its song is called We Are the Navy Blues, not the Dark Navy Blues. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but many refer to Carlton's colour/uniforms as "the old DARK navy blue", not "the old navy blue". Plus all the apparel websites state the colour as "dark navy". 03norh (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't change the fact the the official name for the colour that Carlton wear is called "dark navy", even the official merchandise stores state the colour as "dark navy".
The constitution does NOT specify a shade, it just says navy blue, so as long as it's still a shade of navy blue it does NOT go against the constitution.
Bottom line is that standard navy and white are Geelong's colours. The "dark navy" differentiates Carlton's colours from Geelong's and it is also the offical name for the colour that Carlton wears.
Even footyjumpers.com (although not an official AFL site) describes Carlton's uniform as "dark navy". To me it's just common sense 03norh (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more references:
https://thecarltonshop.com.au/mens-essentials-premium-polo/
("Dark navy blue" is mentioned)
https://au.puma.com/au/en/pd/carlton-football-club-2024-men%E2%80%99s-replica-clash-guernsey/776121.html
("Colour: PUMA White-Dark Navy-CFC away")
There you go "Dark Navy-CFC" is the official colour name of the apparel 03norh (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to discuss this with you is very frustrating. You ignore what others say, and just keep repeating things you believe support your position. That's NOT discussing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided proof, whereas Apsirex has NOT 03norh (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ONLY thing he has mentioned is the constitution (which does not specify any specific type of navy blue). I have stated FACTS of what they actually wear, it seems that this talk page is full of congnitive dissonance and denial of facts. 03norh (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument you're making seems to be that all references which state 'navy blue' are superseded by all references which state 'dark navy blue' because the former doesn't exclude the latter and the latter provides specificity to the former. I don't see this as true: navy blue and dark navy blue are different shades, and in the face of conflicting references, I again defer to the constitution of the club as the highest authority on the matter – and certainly as a higher authority than the listed colour of a supporters' polo shirt on a merchandise website. Aspirex (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So going by what you're saying, "dark navy" does NOT count as "navy blue", am I correct in stating that?
If this is true then Carlton are obviously not following their constitution, because they're not wearing standard navy blue.
While it is true that teamcolorcodes.com is not an official AFL site (I never claimed that it was), it does however list the official hex numbers of each team's colours. The official colour of Carlton's uniforms and logo is #031A29 and the official name of the colour in the worldwide colour database is "dark navy".
If you look at Carlton's jumper compared with other navy blue AFL jumpers, you can see that Carlton has a much darker navy blue.
My position is that the constitution states that it must be navy blue (any shade as long as it's navy blue). There is NO specific code or shade mentioned in the constitution.
"Navy blue" alone is a rather vague description, as there are many different shades of navy blue.
Now if the constitution stated that it must be "standard navy blue" or they stated a specific hex code and Carlton actually wore standard navy blue (instead of the dark navy they actually wear), then this discussion wouldn't even be happening in the first place. 03norh (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, 03norh has given much stronger evidence than what you have provided. The "constitution" you keep refering to has not given a clear defintion of the shade of navy blue, so cannot be used as a reliable source.
"Navy blue" is a generic term for any form of dark blue.
When you state that "dark navy" does not constitute as a form of "navy blue", you are merely stating a personal opinion rather than a fact. Your argument ultimately holds no weight.
03norh on the other hand, has provided the offical colour name of the club apparel that ultimately gets worn on the ground, yet you continue to ignore this information in favour of your own biased opinion. Rhnu2008 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This dispute has to be the lamest reason I've ever seen someone make sockpuppets. – Teratix ₵ 14:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. What about [guy]? A two edit account pushing a slightly different counteropinion in the same infobox at the same time seems mightily coincidental. Aspirex (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are a perfect example of original research, which is unacceptable. 10:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Michael Voss stats

If someone could pop over to Talk:Michael_Voss#Coaching_stats_in_infobox and take a look that would be awesome. Commander Keane (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFL player lead sentence

Hi. Totallynotarandomalt69 recently made a change [1] at Oliver Hayes-Brown regarding the handling of "Australian" and "Australian rules football" in the lead. There has recently been a big discussion at WP:NFL (see here) regarding how to handle nationality in the lead for American football players, specifically former players. The supported proposal was: PLAYER NAME (BIRTHDATE – DEATHDATE) is a[n] NATIONALITY former professional football player in the National Football League (NFL).

I recognise that "Australian rules footballer" in the lead sentence is the considered norm across this project, but the same principal should apply to AFL players to comply with WP:NATIONALITY and MOS:CONTEXTBIO e.g. an Australian football player. Across the Australian soccer project, most player pages have an Australian soccer player, so clashing with association football shouldn't be a barrier.

I'm not a regular at this project so I am keen to hear from others.

Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I wouldn't be totally opposed to changing it to "Australian football player" but like you I'd be keen to hear from others before any widespread change comes in Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could work so long as we continue to consistently apply WP:NCFIA to stop soccer players being described as Australian footballers. HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't really mind what goofy calls the Americans choose to make about their football articles, that's their prerogative – but I'm sorry, they got this one wrong here. "American former professional football player" is just an ugly, ugly way to write. Four consecutive adjectives is too many. The sentence trips over itself. It's a perfect example of the kind of Wikipedia-ese you get when you're "writing by committee", trying to standardise and cram in every aspect of the subject into a single lead sentence. You lose sight of brevity and the result is this awful word salad. Let's not copy-paste this approach here.
I have several objections to "Australian football player" in particular:
  • "Footballer" is more concise than "football player" and means the same thing.
  • "Football" is an ambiguous term in the Australian context and different codes of football dominate in different areas. The nice thing about "Australian rules footballer" and "Australian soccer player" is that they unambiguously denote which code a footballer belongs to without editors having to make a messy and invariably contentious call on what "football" really means in the Australian context. Let's not disrupt that equilibrium if we can avoid it.
  • "Australian football player" introduces unnecessary ambiguity about whether the subject is an "[Australian] [football player]" or an "[Australian football] [player]". Plus, there are [Australian football] [players] who aren't Australian by nationality and there are [Australian] [football players] who play a different code from Australian rules football. Because there is no such thing as an "[Australian] [rules footballer]", the term "Australian" in "Australian rules footballer" makes clear we're referring to the code, not nationality.
– Teratix ₵ 10:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen ambiguity deliberately introduced in the past e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Barnes_(Australian_footballer)&oldid=732092552 for an old example, so that doesn't seem to be a thing</nowiki> Local Potentate (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that title is less than maximally unambiguous, but I'm okay with it because the code of football is immediately clarified in the first sentence, there's no other Australian footballer of any code named John Barnes, and I'm happy for article titles to trade off unambiguity for concision slightly more aggressively than lead sentences. – Teratix ₵ 05:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response.
Can I just ask, if Mason Cox has an American-Australian professional Australian rules footballer... and Zach Tuohy has an Irish professional Australian rules footballer..., why do we not do an Australian professional Australian rules footballer... for Australian players? DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because not all Australian rules footballers (who have articles) are professional – AFLW and state league players, for example – so there would still be a lot of "Australian Australian rules footballer"s if we went down that path without further rewording the phrase. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's Cox and Tuohy's introductory sentences that should change somehow, not other Australian rules footballers' articles. – Teratix ₵ 04:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting discussion. For readability, it does feel undesirable to try to cram Australian, Australian rules footballer and (for recent players) Australian Football League into the same single-clause opening sentence. My read of MOS:OPENPARABIO is that it doesn't strictly require the specification of nationality – it states that there should be context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable. So I think when we're talking about an Australian person known only for an Australian rules football career, the pragmatic approach would say we meet the context objective without having to explicitly re-state Australian as a nationality – that's probably neater than insisting on adding another adjective between the first two mentions of 'Australian'. Dual sportsmen (which is where this started with Hayes-Brown) can be handled by taking the approach of "...is an Australian sportsman, who played Australian rules football and... to space the repetitions of 'Australian' out into separate clauses and make it a bit more readable. Aspirex (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the further detail. I appreciate all that. The "Australian sportsman" suggestion is a good option. Totallynotarandomalt69, are you ok with this? DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the Hayes-Brown page? Yeah that sounds fine
"Oliver Harry Hayes-Brown (born 28 April 2000) is an Australian sportsman who currently plays Australian rules football with the Richmond Football Club. He previously played basketball..." is probably how I'd lead but overall yeah sounds good Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFL season template

I want to discuss the colours on the new Template:Infobox AFL season. I put forward for an all-blue colour scheme, replacing the top box (red, white text, blue border) with the same blue with white as the other boxes. Reasons are: consistency with AFL general branding which is blue with white trimmings and red/white/blue logo (seen on website brand and premiership flag colour); consistency with other project infoboxes such as player stats which are blue; in recognition of 1990s AFL logo which was mostly blue unlike today's mostly red logo and would have less argument for a red top box; and a little bit of disliking the inconsistent box colours between the top heading and the subsequent ones. Alternative to blue and white would be adopting the same colour scheme as Western Bulldogs of all blue (of the appropriate shade), white text, red border. Aspirex (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How the template is now looks mighty similar to the logo, so I didn't quite understand the issue? --SuperJew (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The logo is not the full brand. The logo on a blue background is the predominant brand for the league. Aspirex (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why all of the headers and 'below' are blue with white text, and in the absence of a logo, 'above' is designed to match the logo. I don't understand the issue either, it really just sounds like you don't like the look/use of the red. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I wouldn't have raised a discussion if I liked it. Aesthetically speaking, having the same colours for each heading would be preferable, and a lot more consistent with Wikipedia sports project norms. (I've gone looking – and I'm yet to find an infobox with more than one colour of heading in it, except where one of the neutral greys is used for a subheading). Aspirex (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_rules_football&oldid=1240534265"