Talk:List of Port Adelaide Football Club players

Split

I'm going to try and have the discussion on this talk page to try and reach a resolution. A split is reasonable on this page as Port Adelaide competed in the SANFL until 1996, and then changed leagues and joined the AFL in 1997. There is no irrational removal of content, as all the SANFL players are at List of Port Adelaide Football Club players (before 1997) and there is a hat note leading to that page in the first line. This is in line with the categories and subcategories. A very good point was brought up by @The-Pope: at ANI saying

"All other clubs that predate the AFL have all their senior players listed" (Thejoebloggblogg response). No they don't. The since-1990 AFL is exactly the same league as the pre-1990 VFL. There is no distinction in official AFL records. The List of Richmond Football Club players and List of Western Bulldogs players don't have their players who played for those clubs in the VFA before 1908 or 1924 respectively listed. They only have their VFL/AFL players listed. Overseas, major clubs often split their lists by appearances, such as List of Liverpool F.C. players and List of Liverpool F.C. players (1–24 appearances), which I personally don't like. Splitting by league/era is entirely acceptable and preferable in this case.

If the other clubs had their VFA players listed, then I would be the first person to split those pages, but there currently is no logical split at VFL/AFL players pages, if there were, I would be the first person to do it. I have acknowledged before that List of Melbourne Football Club players is very large and have tried different things to reduce the page size of it and have had some discussions about it, see User talk:Jenks24/Archive 18#List of Melbourne Football Club players size, so I'm not just targeting this page, I know it's a problem at all player pages, and this one seemed like one of the easier ones to fix with a logical split. There are also problems with the reverts where I have updated the stats and the debuts, and they are getting deleted in the reverts, this shouldn't be reverted.

Three editors all agree that the split is reasonable, including myself, The-Pope and @Jevansen:. Please discuss the issue rather than reverting as there are three people who support the split and one who opposes. Flickerd (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It's all just another wheeze to promote the idea that AFL Port is SANFL Port, therefore they have 3 squillion flags, far more than Carlton & Essendon, so there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.66.225 (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)