Hi. I'm doing some mitigated live tests with my AFL Tables bot. To test this properly, sandboxing alone isn't enough. I'll try to revert things that aren't useful ASAP from now on. Electricmaster (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@4TheWynne

Hi. So I've been doing some more testing with the AFL Tables stats bot and have noticed a few things that are easily missed on random player pages such as totals not adding up correctly (bottom detailed stats are usually the problem) or not being synced with the main info stats. The bot managed to detect these successfully. I have done some dry run, and it seems to be working amazingly well now. It's still not ready for prime time, but it's definitely on the way there. For technical reasons, I may need to continue doing some live edits to ensure things sync as intended, although 95% of testing will be done in a pseudo sandbox.

However, before I start rolling out any code at scale, I'd like your input on some things. For one, it seems there's some inconsistency between whether a player who is listed in the side but hasn't played any games in a season should have that year included in that year's row. Personally, I think it makes complete sense to include blank seasons as long as the player is listed for an AFL team, but I'd like confirmation/consensus on this. Secondly, I think the inclusion of a Brownlow vote column is rather useful, although I think it only makes sense to add it if a player has registered at least one vote in their career. How do you feel about this? Also, are there any additional changes you'd like to see? I'm going to chip away at this over the week. I think I can do it. The real test will be after Round 1 is complete. Speaking of which, is there a consensus for how rounds should be written in an article? For example, I've seen Round 7, round 7, round seven. I have my opinion, but again I'd like to know what the consensus is, if one exists.

Additionally, once I have a ready-to-run code commit, would you be open to running the code yourself at a later stage to check if I'm missing anything? Also, I have some ideas for sharking Supercoach and AFL Fantasy. Let me know if you'd be interested in contributing to that. Thanks for your patience, and well done on all the incredible work you have done to enriching Wikipedia over the years.

Cheers. Electricmaster (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. How did you put in those badges in your profile? Also, how do I even check my credits that would even be valid? Despite doing this for over 16 years, a lot of this technical stuff goes over my head. Sorry for the wall of text! Electricmaster (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I agree that listing blank seasons makes sense if a player was listed, and that's how I make sure to keep the statistics table I update. Regarding the Brownlow, what I've seen the players who have registered at least one vote, have it included in their statistics table. Don't know about official consensus for either of those though. --SuperJew (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, a bot to keep these updated sounds great! Well done working on it! :) --SuperJew (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Electricmaster, thanks for clarifying (and for the kind words). Yes, blank seasons should always be included, same with Brownlow votes (not just limited to players that receive at least one vote), and rounds shouldn't be capitalised (e.g. round 7) unless it's a title/header or used at the beginning of a sentence; all of these have been pretty set in stone for a while, even if it isn't reflected everywhere just yet (can only cover so much ground at once). If I have time, then yeah, I'll have a go at running the code; the main things to watch out for are that averages should be to one decimal point (e.g. 23.66 → 23.7; 1 → 1.0), highlighted cells (premiership, stats leader and B&F) need to factored in, and the new line should start with the games cell; for example:

|-
| [[2017 AFL season|2017]] || {{AFL|Ess}} || 4
| 20 || 2 || 6 || 194 || 278 || 472 || 97 || 84 || 0.1 || 0.3 || 9.7 || 13.9 || 23.6 || 4.9 || 4.2 || 0

Otherwise, do you mean the userboxes or the topicons (top right of the page)? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a news article that has been missed for the AFL Origin squads or is it confirmed to have only 21 players a team? Theres only 21 players on the page for each squad so it would appear 2 on each side are missing unless its confirmed to be 21 a side. I also recall seeing a post on instagram showing the teams with 22 players on each side and pointing out only Richmond and North Melbourne do not have representation in either squad.

Also what do we do for players who pull out of the squad? We have one player from WA (Brandon Starcevich) who will most likely pull out due to him straining his ACL (https://x.com/i/status/2016011993598267841) and I am pretty sure multiple players in the victorian squad have injury concerns too. Would it be a notes section like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_AFLX_tournament ?

EDIT: Additional question because you have probably done the grand final pages before, I am trying to get the kits up on the Sirengate controversy page however I was wondering how am I meant to do the kits? St Kilda's should be easy enough but Fremantle were wearing their white guernsey with the purple anchor on the day, and I do not know how do do that guernsey, by any chance are you able to help? I have included a youtube video so you can see what guernseys were being used. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3MuEVybS7M)

Edit 2: My bad, just read somewhere that there are more announcements this week apparently. Are you able to help me with the second and third questions though btw? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipstatic Energy (talk • contribs) 11:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Flipstatic Energy (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Give me one good reason why removing context/explanations for rules (and picking and choosing which sentences to source) actually improves the article.

In this one diff, you've:

• Deleted this reference ("the explainer") despite it explaining the rule changes in better detail than any other [1]
• Removed referenced quantitative expectations the league has for its improvements on dead time, despite it providing meaningful context to the changes
• Readded the poorly worded tautology "advance the ball forward" – advancing is, by definition, going forwards
• Reduced the ruck nominations rule explanation to the point of confusion – a reasonable reader could misinterpret your wording as meaning an unnominated ruckman or third man up can now join a contest
• Reduced the rucks crossing the centre line change explanation to the point that the nature of the change is unclear – they already couldn't cross the centre line before the bounce/throw, which had been the rule since the 80s; the specific change is that they now have stay behind before engaging the contest with the other ruck. You also removed the league's stated desire to have more jumping contests as stated in the explainer reference, even though that provides context to the change.
• Removed the "shrug = prior opportunity" rule entirely, despite it being referenced in the explainer
• Reduced the last disposal out of bounds explanation to remove both caveats; and pretty much reduced it to the point that if a reader doesn't already know what 'last disposal rule' means, they won't understand what's been changed
• Continued the unnecessary insistence that, in the context of a football season that runs from March to September 2026, it matters whether an individual rule was announced in early October 2025 or late October 2025.
• Added unnecessary quote marks back to the words 'protected area', despite it being perfectly common and longstanding AFL parlance

I believe the only thing I could have done better would have been inline citing the explainer reference each time it was used, instead of once at the start. Everything else you've reverted has made the article worse, and less likely to attain GA. Explain to me how you would argue otherwise. Aspirex (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]