Talk:Brisbane Lions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive

Archives


1 2
WikiProject Australia / Brisbane / Australian rules football / Queensland (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Brisbane Lions 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Brisbane task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.

Merge with Brisbane Bears

Officially, there was no merger between the clubs; only PLAYING OPERATIONS were merged. Fitzroy then left the comp and now plays in the amateur leagues. If you read the Lions official history, it states that they were founded in 1987; in 1997, they simply took all of Fitzroy's stuff and rebranded.

So with that in mind, should the articles be merged? The Frederick (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we bring back the theme songs?

we need to bring back the theme songs or the clubs as Wikipedia is the only site I can find on the internet that HAD the theme songs for the 16 AFL teams. now only Adeleaide has a song. When you click on the theme song, you are redirected to the clubs main article. Aflumpire 07:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As good as that would be, it's not possible due to copyright issues.--The Brain of Morbius 23:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues? What about all the other songs on wikipedia. All it is is words, nothing else. Its not like we are adding a link to the sung version. please consider this. Aflumpire 01:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

which is better?

Which is it then, Brisbane Lions or Fitzroy Lions?


Include the histories of both the Brisbane Bears and the Fitzroy Lions as seperate clubs before the merger
Absolutely. Questions - 1) Would the same history stance have been adopted if Fitzroy had merged with North, or the Hawks with Melbourne? 2)The Bears had a 17-11-6 record against Fitzroy. If this was incorporated into the Lions stats, it would mean that at one stage in its history, the Brisbane Lions would technically have played themselves for premiership points!

The Lions' Fab Five

I'm removing the following entry from Fab Five. Deal with it as you please.

* Five football players for the Brisbane Lions: Michael Voss, Nigel Lappin, Simon Black, Jason Akermanis and Luke Power.

?

http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2004/abc/s1100551.asp{{subst:image source|Image:2003AFLGrandFinal.png)) Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 23:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC) {{missing rationale|Image:2003AFLGrandFinal.png


2007 Results

Please do not update the results of the round until the end of the round because I keep having to correct the position as that is not decided until the end of the round.


Merging team song

I think that "Pride of Brisbane Town" should remain seperate as an article. Other sporting songs have their own pages I believe. Cls14 10:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually in line with previous AfD's the song should be deleted. As should the only other AFL club song currently on here.Garrie 22:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Bears? Fitzroy?

Should the records of these 2 clubs be excluded from the "Club List" section? Specifically prior premierships etc? ROxBo 22:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

POV - April 2008

To say Brisbane only lost 2004 Grand Final due to an extra 2 days supposed rest for Port Adelaide is completely rubbish and biased. True Port had 24 hours difference in game time but hardly a reason to conclusively prove for encyclopedia article that caused the loss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.183.131 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Too much detail?

The season summaries are getting much too detailed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a complete archive of information or blog. Think how this page will look in 5, 10, 20 years time. We need to be much more concise and erudite with the way this page is put together. Please try to keep the standard of English high as well. This page should be something we are proud of, just like our club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBrownDog (talkcontribs) 07:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Average crowd

An average is the sum of the crowds over the number of crowds. Just because there has only been one game it doesn't mean there isn't an average. This should not be removed just because you do not like the stat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.170.68 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read and understand the concept of Statistical significance and then you'll understand that the significance of 1 match is not enough to draw any conclusions. If I plan to roll a pair of dice 11 times and get double 1s on the first roll, should I declare that the average score from this pair of dice is 2? No, it means the significance of the deviation of the sample average from the true mean is not significant based on that sample size. Be careful who you call Einstein. The-Pope (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
No conclusions are drawn in the table. The state is shown. Please stop vandalising this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.93.29 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Guess you were right Shaggy. It is too early to put the crowd in. I have decided to follow your wise lead on this one. Cheers, mate. Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 02:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs)

Controversy

the following was removed with a comment that it should be on a player page -

In an off the field controversy three Lions players were accused of gang raping a 20 year old woman.[1]

It is a part of the club history, and is relevant. It is sourced. It should not be removed for reasons which are not reflected in the comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.170.68 (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your message in the history board. Not isignificant. Not needed. --Shaggy9872004 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
When the club captain is guilty of an assault, it is significant. When up to five players in the team are accused of a sexual assault, it is siginificant. Do not vandalised this page by removing unfavourable references to the team. You threaten the neutrality of the page by turning it into a pro-Lions mouthpiece. that is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs) 05:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, giving a fair argument in removing information is not considered vandalism. Second of all, I see nothing about the club captain being involved and there are only two or three sentences on the other players of the club and no action was taken against them. Besides that point, Adam Heuskes only played 37 games with the club proving to having little impact and being insignificant to the club. If anythoing, this should be put on the Port and Swans pages as well. Last of all, this is only a small controversy in front of the other millions of controversies associated with the AFL so it is insiginificant. I see nothing on this issue on the Michael O'Loughlin or Peter Burgoyne's pages and only one sentencing not even directly referring to this incident on Adam Heuskes' page. Once again, not significant and not needed. Oh yeah and one more thing, that section is meant to reference the playing and significant history of the club (i.e. the merging of the the Lions and Bears) not for controversies.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. We don't need to list all the controversies the Lions have had. Look at West Coast Eagles' page (nothing on the Ben Cousins' issue except on e tiny sentence and that's way more siginificant than this). And that's not how you put references down. Look below when editting.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It should be on the other pages too. However, by removing anything that sounds detrimental to the Lions you are removing the neutrality of this article. Indeed, it is becoming obvious that you wish it to be a "pro-Lions" page. This is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs) 11:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, the section is "Club history" and includes off the field descriptions such as these "Lions utility player Shaun Hart won the Norm Smith Medal as best on ground in the Grand Final. On the morning after winning the flag, the club took the premiership cup to the Brunswick Street Oval in Fitzroy, the original home of the Fitzroy Football Club. It was an important way of connecting with Melbourne-based Lions fans, many of whom had previously supported Fitzroy, and of winning over disaffected Fitzroy fans who had not started supporting the Brisbane Lions post-merger by honouring the history of the club. The Premiership Cup then made its historic first trip to Brisbane, a traditionally rugby league focused city." You are very clearly trying to only remove information that is detrimental to what you think people will think of the Lions. Thus, it appears that you are vandalising sourced, accurate information. Please stop now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs) 11:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, that is significant to club hisytory because it connects to Fitzroy. Second of all, I didn't write that nor did I notice that in the first place (I noticed yous' because it was a new edit). Lastly, "appering" that I have vandalised a page doesn't prove I have vandalised a page. You have no evidence, and thus it should not be considered vandalism. Please leave the page uneditted until this dispute is sorted. I will now revert your edit and we should discuss this civillly before deciding/agreeing on what to do next.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Civil discussion

Firstly, the "Go Lions" on your user page reveals your intention. Secondly, you are removing everything that doesn't agree with your POV about the Lions. The section will remain, and it can be assessed and discussed. I think it is far to convenient that you want to keep it in line with your POV and that simply will not be happening. Please do not vandalise this page by removing everything that doesn't agree with your POV. What is in the convtroversy section is a part of the club's history. It stays. You cannot rewrite that history.Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 12:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs)

If simply by the message on my userpage that you determine my "true mask" on this issue then you are easily stepping yourself into a territory that you are in yourself "Brisbane Lions Fan #1!". Besides that fact, you were the person who made the initial edit so iy shoul;ld stay removed until further notice. I can easily say it is far more convenient that you want to keep i t in your POV. Not everything on that page/section is positive. We mention the losing and the ups and downs of the playing style and coaching of the club. The controversy section is just a nuisance that can easily be incorporated to those particular player's pages. Once again look at the West Coast Eagles ppage and their brief mention on the Ben Cousins issue. It is not neccessarilly part of the club so it should stay individual. --Shaggy9872004 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed I am a fan, but I don't let that stand in the way of a balanced page. In what way is the section a nuisance? Because you don't think there should be anything bad on the page?Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 12:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs)
Every club has off-field problems, is Brisbane any worse than the other AFL clubs? I'd hazard a guess that Collingwood have the longest list of off field breaches and West Coast the most serious offences. Brisbane wouldn't even be in my top six if I were making a list. Its a sports club, you'd be hard pressed to find a team from the NBA, MLB, EPL, NRL etc ... that haven't had issues with player behaviour off the field one time or another. To put it simply, it's just not notable.
Out of interest, I checked out the Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club article and it makes no mention of the Coffs Harbour gang rape allegations. If any off-field incident in Australian sport is notable, that would be it!
Now, let's face it, even a blindfolded Stevie Wonder can see that you have an agenda. All of your edits, bar three, have related to adding 'controversies' to this article and that of it's players. That, coupled with your clearly dishonest username, is an ingredient for a very short stay on wikipedia. It may already be too late for you but if you hold any ambition of remaining on this encyclopedia I'd suggest that you do not add any more controversies to this page until it is "assessed and discussed" here (you've already broken the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule)
For the record, I'm a Sydney Swans fan. You beat us this weekend so rest assured that I don't have any sort of pro-lions agenda. Jevansen (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually it's not the club that is having off field problems, it's the players. They happen to all be members of the club, but it's not the club that's doing it. Not relevant to the club, and definitely not to the Wikipedia article on the club. Canterbury Tail talk 15:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I note the argument that the Lion's problems are no worse than other clubs is used as a reason only to show a positive history. Using that argument it is no more notable to win a premiership and there should be a single List of AFL Premiers Page. Likewise, I note that Aker's Brownlow medal is listed. Using the other argument, this is a something the player achieved, not the club, and should not be included.Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 20:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs)

As for three-reverts, I note that it is my addition that has been reverted three times. I will now ask you to stop, or you may find yourself on the wrong end oif it. Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 20:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point, you were the person who wanted to put the new information onto the page and you were the one that began the dispute. Therefore it is your responsibility to sort this out. I've already taken your responsibility upon my self to invite everyone to discuss this issue civilly. Besides that fact, I think everyone are already agreed on removing that information. Discussion finished.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Check

I have added this tag to the top of the history section because only information that shows the Brisbane Lions in a positive light is kept in this section, with any other verifiable parts of their club history being removed.Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 11:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs)

New jumper

I'm doing a svg of the new jumper but it might take some time. Bear with me. Saebhiar Adishatz 17:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

2001 Lions reserves QAFL premiership

Can the Lions reserves 2001 AFLQ premiership get added to the page? Paul t81 (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brisbane Lions. 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:

  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825021430/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118901/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118901/default.aspx
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706110341/http://www.lions.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/5085/Default.aspx?newsId=57155 to http://www.lions.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/5085/Default.aspx?newsId=57155
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825021430/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118901/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118901/default.aspx
  • Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lions.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/5085/newsid/151464/default.aspx
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605103241/http://www.lions.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=17429 to http://www.lions.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=17429

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brisbane Lions. 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:

  • Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Eflorg1K?url=http://cms.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/AFL_Clubs.pdf to http://cms.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/AFL_Clubs.pdf
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304070408/http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/sport/afl/news/2014/8/brisbane-lions-ash-mcgrath-retiring-from-afl/ to http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/sport/afl/news/2014/8/brisbane-lions-ash-mcgrath-retiring-from-afl/

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brisbane_Lions&oldid=848411336"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brisbane_Lions
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Brisbane Lions"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA