Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

state of orgin

Is anybody going to State of Origin II? SpecialWindler talk 12:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Because if anyone could get a photo of Karmichael Hunt, it would be much appreciated. QUEENSLANDER SpecialWindler 06:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

I created the following image for state of origin, it based on [[Image:Aus-shirt.gif]]

File:QLD-shirt.gif

SpecialWindler 07:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

NSWRL Premier's League

Is this a fully professional league? I ask because User:Tiburon has been creating a lot of stubs especially for Tongans who play in this league and the articles (I don't know about the players) don't meet WP:N or WP:BIO in any other way. Thanks,Garrie 04:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In the most part, yes. As it says in the article the NSWRL Premier League is made up mainly of teams that are essentially reserve squads of NRL clubs and all players in NRL squads are full-time professionals. Therefore, the majority of players in the competition are full-time professional players whether they are mainly plying their trade in the NSWRL PL or in the NRL. The main exception to this would be a number of players in the 'stand-alone clubs' who are not contracted to an NRL club who would be semi-professionals; I imagine there would be other exceptions as well on the fringe of an NRL club's PL squad. Tongan NSWRL PL players may also be notable because they represent Tonga in International competition and are expected to at the 2008 RLWC? CumberlandsAshes81
Thanks for coming back with an answer. I had begun to think I wasn't getting one... I had thought that the reserve squads included people who were pretty much only paid a retainer which was nowhere near enough to be a living income. Thanks for clearing it up.Garrie 06:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Template

I got a bot to change all {{RugbyleagueWikiproject}} to {{WikiProject Rugby league|class=|importance=}}

So I have put the first template up for deletion. As it is no longer required.

This will add about 400+ unassessed articles to our project, so please help with the backlog.

SpecialWindler 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I have a new bot adding {{WikiProject Rugby league|class=|importance=}} to all articles drawing down from the Category:Rugby league SpecialWindlerTALK 03:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Betacommand for doing this. SpecialWindlerTALK 03:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ALL RUGBY LEAGUE RELATED ARTICLES HAVE BEEN TAGGED IF THEY WERE CREATED BEFORE June 17, 2007

Now we have 1800 unasessed articles. SpecialWindlerTALK 04:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been going through updating some pages this afternoon but I notice the code to display player=current/former or needs-infobox=yes/no no longer displays in the template. I tried c&ping the template over the bot template but that didn't help. See Talk:Tim Sheens or Talk:Ben Reynolds for examples. If this information is no longer necessary, no probs. Florrie 06:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The codes player, coach, club no longer exist because they arn't needed. The needs-infobox however still exists. SpecialWindler talk 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for the response. Florrie 10:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Karmichael Hunt

I am proposing a change to this article, which I would like either support/oppose comments on the move. The change is between the current version, and the proposal on my sandbox here. Any comments, please give me your opinions on the Karmichael Hunt talk page. I am going to nominate it for FA within a month. Thanks SpecialWindler talk 09:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't immediately see the differences between the two but I wouldn't have any objection to you changing it. Whatever you do with that article turns to gold. I don't think anybody would object to this, so go for it. --mdmanser 10:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Rather than the way it is now (04,05,06...) my suggestion is (broncos,qld,aus...) SpecialWindler talk 12:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe I missed that. Definitely the second version then. mdmanser 16:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering how you could miss it? SpecialWindler talk 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The version in your sandbox is a definate improvement in layout.
I don't understand though why there is a need for player stats at this site, mid-season. You link to a site which exists specifically to be up to date with player statistics. I would be all for removing current season stats from any player article, specifically to simplify / reduce maintenance overhead. I know facts can't be copyrighted but a players mid-season match stats belong "somewhere else".
If you're including mid-season stats, then include the date they are current, in the text. That way the reader knows what they are getting.
I know that opinion may well get me roasted in a sports project talk page. But in this case "which do you like more" is really an opinion-based question.Garrie 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

I have nominated Karmichael Hunt for Featured article status.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karmichael Hunt

SpecialWindler talk 08:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with it. It should go through without any problems I would think. mdmanser 09:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck Joel. I've done a little copy editing. Tremendous effort in the detail of your citations.-Sticks66 11:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cyril Connell

AS some people know, if they read rugby league news around the net, like I do. Theres a guy name Cyril Connell, and I was going to write an article on him. because the following source: [1] enough information on him to start an article.

I typed in "Cyril Connell" in the search to check if there was an article, and there was. So I was about to proceed creating "Cyril Connell (rugby league)", when the article on Cyril Connell was already about Rugby league, but this was on a completely different person who died 30 odd years ago.

Does anyone have a suggestion on naming conventions for this case, both should go under Cyril Connell (rugby league). SpecialWindler talk 04:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Most simply the older could be Cyril John Connell & the younger also identified by his middle name. But if they were related you'd go Senior and Junior as we've done for the Eric Grothes. I note that CJC had two sons. Interestingly both Cyrils were academics and obviously both Queenslanders. They would have known each other since they were both on the 1956-57 Kangaroo Tour the younger as a player who was the 2nd highest tour pt scorer, while CJC was the team's tour manager. In terms of precedents we are using somewhat meaningful differentiators in the (bracket part) of the name - see the 3 Dave Browns Dave Brown (rugby league footballer Easts), Dave Brown (rugby league footballer Easts Manly) & Dave Brown (1900s athlete). Although for the two Peter Gallaghers the bracket descriptor doesn't adequately differentiate with one as Peter Gallagher (rugby league player) and the other Peter Gallagher (rugby league footballer). My vote would be to use middle names. Just like in real life ! - Sticks66 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point and I will have to look under the disambiguation section on the Wikipedia MOS. There is a similar case with two Dave Browns who played rugby league. Problem is, they both played for Eastern Suburbs too at one stage (in fact, 3 Dave Browns have played for the team). I doubt this is the correct thing to do but the author named the article something like Dave Brown (rugby league footballer Easts) and Dave Brown (rugby league footballer Easts Manly). At this stage I don't think it's a big deal - just make the article under any name because it can be easily moved once we find the answer. mdmanser 05:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit: You beat me to it! The middle name convention sounds like the perfect solution. mdmanser 05:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
But does the younger have a veriable middle name?, and I won't put the fact they may be father and son until, it is found to be true. While it sound's likely it may be factually incorrect. SpecialWindler talk 05:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Team line-ups in Grand Final section of season articles

Looks like we have at least three different styles developing and it might be time to get consensus.
1A Paragraph style with names separated by a dot • eg 1972 Season article
1B Paragraph style with names separated by a comma eg 1993 Season article
2 List style in 3 columns with both teams and positions eg 1992 Season article.
Whilst #2 is most informative, I'm against lists in our articles and for copy that reads and flows like paragraphs do. My 1st preference is for 1A or maybe 1B. By following the protocol of fullback 1st, then winger...etc you can still tell what position each player filled without spelling it out. We could spell out the coach & interchange/reserves. Does anyone else have a view ? -Sticks66 10:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really against tables unless they take up the entire width of the page. a 3x20 or so table not only is bad on the eye but if takes up unneccessary space. I changed a few over from 2 into both 1A and 1B in the last month or so, and I believe commas are better. The way that is set out is the best in my opinion. mdmanser 10:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with tables because as Sticks said it's the most informative format. Personally, I think Wikipedia's top priority is to be informative, and all else (including aesthetics) is secondary. Listing players in order from one to seventeen is good until you get to about the five-eighth or halfback, where you'd have to count your way along the list to figure out who played where. It's not an effective way of showing player positions. I think it's far less agreeable to try and figure out who played at hooker that way rather than seeing it in a glance in a table. While another style could be more pleasing to the eye, I'm strongly opposed to the removal of any information. If the tables must be changed, only an alternative layout that also shows the players' positions would be acceptable. I'm sure we could come up with something.--Jeff79 19:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If the tables were right aligned, and the text could go around it, it would not takes up any space while easily provide information. I like the tables, remember to use {{rugbyleaguebox}} for match information. SpecialWindler 11:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

mmmm, I'm not sure Jeff that aesthetics should run such a distant 2nd to information value, the two go hand in hand. This question of balance must come up all the time - is there guidance somewhere ? I agree with mdmanser that the 3 x 20 looks jarring and unappealing but I can't really inagine how we do a horizontal table that works. SpecialWindler perhaps if I write some words for the 1992 game do you want to show how the text could go around the table ?-Sticks66 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That idea about surrounding text sounds like a good one. If I see an example in writing then I might go along with that one. mdmanser 15:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I had a go on 1992 Season article but the trick is that one needs enough words so that the copy and the table end at the same point and the next subheader starts below the table. Could the table content be made in a smaller font like the full finals detail tables seem to be ? -Sticks66 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You could try a six column table. I put a dummy version in my sandbox. The coding could be better. Florrie 16:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I love the way it is now on the NSWRL season 1992 article. Florrie's work in progress table mentioned above does interest me too though.--Jeff79 20:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1992 article, grand final section seems good, I'd put my support to that for all season articles, (though I originally suggested the wrap around text thing) SpecialWindler 22:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
what would the wrap around text thing look like ? -Sticks66 23:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
My only objection to the table as it appears on the NSWRL season 1992 page at present is the total lack of space between the text and the table, with the text running straight into the table border. If you place the table to the left, you get an automatic space between table and text. Florrie 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Added the section to my sandbox. From a design perspective, the table looks far less crowded by the text and there is good separation of table and text. Florrie 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Florrie, your aligned left version looks much better. Is there a way to have the Season Advertising section start underneath the table ? And am I imagining it or is the font size in the table slightly bigger than that of the copy on the right describing the game ? -Sticks66

Florrie has come up with a format that works. It's left aligned so text doesn't run into table. The point is size is down, so neither the copy nor the list over power the section. We're proposing using the position abbrevations so that the table isn't too wide. I think it looks great and I've posted it to NSWRL season 1992. Check it out. Am now looking for consensus so we can move forward on the Season Articles. -Sticks66 14:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple more returns to bring the subheader under the table or did you want to have it alongside? Florrie 14:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I found the code that creates the break automatically. It's <*br style="clear:both;" /> - remove the asterisk. Florrie 16:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As above, Florrie & I think we've cracked it. See NSWRL season 1992. Any Points of View ? -Sticks66 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we have consensus ? -Sticks66 05:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Think I'll just get on with it then. See NSWRL season 1989 - Sticks66 14:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll give you a hand after work tonight. Florrie 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatting and sequence

Which sub-header sequence are we going with? This version as on the 1992 page: 

   * 1 Ladder
   * 2 Finals
         o 2.1 Grand Final
   * 3 Season advertising
   * 4 References and links
   * 5 See also

Or the 1999 page: 

   * 1 Season summary
         o 1.1 Season advertising
   * 2 Ladder
   * 3 Finals
         o 3.1 Grand Final
   * 4 See also
   * 5 References & links

Or the 1989 page: 

   * 1 Ladder
   * 2 Finals
   * 3 Grand Final
   * 4 Season advertising
   * 5 Sources and references
   * 6 External links
   * 7 See also
   * 8 Footnotes

There may be other variations but these are the ones I've noticed. I personally prefer 

   * 1 Season summary (if there is one, otherwise 1. Ladder)
   * 2 Ladder
   * 3 Finals
         o 3.1 Grand Final
   * 4 Season advertising
   * 5 References 
   * 6 Links or See also

It'd be nice to have consensus before formatting more tables/pages. Florrie 02:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


My vote is as per 1999 and that there always be Season Summaries to lead off. My reasons set out on User talk:Florrie - Sticks66 10:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
But where there is no Season Summary it seemed silly that an advertising paragraph would appear first so we subrogated it below the Ladder. - that was my concern - that an advertising summary preceded any other information. But if a season summary is to be written for each season, then I'm content with advertising being part of that. Cheers. Florrie 11:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a good idea to have "Season advertising" as a subsection of "Season summary". I think it should be listed directly under Aren't they referring to completely different things? I'm not really sure where I think the advertising section should go - my gut feeling is that we put it under the Grand Final one (as suggested by Florrie). I'll think about this a bit more. mdmanser 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to put them all at the end of the articles after Grand Final. Only where it's one of a few categories that have a whole seaon perspective such as NRL 2002 Season article is it wholly appropriate for it to be under Season Summary. -Sticks66 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've done some work on the Grand Final section of New South Wales Rugby League season 1991. In my opinion it looks better if the bold text is moved to the bottom (with some information removed) with the report text left justified and beginning at the start of the section. Let me know of your thoughts. Good work to whoever wrote out that section by the way. mdmanser 07:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't agree that the text is better to the left, table to the right. See above discussion under Team line-ups in Grand Final section of season articles for the discussion. The text runs up to the table border and looks crowded. Florrie 09:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I've been away for a few days with exams so I missed that. I'm sure there's a way to fix it and I'll get onto the case to do so. If I do find a way to make it work would you support the left or right version of the table? mdmanser 11:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I've been able to make it work. By the way, nice work Sticks for writing those Grand Final sections. They're most enjoyable to read through. mdmanser 11:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that (right align). Thanks for finding the code. Florrie 13:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Seemed like 2 weeks back no-one but Florrie had an opinion. But I concede that the left aligned copy looks good now that it doesn't run into the table. I wrote the 1991 Grand Final copy and if things go to plan sooner or later we'll have 100 season articles with nearly as many GF reports. So here's a novel idea - do they all have to be aligned the same way ? We could go with some copy left/table right and others vice-versa. The alternating variation on a theme could be the design element. Too crazy? -Sticks66 13:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure I guess we could. Why not. mdmanser 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is it an issue if I center the headers on the Finals Series tables? Surely it isn't a problem to improve the aesthetics of a table if I am prepared to go through the whole lot myself? I don't mind running any proposed changes through this discussion page first if that is what it needs. Florrie 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's just my browser (Safari), but I see the columns centre-aligned anyway even without the codes (and I'm sure I've seen it that way in IE too). The coding doesn't seem to make any difference - I simply removed those additions to keep page sizes down and everything constant in between seasons. EDIT: I just checked using IE for Mac and it shows the same thing as Safari. Which one do you use? mdmanser 16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Mozilla - unless it is coded the headers are left aligned on my pc. I opened one of the pages in a Mozilla IE tab and they are centred viewing it that way. But I refuse to use IE. I'll go through them all tomorrow and pop the code in, even if it is just to make it easier on my eyes. Florrie 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Have a go with Safari. I highly recommend it and it just got released on Windows last week - give it a run for a couple of days and I promise you'll be impressed. I just don't believe any of us need to be changing everything on that page for that one reason - sometimes things like that can bring up further complications too from my experience over the last year ot two. Try and resist if you can. I don't blame you for not using IE though - it's pretty terrible. mdmanser 17:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll stick with Mozilla for now. I checked my site stats on two websites and up to 20% of my visitors use Mozilla compared to 70 to 80% using IE. Not that all Mozilla users will be as fussy as me, but if I can improve the aesthetics for up to 20% of visitors (the most important being me) by adding in four words of code, I don't think that's a big deal. Existing tables on the same pages (ie, Ladder) have the code placed for the headers as it is. As I said, I'll do the editing. Florrie 02:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. I'm not sure why I was against it :s . mdmanser 02:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Check the 1991 page when you get a minute. I've removed 12 instances of *align=center from the Finals Series table and replaced it with one code in the header so it should be a little less cumbersome. I checked it in IE tab and Mozilla but let me know if you see a problem in Safari or any other browser before I go ahead with the others. Have to stop soon for the Bunnies game anyway!
You know what, that's a pretty good idea. I never realised there were 12 other instances of centreing like that - the new system is much more efficient anyway. Nice work. mdmanser 03:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars

Just a thought, to help improve our wikiProject, could we make a Barnstar for our WikiProject.

For anyone who dosen't know what a Barnstar is check out WP:BARNSTAR

For other wikiProjects have stars etc. (check out Wikipedia:WikiProject awards)

I was thinking, due to me just giving Florrie one out, that a Barnstar would be good.

If we were to have one, what pic on the star could we use.

SpecialWindler talk 11:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a tough one. I think we should model is around the Football one - just a plain star with a rugby league football on top. I don't think I can help making it though - I can't seem to get the transparency on it. mdmanser 15:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I will make it, but I was umming and arring about the football, because it may be confused with union or AFL. But I would also like to know whether it is a good idea. SpecialWindler talk 20:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Colours

There was a discussion a few weeks ago on the colour use of those little square things (whatever you call them). It still seems to be used alot and can I propose a template to make something easier.

Based on {{flagicon}}, I will make a template that outputs the colours of a team.

For example

{{leagueicon|Brisbane}} would output

For every colours on this page here Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Team Colours

SpecialWindler talk 01:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue we have is that we have teams like Eastern Suburbs that have three different names. Also, there are two different sizes of colours that are used in articles depending on which table is used (I initially did this on purpose in order to make it look the best in my opinion). There are a few outstanding issues we need to address such as changing of team colours (in the instance of the Warriors, and also Penrith and Gold Coast).
I think the ladder convention should be 16x16 colours with just the locale of the team name featured, and the finals table should be 23x23 with the full name of the team. We first need to figure out how to make one teamplate that suits all of these things first up. 16x16 because it is the maximum size before the cells increase in height and 23x23 because they are the minimum size to get equal spacing below, left and right of the colours to the cells. Would there be any way to make a template to suit: size, team name, change in colours and change in name? This would be most preferrable. mdmanser 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The other question that has to be asked is whether or not a template is necessary. We only have 22 or so seasons to make - this means that about 78% of all instances of team colours in pages are pretty much already there, and I can't see them being used any further either. At the end of the day it might be much more of a job to do it this way than to just leave everything as it is. Good idea, but I just can't see if we really need to do something about it. mdmanser 03:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of those issues (the naming ones) but all current clubs should be just the name, and if coulours change or previous versions of a club (eg. Newcastle 08-09), we could work something out... SpecialWindler talk 04:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The colours seem to be used on alot more pages than just the season ones. SpecialWindler talk 04:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

{{leagueicon|TEAMNAME}}

I created this template. The synatax is as followings

{{leagueicon|Brisbane|size=100}}

would output

THE SIZE IS DEFAULT at 23x23px, you can change this by changing the size parameter.

{{leagueicon|Parramatta}}

would output

EVERY TEAM ON THIS PAGE IS ON THE TEMPLATE (except the alternate European pics). Note that "Gold Coast" will output the TITANS not the old one, "Newcastle" will output the KNIGHTS, not the 1908 way. For full syntaxs you can enter see, the template page.

SpecialWindler talk 07:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. Florrie 10:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Backlog

Over the past weeks, I have been trying things to better organise this WikiProject. Mainly to gain more interest in the WikiProject. By doing some things, I have created backlog, which needs addressing. By getting bots to do stuff, there are now categories that are backlogged and need addressing??? Here are some.


SpecialWindler talk 11:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Management

Over the course of time, these backlogs will decrease. But I propose, every now and then a drive, to push to get rid of the backlog. Example over a month, to get rid of all A-L of the Need infobox one... Any opinions

SpecialWindler talk 11:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And I was feeling daunted by the idea of having written 13 Grand Final reports in the season articles with 87 yet to go. I'm not quite sure what you're saying needs be done on these. Does each of these 800 or 1,179 or 1,700 articles need to be individually dealt with (eg add and complete a player infobox to each and every one) ? -Sticks66 13:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to pitch in when I can. Florrie 15:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortenely (replying to Sticks66) yes. SpecialWindler talk 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot request

I have given on this page Bot Requests, a task to add the category Category:Queensland Rugby League State of Origin players to every page that is linked on this page Queensland Maroons Players (redirect). The bot person (User:S) has asked me if there is there any major issue with this request. Please reply, even just to say yep or whatever. SpecialWindler talk 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template to Template

We have a big backlog for the needs-infobox=yes parameter for all Rugby league biographies. We have quite a few rugby league biographies templates

The only one that should exist is

If you decide to help, don't forget to remove the needs-infobox=yes from the WP:RLtemplate on the talk page. SpecialWindler talk 12:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_rugby_league_biography

Based on this template from rugby union {{Infobox Rugby biography}}, I have added the following parameters to our template. None of them are mandetory.

  • Occupation {{{occupation}}}
  • School attended {{{school}}}
  • University {{{university}}}
  • Spouse {{{spouse}}}
  • Children {{{children}}}
  • Notable relatives {{{relatives}}}
  • Official site {{{url}}}

SpecialWindler talk 09:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

{{leagueicon}}

In attempt for people to use this template, I have shown below, what you can enter into the template to recieve a certain colour box. The Result column is what will happen if you type in the Keyword column in the the template like this {{leagueicon|KEYWORD}}. You can also make it various sizes {{leagueicon|KEYWORD|size=40}}

SpecialWindler talk 03:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Victorian Rugby League

I don't know if this is where I should go to ask, but can someone PLEASE help expand this article? It should have some history about Rugby League in Victoria. It has been played there longer than a lot of the other states.

Who said this, an anonymus user or someone who forgot to log in. Please sign your comments SpecialWindler talk 06:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Club Numbers

I've noticed that some editors have listed "club numbers" for NRL players. Should NRL players have a "club number" listed? In European Super League, the players are assigned a number by the club that they wear all year no matter what position they play, but NRL players may wear a different number every week if they change position on the field. I am in favor of the club number system, but I don't think that we should create the false impression that it is used in NRL. What do you reckon? Rugbyhelp 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Where a player such as Brett Hodgson is always at fullback (well, when fit) I don't see a problem with his number being listed in the info-box but for the likes of a Daniel Fitzhenry who may change position week-to-week, no, I leave that part off the info-box. Would you rather leave it off the info-box altogether for Australian players or just use it judiciously? Florrie 17:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Washington DC colours.png

Image:Washington DC colours.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

It been a bit boring in the old Peer review section, so if anyone wants help improving an article, how to do it is on the peer review page. SpecialWindler talk 10:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

State of Origin

As you people know, our State of Origin articles are below par, other than the main one. Just check out New South Wales state rugby league team to know how bad the standards are. I propose a task force, for editors to join, as part of this WikiProject (like WikiProject Biography which has task forces. I will only start it if I have decent numbers who would join it and actively participate for at least the first month, then it can just die down etc.

Support

  1. SpecialWindler talk 07:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Florrie 11:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I'll eventually get behind this proposal but not for a month or even longer. I have a focus on copy content for the Season Articles and once I start getting into the pre-1950s ones the research they require will slow me right down. But you're right, I'am ashamed of the Blues article compared to the article you bloody Queenslanders have done -Sticks66 15:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1940s Season Articles

Thanks to sources provided by SpecialWindler I've got the names of the team lineups and have begun match reports for the Grand Final sections of 1940s NSWRL season articles. In fact the 1940,41,42 and 49 GF sections are now done. But d'oh, I've got nowhere to put them. Can anyone help by creating some season articles for 1940 to 1949 ? -Sticks66 11:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just leave them on your Work Space pages, they be created soon, I don't have the time to do it me personally. SpecialWindler talk 06:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll get around to doing it sooner of later for you. I'm in a bit of a Wikipedia editing slump at the moment but you can be assured I'll be back on track pretty soon. mdmanser 07:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Metric system first

Hi I've noticed that a lot of players have their profiles with the imperial weights and measurements first. As a metirc country the metric system should be first and the imperial system in brackets. I've started re-editing them. Anyone want to help me? 60.230.78.50 07:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Knock yourself out sunshine. Londo06 07:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure you follow the MOS - Australian/NZ player currently playing in England, imperial first; playing in Australia/NZ/France, metric first. Florrie 11:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Putting up weekly run on sides on team articles

I've noticed some people are putting up weekly run on sides eg Melbourne Storm, St George Illawarra Dragons. I do not believe this is encyclopaedic as per WP:NOT#DIR when the info can easily be obtained off www.nrl.com and not considered standard for league articles as per Featured Article Sydney Roosters which is the highest standard article. Michellecrisp 06:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

doesn't appear to happen in the Australian Football League team articles I've seen. current 2007 squad is fine but not weekly team in my opinion which could be found at www.afl.com.au for AFL or www.nrl.com for league, or say www.nhl.com for ice hockey. calling it "possible" team or "team may change at any time" also to me indicates it's too uncertain for encyclopaedic content. Michellecrisp 06:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I agree that they should be removed. You've said it all. mdmanser 07:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Create 2007 page for Manly. Alexsanderson83 07:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Create 2007 pages, stop reverting edits. Be pro-active in the drive to create 2007 articles Michellecrisp Alexsanderson83 07:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not think putting on weekly run on sides is encyclopaedic. past results are fine because it's encyclopaedic. Michellecrisp 07:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. The content is unencyclopedic. In addition to WP:NOT#DIR, Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball for like you said, the "possible" line-ups. GizzaDiscuss © 07:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree that there's no place for a 'possible' side in a WP team page. Club sites etc can be referenced for such information. If we are voting, I vote remove. Florrie 08:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Get them out, Get them out. SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it as a 5-2 vote for removal of weekly run on sides. Michellecrisp 11:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has been here for less than 24 hours and, as much as I agree with removal, to be fair, it should remain open a little longer. Plus, I only found the discussion by accident from a comment on Joel's page (I think) and I have since placed a comment on the actual WP:RL project page to direct discussion here. Florrie 11:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't mean to close the discussion. Will keep it open for 7 days till majority vote or consensus is reached. Michellecrisp 11:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree they should only be on 2007 pages. 194.75.129.200 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Further reasons for non inclusion: WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events...The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. Weekly run on side is not a long term historical notable event (unlike say a State of Origin match) and it only appears in the news for the few days up to the leadup in the match. And as someone has said WP:NOT#CRYSTAL by pre-empting the named official line up. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable Michellecrisp 12:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably don't have a place on the team page, but they add to the 2007 season club pages that a few clubs have, I would definitely say they have a place there. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the problem has already been solved, they have all been moved to the 2007 pages. 212.85.12.211 10:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep them in, but only in their current home of the 2007 pages, they probably wouldn't belong on the main club pages, but does half the stuff I look at? If its a vote them. 86.151.23.220 16:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm closing this discussion, there is a clear majority for not including weekly run on sides on main club pages. Michellecrisp 12:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Michellecrisp

I have noticed that you are removing material, but have not indicated your willingness to create 2007 season pages. I would see this as a happy mid-way point. I would be happy to assist you in your drive Londo06 07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind 2007 season pages being created but I am opposed to weekly "possible" run on sides appearing on Wikipedia. there has been no discussion from Alexanderson or you why it should be included. I have given several reasons why it should not appear. Michellecrisp 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It helps to illustrate the form which the team plays, who plays, in what positions, which jersey they wear, helps to quickly illustrate a teams line up, shows players nationalities, shows whether a player is being tried in a different role, shows the teams colours, shows injury lists. It helps flesh out the basic NRL club pages on wikipedia on players such as at Manly. I agree that they belong on 2007 season pages, but they must be created first. Londo06 07:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, some of this can be in "current squad" sections (which should be included). The issue is do people want to see a "possible run on side" which is likely to change every week and is not even certain till kick off. Michellecrisp 07:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I would say it is relevant, and it would fit into 2007 season pages. It is something that it is something that enhances the articles, and within the 2007 season page it would have context. Londo06 08:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
These "Run on Sides" have now been created on all super leage and national league team articles. I have tried removing the one on Celtic Crusaders, only to have it replaced. I have now created a 2007 page where this team line up is placed, however I don't see this page lasting very long as it does not contain any encyclopedic information. The issue of these run on sides appears a controversial one. It seems that fans of the clubs want them to appear, but by its very nature Wikipedia is NOT the place for such information. EVERYTHING must be verifiable, and as these run on teams amount to little more than speculation, and provide no real content to an article, I do not see the point in them. Nouse4aname 08:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Club Colours

I am, and have been for quite a while, of the opinion that club colours should only stay on season summary pages. Too often I'm seeing them being moved around on the main National Rugby League page as well as representative and club pages themselves. Initially they were created to get some graphics back into pages once logos were removed because of their fair use status but now they're out of control. What are everyones thoughts on this proposal to remove them from all non-season summary pages? Just leave a Support or Oppose vote below. Cheers all, mdmanser 07:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Run-on sides discussion

It should probably be on this page, but there is currently discussion on the practice of placing "possible" run-on sides on club pages here, if anyone wants a say. Florrie 11:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Player photos

When I go to games, I try to get photos of all the players I can. All the ones I took, I release to the public domain as soon as i put them on. So if anyonw else would like to use the ones I put on, I say be my guest. Sliat 1981 23:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NSWRL/ARL/NRL Season Pages Finished

Well it took just over 346 days to complete since the New South Wales Rugby Football League season 1908 was page to the time the final outstanding New South Wales Rugby Football League season 1949 was created and finished to current standards. Thank you very much to everybody who either created, modified or worked on each of the 101 pages (including Super League). It was one mammoth effort and one that each member of this project can think proudly of. Hopefully now that this entire database has been established it can open the way up for further Wikipedians to start adding information to them easily. This is the just the start of big things to come from this project - the NRL clubs project has come along somewhat with 4 of the 16 clubs achieving Good Article status or higher, and a couple more coming up through the ranks very quickly. Cheers everyone, and hope you are all well. mdmanser 07:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Rugby league Invite Template

Might be worthwhile to send out invites to those who are doing editing for Rugby League articles who are not registered Editors. I couldnt find any template available for invites to use for the WikiProject Rugby league Project to send out, but maybe there is one but i havent seen it. 87.112.86.72 has been doing work on adding Bradford Bulls Super League templates, so could be helpful as a Project member. Boylo 01:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not good to ask unregistered users to join something, because the IP adress could be used by multiple people. I use {{User:SpecialWindler/WPRL}} to invite people here. SpecialWindler talk 06:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Team Names

Originally, team names only had "Eastern Suburbs" and "South Sydney" wheras they later became "Eastern Suburbs Roosters" and "South Sydney Rabbitohs". The problem is, the vast majority of us don't know when this transition occurred. So I propose we make a list full of teams and when they changed names, including location names such as the Western Reds to the Perth Reds. This reference will hope increase the accuracy of certain articles where applicable. Here's what I do know, and please add if you know more (there should be 33 teams eventually). mdmanser 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) Eastern Suburbs 1908-1966
Eastern Suburbs Roosters 1967-1994
Sydney City Roosters 1995-1999
Sydney Roosters 2000-present
(2) Cumberland 1908
(3) Newcastle 1908-1909
(4) Annandale
(5) Glebe
(6) University
(7) Brisbane Broncos 1988-present
(8) Newcastle 1988-present
(9) Canberra Raiders 1982-present
(10) Illawarra Steelers 1982-1998
(11) Northern Eagles 2000-2002
(12) Melbourne Storm 1998-present
(13) Gold Coast Titans 2007-present
(14) Wests Tigers 2000-present
(15) North Queensland Cowboys 1995-present
(16) Hunter Mariners 1997

I beg to differ about the (2nd) Newcastle one. I'm pretty sure they currently go by the "Newcastle Knights", I don't know what it was back then, but for as long as I know them they have been known as as the Knights. SpecialWindler talk 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some I know. SpecialWindler talk 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(17) Canterbury Bulldogs 1935-1994,1996-1999
Sydney Bulldogs 1995
Bulldogs 2000-present
(18) Auckland Warriors 1995-2000
New Zealand Warriors 2001-present
(19) Western Reds 1995-1996
Perth Reds 1997

My understanding of versions of Canterbury-Bankstown -

Canterbury-Bankstown Berries (or ceebees etc) 1935-1977
Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs 1978-1994
Sydney Bulldogs 1995 etc

Florrie 03:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Luke Bailey (rugby league)

If you check out this page Luke Bailey (rugby league), it seems a stub. I was looking around and found at User:Tiburon/Sandbox/Luke Bailey, was a almost complete article on (B-Class) Bailey. It only has information on New South Wales career.

Now, Tiburon (who was a former member of this project) hasn't edited Wikipedia for 3 months. It would be a waste to leave the information there. But it wouldn't be right to take information from someone else. Any thoughts? SpecialWindler talk 11:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that would be a waste of research. Why not post a message on his/her talk page, asking if the article can be placed on the Luke Bailey page. At least you will be seen to have asked and you never know, it may prompt a reply! Other than that, search on sandbox policy or a question on the WP:Help desk to see if there is a precedent? Florrie 04:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest both leaving a message on his talk page as well as sending an email to him. It is the least we could do. If there is no reply within a week then it would be fair enough to upload the information on the actual article. mdmanser 05:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no e-mail address for him/her, not from their user page at least. Florrie 05:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you take any action on this or hear from Tiburon? Florrie 02:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I took action because Tiburon hasn't contributed or replied. The Luke Bailey page is now like his sandbox. SpecialWindler talk 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! Florrie 03:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Welldone, would've been a tragedy to not use it. I'll see if I can write a SoO section. -Sticks66 13:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)  Done
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Archive_3&oldid=1136048127"