Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox rugby league biography/Infobox upgrade 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Club football in infoboxes

I've seen a debate about this somewhere else once, but didn't add to it because I wasn't really sure what I thought at that time. It's about whether BRL club appearances should appear under "Youth Clubs" or "Senior Clubs" (or their equivalents) in the (not yet standardised) player infoboxes. Right now it's all mixed up and depends on whose article you look at. Some ignore BRL matches, some don't. I've decided on a pretty simple solution. I think BRL club football should be considered on a par with NSWRL club football until the end of 1987. 1987 was the last year that a State of Origin player was ever selected from a BRL team. After that it was always from the NSWRL. So if a line has to be drawn, I think the end of 1987 makes the most sense. Leaving BRL club matches out of player infoboxes isn't right. Until 1987 players were selected from the BRL to represent Australia, so everyone can agree that it was hardly a less senior competition than the NSWRL at that time. Certainly the end of 1987, when state and national representation ceased, is a logical 'unofficial' line in the sand after which BRL games can be considered a level below NSWRL games for our infobox purposes here in Wikipedia.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there was no QRL until 1996, which replaced the BRL. The BRL was Queenslands top rugby league figure (though many players were driven to NSW with money) in equal par to NSWRL until 1987, as you say. The addition of the Broncos and Gold Coast changed that. But I would put all games even to now (QRL) in senior games OR add a section to the infobox second grade or something. Players who are fringe players (such as Broncos Shane Perry who are in between NRL and QRL/NSW Premier League still considered Senior Clubs, but definetly not Youth Clubs. SpecialWindler talk  05:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My two cents. I definitely think there is a place for other clubs as a section on the infobox. I believe this would be a good cover-all space for teams currently in the Queensland Cup. Dallas Johnson is a good case, his junior club is the Herberton Magpies, you wouldn't consider his time at the Norths as him playing for a youth club.

Historically with BRL and NSWRL is a more tricky issue as people will no doubt run in problems with clubs that were top-grade and now a feeder-club. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have started this discussion on the template page for the rugby league player infobox, because that's all it's intended to be about. By all means, put all the clubs you like in the body text of players' articles, but I think everyone can agree that the infobox is intended to show the player "at a glance", so should only list the most noteworthy information. I'd argue that the infobox is not the place to include a list of every team a player has played for in his life at every level (we shouldn't lose sight of another very important aspect of players' articles called body text). Anyway, national and state representative career details: definitely include. Top-level club career details: I think so too. Anything below that: grey area. What I was getting at above, is how we should define "top-level club career". My proposed method, is to consider whether players from a club competition are drawn on for representative duties. If so, it is a top-level competition, if not, it isn't. Simple. As far as I understand it, no player from the Queensland Cup (or any other Australian club competition) has been selected to play Origin. Therefore it doesn't warrant inclusion in the infobox (this is not an attempt to diminish the importance of the Queensland Cup by any means. It's purely for the purpose of drawing a line with regard to infobox contents). However until 1987 BRL players were drawn on for Origin representation, so until that point, it can be considered a top-level competition. Now, another part of all this is settling on standard headings for the sections in the infobox. In this discussion I've used "top-level". In the days of reserve grade they used "first grade", but now I feel that's out-of-date. I don't have an answer for that one. It's probably best discussed here or here. In my opinion this issue should be part of the remaining tweaking left to be done on Mdmanser's work in progress infobox, which I personally hope will become the new standard.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say putting on stats for current competitions such as the Queensland Cup may well be too much for some people, I certainly have no interest in rooting round for them, but I do believe they have a place on the infobox as it shows the progression of a player through junior footy, through the competitions to first grade. I think it is relevant to show that progession correctly, rather than showing Toowoomba as a professional club side for one player and a junior for another. I think it would be best to add this detail in to allow Australia club players pages a more standardised format. Another reason for this is alot of players start dates at a club are there debut year. This additional field would illustrate that a player had a back-history and did not simply waltz into first-grade out of nowehere. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Under 20's comp" - Would this go into the "Youth Clubs" setion for players??

Obviously this won't have to be worried about for a while as Under 20 players arne't notable enough for Wikipedia articles, but no doubt some of them will move up to NRL as superstars?  SpecialWindler talk  05:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose we remove "youth clubs" from the infobox altogether. Jeff79 is spot on with his thoughts about how the infobox should merely summarise only the most significant information. Removing that section (which only shows normally one club or team anyway) would also solve the issue about this new Youth Competition appearing in infoboxes - should Jersey Flegg also count as a "Youth" competition? Look at Brad Fittler's article. In my opinion, that is all the information we really need to show in order to satisfy 99% of people who have Googled his name and want to quickly look at his player history. For the 1% of people who want to know more about him, they can simply read the article. Does anybody agree with me? mdmanser (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. I think youth clubs and other information should stay, but not necessarily shown. See {{Infobox actor}}, see how the "Awards" is hidden originally, maybe something like that. have the most important information showing, others can be viewed if wsihed. Just a thought.
Anyway, how do we convert ALL article templates to the proposed on, which I support and I hope Mdmanser (or MDM) didn't mind my slight additions to his template (which added weight). But do we get a bot? Bots can do anything these days.
It may be also benificial to add "abbreviations" down the bottom with "correct to and source" bit. We (unfortuenly) have to be mindful of peoples with no context.  The Windler talk  07:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rugby league biography infobox

Are there still any issues that people have with this new infobox? See Brad Fittler for a preview. I think we should start to introduce it to other players if everybody gives it the ok. MDM (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned it in the original discussion and I'd still like to see the 'as of' changed to 'as at' or 'current at'. 'As of' is just wrong. Will height/weight be going in or do we just add in the appropriate convert template each time dependant on imperial or metric/northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere? •Florrie•leave a note• 07:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Florrie, I'm sorry I didn't fix that earlier - I do remember that discussion but must have got sidetracked with something else at the time. But I just changed it now to "as at". MDM (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Cheers! My little pedantic mind will sleep well tonight. •Florrie•leave a note• 08:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just chiming in; as of indicates a date, as at indicates a time. up to date as of (the) 17th March 2008, correct at 0929.Londo06 09:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to get a consensus in my discussion above regarding club football content. I do look forward to one template being established so all discussion regarding it can take place there on its talk page.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Jeff, I propose we take a vote right here. I'll start off by saying we should only show First Grade (for any competition) and Senior Representative information. Any youth teams (such as Jersey Flegg or NYC) or second grade teams (Newtown, Parramatta Premier League) should not be shown. As for the current BRL clubs being featured (such as Redcliffe and Souths Logan), I think this may need to be discussed further, but it shouldn't have any implications in delaying the release of the new infobox. These can simply be dismissed / added later depending on consensus. MDM (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. My stance on BRL/Queensland Cup is detailed above.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming there would be a provision for current club, weight, height, schooling, youth clubs, etc when this is applied to current players.Londo06 09:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a "current club" one (we may not need one given that the bottom club under club information saying "present" is shown anyway). There is certainly weight and height (although since this changes every year I'm not sure if it is even needed for players). Schooling and youth clubs seems to be something that isn't really needed at all in my below - see Jeff's point below that says we should show only the most relevant and important information in the infobox. If there is schooling or youth club information, it should go in the article proper. MDM (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
They seem to make a big deal about a players youth team at origin time, and it is something that is always included on the clubs official sites and NRL.com, I would see it as a field that would be beneficial to have in place, and the editors prerogative to use or not.Londo06 10:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jeff about putting as much detail into the body of text as possible rather than just listing it in the info box. With some players there really isn't too much to be said and the more that can be added to the text, the better. I do like height and weight in there and I don't see a problem updating that as necessary, but I agree with schools, university, youth clubs and even nicknames and notable family members being in the text. Nicknames often have great stories attached. If there's a verifiable source, add the story. P.S. On the use of present, it isn't recommended according to the MOS date ranges. Should be date and endash only for infoboxes. •Florrie•leave a note• 08:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In my view, if the club competition does not have players that are selected for at least city vs. country, then it does not go into the infobox. Simple. We have to save some information (or actually most information) for articles' body text.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that BRL played before 1987 should be there. Wally Lewis is well known for playing for BRL clubs as are many other Queensland stars in that era. But, today the QLD cup is the equivelent of the NSWRL premier league so should not be shown.
But I propose this, what if we don't have a strict guideline on this and just use common sense. For example:
player Details Clubs in Infobox.
Darren Lockyer Most notable for being a one-club man at Broncos. Just [[brisbane Broncos
Shane Perry Played most rugby league in QLD cup, occasional First grade Both QLD Cup and NRL. Because Perry is more known as a QRL cup player, he won best player of QRL cup one year. To take this away, would be removing significant information, which is MDM and Jeffs point.
Wally Lewis Both, as point above.
 The Windler talk  10:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As above I am very much in favour of including information and having it set down properly, ie the break-down for players such as Dallas Johnson. I am not pushing for these fields to be filled in with apps and points but to me it would be a useful field to show Dallas Johnson did not walk into the Melbourne side straight out of the Herberton Magpies. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of what Windler said up there, but not the second. The problem with treating different players differently is that it retains subjectivity, while what MDM and I are trying to do is remove it. By having different editors treating different players' club football careers differently in their infoboxes, you'll create the illusion that a player like Shane Perry's QLD Cup career is on a par with a player like Darren Lockyer's NRL career. I have no problem with it being made instantly clear that Shane Perry's football career is but a shadow of Darren Lockyer's. This is achieved when we treat the presentation of content in all players' articles equally.
Alex, the details of a player's progression through club competition ranks seem like the ideal thing to include in the body text of his article. While the infobox seems like the ideal place to summarize his top-level/representative career, and show at a glance what a big deal he is/was (if at all). Indeed I feel that trying to flesh out body text in players' articles is a higher priority than trying populate their infoboxes. I don't think there's any danger of people getting the impression that all NRL players just waltzed into the competition, especially if there are paragraphs of informative text detailing their football career at all levels present.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand now, in the infobox, you should make clear that in the case of comparing two players, that you would be able to determine which was the better player. I see. And change my beliefs from above. So using an example:
Darren Lockyer
Club Details
Brisbane Broncos 275 (1300)
Shane Perry
Club Details
Western Suburbs
Bulldogs
Brisbane Broncos		 8 (8)
6 (4)
27 (8)
Darren Lockyer
Club Details
Some feeder club
Brisbane Broncos		 20 (34)
275 (1300)
Shane Perry
Club Details
Brothers
Logan
Western Suburbs
Canterbury
Redcliffe
Brisbane		 110 (134)
34 (8)
8 (8)
6 (4)
211 (168)
27 (8)


That left would be preferred because the right gives a false impression.  The Windler talk  09:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As I added earlier I am very much in favour in including the Queensland Cup teams on (any) infobox, however a single field to show that they played is enough. I don't think they belong in the same field as NRL clubs and they do add to the article as a point of reference. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a fait accompli, is it? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A real decision

Do we have a decision?  The Windler talk  06:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. The discussions here tend to get lost if not resolved quickly. •Florrie•leave a note• 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Then, we have all made our points, I propose we vote. Everybody seems in agreement of the new template (see Brad Fittler) against the old one (see any other rugby league profile), but the problem is what sort of "team classes" to put on there.  The Windler talk  01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The only worthwhile point I've seen made for the inclusion of non-top-class teams is the one about them showing their first club on state of origin night to let everyone know why a player is a blue or a maroon. So I think it would be worthwhile including that ONE club. The rest can go in the body text. So my vote is for MDM's Fittler prototype with ONE field for 'Junior club' or 'First club' or something, whichever club they base their state of origin representation on.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I am wholly in favour of the new template, however I do think that teams should be included on the infobox rather than left off. I think this is relevant in Australia and New Zealand with Queensland Cup, New South Wales, Bartercup, Youth level representation. I am not calling for stats for these, just there inclusion as they stand in the current infobox. Also schooling is one feature I am in favour of.Londo06 14:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
New template (with inclusion of height/weight) as it is. Expand the text with all the other less important stuff - notable relatives, education, junior clubs etc, and the info-box retains all the important info relative to the player's career. Jeff, I reckon even the junior club for SoO could go in the para about their SoO career. Leaving one field doesn't prevent anyone from adding in a <br /> and listing the lot! Brisbane clubs pre-1988 would naturally be listed with the NSWRL/ARL/NRL first-grade teams. •Florrie•leave a note• 01:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree totally Florrie. I'm all about expanding the body text. Just wanted to reach a compromise with the inclusion of the SsO selection-based club. I really wanna start putting this template into articles.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this template to be taken as standard and used for rugby as well? Being a union man I think this is a good set up for goals and tries being an important part of both codes. I am by nature an inclusionist and would think the infobox should hold all the necessary detail in a concise manner, ie. Name, height, weight, clubs, youth clubs, amateur teams, schools, universities, tries, goals, games, international games, youth international matches, etc. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the earlier section I am still very much in favour of including information, rather than the streamlining that is being proposed. I would like to see the original fields transposed into the Brad Fittler template. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no point having a blank article with a userbox that spans 2 or 3 screens. Fields should be as few as possible, only concerning the crucial elements of a player's playing career, which is what readers want access too. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#General advice - optional fields that are likely to be left blank more than they are used should not be included at all. As a test, some of you should try going to Brad Fittler and honestly ask yourselves whether there is anything more that you would like to know about Brad Fittler that isn't in that infobox. Look at it from a reader's perspective. Schools and youth teams would also much better be suited to the body text - if somebody qualifies for Origin then the "youth club" that makes them eligible to play for that state should be listed in that specific paragraph, not the infobox. MDM (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree. I can let go of height/weight with minimal whining if it comes to it (I just think it would be clunky in the text body) for the sake of moving on and getting the thing implemented! •Florrie•leave a note• 02:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That makes three in favour of the Brad Fittler prototype as it is then? Let's create it. Further refining of the template can then be discussed on its own talk page.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
One last question to all of you, regarding the coaching section. Is the current P/W/D/L/W% format okay with everybody? I put it in there originally but I'm just wondering if anybody can possibly think of a better format. MDM (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets not create a new template, just overide the old template using some of the parameters that are the same. And then request on Bot requests a bot to change all the templates where they separate at the <br/> or <br> to put them in the appropriate new parameters, also to remove the parameters not going to be used. Then we can weed out the unnessesary clubs.
As for a few other things. Is the "As of (date)" parameter needed for retired players? With the Brad Fittler example, is non-notable representative teams necessary to (City Firsts ???). Also can the Brad Fittler title go above the infobox (like our current one).
And with the coaching, I would get rid of the W,D,L part (it is basically conveyed in the W% part, and put "Premierships", which shows how many premierships won. Though this is just a thought.  The Windler talk  05:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Coaching section seems ok to me.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with either just number of premierships in the infobox or win % and premierships. All the rest can be expanded in a table if anyone is keen. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

While I remain wholly in favour of the 'upgrade' to the rl standard template, I do believe that information that is not currently in the proposed item is of value, and would not spread to 2 to 3 screens. I would not call for full stats for a players youth teams I do believe that these are of merit and do have a place in the template if it is to become the standard.Londo06 12:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here has denied that some of the information currently in the infobox template is of 'value' but the point is that it can easily be included in the body of the article. No-one is saying that a player's schooling cannot be included in the article but put it in the text instead of the infobox. Expand on it - why did he go there? Was it for the RL aspect? Was he selected from there on a Schoolboys tour? Make it meaningful (as long as it is verifiable!), not just a field in a box. I would dearly love to have height/weight in the infobox but I'm prepared to let that go for the sake of streamlining. That also could be worked into the text - small for a prop at 165 cm and 78 kg?? Large for a five-eighth at 202 cm and 123 kg? It isn't difficult. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like this is an Aussie thing, until it affects British players and British clubs it doesn't really bother me. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the same for British clubs (Super League) basically, just the examples used are NRL clubs because most of the users who contribute to discussons are from Australia.  The Windler talk  04:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, is this template only for retired players alone or are we planning to implement it for current players. I could understand your viewpoint for coaches, but for current players I would see that as essential information. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it will be used for all biographies past and present. It raises the question that we can work out. We could add a parameter current=yes to make those parametres appear, but what do others think:  The Windler talk  09:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a real good compromise.Londo06 12:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify the bit about those parameters for current players, Joel? Not sure if you mean every single field ever will be in the infobox but won't appear unless the player is current? •Florrie•leave a note• 00:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need for a "current player" parameter. It should seem obvious in club listings whether or not a player is still active. MDM (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well' we don't need a current parameter, but I think that the height and weight of player should be included when the player is playing (not retired). Anyway with the use of parameter that, if used correctly, would make them disappear even if info is entered (for instance, Shane Webcke, still has height and weight, but that was in 2006 or whenever, so they shouldn't be put there. The advantage of a parameter saying a player is retired, it will also get rid of the "As of (date)" part. But I don't mind if we do this manually by just removing it ourselves.  The Windler talk  01:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You could solve it by having Playing height, Playing weight and that applies to current, retired, dead players. My interest in playing height/weight applies to all players, not just current. Although if we left it off the infobox entirely, that aspect can be worked into the text. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't have any heights/weights for pre 1990s players or few but thats not the problem. But take Mark Riddell, he lost weight at the start of this year. But anyway, your idea solves it and there seems to be some problems with the current parameter by fellow users. But then why do we have a living parameter in the template?  The Windler talk  02:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I killed Freddy off for a minute and nothing seemed to change in the infobox. No idea. Fair point on Piggy - weights change all the time, especially as the youngsters fill out. I updated the Tiger's players at the beginning of the year when the new info came out from the club. When a player retires it's their last recorded weight that remains in the infobox (or the text). •Florrie•leave a note• 03:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
OK.  The Windler talk  03:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
For me height and weight would be one of the essential things for the infobox.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Colours

I'm sure we've had this discussion before, but I like it and would push for it but if others oppose I'm not going to winge. Just a proposition:

Club/Team colours should/can be used next to the name in the infobox as exampled here.

Any opinions?  The Windler talk  23:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See Brett Kimmorley for a better persepective... Are there any opinions ... At all?  The Windler talk  08:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see this new bit. I love colour but to me the icons make the infobox too busy, expecially with the new format (points expansion). They also break up the natural line between the years and the club name. On Kimmorley's infobox, I see you have put in height/weight but weight doesn't show. Is something needed to force it or is there a code problem? •Florrie•leave a note• 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Nup, no colours. MDM (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's allright.  The Windler talk  01:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For current players, to show that the player is still playing, the use of "present" is mainly used, but sometimes it is "left blank" or just "pres."

Should we conform this to all players?  The Windler talk  03:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the old template has a section for both club coaches and rep coachs. Are we merging these?  The Windler talk  03:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:DATE, present is not recommended for use inside an infobox. In text, yes, but not infoboxes. It isn't a mandate, just a recommendation - the form 1996– (with no date after the en-dash) should not be used, though it is preferred in infoboxes and other crowded templates or lists, with the caveat that they may need to be examined by editors more frequently to see if they need to be updated;. Left blank is good, as far as I'm concerned. •Florrie•leave a note• 03:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Coaches - shouldn't we keep these seperate, as in playing for club or rep side? I suppose combined would be okay if there's only a couple of club sides? Doesn't really worry me either way. •Florrie•leave a note• 03:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The original football infobox which I ripped off for the old template had just the one coaching section and still does to this day. I can't remember why I made the second section at the time, but that's besides the point. At the moment I'm just not sure that the extra horizontal blue line saying "representative coaching" is needed when there is only ever going to be one or two team listed underneath it. I say merge all coaching positions under the one line as they used to be.
As for the date issue, I think the way they suggest "since 2001" is better than just "2001–". Is there a way that we can make the infobox do this? MDM (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
'Since' reads well. •Florrie•leave a note• 04:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
We can only add it if we add the parameter to say to do it (eg. your going to hate this but current=true) so that the last club line would put since {{{club(counter)start}}}
Also, I agree with MDM on the merging coaches thing.
I think I've finalised the bot request on my sandbox though if someone could check it, it would be good.  The Windler talk  04:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Ah, I have no problems with that current coding unless it actually appears visibly on player's pages. It was all a misunderstanding on my behalf before. Either way, could the coding not recognise that a blank space for "year1end" means that a player is still current, and then do the marking up as a result? I'll have a look to check the bot request too on your page now. MDM (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Except when there is a single year at a club (and there is no year(counter)end) - you'd need a true/false then, wouldn't you? Unless you entered the same year for year(counter)start and year(counter)end? •Florrie•leave a note• 04:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying some code now, if it works, we at least have the option, but Florrie is right, there are single year players and a true/false thing is the only way. Lets not rush, were still testing things.  The Windler talk  04:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've done it so that it will do the since thingo.
To Brad Fittler I added current = coach and to Brett Kimmorley I added current = player (there is also a current = referee)
That will make the bottom line or counter to change to "since (yearXstart)"
I decided against it in rep games, because no player is a certainty to ever be present and to say Darren Lockyer is presently the Queensland 5/8 is true but, it's not certain.
There is a glitch with coaches, with this I can't say that Ricky Stuart is presently the coach of the Australian Kangaroos and the Sharks, it whichever is the bottom one.
Another glitch is if the player goes away and come back (eg. Justin Hodges), for him it would do presently for the roosters.  The Windler talk  04:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the latter problem, though requires complex code. Working on first glitch.  The Windler talk  05:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I can't think of anything/anyway how to fix it. Ideas?

Also, what do we do with unknown and/or missing parameters (mainly the T/G/FG part)  The Windler talk  06:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should make it that if the infobox has "present" for any of those "year1end" parameters, then it should all instead read "since 2006". Would that be possible? Try and testing it out with Hodges, but make sure to have his second stint with the Broncos on a separate line to what is already there.
As for unknown parameters, leave them blank. For Australian players this shouldn't ever be a problem since information is readily available on the "Rugby League Project" webpage (check the project page for a link). MDM (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
To the first thing, it's possible, and to the second thing. 1. When FGs were worth 2 points, they were considered goals in statistics, so do we just give the person 0 FGs. And what of players when statistics wern't comprehensive. The Rugby League Project dosen't provide player stats like does other clubs.  The Windler talk  06:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, should we put commentators on the infobox, eg. Andrew Voss has no infobox.  The Windler talk  06:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have completly revampled the since thingo. All you have to do is write "present" (exactly, no caps) in the yearXend parameter to change it. This is done with all of them.  The Windler talk  06:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Commentators - no, unless they played at first-grade level. 2) Field goals - if the Encyclopedia (or other source) only says 'goals' there's not a lot we can do other than trawl through match results to work out if it was a field goal or a goal. In which case G=1, FG=0. 3) On 'present' - if M's suggestion works with the 2001–present to since 2001, that's great but would you need to run another bot, before you do anything else, to change any open ended dates, '2001–' to '2001–present'? •Florrie•leave a note• 06:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Errors

OK, I added commentators but we can remove that. Of more concern is the errors in the syntax. Look, at Andrew Voss, It was originally using the commentators parameter, thinking it was a commentators syntax mistake I changed it to referees and the same problem ensured.  The Windler talk  07:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't want to touch it, but I found one line with four } where all other section headers have only 2.
{{!}}- }}}} {{#if: {{{representative|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} | ! style="background: #b0c4de; text-align: center" colspan="7" {{!}} '''Representative information''' {{!}}-
Don't know if that would upset the fields below. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Florrie, Andrew Voss is better, not 100% though??  The Windler talk  09:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll have another look. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's to do with either the club games part or the representative part, because Brad Fittler and Brett Kimmorley are fine and when you add referee section, its normal, so there must be something.
We might need to gt someone from Village pump technichal to look at it.  The Windler talk  10:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I say just leave commentators out of the infobox. It adds another 1KB to every single player page just to accommodate for a handful of individuals who commentated on the game. MDM (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Does that really matter
You won't ever notice it unless you're on a slow computer, but over time puts just that extra load on the Wikipedia servers. Besides, I just don't see the merit in including commentators in this infobox anyway. Just my opinion. MDM (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, thats OK, it was just a trial. But of more importance. If you don't use the "playing information" section, the template dosen't work. So... we need to fix that.  The Windler talk  11:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Would yet another true/false switch do it? Non-playing=false gives all fields, non-playing=true gives the referee and/or coach fields? It's beginning to sound like one of my database queries. And yet, this needs to be simple enough for an inexperienced editor/reader to use. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, we already have a "representative=true/false" so, maybe. Though it shouldn't be necessary.  The Windler talk  13:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, after all that I found one other small difference. All the sub-headers have a pipe at the beginning of the row except for Representative Information.
|{{#if: {{{club1|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} |
{{#if: {{{representative|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} |
|{{#if: {{{coach|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} |
|{{#if: {{{referee|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} | •Florrie•leave a note• 15:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Nuh. I give up. •Florrie•leave a note• 15:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
By Jove, she did it! I took the three other pipes away and Vossy's infobox (as a referee) is now working. I've probably broken Freddy and Noddy, but I don't care! •Florrie•leave a note• 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, Done!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialWindler (talk • contribs) 07:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

City Firsts was just like the New South Wales state team before Origin was introduced. The City Origin concept didn't come around until after Brad Fittler had already played for the City Firsts team. MDM (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But did the team supply Origin-level players at the time Fittler played with them? If so, it stays. If not, we need to put it in the body text. What we need is a line in the sand. Having exceptions/grey areas just makes everything messy and brings about long, pointless debates like these.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't you consider it the same as City then?? Most, well I, consider NSW before Origin and NSW Origin to be the same for caps etc. So I would then just add them together, or remove it. But I'll leave it to your discretion.  The Windler talk  04:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What about cap numbers (if avaliable). I support the use of a players cap number. Like the Cricket biography infobx (which this template was taken from), any thoughts.  The Windler talk  09:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to cap numbers as long as the field is labelled "cap number" as opposed to the current "number". •Florrie•leave a note• 10:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
How do we work it into the template eg, put it behind the team name eg, "Sydney Roosters (cap: 781)" or make a new section. Some teams have cap numbers, others don't.
Also, what do we think of the emblems use in the name. Say for Karmichael Hunt. Should just "Brisbane" and "Queensland" be used. Or "Brisbane Broncos" and "Queensland Maroons" ??  The Windler talk  10:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The use of emblems in team names (compare Noel Goldthorpe with Justin Hodges) - are you referring to the colours you added in to Kimmorley's infobox the other day? I can't see any emblems on either Goldthorpe's or Hodges' infoboxes. •Florrie•leave a note• 10:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, see how with Goldthorpe, just the team city is used (eg. "Hunter" instead of "Hunter Mariners") wheres Justin Hodges uses "Brisbane Broncos". Shane Perry, just uses "Brisbane".  The Windler talk  10:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was looking for pics. I set Goldthorpe's infobox up using the current infobox instructions - where it is supposed to be just the location: Where applicable, use only the location name of the team under the headings of "professional clubs" and "representative teams". That is, avoid using Sydney Roosters', but rather use Sydney. It doesn't worry me which way we go, as long as the documentation reflects the change. (I'm a bit of a rule follower. Unless I don't like the rule.) •Florrie•leave a note• 11:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

After some tests, in reply to MDMs question, "St. George Illawarra" fits in one line, but "St. George Illawarra Dragons" takes two lines, so.  The Windler talk  21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Flag

I have to say I'm concerned about the big Australian flag with the word "Australia" alongside it on Brad Fittler's prototype infobox. I brought it up on it's sandbox talk page but got no response. The reason it worries me is not only because it brings the total times the word "Australia" appears in the infobox alone to three, but also the issue of how we decide what flag goes there. I think it's all well and good for other sports, but not for rugby league. You'll have Adrian Vowles with a Scottish Flag, Kevin Campion with an Irish Flag and Tonie Carroll, Iestyn Harris and Willie Mason with God knows what. Let's just leave it out shall we?--Jeff79 (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't really notice it there. I know MDM copied this templace from the cricket one, but rugby league alliegiences aren't as clear cut as cricket. So I would like to see it gone.  The Windler talk  21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Finalising

I propose we formally vote (no comments) for things we have proposed/suggested that sort of don't have consensus.  The Windler talk  23:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Here? Or a new section? I check this page a lot and I still miss bits and pieces. •Florrie•leave a note• 01:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Six days since the last comment in the consensus-seeking discussion below. Where do we go from here? •Florrie•leave a note• 03:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The first grade bit seems to be the issue that remains widely discussed. There are other contributors out there who have not added for a number of days, but perhaps a clean page for first grade/other clubs debate and any other remaining contentious areas.Londo06 09:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Normally, if consensus can't be reached, what already is in place stays.  The Windler talk  09:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is to become the standard then we should do our utmost to try and sort it out.Londo06 09:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I say we decide on all the stuff below right now mathematically (by counting for and against) and start introducing it. It won't be written in stone. All this discussion should be on the template's talk page. It can continue there. Further changes can be made in the future.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If we go on the votes we are including youth clubs, for me the much bigger question would be to include an 'Other clubs' section to indicate that playing in National League One is still part of their career. Not pushing for the apps and pts, just that it is a very big part of the UK game with only 12 teams in the SL and all the rigmaroles of promotion and relegation.Londo06 09:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that some members votes should weight higher than others. There are a couple (at least 1) persons who vote, but in my opinion, haven't contributed highly as of yet to the project. But because we are getting a bot to covert the old template to a new one, we can keep some things, for the time being.
Also, I think it's better for discussions on major topics such as these to be here and mentioned from the talk page of the template. I never watch any templates etc. For instance, I won't know if a discussion is going on at Talk:Rugby league, about such and such.  The Windler talk  09:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely we have to look into the first grade and other clubs debate, otherwise you will have Leigh Centurions of 2008 as the same standard as Warrington Wolves of 2008. I think that is what you guys are trying to avoid, an 'Other Clubs' section would do that. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I really think that section would be worthy. It seems to be the last major bone of contention. The others seem like small potatoes and would not affect the widespread implementation of the new template, this singular issue clearly would. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I still have a few issues, but I can certainly understand the need to include those details on the infobox. Alexsanderson83 23:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Vote for Rugby league biography infobox proposed changes

Rules: The below is vote, it is not necessarily majority wins but probable just to get a clear indication. Do not comment, just a clear oppose or support or neutral. The discussion above is still open, feel free to discuss/comment above.
Also: You shouldn't pick and choose which votes you vote in. Vote in all, if you don't mind or don't care just place neutral.
Feel free to add any questions, I quite easily could have forgotton.  The Windler talk  03:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The vote is still open, but those with unresolved, please begin a discussion below the template.

Club level section should be first grade only

☒N Unresolved. Those who opposed, please present your case why below this template and above the header..

Then what do those who opposed suggest:  The Windler talk  08:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel that putting that information in the article text makes it less important than if it were in the infobox? I don't see it that way. To me the infobox should be a quick reference only. All other information can be presented as prose. 58.7.67.6 (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Bugger, just discovered I'm not logged in. Florrie.
Australian system different to British, fluctuating amount of teams in top flight, relegation, etc. Surely worthy of space in an infobox whether someone played for a club. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
May I ask, does any rugby league competition in Britain including the super League, use a relegation system for the competition?  The Windler talk  08:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It has been part of the game for many years. It was my understanding that the infobox would deal also with former players and as such would have experienced rugby league with promotion and relegation as part of the game. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think any level of professional club is worthy of inclusion on the infobox, whilst not pushing for the stats to be filled in as mandatory I do think that it deserves a place in the infobox.Londo06 13:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What don't you think deserves a place? All the stats or something else.  The Windler talk  21:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is relevant for the infobox to show that someone played the game. ie in England we have professional players at professional clubs, but would not be considered first-grade to Australians.Londo06 08:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you use a biography with a Wikipedia article as an example, to clarify what you mean. I'm confused.  The Windler talk  08:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ricky Bibey whose clubs include Leigh and Oldham outside the top flight.Londo06 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's make it simple. Top level teams get included, whilst feeder teams do not. This means the current Newtown is not included and unfortunately some current Queensland Cup teams (i.e. ones that feed into Melbourne and Brisbane) are not not either. I have no problem if players such as Corey Parker are make exceptions given their individual circumstances. As for English clubs, it is quite simple too. Any team can be included provided they do not feed to another team. That means 3rd Division clubs are included. MDM (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think making exceptions and treating different players differently, or trying to determine what teams are "feeder clubs" and what teams aren't makes it simple at all. For Australians it doesn't get any simpler than looking at whether the competition the team was in provided origin players or not. For the British it's less simple. A cut-off date (like our 1987) might have to be devised, since I'm pretty sure National Leagues no longer contribute representative players. But that's just using a similar rationale to the Australian situation. Another way might be to just treat the British situation as a different kettle of fish entirely and include all teams. However, if an Australian player leaves an NRL team then goes to play in the National Leagues, I don't think those teams should be listed as being on a par with one another. Since the introduction of Super League, I daresay no National Leagues teams have contributed representative players (but I could be wrong). Perhaps for Britain we could use 1996 as a cut-off. I'm for minimising the contents of the infobox. No player who only ever got as far as the National Leagues or the Queensland Cup would even have an article. So you're guaranteed that every rugby league player's article will have a team listed in the infobox. For me, if that happens to be only one team, then so be it. All the rest can go in the body text. The infobox should show a player's career "at a glance". If that career happens to only involve one season at a top-level club then I'm happy for the infobox to reflect that.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The National Leagues system in England is likely to see players playing at the World Cup for Scotland, Ireland, France, Fiji and Samoa to name but a few. It really is a quagmire with respect to England as we have full-time professional clubs in National League One and players who will start games at the World Cup in National League Two. I think a compromise would be other clubs, showing that there is a difference between the divisions but that they do still hold relevance to the players career.Londo06 09:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure National Leagues no longer contribute representative players - The lesser national teams such as Wales and Scotland do draw from the lower leagues, such as Wales from Celtic Crusaders (Gareth Dean, Anthony Blackwood and Neil Lowe are examples).
No player who only ever got as far as the National Leagues or the Queensland Cup would even have an article. - see Namila Davui (who hasn't played for the Bulldogs as far I can tell), Kevin Neighbour, Graham Holroyd, Richard Varkulis, Dave Larder.
However, if an Australian player leaves an NRL team then goes to play in the National Leagues, I don't think those teams should be listed as being on a par with one another. - Australian or not, what if the club is subsequently promoted to Super League? Or if they sign with a Super League club but are demoted the following year? What shows in the infobox? As much as I dislike the idea of semi-professional clubs appearing alongside first-grade fully professional clubs, with the business of relegation I don't see what can be done other than include all British clubs. Maybe the club only appears if (and only if) they were in the Super League for a portion (or all) of the player's tenure with the club? I've no idea. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the National Leagues not providing representative players. But I'll just remind everyone that a player's article is about the player, not the club, and must be taken in that context. I understand that some National Leagues clubs are extremely significant to the sport of rugby league in a wider context. But individual players' infoboxes are not the place to try and reflect that. In the infobox the clubs listed will have years next to them. If in those years the competition that the club was in provided representative players, it will be considered top-level. The infobox is not for showing the notability of a club, it is there for showing the notable games that a player has played (not all games regardless of significance, I would argue). I'll also say that there's a difference between an article and a stub. Someone could easily slap a notability template on those "articles" Florrie listed above and you'd be hard-pressed justifying their existence on Wikipedia. They have no references, nothing else on Wikipedia links to them and they probably aren't going to get one of these infoboxes anyway.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of likely Scottish WC players who do or have played Super League with articles who would be affected; Mick Nanyn, Kevin Henderson, Danny Brough, Ben Fisher, Richard Fletcher, Oliver Wilkes, Andrew Henderson, Iain Morrison, Graeme Horne, Richard Hawkyard, Dave McConnell, Gareth Morton, Mike Wainwright, John Duffy, etc.Londo06 12:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You could produce a similar sort of list for Ireland and Wales, had they got to the World Cup. I think the infobox should inform readers of the players career. If there is an issue over the level or standard then an 'Other clubs' section seems a viable option to me. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First grade can be defined as top competition in a certain region (QLD cup would lose that in 1988)

☒N Unresolved. Those who opposed, please present your case why below this template and above the header..

To those who opposed, first grade in Australia is currently defined as NSWRL/ARL/SL/NRL. But the BRL seems insignificant, only because it started a year later than the NSWRL, and the quality of players seemed to be less. But, I disagree, because the NSWRL had no afilliation with the BRL, couldn't the BRL be considered an equivelant competition, because it takes players from it's region. Wally Lewis would only be considered to play for Brisbane Broncs and Gold Coast in many books (notably Encyclopedia of RL players) but Lewis played in the BRL/QRL in the 70s and 80s as did many players before him and around him. They should be equivelant to the Sydney/NSW competition.

But in 1988, with the expansion of the NSWRL, that competition took priority because it had a bigger region to cover (NSW and QLD) which therefore in my opinion made the BRL second grade to NSWRL (despite the names). If the BRL was expanded to include NSW teams then wouldn't it have better priority (though that didn't happen because of money driven Sydney clubs). The BRL/QRL is no longer a first-grade competition, and it should be reconginsed as first-grade.

This rule should imply that say, a Western Australia rugby league competition should it ran next year, would become first grade. Well it would, and if it say, gathered enough public attention, it would rival the NRL (though this will never happen its just an example.) Think about it. The Windler talk  08:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

British system different to Australia. Going to re-read all of the comments over the last couple of weeks and then come back for this one. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Similar issue to the statement put forward above, I would seek to at least include all the players clubs, ie National League One or Two clubs.Londo06 13:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Though the first junior/youth club (for things like determing State of Origin alliegence)


☒N Unresolved. Those who opposed, please present your case why below this template and above the header..

I think that the information can easily be conveyed in the body article, it is too minor to be part of their infobox. The inclusion, is a small part of their career, close to insignificant to the first grade career. The information would be a necessary part of the main article but I think it shouldn't be part of the infobox.  The Windler talk  07:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It's something that's listed on every players club and NRL page. They also make a big deal about it at Origin time, for me deserves a spot on the infobox. Alexsanderson83 05:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Origin reps are less than 10% of a season's worth of players. I agree with you, Alex, that it is information relevant to a player's state of origin eligibility but it can be worked into the text. It isn't wikipedia's job to duplicate player stats pages from other sites. As much as I love stats and tables, I also love to read about a person. •Florrie•leave a note• 06:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to a bigger deal in Australia, but it is good to easily reference where someone played their early rugby league, useful to me anyway. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is a good reference to say, in the article body. I don't think to should be in the infobox.  The Windler talk  08:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd probably see it as a core part of the infobox myself. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's meet halfway and limit this to the ONE club. For Australians this would be the one club used to determine whether a player represents Queensland or New South Wales and for the British this would be the one club used to determine whether a player represents Lancashire, Yorkshire of Cheshire.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean halfway, it was always one club or no clubs. As I see, it is not an essential part of the infobox and is something that can be easily conveyed in the prose text. Take Karmichael Hunt, on the infobox in youth clubs, it has Souths Acaica Ridges. Now in State of Origin II, 2006 when channel nine had the promos for each player, and the player said the club they were first with. Thats what Hunt said in the promo. But in the "Early life" section of the article it says the same thing. So it conveys the same information.  The Windler talk  09:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I just said that coz some guys want more than one. I think one is a good compromise. We're trying to get consensus here.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the current infobox uses the header Youth clubs, which, for some, is an invitation to list three or four clubs. To me, though, even listing one club can be pretty useless as far as enlightening me as a reader as to which state the player would be eligible to represent. See, for example, David Taylor (rugby league) - his youth club is listed as 'Blackwater'. I have no idea where that particular club might be located. It might be information but in this context it is useless information. Alternatively, put it in the text, expand on it. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
True, and going back on Karmichael Hunt, the article says he "played junior rugby league for the Souths club in Acacia Ridge." That gives full context more than the infobox, and all junior clubs wouldn't have a direct article (or I doubt it), so it goes back to the point of not having too much in the infobox. The infobox should summarise the biographies career, not have every club listed.  The Windler talk  12:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you guys. I just wanna move past this stalemate. It should also be remembered that just because something is listed in the infobox doesn't mean it can't also be expanded on in the body text as well.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it deserves a spot. I would offer that whatever the players page on his club page, NRL, etc page be official one. If a players says any other clubs beyond those they could be worked into the body of the text.Londo06 13:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but can the editors who want non-top-level clubs meet the editors who want no non-top-level club halfway and agree to just ONE or are we gonna keep going around in circles?--Jeff79 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For junior/youth clubs I would be happy to go with whatever the club and/or the NRL say on their respective sites.Londo06 08:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Were not really discussing what club goes there, but if a club goes at all.  The Windler talk  08:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Then I would back the players official youth club to be a feature of the infobox.Londo06 08:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I still can't see a convincing argument for the 'youth club' field to appear in the infobox. I've been flipping through players for the last hour and so far I haven't found one article which mentions the years spent at the club, any stats, and only a few which blue-link to an article explaining where/what the club is. Except for some FAs, none expanded on the player's youth club or explained the possible significance in the article. What is the point? Why is it so important that it needs a field to itself in the infobox? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not necessarily looking for a section to itself as it stands in the current standard infobox, but I do believe that it is a worthy part of the old infobox, perhaps worked into the personal information section or other clubs.Londo06 13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I keep seeing words like 'core', 'worthy', 'deserves' - but not why. Whether or not there is a blue header with the words 'Youth Club' in it or not, you still think the information worthy of a field in the infobox. I think the information could be interesting if worked into the article. Could you please explain to me how a bare name like 'Blackwater' in an infobox is more informative than two sentences in the article? Otherwise this discussion is fruitless and frustrating. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a "heads or tails" generator on the internet? I really hope we don't have to resort to that...
On a serious note, I still don't see the point of throwing in another blue bar in the infobox to include just one unlinked club that nobody has ever heard of. Let's be honest here, is this junior club information really important at all? The answer is no. When people type a player's name into google and get onto Wikipedia, are they really looking for information about the junior club? The answer is no. For the 1% of people who want to find out a player's junior team, they can just take 2 seconds and find it at the article itself. MDM (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the players junior club acts as a useful piece of information in seeing where a player came from. I believe it belongs in the infobox as this works as a standard point of reference. Whilst not pressing for a whole blue bar for this section I believe it could be worked into the personal information section or something along the lines. The players youth club is something that clubs use as one of their major information points on their player pages, I believe it should have a line dedicated to showing where a player learnt their trade.Londo06 08:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the Australians put more emphasis on junior clubs than we do over here, but they do appear on many clubs own internet sites. National League sides being listed on the infobox is a much bigger deal for me than detailing the players youth side. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Very few of the Australians around here, it would seem, put much emphasis on junior clubs! Again, I would say that it isn't up to us to mirror the same information a club website chooses to present. Not, at least, in the infobox. Is it time for a re-vote? Or a drink? •Florrie•leave a note• 16:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I would offer up my vote on this for pushing through the proposal of the 'Other clubs' section. It does appear on the initial voting there were four supports and two neutrals, so we do need something to break the deadlock. Perhaps a trade-off on the 'Other clubs' blue band or someone putting their hand up to work in a generic line into the body text to cover the youth club.Londo06 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What was the outcome of this one? Alexsanderson83 23:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Representative teams should be notable enough to have own article (unlike Brad Fittlers City Firsts)


checkY Resolved, due to overwhelming support.

Height and weight should be for X players

X can be "none", "current", "all"

☒N Unresolved.
  • I would keep height and weights, and not remove them upon a players retirement. Obviously an optional field, but where known from an official site, ie club, NRL, Super League, etc. Alexsanderson83 05:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Change to support wherre info is available. Most up to date can go in the infobox I guess. where there's been significant changes, such as with Anthony Tupou, it can be detailed in the body text.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd want the height and weight section, it is a great comparative feature of the infobox. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I don't mind if its all players, however, some indication needs to be made that it isn't there present weight. Look at Shane Webcke, I've altered it just for a moment. Florrie suggested adding "Playing" to the first column before height and weight. But as I have said, that expands the column width of the template and I don't think we need that. Shane Webcke I have edited to offer two alternatives.  The Windler talk  21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally would work that in as a referenced note. Good idea though. Alexsanderson83 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That's an idea. As with the footnote for Professional Clubs. 1Last recorded/referenced (whatever) playing height and weight. •Florrie•leave a note• 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're going overboard. No other sport is really concerned about that and nor should they be. Their infoboxes aren't worse for it. I think ours will be if they have these absurd qualifiers and references beside weight and height. Definitely overkill.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, but think about it, in 50 years or so, when a player with height and weight has passed away, and it says "Weight 80kg" I'm sure its nice to say such things. And just because other infoboxes are different dosen't mean we have to conform.  The Windler talk  06:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Citing and sourcing seems reasonable. Not sure about adding words into the infobox to show those details. Perhaps have them hidden to open or deal with it within the footnotes.Londo06 08:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jordan is 45 years old but his infobox shows his height and weight. It is a featured article. A reasonable person could assume that this was his playing height/weight. It isn't referenced because it's not likely to be disputed. No one else cares and nor should we.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Have we agreed to have height and weight included, where those details are available? Alexsanderson83 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Coaching between first grade and representative should be merged

☒N Unresolved. Those who opposed, please present your case why below this template and above the header..
  • I would keep them apart, they are very different jobs, with many rep jobs available out there. Often those who have these jobs have also had a few club roles too. I believe it would cause too much clutter to have them mixed together. Alexsanderson83 05:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say having fewer subsections in the infobox causes less "clutter".--Jeff79 (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
clutter does not necessarily come about due to having a greater number of items, but I do believe it best to have an easy to read infobox, and jumping from club, rep, club, club, rep, etc would be an issue. Alexsanderson83 06:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I definitely don't want Penrith, Australia, Halifax, England, Wigan, Souths, Fiji, Western Samoa, Salford, etc (although what a career). I reckon keep them separated, possibly not by a blue divider if that's an alternative to get people on board. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the status quo as regards the old infobox here. Another option is simply having a clear break inside coaching information section, a clear divisor seems a good suggestion that I've heard.Londo06 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
checkY Resolved. Seperated by a non-main header, see infobox.

The use of "Since (year)" over "(year)-present" or "(year)-(blank)"

☒N Unresolved. Those who opposed/supported, please present your case why below this template and above the header..

I'm not overly fussed, really. But if since 1997 doesn't gain consensus then the alternative should be 1997–(blank), not 1997–present. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've never really liked the "(year)-present/(blank)" format but I've never been able to think of an alternative. When MDM (I think) suggested "since (year)" I was all for it. I suppose I don't have a valid reason over it, so all I can do is pusuade peoples. (Look at Brad Fittler and Brett Kimmorley).  The Windler talk  21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I would stick with what we had before, which I believe was 1997–(blank). CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would not make the move to the proposed since 2006 version. As long as the 1997 - lines up properly it looks very clean and orderly, I'm not a fan of the since 2006 proposition on an aesthetic level as well.Londo06 13:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean. What is the 2006 version? I think it is "(year)-present", but...  The Windler talk  08:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I am against the proposal to list as since 1997, but am in favour of the 1997- option. Aesthetically it works better for me.Londo06 08:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
checkY Resolved. The decision of "(year)-(blank)" over "since (year)" or "(year)-present". This can be changed later anyway.

The addition of a "commentator" section


checkY Resolved. Overwhelming opposition by higher members.

The use of mascots in team names ie, Cronulla Sharks over Cronulla (compare Noel Goldthorpe with Justin Hodges)


☒N Unresolved. Those who opposed, please present your case why below this template and above the header..

Changed my vote to oppose for aesthetic reasons and to prevent use of two lines. All or nothing - all teams use the mascot component or all don't. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'd prefer the emblems added to the team name, I don't mind, but I don't like the use of "Sydney" for the Roosters, because it seems very ambigious. I know it would be linked to Sydney Roosters and there are no other teams that use just "Sydney" but to non rugby league person, it may seem weird for say Craig Wing to have "South Sydney" and then "Sydney". Also teams like "Western Reds", you can't have "Western".  The Windler talk  21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ditto for Wests Tigers. Can't just have Wests. Well, whatever works then. Sydney Roosters, Wests Tigers, North Queensland and Manly-Warringah. 58.7.67.6 (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the proper name where appropriate, obviously on longer names it would be necessary to shorten. However I don't think it would be necessary to shorten one such as the Sydney Roosters, but South Queensland Crushers could well be cut to South Queensland for use in the infobox. Alexsanderson83 05:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously Western Suburbs Magpies and Western Suburbs Panthers and Eastern Suburbs Roosters and Eastern Suburbs Tigers are going to require the full names. Also, the name should appear as what it was at the time (which has been happenning everywhere else in wikipedia so far). I would not like to see Arthur Beetson listed as having played for the 'Sydney Roosters'.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Wakefield Trinity Wildcats to be shortened to Wakefield Trinity or Wakefield Wildcats depending on which era the player played in, that's the sort of thing we are talking about, right? Accuracy is key, but shortening is necessary in some cases. Perhaps a list of acceptable shortened names is a page to start for the project. Also someone come up with the total letters we can use. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, a total number of charcters would be a great idea (names going onto two lines would definitely be a no-no). Then make it as long as you like as long as it fits. Simple.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, because the infobox is exactly the same size no matter what screen is used, then this should be easy. To give some idea "St. George Illawarra" fits but "St. George Illawarra Dragons" does not.  The Windler talk  10:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Agreed.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

checkY Resolved. The name will be full unless such name goes over one line of the template, in which case the short name is used.

Australian Flag icon instead of the word "Australia"

Or whatever country's flag it might be, i.e:
24 March 1979 (age 29)
Brisbane, Queensland Australia

checkY Resolved. Opposed. Proposal is against Wikipedia policy.


Template:Infobox rugby league biography

Added a line in the existing Template:Infobox rugby league biography for other clubs. Seemed there was a demand for it. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What demand?  The Windler talk  05:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a whole discussion that comes back to the subject, it's a solution for the existing template. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
'Demand' doesn't equal consensus. On the template page you have given the purpose of the other clubs field as: a delimited list of non-NRL clubs that the Southern-hemisphere player has been a member of. Do you intend for European Super League clubs to be included here as a non-NRL club? Why would it only be for southern-hemisphere players? Don't northern-hemisphere players ever play for non-first-grade clubs? It seems to me to be a rather presumptive addition to the infobox considering there is no consensus. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It's an optional field, not one that appears automatically. I've worded that way as a UK player would be professional in National League one, whereas a Queensland Cup player would not necessarily be considered a professional team. I haven't run across any issues with the British system with their relegation and promotion and so all professional outfits would be lumped into the same section, with amateur clubs being in the youth section. Australian and New Zealand clubs are either NRL or considered non-first grade games. Yes, Northern hemisphere players do come down and play in the Queensland Cup, the wording was to attempt to show the application of the new field. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This is why I wanna use the 'selection for representation' rule outlined above. It eliminates all these hassles.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That drive for consensus on infoboxes

What are we going to do with all that infobox discussion ? Is it time to archive it ? I know it wasn't just driven by Windler but now that he's backing away it's possibly gone as far as it will go. On the one hand it was a thorough and thoughtful debate but I also wonder if it mightn't scare new contributors off if they think we discuss all points of principle in such detail. Is there somewhere handy it can be archived ? -Sticks66 11:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The two sections not resolved were the youth club and the non first-grade clubs, weren't they? If youth club were restricted to one and one only, I wouldn't be too bothered but the first-grade issue is more complex. Could we maybe ask for third-party comment? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit over the discussion. It goes in circles. I say let's allow he or she who's prepared to knuckle down and actually do the infoboxes to get on with it. -Sticks66 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does go in circles a bit. I'm waiting for the new infobox to take place, so I, along with all of us are making edits for the number of games, and scorings. As I have said, it can all be changed later, may I propose you ask on Bot requests to do it for you.  The Windler talk  04:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I say we take the vote again and if needed (no 2/3 majority either way) ask for some third party input as well. MDM (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

League icons

Such as these: . I understood they weren't for use on article pages except for season results, SoO teams etc? Recently I see them being added to info-boxes and other bits and pieces. See Steve Southern and Wayne Bennett (rugby league). Doesn't worry me either way, as long as I know which it is. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it either, and I'd rather them there than not. So as we are bringing it up, I'll may as well push for them.  The Windler talk  09:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
For Super league players/coaches, do you use the Blues, Australian etc colours? •Florrie•leave a note• 13:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have, but at least for Australia, I know they wern't green and gold for the super league (it was blue and green). But then, we have North Queensland players in mid 90s, with their current colours. Grey used to prominetly be in the Cowboys colours then ... so I wouldn't mind. Some examples at Brett Kimmorley and Scott Prince.
Also the images should be 16px. You can use {{leagueicon}}.  The Windler talk  13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am strongly against the use of these in infoboxes. Wayne Bennett's article is the best example of colours gone wrong; firstly there are too many of them and secondly some minor clubs (in this case, one) may not have colours. They are not even an official identity of the club - they are merely a creation of a few of our editors. I don't see how putting them in the infobox is going to improve it in any manner (I think they ruin it). Perhaps we need both a vote and an external opinion on this. MDM (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I admit, it is pretty ugly on Wayne Bennett, but in my opinion taht is because there are too many, and the old template. Personally, I like it better with the new template, it seems more fluent.
Compare 1 and 2.
 The Windler talk  03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Players/Coaches who go to a club, leave, and come back

Take Justin Hodges as example, he played for the Broncos, left for theRoosters and returns years later. I believe they should be merged, not seerated (as some are). Someone - like Wayne Bennett (rugby league) has coached Queensland on 3 seperate occasions, why should they be seperated.  The Windler talk  09:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the stats separated for each occasion at the same team. It is much more precise. That's the statistician in me, can't bear to see them lumped in together. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Florrie and not just for absolute clarity but because otherwisee it makes such lines the longest in the infobox which will in turn make the infobox box wider. You can see it already occurring in the Justin Hodges Broncos line and the close date isn't even in there yet. -Sticks66 06:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be divided to show that there was a clear break between their times at the club. Alexsanderson83 06:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, but I believe some discretions should be made, for example: Darren Lockyer might miss this years State of Origin series all-together, but come back next year. I don't think that should be a case of seperation. But Scott Prince, who hasn't played for Queensland since 2004, should probably be seperated.  The Windler talk  07:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with that, after all he is still playing for the same team.Londo06 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand, do you want them merged or seperated.  The Windler talk  08:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Merged, for representative teams.Londo06 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Club issue, not a Representative issue. Many players over the years miss consecutive representative Tests, tours and state series; sometimes with years gaps in between. The convention in Whiticker & Hudson as well as the Malcolm Andrews reference (both of which we regularly cite) is to show the years they commenced and finished their representative appearance with that state or national side. See Billy Wilson to see how his staccatoed Sydney club career shows in the box, and enlightens the information on his career. He didn't represent in '61 or '62 but returned to his level in '63. However the convention is to show his rep years as 1959-1963 -Sticks66 09:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an easy one. If the games and points data is available separately for each playing spell, then separate them. If there is only one total available (which is usually the case), then lump them together. It'd be silly to have two spells at a club separated only by the years but with the matches and points of both spells next to one.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
So (Sticks66) you believe that club should be seperated when a player goes with another club. But rep teams should be merged, no matter how much seperation there is. I don't mind that either.  The Windler talk  09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't at all mind a continuous range for representative games (unless they went off and played for another country in between). •Florrie•leave a note• 12:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And Jeff do you propose to treat Arthur Beetson, Col Maxwell, Ron Bailey Bill Tyquin Brian Davies Brian Carlson Harry Wells (who all had two stints with NSW country or Qld clubs where the appearances and points aren't available) differently to Billy Wilson, Frank McMillan, Larry O'Malley, Brad Thorn who had stuttered stints in NSWRL/NRL ? In my view it enlightens the at-a-glance history of the player by showing this in the infobox (see the 1st seven) more than it could be suggested it detracts (see the last four) by having their club points on one line only of the two stints -Sticks66 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure. I guess we have to decide which is the lesser of two evils.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS for you proud* Qlders I would have thought it was a highlight that Beetson and Tyquin's careers both went full circle back to Qld clubs from where they still represented for their state in their career twilights. The separated club line makes this clearer. -Sticks66 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I find that with the Larry O'Malley example, it gives the distinct impression that the data is unavailable for the second spell, and that the article is in fact incomplete - something that detracts from it more than just having an elongated playing priod at one club (in my view). It's a tough one. But if we have just one line per club, the body text fixes everything for us anyway. Is the infobox meant to be a timeline of a player's progression through their career or just a list of data? My vote is for the latter. The body text is for following the path of player's career.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Club careers should be listed chronologically. If a player had two stints at the club, they should be shown separate. This not only clearly shows a player's movement over his/her career, but also prevents the infobox from getting out of whack with distorted column widths.
On the other hand, representative careers should be listed as one entry each, even if a player had 3 or 4 years break between being selected. This is because a player is not contracted to a state/country (they can't move between teams), but rather bound to it and it only. Just my thoughts. MDM (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

City or Country colours

Do we have (or is any article already using) the small image colours for the City or Country (NSW) rep sides ? -Sticks66 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Country colours.svg and Image:City colours.svg  The Windler talk  12:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Issues

To reduce the amount of text on this page, I have moved the long discussion and subsequent vote on the new infobox to Archive 8.

In summary, here were the issues voted on:

Issue F N A Result
"Club information" should only list First Grade teams England - No
Australia - Yes
"First Grade" is to be defined as the top competition in a given region England - No
Australia - Yes
The infobox should list the first junior/youth club for a player 4 2 3 see below
Representative teams should be notable enough to have own article 8 0 0 checkY
Height and weight see below
First Grade and Representative coaching sections should be merged 2 1 6 checkY
The use of "since (year)" over "(year)-present" or "(year)-(blank)" 3 0 5 checkY
The addition of a "commentator" section to the infobox 3 0 6 checkY
The use of team nicknames in the infobox; e.g. Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks 5 0 0 checkY by recount
The Australian Flag icon instead of the word "Australia" 3 0 5 checkY

I propose we have a recount right now, just to see whether opinions have changed. In particular we also need to address the use of colours in the infobox. What are everybody else's thoughts on a recount? MDM (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Recount

Please read through the archives (latest ones) to see opinions, if you wish to base your opinion on that. This is a recount, which means the old votes mean nothing. This time however, you should give clear reasons on why you believe as such. Voters who don't give reasons, will be considered wasters. "Per (another voter)" is acceptable.  The Windler talk  03:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a divide here as there are only Australian sentiments here. Whilst there is obviously nothing wrong with that it does once again throw up the difference between the northern and southern hemispheres, notably we have professional clubs and players playing outside of the Super League. I remember reading through the old stuff and the proposal of an 'Other clubs' sub-section was met favourably by several parties. That is the major issue for myself if we are to move towards a new infobox. I will add my feelings on the other sections when I get more quiet time at work.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The infobox should list the first junior/youth club for a player (Note:Not senior club)

  • Oppose: As I stated above, this information can be easily said in the main article, and wastes space in the infobox. No-one really wants too know, from reading the infobox, that he played for "South Redfern" or something like that. But it may be interesting in the article.  The Windler talk  03:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The infobox is a summary of a player's professional career, as is every other infobox, whether it be for sport, politics or acting. If it is really important for a certain individual player, then it can be written in the text. MDM (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I think you'll find that they base Origin representation (I assume this is the club you're referring to here) on where a player first played senior football. So calling it "junior" or "youth" club would hardly be appropriate anyway.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment- You're right there. First senior club from age 16. So that could be a feeder club or anything that isn't age controlled, is that right? So why do we want youth or junior clubs at all except for curiosity? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure. I imagine maybe it's the first time they play in an open-age comp. But I don't really know.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Height and weight (Choose from: All players, Current or none)

  • Current (but won't mind All): I think once a player has moved on from rugby league, the height and weight are insignificant. And this infobox dosen't have to follow other infoboxes. If All, it should state that it was their playing weight and not imply that it is there current weight.  The Windler talk  03:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Current: The NFL infobox only uses this field for current players and I'm sure they decided this was to be the case in a similar discussion they probably had a year or two ago. A retired player, whether a recently-retired one or a long-retired one will have changed height and weight dramatically after they finish their careers. If this field is so important and unique for a certain player who has recently retired, it can be shown in the article proper. MDM (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral--Jeff79 (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • All: providing there is a reference for ex-players. I don't see the harm in leaving the information there when a current player retires. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • All: as per Florrie, providing it's referenced it belongs there.Londo06 14:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • All if the information is out there, then use it. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of league colour icons next to club names

  • Strong Support: I personally believe that, when used appropriately and not in excess, that they benifit, not ruin, the infobox attraction. I would like too see them become part of the infobox, but I do admit, they can look a bit ugly in some situations, but that may be perhaps of the white background mixes too much with a white section on the colour icon. Maybe if we put a border around colour it may be a bit better.  The Windler talk  03:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: Too many colours can really make the infobox look messy and unprofessional and in some cases there aren't even colours for a club (which affect vertical text alignment). I say we leave them out altogether in all cases, just like every other infobox on Wikipedia has. MDM (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above. Plus colours can be common to so many clubs across all the different competitions. For example, if a pre-1987 footballer played for Widnes, Wests Magpies and Souths Magpies, he'd have three identical black and white boxes, so any percieved benefit for ease of recognition goes out the window.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Really, I don't mind as lon g as we have a decision one way or the other. Although Jeff has a point with the similarity of colours between some teams. •Florrie•leave a note• 10:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I was initially against them, beyond aesthetic reasons I believe they were discouraged by an agreed standard set elsewhere. On the proposed infobox they seem to work quite well. My vote of neutral could be described as weak support if there is a deadlock on this one.Londo06 14:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Changed from Neutral to Support
  • Support They work for me. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(Discussion continued)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_rugby_league_biography/Infobox_upgrade_2008&oldid=1091989362"