Talk:Ballarat Football League

Tagged without reason

Would whoever tagged this article for an improper tone please explain their issue?Ai1238 (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk page inviting them to come back and explain. AFL-Cool 04:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't tag this article but the paragraph below is an example of what is wrong:

In the 2008 Grand Final between The Ballarat Swans and Darley at Eastern Oval, Ballarat produced a grandstand finish. Swans captain Ashley Baker marked the ball on 50 in the dieing seconds to have a shot after the siren 1 point down. With the wind blowing right to left it would be a tough kick. It had to be Baker with 4 best and fairest awards at the Swans wins them a flag, the first in 20 years. He later won his fifth best and fairest at the awards night held at Darlson's Park, Alfredton. He is regarded by many[who?] as the Swans greatest ever player with 2008 premiership coach John Northley saying that he is the greatest as he has stuck with the club through the good and bad.

The tone is not encyclopedic, with terms such as "grandstand finish" more suited for a newspaper report than an encyclopedia article. The whole para is too much detail for an article on the league not a player. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving the message, AFL-Cool, and I'm sorry I didn't watch the article for a longer time. I'm more of a copyeditor, and I tend to purge my watchlist after a few weeks. That paragraph indeed is a probably the reason why I tagged this article. It's unencyclopedic. You would never find anything like it in Encyclopedia Britannica. --SLi (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory Statistics

Good afternoon, I have noticed that there seems to be a contradictory statistic displayed on this page.

In the League Infobox it states that "Most Titles" is Ballarat with 18, however in the Statistics and Records Infobox it states that "Most premierships won" is Ballarat with 19.

This is just a bit confusing as one is saying this, and the other is saying that. If anyone has the correct statistics could you please either inform me, or fix this apparent error?

TIA

Rohanmcmaster (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's 19 surely?

from the BFC wiki page: 1897, 1898, 1908, 1923, 1928, 1930, 1932, 1933, 1940, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1951, 1954, 1955, 1962, 1971, 1988, 2008 Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I believe it would be 19.

Thanks for the clarification, I'll update the infobox now

Rohanmcmaster (talk) Rohanmcmaster (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)