Talk:2006 AFL finals series

Australia: Australian rules football Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2006 AFL finals series 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 Librarian^{What'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.

Template change

I've done this one: User:Schem/Scorecard but don't know enough about the substitution part. Schem

Nicely done. I think we'll use that template. I swapped them all over, and made a few minor adjustments. Daniel .Bryant 05:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MCG

Do we need to state that the Melbourne Cricket Ground is in Melbourne? The stadium name is self explanitory in telling us it's location I think. RockerballAustralia 06:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is purely to fit in with all the other ground listings (Subiaco Oval, Perth etc). Probably is required, unless you want to say "Subiaco Oval, Western Australia" and therefore "Melbourne Cricket Ground, Victoria". I reckon it should stay as it is, however. Cheers, Daniel .Bryant 06:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RockerballAustralia 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - it's good to see some interest in this article. Feel free to update it with scores and other details as they come in :D Daniel .Bryant 07:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, the article says not to edit it in order to prevent edit conflicts, you almost had me slapping a {{contradict}} tag on it :D Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha Mike... are you still on IRC? Daniel .Bryant 12:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Final

Of the two Grand Final teams (still undesided) would be deemed the home team? RockerballAustralia 23:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's determined by placing on the ladder, I think - not 100% sure. Maybe it's a coin toss... Daniel .Bryant 23:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the coin toss is why I was asking. It's usually the Away team that calls it. RockerballAustralia 01:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the home team is the winner of the 1st Prelim. Stats Fanatic 07:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

aesthetics

Perhaps some colour not unlike 2006 FIFA World Cup knockout stage could liven the page up - some logos in there... Just a (vain) thought). Jpe|ob 10:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as long as it doesnt violate image WP:COPYVIO policy. Why, but of course! Jpe|ob 10:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get images. Daniel .Bryant 10:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of logos to decorate this article would be a violation of copyright; definitely not FAIR. Snottygobble 11:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. That's what I was thinking. The 2006 FIFA World Cup knockout stage page uses national flags, which is a completely different ball game. Jpe|ob 11:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 AFL Grand Final merge

Surely anything in the grand final article will be right at home in the section in this article - the article and the section are almost identical anyway. -- Chuq 13:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree. Merge. Daniel .Bryant 00:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Change of mind, after Rogerthat and Remy's comments. Keep.
Leave. The main reason I started the article was to get some info on such things as the performers at the pre-match entertainment and the build up to the game. I believe it would look too cluttered to include those things in the Finals Series article, which is just a summary of results, as opposed to the Grand Final article, which is a more in-depth look at the game (I plan on adding some more details on the actual match as well). R o gerthat ^Talk 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're planning on adding the lead-up and aftermath of the matches, as well as a summary of the actual match, on this page. See the to-do box. Daniel .Bryant 03:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think adding that much detail to the finals series article would clutter it up - it is only 24k at the moment. Who is going to create 1896 VFL Grand Final through to 2005 AFL Grand Final (currently a redirect)? Even most of the season articles don't exist yet, and as far as finals series articles go, I think this year is the only one that exists. -- Chuq 03:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. I think the significance of a grand final in modern times is great enough to warrant its own article - in the same way that the 2005 Melbourne Cup has its own article. We shouldnt shy away from making a good article about this grand final just because people might not make the effort to make last year's article, or that the 1897 article wasnt very significant. Similar arguments were made about the VFL/AFL seasons and they are all slowly being put together. I think that if we keep the grand final article, the grand final team list should be removed from this finals series article as it is an unnecessary duplication. Remy B 09:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate. Let's give Rogerthat ~~<strike>~~and Daniel.Bryant~~</strike>~~ a chance to finish it without interference. We can always discuss this again once we've seen the end product. Snottygobble 11:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Daniel.Bryant wants to merge, not keep. Remy B 12:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Redacted. Snottygobble 12:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I changed my mind, and hence struck your strikes :D Daniel .Bryant 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears keeping it is the popular choice, so if kept I suggest a move to 2006 AFL grand final :) -- Chuq 07:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-reply: I just noticed that the general grand final article is at AFL Grand Final - a google search shows usage is normally "Grand Final" if in an informal sense such as forums/fansites; "Grand Final" if used in a official sense, such as "Toyota 2006 AFL Grand Final" [1], and "grand final" by other parts of the media. [2] [3] Some mix them up in the same article ([4] has caps in heading, lowercase in body). Now I'm not really sure which is most appropriate. -- Chuq 07:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm thinking CAPS would be better. Daniel .Bryant 08:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC){{subst:image source|Image:2006AFLFinalsSeries.png)) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{missing rationale2|Image:2006AFLFinalsSeries.png

Fair use rationale for Image:2006AFLFinalsSeries.png

Image:2006AFLFinalsSeries.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 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]