Talk:Australian rules football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australian rules football is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
November 5, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Flag
Portal
 Australian rules football is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject AFL.
Assessment comments
Peer review This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Archives - Archive 1 (to March 2006), Archive 2 (to November 2006) Archive 3 (to March 2007)

Contents

[edit] Quote

I'm not sure where in the article it could go but I found this quote about Australian Rules from the great CB Fry; "The Australian game is easily the finest form of football ever invented - the most athletic to play and the most exciting to watch." If someone can find a location within the article, the source is Australia's Yesterdays by Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd., Sydney, Third Edition, 1986. ISBN 0 949819 98 0. --Roisterer 07:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote is not NPOV therefore shouldn't be included . 203.97.49.94

[edit] Oldest Sporting Trophy

Black Diamond Challenge Cup remains Australia's oldest sporting trophy. Are there any citations to back this up? Ozdaren 10:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Put in the only citation I could find from the BDAFL site. It claims that the Cup is older than cricket's Sheffield Shield, but I would have thought that in terms of sport overall that the Melbourne Cup, first awarded in 1861, would be older. Perhaps oldest football trophy or team sport trophy is correct ? --Rulesfan 06:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This has now been removed. Probably belongs on the Australian rules football in New South Wales page anyway. --Rulesfan (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous edit 11:18, 8 August 2007 80.156.46.53

I m the one who made this edit (forgot to log on) Ksempac 11:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American viewers

Can anybody find out any further information on the source listed for the claim "7,496,000 North Americans watch Australian Rules Football at least occasionally on television." (section "Television".) I tried Googleing the source, "Globalisation of Sport Report 2005," but only came up with copies of this entry. Information on authors, publishers, ISBN or publication would allow us to verify the authenticity of the source. To my knowledge, Australian rules isn't aired on network or basic cable television station in America, which would significantly reduce its viewership base (if it airs at all -- I've certainly never heard about it, but who knows what goes on in the high, high reaches of the satellite dial.) Matt T. 07:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it until someone can show otherwise. The reference given was just a name of a report, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Remy B 12:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The source was stated as Roy Morgan Research. I have clarified the source and readded the statement. I think you'll find that this is suprisingly correct. The population of the United States is far larger than Australia, and many more Americans use cable television than do Australians. --Rulesfan 06:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. In the DC metro area, Aussie rules is on several times a week on the over-the-air network MHz Networks, which shows programming from around the globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.221.211 (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Football

Over at Talk:Association_football there has recently been a consensus to change the article name from "Football (soccer)" to "Association football". You can use "Association football" instead of "Football (soccer)". I was recently on the AFL website and they state "Whether it is called Australian Football, Australian Rules Football, "Aussie Rules", the VFL, the AFL, Australia's only indigenous football code is officially entitled 'Australian football'. It has never been officially referred to as 'Australian rules football'. Such terminology has only ever appeared in the form of football journalism, coined by different writers. AFL refers to the elite Australian football competition known as the Australian Football League." http://afl.com.au/Development/AFLExplained/tabid/10294/Default.aspx

This got me thinking. Why is the sport referred to as Australian rules football when the official name is Australian Football. Note: Soccers official name is Association football.InsteadOf (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, I wasn't aware that the AFL stated the sport's official name on their website in such explicit terms. In my experience the terms "Australian football" and "Australian rules football" generally seem to be used interchangeably as a 'correct' name for the sport in the media and in conversation, with the version containing 'rules' being more common.
The use of the word 'rules' does however predate the 1897 founding of the VFL/AFL (the names "Melbourne rules", "Victorian rules" and "Australasian rules" have all been used in the past).
I don't know if there would be much mood to change this article's name at this stage, since the current name doesn't 'feel' wrong (unlike the title "football(soccer)" which was terrible) but it does at least strengthen the argument against some fans of association football trying to take over the name "Australian football" on Wikipedia (which I personally think is provocative and over-the-top). Easel3 (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Mainly because Wikipedia policy is to use common names, not official names. The soccer case is difficult, because the most common names are either ambiguous or consdered slang in some parts of the world. This is less controversial, as "Australian rules" is quite normal. JPD (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The AFL has authority only by virtue of the fact that it happens to control the peak competition. It doesn't "own" the game. Consider that it was founded (as the VFL) only in 1897, 39 years after the game itself began. Until recently, the other state leagues (and to a lesser extent the VFA), were powers in their on right. They did not always follow innovations and rule changes instituted by the VFL, and had to be negotiated with in relation to player transfers, games between state teams, carnivals and so on. The last real vestige of this was State of Origin (1977-99 RIP); it would have been unthinkable during that period for the AFL to select/manage/control state teams. Grant | Talk 16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The official name of the sport is "Australian Football". The AFL is recognised as the de facto peak body (not just the peak competition) for the sport by all parties of any consequence (including the Federal Government) and what it chooses to call the sport must carry significant weight. In Victoria, at least, I would say that the term "Australian football" is more common than "Australian rules football" and in a perfect world would be the name of this article. The rename of "Football (soccer)" to "Association football" may be a catalyst to get this move happening but any move would need the goodwill of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia in particular to have much chance of acheiving consensus. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JPD. It is normal practice to name articles by how they are generally referred, not by their official names. It's like how Australia is used instead of Commonwealth of Australia. Nobody ever called association football "Football soccer" so that article's original name was a poor choice to begin with. I am a bit surprised by Mattinbgn's claim that "Australian football" is a more commonly used term than "Australian rules football". In my experience it is overwhelmingly "Australian rules football", or a slang variation of it (eg. "Aussie rules"). Remy B (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You'll find that "football" or "footy" are the most common names for the sport in Vic, WA, SA and Tas, more so then "Aussie rules", which is the common name used in NSW, Qld and NT. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I have never had a problem with Aussie Rules, but Kevin Taylor of the Footystats website does! In August 2003 he published the following comments:
I am distressed at the uncontrolled references to *Australian Rules* and *Aussie Rules* displayed in publications of the controlling body of our game, the Australian Football League. I despise the terminology *Aussie Rules* – as it is more often used by the media of the northern states as a put-down, as an insult – it is used against the code and denigrates the game I love -- it fails to give our national game the dignity of reference it deserves. Call it Aussie footy, Oz footy, AFL footy, or whatever, but it must be called Australian Football, for what it is.
Fremantle journo and attempted board member Les Everitt, however, doesn't have a problem with it, as it's what he's called his website! In WA when I was growing up it was always called either Football, Footy, Aussie Rules or Australian Rules if you were being formal. Never Australian Football or Aussie Football or Aussie Footy. They just sound wrong. So I think ignore what's happening with the other codes and KT and the AFL's reference to the "official name", and just continue to use the common terminology.The-Pope (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes i think it is right to keep it at the current name, as name changes do mean a lot of work. When wikipedia catches on in the USA their will be another name change from "Association football" to "soccer". We may even have our name changed from "Australian rules football" to "footy". Currently it seems like there is a lot of Australians on wikipedia with a few people from Britain. InsteadOf (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia has well and truly caught on in the US, and it is very unlikely that "soccer" will ever be the main name used. "Footy" is just a bit too ambiguous to be used for this article, too. Apart from anything else, the "use common names" principle doesn't mean use slang. JPD (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
it just seems to me that Australian articles are the best ones as are some of the english ones. I hardly ever see any American contributors to any pages, and i have used wikipedia for research for a number of years now. "Soccer" isnt a slang term nowadays. When it started it was. As for footy. A number of american sports articles refer to the game as footy, as American football is not called footy. InsteadOf (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
To most Brits, "soccer" is still slang, but I agree that it isn't in Aus/US. I was talking about "footy". Some people see the word as particularly Australian, and so use it to refer to Aussie rules in particular, but it is also used (as slang) to refer to soccer in Britain, and more so to the rugby codes in NSW/Qld. JPD (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
suppose we will have to wait and see. Im probably wrong but i thought it was footie in Britain??InsteadOf (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be using "Australian Football" in the main title of the article, with a redirect from "Aussie Rules", etc. The term Australian Football is the proper noun that refers to the game and is therefore the best title for the article. Within the article, I think it would make sense to use the colloquial expressions like 'Aussie rules', 'Australian rules', etc. Lets rename this page Australian Football.

[edit] Featured Article

Hey, This article i believe is very close to being good enough to be a featured article. Things i can see which need fixing are:

 - some referencing (do i need to reference every time a rule is mentioned?)
 - make a few of the paragraphs flow a bit easier
 - remove some information that is repeated

Any other ideas? Should try to aim to nominate it for featured article by the end of January.InsteadOf (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions for improvement, but I think a more realistic short-term goal would be to try to get the article promoted from its current B-class status to Good Article status. The article is quite a long way from reaching featured article status, as there are many unsourced statements and some sections have virtually no references at all. Even after fixing all of that, we would need to ask for reviews and feedback from more experienced editors, before we even consider nominating it for FA status, because the FA assessment process is so stringent. Easel3 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I didnt know about all that hierarchy. Thanks for the info. I added a few references today, and ill add a few more as i find them. Thanks for the help. 61.69.183.142 (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It will definitely need to get to Good Article status first. Two things that leap out at me are that the article is far too long and it has too many photos conveying the same thing. Remy B (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Valid sources support evidence: footy is most popular sport among Aussies and cricket isn't first sport by general interest!!!!--PIO (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have valid sources, then include them. You will have do spell out what the sources mean by "most popular". So far, the only source I have seen that even tries to measure general interest is the Sweeny report, which puts cricket ahead. If you know Australia, this will not surprise you, as while various codes of football receive more attention than cricket in each area, the football codes are dominant in different parts of the country, whereas cricket has a significant following throughout the country. At any rate, this has nothing to do with POV - it is simply reporting the sources. If you really do have similarly relevant sources, then supply them! JPD (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You may also wish to read that sentence together with the next two sections, which spell out things such as the fact that Aussie rules is the most attended sport in the country, and so on. The fact that these are not all mentioned in one sentence doesn't mean that the article isn't adequately covering them. It is perhaps not ideal that these sections have been split off, leaving a short "popularity" section by itself. JPD (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose definition "most popular" in article adding sources:Sports Attendance, Australian Bureau of Statistics, April 1999 and Australia's attendance 2006. Cricket is totally out of point and Sweeny report is simple an opinion not valid statistics!!!!--PIO (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PIO, on what basis do you call the Sweeney Report "simple an opinion not valid statistics"? If you look at the sample size for the ABS stats, it's 14,219, [1] not significantly more than the sample size used by Sweeney. Seems to me that what you want to do here and at National sports is to push your own opinion, in your own words, that "footy is most popular sport among Aussies and cricket isn't first sport by general interest!!!!" The first problem among many here is that you are not Australian, the second is that you deny the validity of any other sources that you don't like, and quite cheerfully delete them and the third is that your edits are so full of grammatical and spelling mistakes that they just make a mess. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PIO, neither of your sources claim that Aussie rules is the most popular sport. They both say that it is the most attended sport in Australia, a fact which is already mentioned in the article. This is one part of popularity, but it is clearly not the only one (what about participation, not to mention tv and so on). The Sweeney report attempts to measure general interest through use of statistical surveys, just like the ABS, and is definitely not just opinion. Any survey can be criticised, but most criticisms of Sweeney attack its definition of "general interest", but that is because there is no single good standard for measuring popularity. This article should, and does, give an idea of all the different factors (attendance, tv, participation), together with the statement based on Sweeney as an introduction. Anyone who bothers to read the whole thing (it should be shortened a bit) will get a good idea of the situation. If you think cricket is "out of point", then you really don't have a clue. JPD (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressing PIO's recent edits: It is good that we include the most recent Sweeney report rather than the out of date one. Now let's look at your "many sources" for being the most popular sport in terms of general interest:

  1. Site sportbusiness - this is an index page, the relevant article is at http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/159125/fans-say-aussie-rules . The article reports the 2005 Sweeney report, which is clearly even more out of date than what was already there.
  2. [2] - This is a Britannica article (not a reliable source) which says that the AFL is the most popular sports competition in Australia. This is a very different thing from being the most popular sport in terms of general interest.
  3. [3] - an article from 2003, referring to a ABS report about 2002 that documents Aussie rules as the most attended sport, and says nothing about "general sports interest".
  4. [4] - This article refers to the game as "Australia's most popular spectator sport" - once again, not referring to general sports interest.

So, none of the sources say what you are claiming they say. Could you please read your sources before adding them? You might also like to read the text that was already in this article - you might learn something about sport in Australia. JPD (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I notice the four links above are from google searches with "Australian rules football most popular sport" in the search string - ie. PIO was specifically looking for sources that give a certain point of view. -- Chuq (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Without condoning PIO's recent edits, I have found a source for his claim. From looking at the Sweeney website, it seems that the company actually conducts two surveys per year, one in summer and one in winter. The summer survey, of which the 2006-07 edition is the most recently published, shows cricket overtaking swimming which had been on top for many years. However, the winter survey, of which the 2006 edition still seems to be the most recent available, shows Australian football overtaking swimming in 2005 (which explains this article), and then remaining marginally ahead of both swimming and soccer in 2006. Easel3 (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't support any claim that PIO has made - it just makes it clear why the Sweeney reports from different times are so different and suggests that we don't have any source reflecting the relative interest in different sports throughout the year, so we shouldn't make any outright claims. Is anyone seriously disputing my recent edit, saying that football is consistently ranked in the top few sports by the Sweeney report? The other claims that PIO is making all relate to attendance, which is discussed just a bit later in the article. JPD (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, I agree with you. I should have said something more like, "I have found a source that complicates the definition of what is the most popular sport". Easel3 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

JPD is total in error!!!! I add sources with criteria about popularity: attendance in stadium and by television!!!! General interest=popularity.--PIO (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, popularity can be measured in any number of ways, using different criteria. We should, and do, describe more than one. The phrase "In terms of general sports' interests" implies that some combination of the attendance, participation, tv watching, etc, is used, and none of the sources you gave did this, apart from the article referring to the old winter Sweeney report, which I integrated into the article. Please see my comments above on each of the sources - one calls the sport the "most popular spectator sport" - while this doesn't tell us which criteria it is using, it is definitely ignoring participation; another is entirely about attendance, which is much more specific that "general sports interest", and the other (which isn't even an appropriate source) doesn't talk about the most popular sport in the country in any sense, but talks about the most popular sports competition! As far as I know, the Sweeney report is the only source which even tries to come up with a "general sports interest" criterion - if you can find another one, great, but don't assume that everything that comes up in a search for "Australian rules football most popular sport" is doing this!
Once again, please read the article and see that it already includes sources talking about attendance and television audiences. JPD (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PIO, you obviously don't want to try to understand what is wrong with your edits (factually, grammatically and in terms of which links you use), but perhaps you can explain why you feel you need to make them. What is wrong the article as I have just edited it? It says that Australian football is consistently the most popular version of football, and often the most popular sport in terms of Sweeney's "general interest". Then it explains the regional variation in popularity. Then it says that it is the most popular sport in terms of attendance and then describes the tv audience, pointing out that it has rated as the most popular sport in terms of tv viewing in 2005 and 2006. Nearly everything your sources say has been included - so what is the problem? It sets the facts out in a clear and orderly fashion, and it doesn't help to try and mix it all together, even if it should perhaps be shortened. JPD (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop your ridiculous and nonsense statements!!!! I request mediation but they not accept: it's absurd!!!! Agreement is impossible now.--PIO (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Which of my statements is ridiculous. Above, I have summarised the "popularity" section as I left it. Again, I ask, what is wrong with it? It is not absurd that the formal mediation request was not accepted - as Daniel said, we need to try other forms of dispute resolution first. We could try informal mediation, but the first step really should be trying to talk about it - please explain what the problem is. There is no reason why agreement should be impossible, unless you are not trying. If you are not trying to discuss it, then please stop editing - there are many problems with the edits you keep repeating. JPD (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Howdy, I'll be your mediator in this matter. This is a voluntary process and is only regarding content. I'm just another edtior and I don't have any special powers to make a decision, only to facilitate discussion.

It seems that this debate centers around sources. Each side has sources to back up their assertions, but disputes the validity of the other side's sources. Thankfully we have the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as a central place to vet and compare sources. In order to avoid any accusations of POV-pushing, I'd like each party to list their sources and a short one or two sentence summary of the part of them that supports their assertion in this seciton. I'll then lodge a request over at the noticeboard to get some source-experts to evaluate which are the strongest sources. MBisanz talk 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, I think you have misunderstood the issue here. The question isn't the validity of the sources, it is whether they actually say what PIO says they do. JPD (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
So I've gone through each external link on this page and pretended I was looking to find out what a person would find after viewing it.
  • [5] Football most popular
  • [6] Football most popular
  • [7] unclear, but doesn't appear reliable
  • [8] Football most popular
  • [9] pay per view
  • [10] football most popular, but uses unreliable weasel wording.
  • [11] Football most interesting
  • [12] Cricket most interesting
  • [13] Football most popular, but not as reliable.
I'd say the issue here appears to be in what manner football is the most X sport of australia. Is it the most popular, most interesting, most view, most popular spectator sport, etc.
The most current version Australian_rules_football#Popularity has only 1 footnote (#22) in the popularity paragraph. The source only seems to support describing football's popularity in national terms in the current and prior years. In particular I see to support the assertion of a national sport or popularity in other nations, the degree of indigenous penetration or local popularity.
It seems that football is a very very popular sport by a variety of measurments. I'd suggest including the 2 most reliable, current, sourced wordings. It seems logical to me that the government site and the Sweeney site are the most reliable looking. So I'd suggest quoting as directly as possible from them, and excising the unsourced speculation as to local, international, or other popularity. MBisanz talk 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the whole Popularity section is really about popularity, not simply the introductory part before the subsections. The article attempts to discuss the different ways in which the popularity of football can be measured. It probably could be shortened, but I think reducing it to two quotes is unnecessary. The local details are not under dispute as far as I know, and are definitely important in understanding sporting culture, but could do with some references. In general, I think it is always important to say how popularity is being measured - then my interpretation of the references above is:
  • [14] Football most popular
"Most popular" is debatable - What the source definitely says is football was the most attended spectator sport in the year ending April 1999.
  • [15] Football most popular
Again, football was the most attended spectator sport in 2005-06.
  • [16] unclear, but doesn't appear reliable
The relevant part of this page is the link to this article, which says football drew the most general interest according to the 2005 winter Sweeney report. The article interprets this as "most popular", but it is probably best to avoid such interpretations, since we can easily describe the criterion used.
  • [17] Football most popular
No, no, no. This doesn't say football is most popular in any sense. It says "the national professional Australian Football League (formerly known as the Victorian Football League), is the the country's most popular sports competition in terms of attendance and television viewing." An interesting fact (although Fourplay would proably dispute some of it, saying it is out of date), but not support for the claim that the sport is the most popular sport in terms of general interest.
The part of the article that is visible without paying makes it obvious that it is an article about the ABS attendance study, including the result that football was the most attended spectator sport in that year.
  • [19] football most popular, but uses unreliable weasel wording.
Not only weasel wording, but also a qualification - the most popular spectator sport. This is clearly not the same as the most popular sport in terms of "general interest", which was the statement PIO tried to support with this source.
  • [20] Football most interesting
  • [21] Cricket most interesting
Football/Cricket attracted general interest from the most people in the relevant survey periods. I'm not sure that's the same as "most interesting", but that's a matter of language.
  • [22] Football most popular, but not as reliable.
Discussed above. Since we can refer to the original source for this article, I don't see why we need to use the writer's interpretation, rather than sticking with a neutral description. JPD (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I discuss in page of mediation cabal.--PIO (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PIO, you have added a {{limited}} tag to this page. Please explain which views are being excluded from the current version. I have asked you to do this several times, but you haven't replied. If you can't explain what the problem is, the tag shouldn't be there. JPD (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

JPD, I discuss only in mediation's page.--PIO (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though the mediator said it would be better to discuss it here? JPD (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, on the mediation page you have complained about my edits simply by saying I always removed your sources. This isn't true, but even if it were, you still need to explain why you have put the {{limited}} tag on the section. What is wrong with it? You can't go around adding tags without explaining why, and the fact that your edits have been changed is not an explantions. The tag should be removed unless you can justify it. JPD (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No explanation => tag removed. JPD (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Things seem to have quieted down and the current version doesn't seem bad. I'll leave the case open for another 5 days or so unless there are unresolved issues. MBisanz talk 04:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Closed

After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you. MBisanz talk 05:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Sport of Nauru

I've been looking for a reputable source for claims that football is Nauru's national sport. Ideally it would need to be from a Nauruan government source but all I have found are football sites. If anyone knows of such a source, that would be great.--Roisterer (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

An Al Jazeera report sounds better than football sites, although not ideal. JPD (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)