Talk:2011 NAB Cup

Australia: Australian rules football Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2011 NAB Cup 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 Mid-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.

Qualifying Finals or Quarter Finals?[edit]

The NAB Cup AFL Record refers to week 2 as Quarter Finals. In previous years, they have also always been refered to as Quarter Finals. Has this recently changed? Brad 191919191 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the NAB Challenge really notable?[edit]

A section of this article is about the NAB Challenge. Even more than the real NAB Cup games, clubs have little interest in winning these games, just experimenting. It is so unimportant to most footy fans that they don't even bother to find out the scores. I seriously suggest that the whole thing is not notable and should be removed from this article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Personally I feel the whole NAB Cup is non-notable ;) But seriously I don't think it hurts the article to have the NAB Challenge section. Other opinions may differ, of course. Jenks24 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before these games were given a fancy name, they were just known as the practice games that all clubs play before the real season starts. No-one would have dreamt about putting the details in a Wikipedia article. Nothing has changed but the name. I think including them here gives them a pretend notability they don't deserve. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see what you're getting at. If you were to remove the section, I personally wouldn't mind, but I think there are others who would. I think we will have to wait for more opinions. Jenks24 (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the NAB cup is about the preseason and the NAB challenge is a valid part of the preseason preparation. I would side with them being left in the article based purely on the fact they are competed against other AFL teams (apart from GWS this year) and that I think the article scope is of the whole preaseaon not just the NAB Cup. Shadowmaster13 (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, does the article name need to change? And I'd be interested in your specific response to my 05:08 post above. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they are notable and they might have been included before they were given a fancy name as more details are included these days as to the past, i.e. the NAB challenge games are in the 2010 NAB Cup article but not 2009. I think we need another opinion. Shadowmaster13 (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what makes the result of a practice match notable. And I ask again, given that you say "the article scope is of the whole preaseaon not just the NAB Cup", does the article name need to change? You are, in fact, saying that 2011 NAB Cup is not accurate. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Football League pre-season competition page mentions the challenge matches, so I would consider them notable as a part of the pre-season comp. I think for the article title 2011 NAB cup is accurate. The challenge matches are a facet of the 2011 NAB Cup. And just because they don't count towards premiership or NAB cup point doesn't mean that they are practice matches, coaches and teams may treat them this way but without proof we can't say they do. If they are notable to mention then why would the result be not notable. Shadowmaster13 (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody really cares? Sorry. That IS a facetious answer, but seriously... I've no doubt you're an enthusiastic supporter, who likes to see his team win every match they play, but do you pay any attention to results of other teams, especially those in states 3,000 km away? Why? I just don't get it. These results are very quickly forgotten. (Or would be if they weren't listed here.) They have no long term impact on anything. All that has happened is that matches which were historically largely ignored have been given a commercial label by the AFL and some fans have slavishly followed its lead and decided they must be important. They're simply not. You saying they are notable (while I say they're not) doesn't make them notable. We need a real reason. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from WikiProject AFL:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

There has been significant coverage of the NAB Challenge in all media sources. Match reports and scores are found on the AFL's website [1], in reliable news websites and print forms such as the Herald Sun [2], Age [3], Advertiser [4], WA Times [5] ect, television news reports such as FoxSports News [6], Nine Network, Seven Network, ONE HD, ABC ect. and radio coverage on SEN1116, 3AW, 5AA, 6PR ect. From all these reliable secondary sources I believe this warrants notability within this article, regardless of whether people think of this competition and its matches as unimportant. Merlin Wiese (talk) 3:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I know it's too easy at times to pick holes in the arguments of sports fans but....

1) "...significant coverage...in all media sources..." What a silly thing to say. Obviously not "all".

2) If people think it IS unimportant (as you suggest is possible in your last sentence), then it's NOT notable. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to say main types of media, i.e. tv, radio, newspapers ect. Also, just because a few people may think that something is unimportant doesn't mean that it is not notable. I don't really care that much about climate change for example, but just because I don't think it's that important doesn't mean that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Notability is based on the amount of coverage its received through reliable independent sources, not opinion of what people think about it/them. I believe that in my above post I have made a valid and reasoned argument based on Wikipedia's guidelines for notability as to why there is no need to remove the NAB Challenge section. Unless someone can come up with a valid reason for its removal based on Wikipedia's notability requirements and not based purely on personal opinion, then it should remain. Merlin Wiese (talk) 7:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If these games mean anything to anyone, they are in the category of short lived ephemera. Once the real footy season starts, the results become irrelevant and are quickly forgotten. The fact that they get coverage at all now is an artefact of the media and the time of year. The media needs material to keep fans interested. It's artificial news that is quickly forgotten. A bit like Hollywood gossip. (Which we don't cover.) Be honest. How much will this stuff mean to you in six months time? We should not include this media pap in a serious global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should declare that I was the one who added the Nab Challenge to the page last year. My opinion is that these games are notable enough for inclusion. The reason for the coverage on the TV, radio and in the newspapers is that their audiences are interested in knowing the progress of their teams in the lead up to the season. You could also consider that in excess of 40,000 people attended the final round of games. While coaches may not be too concerned about winning these games, they are interested in their team performing well. Part of the beauty of wikipedia is that it is an instant encyclopedia that is constantly changing and the fact that there is sufficient public interest at this point in time should be enough in my opinion for it's current inclusion. Matt5AU (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think if this goes on much longer it will degenerate, so we should take a vote and reach a decision; unless anyone has a new argument to put forth? Shadowmaster13 (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That comment shows either your inexperience and/or lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works. We don't decide issues on votes. It's done by consensus. Consensus means having a quality discussion and largely agreeing on a result. My concern is that most of what I have presented has not been discussed at all by those who want this content. The general opposition to my viewpoint has been from hard core fans of the sport who say "I like this stuff". I would love to see the opinion of a non-AFL supporter on this sort of content. HiLo48 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to allow anyone to put a new opinion forward who had been holding back; and if in three or four days noone had cmmented then I would have put forth the consensus that the NAB Challlenge should be eliminated and allow people to agree or disagree in a manner that is similar but not actually voting and finish up the matter before it got too heated and someone was personally insulted.Shadowmaster13 (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2011 NAB Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated sources[edit]

Okay, so I know this esoteric af, but the sources for the match reports are deprecated (even the archived links). Is there any easy way to update these links without mindlessly updating it by hand? I know there's a bot, but I'm not sure. Any ideas?

Electricmaster (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]