Talk:Men's rugby league Ashes (original series)

Whoever did the table on this made a right mess of it. As such i am removing it entirely.

If it's a mess, fix it, but don't delete it. Thanks, NawlinWiki 13:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not my job to fix it , i don't have any reference to the full results. However I know for a fact that it is wrong and therefore it must be removed. Great Britain have not beaten Australia since the early 70s so all the ones after that that have GB winning are wrong. Other results have Australia playing Australia. If you think wrong information is superior to no information thats up to you. I am removing it again.

Harry Sunderland Medal

In Bradley Clyde's article, I read this: In the 1992 Ashes Series against Great Britain, Clyde was awarded with the Harry Sunderland Medal for the Player of the Series. Is this awarded in every ashes series? If so, might be worth a mention. I searched for Harry Sunderland but couldn't find anything about him. Seems like encyclopedic stuff that should be in this article.--Jeff79 07:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Done.--Jeff79 22:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

63 Ashes

I think that anonymous useer who changed the 1963 result to 2Aust v 1 GB was right. The series went: Australia 1st Test London 28-2; Australia 2nd TestSwinton (the "massacre") 50-12; Great Britain 3rd Test Leeds 16-5. - Sticks66 12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he also deleted a bunch of games too though. I dunno. I have no records to go by. As long as the totals at the bottom are verfied and match up.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/~maajjs/ Here are some on-line past records you can access -Sticks66 12:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Which "concept"?

What does this sentence mean?

Several sports and events adopted cricket's Ashes "concept"

It is followed by

... was an "accepted principle" that a series had to have at least three matches ...

Is this the "concept", that there are 3 matches??

And could somebody please explain (in the article, not here) where the name comes from? The article says

The Australians suggested that the series should be called "The Ashes"

but does not explain why the Australians suggested this name.

--Austrian (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger Propsal - The Ashes (rugby league; 2023–)

Support - Do we really need two seperate pages talking about fundamentally the same competition. When the Ashes was due to revivied in 2020 before Covid hit no new page was created, I don't see any reason to change it now.

The only real change is that England, rather than Great Britain as a whole will contest the competition. I think this change can be covered on this page, rather than needing a new page with a title format I have never seen before on this site.

Furthermore, rugby league pages are not updated regularly at all on this website, so spreading the information across multiple pages is meaning its unlikely to be found at all amd its yet another page that is unlikely to be updated regularly.

Very happy to hear opposing views --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

-- Just to add the Ryder Cup was intially contested between Great Britain and the US, then Great Britain & Ireland and the US, and then Europe and the US. This is a perfectly good model for this page. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. No need for a separate article. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm not opposed to merge but I do not see harm in having a seperate article either.

With the tournament having been dead for 20+ years and is now occuring with a different side I would be opposed to statistical unification and unification of results table. Especially now a women's series is also present.

One further point, the argument that we should merge because Wikipedians are terrible at updating rugby league pages is a little rediculas. Any merging argument should be based of if they are separately notable, and if presentations of results and statistics of the new tournament would ruin the establishment formated of the article for the old tournament, and wouldn't require a split later on. Mn1548 (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support The Ashes (rugby league) can cover the concept of Aus v GB, and the newer version of Aus v Eng in men's and women's rugby league. If there's a fork needed in future, then fine. Storm machine (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Merged pages following support. Mn1548 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

"The Ashes (rugby league); 2023–" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Ashes (rugby league); 2023– has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15 § The Ashes (rugby league); 2023– until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Men's Ashes Modern Series & Original Series

• Support merger - I'm here again proposing the same thing I thought we'd agreed to last time. Last year it was agreed to merge the The Ashes series for both the modern and original series together. Similar to the Ryder Cup (as the teams have changed but the pages is the same). The only difference is that England rather than Great Britain will be the team playing Australia. We agreed that given its the same series they should be merged together. I am also of the view that given the Women's Ashes has yet to start yet and hasn't established itself it could be merged into this page until the point where it is regularly part of the International Rugby League calendar - but I realise that the Women's cricket ashes has a different page and in the long run the Women's RL ashes would deserve one too. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support as previously agreed last year. Women's rugby league Ashes should remain a separate page per consensus on the WP:RL talk page, but there's no need to split the men's page, as next year's proposed games are considered a continuation of the GB v Aus series ([1], [2]). J Mo 101 (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose - While I don't see any harm in merging now, my worry is it will need splitting again in the not too far future, which was kind of the issue when the previous discussion happened. This might not be as bad an issue now that the women's ashes is a separate article, but all three merged was definitely impacting readability. Further, in my opinion, both are two separate series with different teams and a 22 year gap between the last of the old and first of the new. One page could promote editors to unify statistics which would require sourcing that the 2025 Ashes is the 40th of the series and not the 1st of a new revivied Ashes which isn't currently the case. In conclusion, I think that two articles is better futureproofing both. Mn1548 (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose on the same basis as Mn1548. If 2025 is England v Australia (or vice versa if the IRL, ARLC & RFL can ever decide where the series will be played) as opposed to Great Britain v Australia, then it becomes a new event. The Ryder Cup isn't analogous as England and Great Britain are considered separate teams, unlike golf's expansion from GB to GB&I to GB&Europe. Nthep (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not being reported as a new event, so I'm not sure the name of the team matters (and the RFL/Northern Union team has been referred to by several different names during its history anyway). We also have the Baskerville Shield which incorporates both GB & England series against New Zealand without any issues, so I don't see the need to split this article. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The Baskerville Shield Argument is an other stuff argument. Personally, I think both Ashes are notably separate purely because of the length of time between them, existing in effectively two different eras of the sport. Re "Nothern Union" team, that was the Great Britain national team, but wasn't called as such because the idea of union and league being separate sports didn't occur until a couple of decades after the team was established. Eligibility to the GB team didn't change when rugby league began calling itself such. Mn1548 (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but the original series article also includes matches against an Australasia team, which is considered a separate team to Australia. All news sources are reporting that the existing Ashes series is being revived; we shouldn't be declaring it a separate series based on personal opinion or because an arbitrary length of time has passed. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning, everyone is talking about this being a revival of The Ashes, not a new competition. What would you happened if the RFL had decided to bring back the Great Britain team for this series - as they mooted earlier in the year. Would it be the same competition then or a new one - as the time length would still be the important point?

If they brought back the Lancashire v Yorkshire game, would that be a new page or a continuation of the old one? Mollsmolyneux (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That would also need to take into consideration any changes to selection criteria as with Interstate Rugby League in Australia (1908–1981) being separate from State of Origin series. EdwardUK (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, I can see why it could make sense to merge given that no version of the Aus v Eng format has yet taken place (other than the wheelchair ashes in 2019). Most of the modern article is based on proposals for the event so not much actual substance, and with recent reports of a venue change for 2025 it means that it needs updating yet again before it has even happened. This however, can also be seen a reason for keeping it separate; with the original series being complete it has better potential to be improved to good/featured status without the issue of statistics ever becoming out-dated or needing updating for current events, Also the history section of a merged article would need rebalancing to counter recentism, preferably expanding on the original to avoid it being slanted towards current events. If merging I would like to suggest the option of it being moved to Men's rugby league Ashes, with The Ashes (rugby league) becoming a DAB page for the men's and women's (and possibly wheelchair if there is ever an article for this). EdwardUK (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)