Why are there two projects for Rugby? Many other sports' projects have multiple sports, like skiing and kayaking, have multiple sports within them. Why does Rugby require two projects? JimCubb (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Rugby league and rugby union are completely seperate sports. Rugby league was born in 1895 when several then-rugby union clubs split off from the Rugby Football Union over a dispute involving pay. Over time, this splinter group formed its own different rules and its own governing body - the Rugby Football League. It's not like skiing where there are seperate disciplines within the same sport; they are two completely seperate sports managed by seperate governing bodies. See: Comparison of rugby league and rugby union. It is my understanding that one Rugby WikiProject did exist, but split into rugby union and rugby league WikiProjects respectively. GW(talk)17:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No, a chap called POd started the rugby league project along with me and Grinner. He also started a rugby Wikiproject but Grinner and I thought it better to keep union and league projects separate. The union Wikiproject was started by a couple of Australians DaGizza and somebody else (don't remember who). It lay dormant with virtually no members until I started using talk pages to invite people to join. The Rugby Wikiproject has never been anything but dormant and would be better off being deleted.GordyB (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Understood. I saw there was a dormant Rugby Wikiproject, saw that both seperate Wikiprojects were now active and put 2+2 together. GW(talk)21:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
After reading the comparison page I see more similarities than there are with Nordic and Alpine skiing. However, since the two rugby "types" and the two rugby "projects" do not seem to be able to get along with each other, there is no reason to even suggest that they be work-groups of the same project. Now I know. Thanks for the explanation. JimCubb (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
A fair number of us are members of both projects. Most rugby people get on fine together but a minority can get very silly.GordyB (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Inconsistent squad navboxes
If you look at Tony Coll and expand the three World Cup squad navboxes, you'll notice that two of them (1972 and 1977) are in alphabetical order and the other (1975) is in what appears to me to be a totally random order. The alphabetical seems much clearer for tracking players through successive squads. dramatic (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
My only guess as to the order would be squad position but there's second rowers (11 and 12) before a fullback (1) there so that makes no sense. Agreed that it should be alphabetical. If no one has any objections, I'd like to make this change. GW(talk)22:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
K, it's been long for people to voice objections so I cracked on it
On captains, I err'd on the side of caution since other (featured) rugby league articles don't. Worth a discussion if people feel this should be changed;
I treated O'Sullivan alphabetically as starting with 'O' and having no apostrophe instead of beginning with 'S'. Is this right?
The 1975 template sticks to surnames, both others have first names too. Which is right? Using Hunt as a reference, neither is... should we leave it as that?
Quite happy to leave captains in the pack, some seem to list them at the front, others dont. The way you have sorted O'Sullivan is my understanding of how it should be. I would say, full names if its a small squad, last names if it is shorter - but I don't think there are hard and fast rules. Same with chronological, the "current squad" template always seems to be at the top of navboxes for current players - so reverse order seems to be the norm with them but lots of past players have chronological. Again I don't think we've ever established any rules so as it follows some sort of logic it should be ok. And lastly, Thanks for actually doing it! Mattlore (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Mexican major rugby league
I just came accross an edit to Mexican major rugby league unlinking a deleted article. Further investigation reveals a (what appears) a real league with some very poorly written linked club articles where I expect more than just the one to have been deleted. No idea about notability and if this is union or leage so I crossposted to the other WP. Agathoclea (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That's a rugby union article, not a rugby league one. Different sports. Even though it contains "rugby league" in the title it's referring to "rugby league" as a competition structure in rugby union, not "rugby league" the sport. You've posted this on WP:RU as well so they should deal with it. Hope this clears things up... it's pretty confusing I know because "rugby union" is sometimes abbreviated to simply "rugby", which doesn't distinguish between the two sports. GW(talk)14:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just over from WP:CRIC. I'm going through notable players for the short-lived Minor counties team Monmouthshire. I came across Welsh player Evan Watkins here on CricketArchive, his entry says he played Rugby League for Warrington. As my interest in any form of rugby is zero, I don't have any/know where to find resources on the sport. His cricketing endeavours with Monmouthshire don't meet WP:CRIN on their own, but if somebody could create the article then there's no reason why his career with Monmouthshire CCC can't be inserted into the article. Cheers. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The Warrington website has an E Watkin in 1908 listed [1]. So that is probably him despite the slightly different last name. I'll put a brief Evan Watkins article on my to-do list, unless someone else wants to make one first :-) Mattlore (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
2011 Super League season results nominated for speedy deletion
Consecutive stints at a club in player bio infoboxes
Gareth Hock is due to make his return for Wigan Warriors today after his two year drug ban. He was banned while playing for Wigan and will make his first appearance on his return for Wigan as well. At the moment it's being listed like:
Or maybe some other suggestion, or another precedenting example (perhaps someone out for long injury released and then resigned by the same club during that period)? Thanks, GW(talk)11:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd say split if the stints were on separate contracts (the player having spent time completely uncontracted in the period between) and combine them if the second contract begins immediately after the end of the first. This means I would have William Hopoate's stints separated if he signed again with the Sea Eagles after spending the next two years contracted to no club.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd definitely agree with you if he returns in 2014. It's good to have two seperate stints IMO since it reflects the article more accurately, it just bothers me seeing the same team name appear twice consecutively. Perhaps I could trick the template in the "end" field with a comma and a <br /> tag... yeah actually that works pretty damn well. Problem solved :) GW(talk)23:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
18th men
Something needs to be done about the "18th man" listed in squads in articles such as 2011 State of Origin series and New South Wales rugby league team. I posit that readers unfamiliar with the topic (who we should be catering for) won't know what "18th man" really means and, as they are listed with equal prominenece to the rest of the team, might wrongly assume that they actually play. We have two options:
A kind of footnote that specifies that the 18th man is merely backup and does not actually play.
Remove them altogether.
I lean towards getting rid of them altogether (a mention in prose elsewhere would be sufficient) because I don't like them being represented with equal prominence/notability to the actual players.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest removing them altogether. I doubt very much an 18th man gig counts towards Origin caps for statistical purposes and we certainly don't want to give the impression of equivalence with other squad members. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
My way of thinking is: Have they actually played? If no, then they're not in the article. If yes, then they remain there. Then again, association football sides list substitutions even if they're unused, which obviously isn't the case in RL because inevitably all benched players are used. It depends on your interpretation of 'played' I suppose, but I would not regard an 18th man as having featured in a game, therefore it isn't notable to mention it. GW(talk)12:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
What about players like Ken McGuinness that are named on the bench for an origin, but don't get on the field. Graeme O'Grady was removed from the category of NSW SoO players as he isn't on the register of players, but has it listed in the infobox, as does Grant Rix. I'm in favour of removing them from the infobox and just having a comment in the article. Any other thoughts?Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Player bio infoboxes
Protected edit request completed
The player record sections of the bio infoboxes, developed by Windler if memory serves, contain shorthand terms such as "Pld" in place of "Played" and "T" in place of try. I'm not really opposed to this, but they need clarifying for the unknowledgeable reader, perhaps using the {{tooltip}} template. Of particular concern is "FG"... Jonny Wilkinson didn't kick a "Field goal". It was a "Drop goal" that ensured British Super League received next-to-no coverage from the BBC for a few years following 2003.
I'm thinking:
Use tooltip for all the fields that use shorthand:
Adapt the infobox for British terminology as well as Australian terminology.
I'd support 1 it would be helpful for all terms, would there be enough room for 2, how would it look? --sss333 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Basically, "FG" would just change to "DG" on non-Australian/New Zealand player bio articles, to reflect the use of "Field goal" and "Drop goal" in the article's prose, so really the only difference would be an F changing to a D instead. As for the {{tooltip}} template, it doesn't take any extra room, as seen in the column headers for {{Nrl2010ladder}} and {{Super League XV ladder}}. GW(talk)00:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Go for it. Support the tooltip idea and if there is a need for the option for it to display DG then go for it - just as long as we don't have edit wars in infoboxes of players who played in England and Australia :) Mattlore (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I knew about tooltip, but on the other one I thought you might have been suggesting having FG/DG but changing it depending on each player is good idea. --sss333 (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
With some help, I've used my sandbox to copy+paste the current code across and make the relevent changes. My third sandbox holds two examples, feel free to try and break it. If you can break it, that would be brilliant because I really don't want this to go out proper with some disasterous flaw. GW(talk)14:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Y I've added another two infoboxes on my third sandbox, the above example for each player is the infobox in its current state, the bottom example is the version with my adaptations. Is that problem on Tomkins, Hunt, or both? With the newly placed examples, is it on the current infobox, the adapted one, or both? I might know what's happened there. GW(talk)00:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Both of Tomkins' and neither of Hunt's. And a few other players throughout Wikipedia as well. Not sure what causes it. Another thing: when I use Internet Explorer, some headings within the infobox such as 'Playing information' are an even bolder font than other already bold headings. This doesn't happen when I use Chrome though. It's wierd.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I DL'd Chrome and yeah I see what you mean. I think it's more to do with the "nickname" field... it seems to push the first column over enough to fit "Full name" in one row. I'd be interested to know if the other articles you have this problem on are also lacking a nicknames field. I'll have a look into it, thanks for the feedback. GW(talk)13:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Just following up on this, I checked the main template's source and there doesn't seem to be any width settings on the first column of the infobox. It's just left to be as wide as it needs to be, therefore there's not really anything I can 'tweak' to make the "Full name" field fit on one line in Chrome. Sorry about that. I did notice the infobox itself is so old it doesn't actually use {{Infobox}}, which might explain why you have trouble on RL articles but not most other things on Wikipedia. GW(talk)21:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a note that this evening, my edit protection request was granted, and the template's improvements are now live across Wikipedia. Thanks for the help! I'll add this to the template documentation but to change FG to DG, simply add "|region = British" into the infobox's parameters. GW(talk)23:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Just an idea with the tool tips. We're all aware that the 'P' is a total of points from all the other columns combined, but we should not assume that all readers do. So instead of just saying 'Points' perhaps it could be 'Total points' or 'Points total'? Just might help make it slightly clearer to someone new to the sport.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how making it a dual-code page simplifies things. It just seems that it will cause union vs league arguments.GordyB (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
What does deletion sorting actually do, just out of interest? We already have an article alerts page which tells us about AfDs, PRODs and speedy deletions for articles whose talk page has the WPRL template. GW(talk)15:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
@Gordy. I was thinking it would make it easier for the people sorting the article, who may not know much about the two sports, to catorgorise the debate. Rugby league articles are already listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sports, so sorting is already occuring. This will just focus it a bit more. My thinking is that many players (and articles) cross over between the sports so they are relavent to both projects, a lot of editors work on both projects so there shouldn't be too many irrelavent articles listed and most would at least have some knowledge of the topic, plus there is the shared history so some articles may just be about "rugby football". I am not sure what arguments could occur, maybe union people deleberatly !voting delete on league articles because they don't like them, but I would hope that wouldn't occur and it theoretically should not effect the outcome.
@Ginger. Can you watchlist the article alerts for changes? If you can it probably won't provide any extra advantage for you. I find it usefull to keep topics I am interested in watchlisted and then I get a notification when someone has put an article up for deletion. It could be useful for non project members who are interested in rugby league, but only want to get involved in deletion discussions.
This will not be hard to change, but it is up to your project. IMO the more eyes on a discussion the better and I don't see any harm. However there is no rush and nothing to prevent it from being implemented later. AIRcorn(talk)00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Listing Super League tries
Is there consensus that a player's Super League tries should all be listed. I've seen a few articles with them in, but for an article like Kris Welham it does tend to dominate the page. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd say no, they shouldn't be listed. I'd regard it as trivia. If a particular try is significant to his career then it should be mentioned in the prose. Mattlore (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. I don't support the inclusion of lists like this that would require vast amounts of effort to maintain and verify. LunarLander//talk//00:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responses, and I note the view is against these lists, so I've removed the list for Welham. I have seen a number of other players with this list (inc Hull KR), so someone may want to delete from a few more.Eldumpo (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Lists? No chance... that level of excessive detail is exactly what external links are for (ie. further reading). I don't mind mentioning notable matches in the article's prose though, perhaps a match where a player scored a hat-trick or a game-winning try for example, since they help add context to a player's stats. GW(talk)16:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I realised that I half-contradicted myself here because I place sections for "International tries" in player bios, which I present in the form of a list. Given this is standard prodecure for association footballers' biographies, many of whom are GA and FA standard, I see no problem with this: every score made at international level is notable as far as I'm concerned, and if the tables get too long, they can always be hidden by default in Java-enabled browsers. I also support the list with a written description of the player's international career. Scoring one try in a 74–4 thrashing of Whitehaven in the cup is definitely not notable however (← hypothetical example). GW(talk)17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Revamp of Super League page and Kits
Planning to revamp the Super League page to improve it siginifcantly and bring it in line the NRL page. Can be found here User:Mollsmolyneux/Sandbox/Super League. Use that pages talk page and we can talk over the improves/changes. As you can see I plan to add a table using kits like on the NRL page, but not all the clubs have kits to use. Who do I contact about making these kit ids or how do I go about making them myself. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Are the Super League kits static enough to bother with? My perception is that they're always changing and with several different versions. I don't really know though.--Jeff79 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The kits are made personally by the Windler, and we won't be hearing from him any time soon. He isn't too active any more and mostly seems to focus on his work for Wikiproject 007. So unless you're offering to make the kit images, this idea isn't going anywhere, regardless of what we think. GW(talk)16:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
International Flags
Have we ever reached consensus on this matter? It seems terribly inconsistent. I see Mattlore and Younbuckerz are disagreeing over which flag should be used on the Sydney Roosters page. [[2]]
I personally find it strange that someone like Minichiello who played for NSW this year should be considered Italian, and doubt that the club pages even need flags, but would happily abide by whatever decision was made. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
"Appropriate use: In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." is the relevant quote. Mattlore (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Younbuckerz' notion that Aiden Guerra gets an Italian flag is presumably based on consideration of his "highest national rep honours" and I have some sympathy for this view (though not in the club article context). But even then we have a Crystal-balling problem since Guerra hasn't played for Italy yet. The Minichiello logic is flawed since he has made nineteen appearances for Australia already. How we can we let his future, mooted Italian appearance override these nineteen actual appearances ? It's not as though this is unusual and I would hope that we wouldn't allocate Dally Messenger a Kiwi flag, Henry Paul an English flag or Craig Gower an Italian flag since like Minichiello the overwhelming balance of their rep appearances were with their "country of birth". But I say this is all academic anyway and one really must question the place of national flags in articles that aren't about national representation. It's appropriate for a state of origin article to have club flags, for a national Kangaroo or Wallaby tour article to include state, provincial or perhaps even club flags but a club article doesn't need national flags. The place for this information is in Minichiello's own article where there is plenty of scope to discuss his national rep appearances and if we like, his national allegiances and even his grandmothers ancestry ! Shall we have a vote & reach formal consensus on Mattlore's proposition above ? Not sure how we do that, Windler used to be good at that kind of thing.-Sticks6600:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm personally in favour of just getting rid of them. If somebody plays for the Roosters, is it really relevent to know that they're Italian/Australian? I don't think it is, and neither does MOSFLAG. GW(talk)09:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a question for the members of this WikiProject concerning the article Football and links to it. Football is a general article on all the related sports that go by that name, and, although it is an article and not a disambiguation page, it has one of the characteristic liabilities of a dab page: It has a lot of links to it that are actually intended for another article. In this case, most of the incorrect links are intended for either Association football or American football, with smaller numbers intending Australian rules football, Gaelic football, etc. There is however one other very large group of articles that link to Football: Biographies of rugby players, many of which begin, "Joe Player is a rugby union [or rugby league ] [[football]]er..."
Now there is absolutely nothing wrong or against any policy about this linking to the Football article. But because there are several hundred such links from rugby bios, it does make it much more difficult for an editor (myself, natch) to find the incorrect links, especially new ones, that should go to the article for a specific code. I have changed a few of these links to rugby football, but most I've left alone so far. There are, I think, four possible ways to proceed:
1) Leave them alone; linking to the Football article is best
3b) No need to link to Football, but combine the links, e.g. [[rugby union|rugby union footballer]]
Let me reiterate that there is nothing wrong with linking to the Football article; it is merely inconvenient from an editorial point of view. The issue should be decided based on what's best for users, with the editorial issue only coming into it if you see no difference among the choices as far as user-friendliness (access to information, readability, etc.). So keep it, change it, unlink it, or combine it? I will gladly abide by whatever consensus is reached; I just wanted some feedback before doing anything more. (This has also been copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union.) Cheers!--ShelfSkewedTalk16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have a rugby league player bio going through GAN right now incidently so it'll be interesting to see what they make of it. In any case, my preferred option 3b), although on the article I mentioned, I've only linked "[[rugby league]] footballer". Actually, after a second read-through, that's exactly what option 3a) is, so I'd go with that. "Football" is too ambiguous a link, and "Rugby football" doesn't differentiate between union and league well enough unless the player in question happened to play both codes. The last sentence becomes even more of a nightmare while players like Karmichael Hunt exist who played a different sport entirely after playing league. So yeah, no link for "football" and just a link for "rugby league" is best for our part. GW(talk)18:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't much of a consensus (though I fully agree with where you got to). So does this mean that we have a "very large group" of RU/RL player articles to delink ? If so where can I see the list so that I can assist ? -Sticks6608:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The What links here article-space links to Footballhere. I've already made a start, so you'll have to go about 450-500 links down the list before you start running into the bio articles that need unlinking.--ShelfSkewedTalk13:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, it's a long term goal, I think. Gradually, we would hope more articles and more statements within them are supported by reliable references, however there are thousands of rugby league articles with more content being added all the time. Maybe something we could do is to create a 'greetings message' for anyone that we see editing a rugby league article that would give them a short, easy to follow explanation of referencing and encourage them to come to the RL Wikiproject. You might be interested in this also. LunarLander//talk//18:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Am I wrong in thinking that if a claim in a BLP is unsourced, it should just be removed completely? Most clubs publish the heights and weights of rugby league players, and the Super League official website does as well. There's really no good excuse for them not being sourced. GW(talk)22:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Perhaps we should adopt a project-wide standard that requires a linked source in the infobox for height and weight. There is of course already a field in the bio infobox to insert a source. Then, when a player retires we should blank the fields (as I've done here) as we all know how fat they get when they stop playing! --Mkativerata (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
As an admin I should have file mover rights but it might take me a while to figure it out. I've never done it before. Complicating the situation is that some editors have started making the change to articles manually: [3]. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, problem mostly fixed. Turned out it was some league/union confusion (always the best guess!). I've moved Manly's colours to File:Manly Sea Eagles colours.svg and am doing an AWB run to fix all links across the project. We have one other problem though: someone helpfully tried to update the links last time the file was moved, but ended up corrupting a whole lot of links to Wynnum-Manly colours... See [4]. I'm doing my best to sort it out. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Note, Is there a way of finding out which pages that were seemingly redlinked had the respective team colors remove so someone
There's a suite of them listed here -- they all seem to have been done by the Bot at about the same time. I'll have a look tomorrow when I have a bit more time. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay this is my last shot. I started reviewing this for good article status over a month ago and after some responses by Ginger Warrior it has stalled. I left a few prods on his talk page but he seems to be relatively inactive now. It is close to passing and if someone wants to take over that would be great. If there is no response within a few days I will regretfully have to fail it. Regards AIRcorn(talk)01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, I hate failing these. I will start a new section with what is left and any new problems that might have crept in over the last couple of weeks to make it easier for you. AIRcorn(talk)01:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Height and Weight in infoboxs
Hi guys,
Just had an interesting scenario at Grant Rovelli where the height and weight were removed because now he is not contracted to an NRL club "it's impossible to keep this accurate and up-to-date". I replaced the stats because in my opinion they are there to give an indication of the players height and weight during his playing years. Thoughts? Do we want the infobox to reflect the weight and height at the present time (and remove it for all deceased players)? Do we want it to reflect there stats during their playing years? if so, how do we work that out? Or is there another option I haven't thought of? Cheers Mattlore (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just noticed they're hashing out the same issues at the Baseball wikiproject, so we're not alone! My view is that players' weights invariably change over their career. Tariq Sims has loaded on about 20 kilos in two years; John Hopoate also put on about the same over his long career. Accordingly, height and especially weight can only sensibly be expressed in the present. As there is no in the present source for a retired player's weight (other than one who has taken up boxing or Jenny Craig), we should blank the field in their infobox. The retired player almost certainly will have had multiple different weights throughout their career, so we can't sensibly have a "career weight". Of course, the prose of the article can talk about their usual weight, or their fluctuating weight at various points in their career, if it is worth writing about (for example, in the Tariq Sims case). --Mkativerata (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess the context I am coming at the problem from is I do alot of work on old biographies and it really adds a bit of context when you have some height or weight data (which isn't very often) as it tells you a bit about what type of player they were. It would be a shame to remove this data from the infobox. When they are retired it moves that data from the "personal info" section to the "playing information" section and I think this feature may have been to be to deal with this problem. Mattlore (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
We dealt with this years ago with the 'retired' field. Put a 'yes' there and the height and weight moves beneath the "Playing information" sub-heading. Leave it blank and it stays up under the "Personal information" sub-heading.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I guess that at least makes it clear the weight is not the retiree's current weight. But what about the many players who had varying career weights? Nonetheless I take Mattlore's point about old bios. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly the most recently referencable weight should be in the infobox. Old data should be incorporated into the body text.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. Over at rugby union we have started a discussion about dabs for our biographies. Whether it should be (rugby union) or (rugby union player). It might be a good idea to work together to get a consistent naming system for our duel code players. Feel free to leave you perspective hereAIRcorn(talk)10:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
We've been down this road before and didn't we find that we had some consensus with how the articles on American sports stars (basketballers/baseballer) are disambigged ? Let's leave well enough alone-Sticks6612:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
BARLA clubs
There are a few notable amateur clubs which don't currently have articles. Is anyone aware of any web or printed histories of/sources on the amateur game? pablo16:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If articles like that make it past WP:N then I'll just give up and leave now... Congratulations on the DYK success! I remember SA sadly getting thrashed three times as well though. Expansionism worked just as well then as it does now it seems. GW(talk)00:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Many of the flags I've seen are based on very dubious national connections. I don't think the flags are relevant to the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how they add little. They inform a reader of what nationality the player is, if they are looking for what countries the player descends from they can just go into their page & have a look. Just like a guy suggested a while ago, I like the idea of a player's flag being the country that they currently represent. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
How is it relevent to the club what country their staff "represent"? Does it matter that Leeds are managed by an Englishman and not an Aussie? Not really. GW(talk)17:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Well thats the thing, staff at a club aren't working for anyone other than themselves. Due to League's current rules most players are eligible for several nations. I think the manual of style is pretty clear cut.
"Appropriate use: Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality" - which is not the case here as we are talking about club players.
"Avoid flag icons in infoboxes: Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many."
"Inappropriate use - Do not emphasize nationality without good reason"
"Inappropriate use - Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death" - so no flag if they haven't represented a country?
"Clarity - If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." - clarity problems due to players representing more than one country and being eligible for several?
Why? If the flags are meant to be used to represent sporting nationality, why should someone like Karmichael Hunt be displayed as New Zealand when he's played eleven times for the Kangaroos? This grey area about defining a sportsman's nationality is exactly the problem. GW(talk)12:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
What is your solution then? Have flags that represent nationality or country they have played for or no flag? If we stick with falgs, what will they represent? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Matt's given the solution. I'm not sure what the dispute is, such that we have to make contingency plans in case they might stay. There's no reason for national flags to be in sports articles in general, but especially not infoboxes for the reasons given above. They should never have been placed there, and shouldn't continue to be there. GW(talk)17:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Objection! I could take or leave the flags, but for European clubs that have a quota of over-seas players, they serve as a quick guide to who is foreign and who is domestic. Just a thought. 119.149.15.21 (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, very quiet. I've just removed the option for the club squad boxes to display flags. Let me know if there is any negative fallout. Mattlore (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we've sorted out every potential issue, Sticks. Now we can enjoy retirement.
Mattlore, I don't think the removal will make much difference, as it's so easy and common to add flags using the flagicon template or by inserting the images themselves most people do it that way. Your change does make it clearer that flags aren't encouraged, though. LunarLander//talk//21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree its always going to be an issue - it did remove them from all the squad boxes in one fell swoop though, minor progress as always... Mattlore (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, will use that to replace dead links where I find them. May be the original site will add them as they indicate changes will be made during 2012 season. Keith D (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
This template seems to be out of date - the linked website does not seem to show any player profiles - its just an online store. Should it be removed? noq (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
While going through and deleting uses of the aforementioned template, I discovered that Template:FOGS player is similarily broken. However the player stats are still on the website, just moved to a new naming structure. List of players. Just letting you know. --MichaelGreiner03:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I notice that a number of the articles on my watchlist are being "tidied up". The tidying up seems to generally consist of removing section headings, but the outcome is an ugly wall of text, e.g. David Stephenson. Is this tidying up really necessary? Best Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
"Stephenson played Wing, i.e. number 2, in Wigan's 18-4 victory over Warrington in the 1986–87 John Player Special Trophy final at Burnden Park, Bolton on Saturday 10 January 1987.[8] He played in Wigan's victory in the 1986–87 Rugby Football League Championship. Stephenson appeared at Centre, i.e. number 3, and scored a conversion in Wigan's 8-0 victory over Warrington in 1986–87 Rugby League Premiership final at Old Trafford, Manchester on Sunday 17 May 1987.[9] He played at Centre, i.e. number 3, and scored 4-conversions for all of Wigan's points in the 8-4 victory over Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles in the 1987 World Club Challenge at Central Park, Wigan on Wednesday 7 October 1987.[10] He scored a conversion in Wigan's 28-16 victory over Warrington in the 1987–88 Lancashire Cup final at Knowsley Road, St. Helens on Sunday 11 October 1987.[11] In 1987 Stephenson also represented Great Britain against France, and Papua New Guinea." is one hell of sentence. DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Just looking at the article used as an example, it's pretty clear it had far too many headings, but just as clearly now has too few. Surely a sensible compromise can be reached. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
1. The subject they’re looking for information about doesn’t have an article?
2. The subject's article exists, but the information is incomplete?
3. The subject's article exists, but there are too many headings?
To me, the answer is self-evident, and consequently this is where effort should be targeted. I believe there are just over 5,000 player articles, and I've originated just under third of them, I now know why this is the case. In addition why is there a need to get arsey about someone questioning their changes to an article, when they didn't originate the article, and their changes do not conform to the Manual of style? As Toyah said "It's a Mystery". DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
National Conference League teams
Recently I was working towards producing articles for football's Central Midlands League and it turned out that many teams in this league were not seen as "notable" and many of my articles nearly ended up being deleted. Therefore, to avoid this happening again, I wanted to check whether the teams in the National Conference League are seen as notable before I attempted to produce articles for the teams in that league which currently do not have articles - ie those currently in red, thereby eliminating any possibility of any articles I, or anyone else, produce being deleted. Any guidance would be appreciated.{Rillington (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)}
The football issue has been resolved and my query here is related to rugby league and not to football.
To recap, I am asking if writing articles for the teams participating in the National Conference League is part of the WikiProject Rugby League. I ask because I don't want to start producing articles for the clubs which currently do not have articles if there is any risk of their deletion because the teams in the NCL are not seen as 'notable' enough for their own Wikipedia article.{Rillington (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}
Around half of the clubs already have articles and I think it would be good for all the teams in the NCL to have articles and I'm happy to produce articles for those teams in the weeks and months ahead assuming the information is available on the internet. I've read the rugby union page you refer to and they consider teams to be notable if it has Played in an officially recognized adult domestic national or international competition. Would I be correct in assuming that the NCL fits that criteria in rugby league and if so it would make sense for all the clubs in the NCL to be seen as notable enough for their own article.{Rillington (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}
Someone doesn't like Greg Inglis because he plays for Queensland
Can some more eyes please look at State of Origin series#Controversy? It's a poorly written, poorly sourced, journalistic style piece about how naughty Inglis is for playing for Queensland. As I have said on the Talk page, I'm Victorian and couldn't give a stuff which state Inglis plays for, but I don't like crappy content in Wikipedia. I also don't want to become involved in an Edit war nor go anywhere near 3RRR. Over to the experts please. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I doubt many "experts" frequent this project much any more. You are dealing with people who think a 1-1 series draw is a win, who deny Melbourne's stripped premierships, and think St George Illawarra and St George (but never Illwarra) are the same team.
I suspect you're right. Despite accusations to the contrary, I'm not that knowledgeable nor biased on State of Origin, but I do know crap when I see it in Wikipedia. I've also noticed that League articles tend to contain a lot of it. Shame really. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to deal with it but the anon is unresponsive and continues to revert to his edits. Time to escalate the problem? Mattlore (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I think so. We now have him insisting on including a claim that Inglis supported NSW as a kid as proof that he should play for NSW now. It's a "no logic" zone over there right now. I am also being accused of bias and vandalism. I don't know enough about it to be biased. (I'm a Victorian. I don't care either.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Can some more eyes have a look at the page please if anyone is around? Also, what is the best next move? Go to WP:RFC, WP:ANI, find an admin directly or something else I haven't thought of? Mattlore (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
We really need to set some guidelines on how we're going to lay out these pages, the NRL in particular is a mess verging on needing a complete do-over...
I've started consolidating some of the smaller state RL pages so they can grow into informative articles and I've tried rearranging the deck chairs on the NRL page but I'm about to give up (Why is the ARL team of the century listed on the NRL page? Why is the rep game schedule mixed in with the salary cap and judiciary sections? etc).
Should we be looking at other sports league pages to maybe create some general template of important topics/headings and we can go from there?Bongomanrae (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, if you want to discuss the proposal first here that would be good too. I like the expansion you did for the ARLC page. The only word of caution is NRL is a league whereas the others are administrations so the NRL will have to have different headings. I will update the NZ league pages (such as West Coast Rugby League) to use the infobox as I haven't seen that before. Mattlore (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
No worries. I've noticed there's generally a bit of confusion surrounding the ARL and the ARL commission. The ARL still exists, it's just that the commission now leads it instead of the factional boards of the NSWRL/QRL ala a corporate takeover. I'll get the sources and sort it out on the ARL/ARLC pages. Might even merge the ARLC page back onto the ARL page so it's less confusing. Bongomanrae (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure? From reading this it says "ARL Commission is the existing ARL corporate entity with an entirely new constitution and regulatory framework." and "The primary objects of the Company are to: (a). be the single controlling body and administrator of the Game". "The NSW, Queensland and Country Rugby Leagues and ARL Development will remain separate entities under the Commission."
Therefore I'd read it as saying the ARLC has replaced the ARL, or the ARL has been renamed the ARLC. The graph at the bottom seems pretty conclusive. Mattlore (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Possibly, confusion is being caused due to the use of 'ARL'. Unless there was a change that I'm not aware of within the ARL between the 50s and the 90s, I'd understand 'ARL' to be shorthand for what used to the referred to as the 'ARL Board of Control'. As the quote above says, it's the same "corporate entity with an entirely new constitution". I think this structure shows the members of the ARL with the Commission at the top of the structure. ARL Development is presumably set up as a charitable entity of some kind, in a similar way to the RFL having some separate but controlled entities, and the state leagues were separate before too. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the recent changes than me will chime in with a definite answer but perhaps it can be taken that the BoC was replaced by the Commission within the same ARL entity (and the press may have been slack with some of the descriptions). The RFL has had some major changes over the years too but we still call it the RFL. In a way, mentioning 'ARL Commission' is like going back to using the long-form 'ARL BoC'. LunarLander//talk//19:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I was having a look at the Australian Companies office and the legal name of Australian Rugby League Limited changed to Australian Rugby League Commission Limited in February. Yes, ARL Development is a seperate charitable trust. According to this the Australian Board of Control was renamed the Australian Rugby League in 1967, I guess this is similar in that it is another renaming. I think that structure shows the entities involved in rugby league in Australia, the ARLC, the ARL Development, the clubs and the states - there is no longer an entity called the ARL. I have not been able to find any sign of its existance. Mattlore (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad we got News Ltd out of the game but with the NRL, the ARL(Or should that be ARFL? ARLBoC? ARLC?), News Ltd, the NRL Partnership and the other boards they really didn't make it easy for wiki editors... :) More info will undoubtedly come to light in the off-season. For what it's worth I've sent off an email to the NRL public relations so if they bother to reply to my unusual questions hopefully they'll clear it up for us. Bongomanrae (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I should also add I'm working on a big cleanup of the NRL article in my sandbox User:Bongomanrae/sandbox2. I'm trying to cut a lot of the chaff which exists on the main page. If either of you (or any other WPRL editors reading this) want to tell me what to improve/expand on please let me know. Bongomanrae (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Does this mean the countless quality sources I've found on highbeam through google over the years but couldn't view fully are now accessible?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Probably, although I've found some newspapers that it used to have it now no longer has access to, which means it hasn't been as useful as I thought it would. They have a new round of applications closing this month, so you should look at applying too. Mattlore (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
New Articles with no links
How can we make new articles without any links regarding that article? Isn't there no point making it if so? JK (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
? ? If the person is truly notable then you'll probably find that there is some justification for a link to your new article from some other article. If that isn't initially so, then flesh the article out. Delve into the person's full story. You will find some cause for a link sooner or later-Sticks6613:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Squad sections on national team articles: 'Current' (i.e. 'possible'/'future'/'speculative') or 'Most recent'?
Though included in rep team articles often, I'm not keen on having the line up from the last match included in articles because they're immediately (and often long) out of date. I wouldn't like to see entirely speculative future team lists for obvious reasons. The England team has the Elite Training Squad ([7]) which meets and is revised during the season. Including that makes sense but most teams won't have an equivalent. Of the two options, I suppose number 1 is the best. LunarLander (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
North Wales Crusaders
I have been trying to create and update pages for Championship 1 club North Wales Crusaders but have been having a few problems with creating pages for players. Could someone tell me what I have been doing wrong and how I can rectify it.
Not sure what your problem might be but you seem to have succeeded. The problem is that few semi-pro players are notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and they could all be deleted. Generally a player that hasn't played SL or NRL doesn't get an article. Don't put too much effort into the articles.GordyB (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Could someone a bit familiar with the RLEF and RLIF membership have a look at notes 1 and 2 of WP:RLN. It would appear the countries listed are out of date compared to what is listed at the RLEF webpage.[8]Hack (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No, its up to date. Note 2 mentions "full members". To get a list of them on the webpage go to "Members" at the top and then "Full". Mattlore (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
According to Note 2:
All current full members of the RLEF are also full members of the RLIF. Current associate members of the RLEF are : Ireland, Lebanon, Scotland and Serbia.
Scotland is listed on the RLEF site as a full member ([9] Members>Full>Scotland) but its status is unclear on the RLIF website (it is listed under members without qualification). Hack (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
#Have appeared in at least one competitive international match between Full members of the RLIF and/or Full Members of the RLEF(see Notes 1 & 2),
:Note 2: Current full members of the RLEF who are not also full members of the RLIF are: Ireland, Lebanon, Scotland and Serbia.
Membership criteria. To confirm: the RLIF and RLEF criteria for full membership are the same. The affiliate membership criteria differs slightly on one point (RLIF: "Minimum 4 reserve/U21/Student grade teams"; RLEF: "Evidence that a youth or junior development programme is in place"). (See RLEF criteria and RLIF criteria.) While the full membership requirements are the same that won't mean that an RLEF full member is definitely a full member of the RLIF, as dates of application and approval may vary. Dates of suspension or reduction in status might also differ, if a member fails to maintain their activities. This is a good reason for mentioning both the RLIF and RLEF in the notability guideline - as is currently the case.
Though it isn't stated explicitly, I think all the the members displayed in the header of the RLIF website are full members. Per their profiles on the site, Serbia, Scotland and Lebanon are.
Notability criteria. In the proposal, "or Associate Members" is no longer included. Though it seems neater, I'm worried this could be a problem for us in future. Recently, we've seen Russia reduced from full to affiliate membership. I expect other/new members will fall and rise, in the future, as the sport spreads. I'm not sure what standard practice is when this happens. Would articles on footballers who represented these members be proposed for deletion or perhaps keep track of membership status changes (from the 1940s for RLIF, RLEF, SLIB and IRLB members) to work out which international matches count? Keeping a lower grade of membership may help simplify this - thoughts? Whatever we decide, we don't want it to be too onerous.
I came upon WP:RLN when I saw that Johnny Grasso has been prodded. According to rugbyleagueproject.org, he played three matches for Italy (an RLEF affiliate) against Scotland, Serbia and Lebanon.[10] If Scotland and Serbia are full RLIF members then it would appear he meets the criteria. Given the difficulty in finding online reliable sources for his playing career, I wonder if the bar is too low. Hack (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Lander, does this mean Scotland, Serbia etc will soon get full RLIF membership? If so perhaps we could remove mention of RLEF from the guidelines? Mattlore (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
If the consensus was to change that part of the guideline to only full members, I agree the RLEF mention could be removed. If affiliate members are retained on it, for simplicity, I'd keep it. LunarLander (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
They are probably the most famous amateur club in the UK. Very many international players played for this club as juniors. See how many "notable former players" have Wikipedia articles. They are without a doubt notable.GordyB (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration
What's the guidance for recording the stats of players who are dual-registered with both a SL and Championship team. It looks a bit strange if there are entries like
2011 - Hull KR
2012 Batley
for players like James Green. NtheP (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting question. You could follow the example used for loans, with an arrow and a bracket, such as they use in football. This could be accompanied with something like this: (DR). The code is: <small>({{Tooltip|DR|dual-registered}})</small>. Mattlore (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, tried it and then went for <small>{{Abbrlink|DR|Super League#Dual registration|dual-registered}}</small> as it creates a link to the section in the SL article where dual registration is explained. NtheP (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a recently-created category, including both RU and RL individuals, which I've got a couple of questions on. First off - should we have separate "rugby union players..." etc, and "rugby league players..."etc, rather than just "rugby players...." etc? Secondly, is it a category for people awarded knighthoods for their rugby deeds, or for people who happened to be involved with rugby and were awarded a knighthood? I've just added RU player Wavell Wakefield, who is an example of the latter type (knighted for political service) but I'm not sure if he really fits the criteria and there are a couple of NZ RL investors / administrators, Owen Glenn and Peter Leitch (Mad Butcher), who I admit are unfamiliar names to me, who also seem to fall into the latter type. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Separate categories, we don't have shared union and league categories, nor should we, we don't have joint "tennis and badminton" categories.GordyB (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
There is an overlap between rugby laws being drawn up in 1870 odd and the great schism of 1895 that makes a degree of "sharedness" inevitable. This is why we have a rugby football article for instance. Wakefield from memory predates 1895, he'd be fair enough in a joint category but RU types after 1895 are nothing to do with RL. Rugby league is one sport and rugby union is another. They are not merely "house rules" variations of a common sport.GordyB (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys, someone has started a category at Category:Junior Kiwis players. I seem to remember similar categories previously being deleted due to junior achievements not being relevant or something along those lines, does anyone remember anything about this or have any thoughts on this category? Mattlore (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't really know if it is worthwhile, but I think it would pass the notability guidelines if tested. I was going to just redirect it to the Anzac test page, but when I saw that that page was far too skewed towards the 2012 test I merged information back the other way. AIRcorn(talk)07:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me like Mkatev and Jeff went to a lot of trouble on the 2010 Article and it turned out well. The 11 and 12 articles don't have the same meat on them. I dare say the intention to go back and do six years before proved a unappealing chore in the end. I think the 2010 art should stand on its own and I see no purpose in dropping an abridged version bit of 11 and 12 into the main article unless you're going to put segments in for each year ? Questionable worthwhile as Mattlore said -Sticks6613:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been in touch with Dean Russell/Riley Sohier/Robert Summers at NSW Touch, and the consensus seems to be that it was the New South Wales select team that played Great Britain, and that it was played at the Port Hacking oval in 1979, but I haven't got any useable references as yet. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk)
I have a few Rugby League Weeks from 1979, couldn't see anything in there, a far from complete collection though.
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
