Talk:Tim Mannah

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Rugby league Low‑importance

	Australia portal Tim Mannah 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 Rugby league (assessed as Low-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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tim Mannah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080720163939/http://www.qrl.com.au/display.php?pg_id=2533 to http://www.qrl.com.au/display.php?pg_id=2533

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lb

I believe that per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Players#Infobox that the addition of the lb is incorrectly placed in front of the standard stlb. This addition of the lb as something that features for rugby league players is not currently contested, but it should not be in front of the primary or the secondary way to show the players weight.Fleets (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the argument for having the more British 'stlb' precede the more American 'lb' in an article that may well attract far more British readers than American ones, doing so is soured by the doubling up of "lb" with 5 lb; 240 lb that results from "110 kg (17 st 5 lb; 240 lb)" which I find unsightly. This is why I think "110 kg (240 lb; 17 st 5 lb)" is preferable.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be unsightly, but that is an opinion and that would still go against the general MOS and project MOS.Fleets (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to point out to me more clearly what the general and project MOSs have to say about this matter. I followed the links you provided but wasn't able to spot anything.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]