Contents

Talk:2021 AFL season

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Australian rules football Low‑importance 2021 AFL season 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Kick-off times[edit]

apologies if I'm being stupid and have missed this - but what time zone is used for the kick-off times? 141.92.67.43 (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's all local times depending on the stadium, not one unified time zone. WDM10 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am mentioning that Melbourne’s win over Carlton became it’s first time since 1956 that it won 9 games in a row and added a reference to it. It was removed without explanation then the person removing it claimed it was a “season” note, not a game note. I argue it is a game note as it was the game which won it. This editor also added the next game as their first loss since 2020. That would seem like a “season” note as well. I feel the note is important and should remain. 2001:8003:D548:B200:FC76:5037:46AA:168 (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The note does remain, but in the 2021 AFL season#Season notes section where it belongs, and where similar content is placed in other season pages. I have removed only duplicate content from the rounds. This - and the presence of a gamenote in round 10 - is furthermore consistent with the longstanding policy for streak-type notes to be listed only when the streak ends of exceeds an all time record, neither of which is true here. Aspirex (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No the note you have added is a streak-related note as it for refer to another streak. Sorry but I feel you’re a bit biased and want another opinion 2001:8003:D548:B200:6002:372E:9951:AB68 (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you suggest I'm biased against? All I see here is a style disagreement, so to be throwing around accusations of bias is pretty unreasonable. Furthermore, you are mistaken that I added a gamenote regarding Melbourne's subsequent match, as this diff clearly shows an entirely different editor originally responsible for this addition, before being corrected by a separate editor here. In any case, the existing consensus is very clear: ever since the 'season notes' section was added to articles in 2015, this has been the section we've used to capture about records or long-standing marks in unbeaten or winless starts to seasons (refer Adelaide and Sydney in 2017 and Carlton in 2018). Aspirex (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winless starts to season, yet you allow the first “loss” since “last season.” How is that different. And yes I want someone else. This just seems like a toy against me argument 2001:8003:D548:B200:6002:372E:9951:AB68 (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mybold edit here was reverted, so taking it here for discussion as I believe makes a strong improvement. There are two style changes I'd seek to make, and seeking discussion on each separately:

Firstly, removal of all gamenotes related to matches played without a crowd due to covid. These gamenotes are redundant, since the absence of crowd is noted in the AFLGame template by "(crowd: 0)", and the fact that covid is the cause is self-evident from the context of the article. Hopefully this is non-controversial.

Secondly, removal of most gamenotes related to match relocations. Here again, I'm seeking a summary style to make use of general context to avoid the need to fill the results section with repetitive "Team A vs Team B was relocated from Stadium X to Stadium Y due to covid in State Z" because, in most cases, the reason is clear from season context. I also feel that the approach we're taking is oversimplifying the overall covid impacts (e.g. by neglecting medium-term road trips and fly-in/fly-out arrangements) but that outlining every special arrangement for each round would put further undue weight of text into a section which is meant to be about results. My proposal is to use a purpose-built AFLGameRelocated template to note venue changes rather than prose. I recognise this one is more controversial, but I think it makes an improvement to overall readability without losing the content.

This is a style question so it's preference over policy. Views welcome. Aspirex (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support the AFLGameRelocated solution - it's simple, yet elegant in the way it presents the information - would you consider the use of this appropriate for fixtures prior to 2020 that were moved for other reasons (stadium availability issues, crowd size, turf issues)?. Storm machine (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a applicable. I'm remembering that it was a semi-frequent thing in the 90s to change a venue mid-season due to crowd size. (Top-of-the-ladder clash between Carlton and Richmond in Rd 14 1995 springs to mind). Most of those are just part of history and don't warrant full gamenote explanation. Aspirex (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and enact the first step (removing 'behind closed doors' gamenotes), and wait a little longer for comment on the AFLGameRelocated template. Aspirex (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One agreement and no dissent, so I'm going to make the changes with the AFLGameRelocated template now.

I know this has already been decided, but I support this decision. I think we should research other games that were relocated in prior seasons due to non-COVID reason. RoryK8 (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has this become garbled? Eg it has Melbourne on 8 points after 4 rounds, but they won all 4 games 80.3.105.120 (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a counter-example to a previous edit made to the ladder.

1. Melbourne 16 5 1 130.3%
2. Western Bulldogs 16 6 0 135.4%
3. Geelong 16 6 0 128.8%
4. Port Adelaide 16 6 0 104.3%
5. Brisbane Lions 14 8 0 124.3%
6. Sydney 14 8 0 112.8%
7. Carlton 10 12 0 120.6%
8. Richmond 10 12 0 99.9%
9. St Kilda 10 12 0 89.8%
10. Fremantle 10 12 0 88.8%
11. West Coast 10 12 0 87.9%
12. GWS 9 12 1 82.6%
13. Hawthorn 8 13 1 88.8%
14. Collingwood 8 14 0 98.0%
15. Essendon 8 14 0 93.7%
16. Gold Coast 8 14 0 86.6%
17. Adelaide 8 14 0 84.1%
18. North Melbourne 5 16 1 72.9%

Carlton not only can still make the 8, they can even finish 7th. RoryK8 (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot demonstrate why a team has qualified for finals, or has been eliminated, don't make the edit. RoryK8 (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because people insist that Carlton cannot play finals, here is an update scenario. Carlton, again, can still finish as high as seventh position.

1. Melbourne 16 5 1 126.7%
2. Geelong 16 6 0 128.8%
3. Port Adelaide 16 6 0 104.3%
4. Western Bulldogs 15 7 0 130.1%
5. Brisbane Lions 14 8 0 124.7%
6. Sydney 14 8 0 112.8%
7. Carlton 10 12 0 120.6%
8. Richmond 10 12 0 99.9%
9. West Coast 10 12 0 90.2%
10. St Kilda 10 12 0 89.8%
11. Fremantle 10 12 0 88.5%
12. GWS 9 12 1 82.6%
13. Essendon 9 13 0 97.1%
14. Hawthorn 8 13 1 88.3%
15. Collingwood 8 14 0 98.6%
16. Gold Coast 8 14 0 86.6%
17. Adelaide 8 14 0 84.1%
18. North Melbourne 5 16 1 72.9%

Again, please ensure you can verify why a team is eliminated or has qualified for finals. RoryK8 (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]