Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 12

Suncorp Stadium

Hello to all, I've been away and now I've returned. Suncorp Stadium seems to have moved to Lang Park, now I've grown up knowing Lang Park as the ground Wally Lewis graced. To me Suncorp is the Stadium that has replaced that. The stadium has only ever held the one sponsor. Everyone knows it as Suncorp Stadium, hell it's even written on the side of the building. Anyone agree with me or am I on my own on this one. Alexsanderson83 07:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're proposing, but I'm happy with the status quo regarding Lang Park and Suncorp Stadium being covered in the one article.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

--Jeff79 (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Suncorp Stadium isn't really the real/true name given to the oval it's just that Suncorp has naming rights to the oval like ANZ Stadium (Stadium Australia, Sydney) and TIO Stadium (Marrara Stadium, Darwin) but the only oval that doesn't redirect to it's true name is Dairy Farmers Stadium in Townsville. Bidgee (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking that we rename the Suncorp Stadium article "Lang Park"? I'm not quite sure what you mean. MDM (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The article already is named Lang Park. Bidgee (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well there we go - I didn't know that. So are you asking that we make two separate articles? I don't think that's very wise. Just because they've built a few grandstands around the playing field doesn't mean the ground has actually changed. MDM (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No I was just trying to explain why I feel that Suncorp Stadium should stay as Lang Park. Bidgee (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So really its a decision to use sponsor name or the un-sponsored stadium. I believe, we should use which is more popular, but at the same time, what is the most recognised name over time. I prefer "Stadium Australia" over "ANZ Stadium", but prefer "Suncorp" over "Lang".  The Windler talk  07:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem is the sponsors/advertisers name isn't not really a real name of the oval/field/stadium and I feel that we should use the real name and sponsors/advertisers name. Bidgee (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For those that missed it, naming conventions were discussed back here in June, which is when I saw the discussion and I think there is an earlier archived discussion on the same noticeboard. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just looking for the article to be Suncorp Stadium, what everyone knows it as, refers to it as, what it says on your ticket, what it says on the side of the building. Alexsanderson83 07:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know too much about the history of the place, but I have always known it as Suncorp Stadium. Fronsdorf (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I've ever been to the stadium or know too much about the history of the site, so I'm staying out of this one.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  07:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is known as Suncorp Stadium. It is an issue that I have commented on the page; for me Lang Park is the old stadium, Suncorp is the new stadium. In the same way as old Wembley and new Wembley. Suncorp Stadium and Lang Park are deserving of two different articles.Londo06 07:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not old enough to see anything but the current stadium on live TV, so my opinion probably ain't worth too much. But from reading here and there it seems logical enough to have two articles. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning to sort this out; there seems to be some support and a fair bit of apathy, so I'll be bold and take one for the team. Alexsanderson83 18:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Current Club" Field

I've made the "current club" field only appear for northern hemisphere players, by requiring the "clubnumber" field to be filled before "current club" appears. This is because there seems to be a consensus amongst the southern editors to remove it, whilst visa versa from you northerners. If there are any issues with this, let us all know here. MDM (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I edit alot of NRL articles and I feel it is a key component. I think you should bring it to a vote, else create an NRL infobox and a SL infobox.Londo06 08:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We already had a poll, see above. MDM (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the squad number being alongside, it doesn't look too good to be honest.Londo06 08:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pushed number and current club back in, a merge rather than a revision.Londo06 09:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like that an entire line is used to just portray one number. It seems a bit of a damper.  The Windler talk  09:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I can understand where you're coming from, but to me the alternative looks exponentially worse.Londo06 09:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And it was decided that the "number" field should only be used for a cap number. NRL are given numbers based on their position (such as Karmichael Hunt given 1). I don't like the current club or number field at all. No matter its importance for SL players.  The Windler talk  09:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Londo, the poll that we did a week ago concluded that "current club" should disappear altogether for the time being. Now here are SpecialWindler and I trying to make a nice compromise by satisfying both your wishes (to have "current club" and "club number" included for northern players) and every Australian's wishes (having neither field for current Australian players). Now as far as I am concerned, you have two choices:

(1) Accept both SpecialWindler's and my version of the two fields in the infobox

(2) Accept the poll that concluded that we remove "current club" altogether

As SpecialWindler stated, he does not like either field in any infobox. I have the same opinion as he does. But we are trying to come to some sort of compromise and I'm sure we'd both like you to do the same.

I will now revert the infobox back to what I did. The next move is up to you. MDM (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why "Current club" should be for either hemisphere. I can understand why the number may be of importance to northern players ... but I agree with MDM. The vote last week was supposed to end all this talk for the meantime. It seems to me that we're having all these conversations over and over. Sometimes, we have to let go of some things, in order to make Wikipedia a better place. But I agree with MDM, the next move is up to you.  The Windler talk  11:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The numbers are a big deal in the UK, I know from living in various parts of London over recent years, totally right that they don't belong on our NRL pages, but for me they do have a place on English Super League pages. With regards to current club, they do have a home on both Southern and Northern Hemisphere pages. Alexsanderson83 11:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you several reasons why "current club" shouldn't appear without "club number" and hence not on Australian infoboxes:

(1) The current club is normally stated in the opening line of the article anyway

(2) It should seem pretty obvious to anybody looking at the infobox as to what club the player is currently at (by looking at the list of clubs)

(3) It looks bad being seeing the line is virtually repeated twice within a few lines on the majority of articles (one-club players)

(4) We voted that it should be removed anyway

I understand both your and Londo06's opinions that club numbers are important in the UK - that is why I am willing to compromise on having it put alongside a field that we voted shouldn't be there in the first place anyway. MDM (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the attempts at a compromise, but it really doesn't look that great. That's where I fall on the matter; they don't have a place on NRL player pages, but they do for English Super League players, just not like that as it doesn't look too flash. Alexsanderson83 12:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So we just wanna find a layout for Super League players (since all agree this isn't even an issue for NRL players) that looks best? Can you give me an example of a SL player with the new infobox with further explanation of what looks bad about it? And any ideas for improvement if any? Ta.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

eg. Ben Galea. I would have the number below the current club. No major re-formatting or re-vamping, just below. And for NRL players that club number wouldn't be filled and therefore wouldn't appear. Alexsanderson83 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

-

Ok, I see what you mean now. So you'd prefer the club number to be on its own line directly under the club. I kinda think that works better stylistically than having (number X) in brackets after the current club too. Although I don't feel strongly about it. If the guys concerned with current SL players won't push for the club & number fields appearing in curent NRL players' infoboxes, then the guys concerned with current NRL players shouldn't really push for a layout change in current SL players' infoboxes. I think it's ok to let the SL guys have the layout they like since it has no real effect on NRL guys anyway.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's where I come from as well, doesn't affect the NRL pages as that field doesn't mean anything to us anyway. Alexsanderson83 13:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really a fan of this proposed style that I've seen with Matt Gidley. Can we please go back to the template that we had a few days ago, the squad number looks awful when placed there.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  07:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just seen what this new style does, and it looks pretty crap if you'll pardon my bad language.Londo06 06:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we've all generally accepted the formatting of current club as crap. How about we remove "Current club" (for all players) and just have a cap number for NH players. That to me would be alright.  The Windler talk  09:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with that is they're not cap numbers. I'm not really that familiar with the numbering system in Super League mind you. I was under the impression that 'cap number' referred to the sequence in which players make their debut for a team, so these days cap numbers are in their hundreds. I don't think cap numbers can be in the infobox as each club would have to have one. If known, they can be mentioned in the article text where the player's club changes/debuts are mentioned. The numbers for SL players are more like squad numbers (I think). It'd be nice if someone could put some info about them in the Super League article, which would also help justify why they're important and necessary in the infobox. Do they change each season? Or players keep the one number till they leave the club? If a player has the number are we absolutely guaranteed that only he will play in that number? Either way, some people have asserted their importance and I'm not familiar enough with Super League to oppose them. So if the club number remains in the infobox, I get the feeling that there needs to be a corresponding club. I thought that the club number being present was what the inclusion of a current club field hinged on, as the number alone would be quite meaningless. I can understand that, especially if a player's club number will change if he moves to another team. I think going back to how it was ('current club' with 'number' below) and making sure everyone understands that neither field should appear in NRL players' articles will result in the least conflict.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is similar to the AFL system, in which you may be more familiar. In AFL, take a player like Barry Hall. Barry Hall had the number #25 on his back for his 6 years at St Kilda. But when he moved to Sydney he got the number 1, and has had that since. Thats the closest I can compare to the Super League players. The Wikipedia AFL player articles dosen't seem to have any consistent infobox guidelines. Some like Adam Goodes have the club and number there, Barry Hall dosen't.  The Windler talk  11:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually most current players have what Adam Goodes has. But there are still some inconsistencies (they have more than 1, maybe even 3 infoboxes they can use). On our front, I'm willing to let the number go to a new line, but I still rather for the whole thing to go away.  The Windler talk  11:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For Super League squad numbers they are very similar to Premier League (English football) squad numbers. The core squad will normally occupy the first 25, with several juniors getting later squad numbers. Teams such as Leeds and St Helens quite often will feature teams with close to 1 through 17 on there backs, whereas others may not. Some players choose numbers on superstition, some mid-season transfers get stuck with high numbers, but normally players would want a number closest to the 13 or 17 as possible. Fans often get replica shirts with player names and numbers on the back of their shirts. Just trying to paint a picture of why they are a part of English sport; cricket, football, rugby league, basketball, etc.Londo06 07:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As with the Adam Goodes article I feel it does look better with the number below.Londo06 07:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix it because it really doesn't look very good. We are trying to move the infobox forwards and this just makes it look like the squad numbers were a bit of an afterthought.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  08:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers SpecialWindler, thought I might mess up the infobox if I tried to fix it. Looks great.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  08:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think current club should be automatic for any league. There are so many players out there that cannot be distinguished between retirees and current players. Also there is the fact that it looks not so great, and that we seem to be going it alone on this infobox in terms of current club, and for one country only. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Will look into doing something in my sandbox, as the current version with 5 fields doesn't look great, let's be honest about it, it does not look good at all.Londo06 19:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cannot be distinguished? You don't think people might just read the lede to the article if they are confused by the infobox in any way at all? •Florrie•leave a note• 03:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to quite a thorny issue this one. For me a return to form would be the simplest solution; for SL players there would be three fields filled, and for our NRL players there would only be the two. Alexsanderson83 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not a thorny issue at all. I've heard only two arguments for the inclusion of the "current club" field in the infobox:

1. All other sports have them in their infoboxes, and
2. It's no good just having the squad number alone.

As for the first argument, this just isn't the case. See Markus Naslund (NHL), Jonny Wilkinson (R. Union), Ben Cousins (AFL) and Sachin Tendulkar (cricket). As for the second argument, it only applies to Super League players and no one else. So that leaves a total of zero effective arguments for the inclusion of a current club field for NRL players. The arguments against are quite obvious. It's clear enough as it is. Ask a friend or family member to come to the computer, and to type in either Matt Prior or Shannon Hegarty or Petero Civoniceva or any of the abovememntioned athletes and see how long it takes them to find out if he's retired or still playing. Give readers some credit. The people who I assume are more familiar than me with Super League have insisted that the squad numbers, and hence the current club, be included in the infobox and I'm not resisting that. But there is absolutely nothing to say they're needed for NRL players. Things should be left as they are.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Heights and weights

Karmichael Hunt uses "height(m)" and "weight(kg)" parameters for the infobox. Shouldn't these appear regardless?  The Windler talk  11:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notify the project on this one, but I removed all four of those m/kg/ft/lb fields given the bot had disregarded them anyway. I think every article that used to use these has been accounted for - I'm sorry I forgot to amend Hunt's article. Let me know if there's a problem with removing these fields - it just seemed that we didn't need them though. MDM (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Australian Schoolboys and Prime Minsiters XIII in Infobox.

I'm not a fan of the Australan Schoolboys and Prime Ministers XIII teams in the representative part of the players infobox. I would propose to have them removed. On the grounds, that there not really rep fixtures, and nothing that can't be said in the article. Any other thoughts, opinions.  The Windler talk  08:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely. I think rugby league is the only sport on Wikipedia that currently lists a schoolboy team in the infobox. It's absurd and must go.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I really didn't think that we would ever need to reiterate the point that the infobox is only for top level teams. This has been discussed many times. MDM (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, that 2 weeks ago, I removed it from Karmichael Hunt, and it is back there an hour or so latr.  The Windler talk  06:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wish people could understand that when we want content not to appear in the infobox, that doesn't mean we're trying to obscure it or that we don't want it appearing at all. I think schoolboy rep teams being detailed in the article is great and is an important piece of information that enriches a player's biography. But trying to cram as much content in the infobox regardless of relevance really cheapens it and gives the distinct impression that editors desparately want the infobox to be filled (even if it means putting in minor teams, obscure nicknames, etc.). To me, a meatier body of text is far more impressive than a long and colourful infobox. Sometimes less is more.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should outline on the documentation page of the infobox what should and shouldn't be in the infobox. And offenders (if I use that word) who add these things should be refereed to the documentation. Remember that only project members that look at this page will know of the guidelines, we haven't exactly made it clear. I'll make the page up now, give me a bit of time.  The Windler talk  06:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It was something that was agreed upon that only teams with articles would be included within the infobox. Alexsanderson83 07:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't the only rule in place, it was a side rule that was meant to rule out City Firsts (I was under the impression it got rejected anyway). The main rule is that the club/team is notable within its own state. And I certainely don't know anything about the schoolboys other than information I researched for the Karmichael Hunt article.  The Windler talk  08:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have started a MOS for the infobox, any help is appreciated here.  The Windler talk  08:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the MOS on current club for our NRL players. I know certain people agree on a position, but it is far from set in stone. Alexsanderson83 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is an article, then there is a place. For me they should definitely stay. Fronsdorf (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As before, definitely one that should stay. Alexsanderson83 17:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should vote on inclusion right here and now:

Voting for the inclusion of junior represetative teams in the representative section:

• Oppose--Jeff79 (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• SuppportLondo06 19:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose  The Windler talk  02:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose -- try expanding the article with the information. It's not that hard. PS. I thought we'd been here/done that? •Florrie•leave a note• 02:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - same for the Junior Kiwis.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  08:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Wholly support Alexsanderson83 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Suppport--sss333 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Firstly because this has already been discussed. Secondly because it isn't part of a player's professional career, which is what the infobox is summarising. MDM (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Template {{nobreak}}

I have noticed the use of {{nobreak}} on clubs like St george illawarra Dragons to get the whole name to fit in the template in one line. Should we allow this? Should we work it into the template. I don't really like it.  The Windler talk  09:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What we need to do is make a template where we test every club name to its full length and test every option possible with breaking. Based on the results we find (across a number of browsers), we'll then write up a manual of style. I'll start off now. Stay tuned. MDM (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out User:MDM/Sandbox6 and add your comments on the page as to which clubs are broken over two separate lines. The numbers I have used represent a worst case scenario in terms of the column widths. MDM (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Only a few players would have more that 1000 points. Considering Andrew Johns is the leading pointscorer with 2100 something. I doubt they'd have 1000 goals. Even Hazem would be pushing it. Anyway. The consensus would be on whether to allow {{nobreak}} for those teams. It does make a big difference, but I would like a generic width around the template. I don't want one wider than another.

The other option is what names are shortened to. While St George Illawarra Dragons can be shortened St Georgge Illawarra easily. I would shorten Manly Waringah Sea Eagles to manly Sea Eagles rather than Manly-Warringah.

I have fixed and finished my MOS, I would like someone to check over it for proper reasons. Its here.  The Windler talk  12:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw your nobreak edit and I don't like it either. The only way to keep EVERYTHING on one line is to shorten club names. The template defeats the purpose as the "years" columns gets broken up. MDM (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reason why I prefer "Manly-Warringah" and "Cronulla-Sutherland" are because they are the proper names of the club, much like "Bulldogs". Some people might not like it, but I'd prefer "Manly-Warringah" than "Manly Sea Eagles". I've never heard anybody say "Manly Sea Eagles". MDM (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you not watch any NRL on the telly, as they are largely called the 'Manly Sea Eagles' in commentary by Fox Sports and Channel 9. Fronsdorf (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter does it? This is an encyclopaedia. They still refer to the NRL as "first grade" in the commentry box too despite reserve grade and third grade no longer existing. The other day Sterlo said "Canterbury" when referring to the Bulldogs, which is fine in conversation, but not for an encyclopedia.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we should drop the mascot before we drop a part of the proper name. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say I am split on where I stand if I'm honest. If we are looking to go one way or another then I may have to abstain. With a side like the Rabbitohs then I would go with South Sydney for a shortened version, however for a side like Manly I would always call todays side the Manly Sea Eagles. For North Queensland Cowboys I would have North Queensland rather than NQ Cowboys and I would have Cronulla Sharks rather than Cronulla-Sutherland and St George Illwarra rather than SGI Dragons, etc. Londo06 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Less than 1000 to go.

This may seem dauting, but the template needing completing is now less than 1000. (Actually, only templates without the parameter new=yes go into this category) Remember if you complete fully a infobox, remove the new=yes. Heres the category, here (the names melded but ehh) Category:Infobox rugby league biography templates updated.

Thanks.  The Windler talk  21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hestitate to ask

I know I take my life into my hands in asking an Infobox question but can someone confirm that where we show the Austn Jerseys for Kangaroo Captains are they now meant to look as big as this ? Keith Barnes -Sticks66 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been removing them with extreme prejudice.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind them in the general article, but I don't particulary like them in the infobox.  The Windler talk  21:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they are far too large for the infobox. Better in the article if anywhere. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Super League XIII

The Super League article really needs to be updated with full results now that the 27 rounds have finished. I have been trying to add results but no one else has updated the page. Could you let me know on my talkpage if you can help. Thanks. 03md (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Each season seems to follow a different format, it's a bit of a mess to be honest. Maybe some of the UK members can help out and organise a format that can be applied to each previous season. •Florrie•leave a note• 14:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Finals series articles

There's another one: NRL 2008 Finals Series. It's probably the one to be deleted and then the other one, 2008 NRL Finals series should be merged with 2008 NRL season results. Yes? •Florrie•leave a note• 08:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You'd think so, but once again I'm finding it extraordinarily difficult to get consensus on solving what appears to be the simplest and most obvious of problems.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Rugby league

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Leeds Rhinos

I've tried tidying this up, but in order for it to become a good article I think it will need someone who knows more about the club to add information. Any takers? Red Fiona (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Large number of AfD's in progress

There are (at present count) 58 pages up for deleletion in AfD Discussions at the College Football Project (American football at the college level). Since your project is listed as a related project, your project members may wish to participate. This large volume is really more than we can handle in such a short period of time and the project asks for your input. Please review Articles & Pages being considered for deletion immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Archived material

Anyone know why recent talk and ongoing debate has been moved to an archive. To my mind there are a number of issues still up in the air. Just wondering if anyone knew. Fronsdorf (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, archiving is much too fast. Really needs to be slowed down.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be slowed down. Alexsanderson83 08:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking to bring a vote on disambiguated players who have played both codes

It is something that has previously been discussed and has since been archived. I shall add to this, but at this time my main point is that I intend to bring a vote to everyone.Londo06 12:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As per the archived page a number of pages have been set to (rugby) alone, and to me this indicates that a players rugby union career was more important than his league career. I propose moving players such as Jonathan Davies (rugby) to Jonathan Davies (dual-code rugby) to allow this page to show the importance of both periods of his game. (rugby) is the standard following rugby union teams that need to be disambiguated such as the Brumbies. Those in favour of the (dual-code rugby) would indicate their support and those against it would list their opposition. I personally will follow the result which is reached here.

Vote

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the above topic. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus for move
Clear majority for opposition to move in light of sock puppetry being uncovered.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• SupportLondo06 13:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Alexsanderson83 14:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per all Jeff's arguments. Obviously, in some parts of the English-speaking world, there are two sports known as rugby and rugby league. Equally obviously, in some (albeit fewer) parts of the English-speaking world, there are two sports known as rugby and rugby union. But none of this applies to Wikipedia. Here, there are two sports known as rugby league and rugby union, and both have an equal right to be called rugby. This means that the entire disambiguation system for rugby players should be changed. Either all rugby player disambiguations should use only "rugby" (taking in "league" or "union" only when needed to disambiguate against a player of the opposite code), or they should all use the code by default. As they are disambiguated now, it looks like rugby union players play rugby while rugby league players play rugby league, and that's biased. -- Jao (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I don't understand the argument listed above, but in Scotland rugby union is rugby, and rugby league is rugby league. Come on the Mothers (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose When a person comes to Wikipedia they are searching for more information on someone they already know the identity of. So they type into search "John Doe" looking for that particular person who is an architect or biologist or rugby player/manager/whatever. If that name has no other pages which would cause ambiguity, they find the player just by their name. If there are others with the same name, they find themsleves at a disambiguation page, which has as its purpose guiding people to the right person among that group who share the same or similar names. The purpose of a disambiguator is to provide them with simple clarity as to which is the right person, and not to define further the exact role of the player in their area. John Doe (chemist), not John Doe (organic/inorganic/physical/theoretical chemist). This seems especially true here where clarity appears not to be served by dual code, because there appears to be little agreement here of whether that appellation is even correct. Maybe (rugby player) but not (this form of rugby) verses (that form of rugby).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - a couple of good points; (rugby) as a disambiguator lacks a little clarity, especially given that it is the standard for teams when disambiguated. (rugby player) may well have been a road to go down, unfortunately union players are there at the minute, as calls for it to me moved to (rugby union) seem to have been dismissed as too much hard work. With regards to the opening line, surely we have to take in to account the reader who knows little of either game, taking the logical step and see rugby as rugby union and rugby league as rugby league. I feel we do need to come up with something; if nothing else sort out the rugby union team naming conventions to avoid dual-code players and rugby union teams having the same disambiguator. Fronsdorf (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Those arguing for the addition of "dual-code" know that "(rugby)" alone as a disambiguator does it's job of directing people to the article they're looking for. It's clear, even to them, that adding "dual-code" to the disambiguator in brackets does nothing to assist in directing people to the correct article, and they're not even arguing that it does. They're saying that they feel using 'rugby' alone in the title only acknowledges rugby union (based on their part of the world's general usage interpretation of the word rugby). Well, the job of disambiguators in brackets is not to summarise a person's notability or to 'acknowledge' their achievements. It is to disambiguate them, and nothing more. If it were used to acknowledge different aspects of individuals' notability, the disambiguators in brackets would be completely varied across wikipedia, and the cause of endless edit warring. So instead we use disambiguators that are just enough to differentiate the articles and nothing more (this is why Alan Jones (broadcaster) is not Alan Jones (dual-code rugby coach). "Joe Bloggs (rugby)" is unambiguous, "Joe Bloggs (dual-code rugby)", while also unambiguous, is less simple. End of discussion. But even if we were to indulge this argument about what the disambiguator does or doesn't acknowledge according to readers' interpretations of the word "rugby", clearly it acknowledges both rugbys (because there are, in fact two, not one). Rugby football was split long ago into two codes: rugby league and rugby union. The names of both sports now share the word "rugby". So 'rugby' is pretty convenient when you're looking for the simplest disambiguator that acknowledges both. And if we want to bring this discussion down further into the realms of personal experience and feelings and preferences (which I loathe to do), in my experience, people from the north of England and the southern states of Australia will use 'rugby' to refer to either or. Is their common usage less important than Scotland's? It's not for us, or anyone on wikipedia to say. We're not using '(rugby)' to show a preference to any particular region's common usage, we're using it because it's factually correct as per this encyclopedia and because it is the simplest suffix that in unambiguous.--Jeff79 (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I am arguing that it does. Fronsdorf (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, "it does" does it? Well whatever it is you're arguing for, you're doing a fantastic job :D Keep it up.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry fella, it was a response to your words in the first couple of lines on your opposition listed above. Regardless of the outcome something needs to be done with the Jonathan Davies (rugby) article, as we have "Not to be confused with Jonathan Davies (rugby union)" as the first words of the article, that would certainly confuse people who are not altogether keyed up on the subject. Fronsdorf (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That is why we write articles, you see. The article title and the article itself are actually not the same thing. It's complicated. I know.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't follow; the article title and the article are not about the same thing, who is it about then? Fronsdorf (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jonathan Davies (rugby) article is definitely about the former DCI. What I'm saying is those first words need to be re-written to avoid any possible confusion for the unitiated. Fronsdorf (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You must alert WP:RU of this vote and:

• Oppose, though do support the use of (rugby union) for sole rugby players.  The Windler talk  07:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

'Comment - I also support that motion, perhaps a bot could be recommended to the rugby union project. Fronsdorf (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support GarethHolteDavies (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support (rugby) is the standard following a rugby union team, not an individual, also (rugby player) needs to move to (rugby union).  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Jao and Fuhgettaboutit have it right. This is a disambiguation that is neither intuitive nor necessary based on a "standard" usage of rugby to refer purely to rugby union that is nowhere near universal. Feel free to use (rugby player) as opposed to (rugby) for biographies, but this arbitrary code-based rule for articles serves noone. Knepflerle (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, ridiculous discussion. It's about a clear disambiguator (which "rugby" is) and not about political correctness and pandering to the nuances of the word to different groups. -Sticks66 15:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not sure what to say, really. MDM (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• support —Preceding unsigned comment added by MortonStalker (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - rugby is rugby union in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the South Sea Islands, where else is the game played. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the case, rugby league is "rugby" in Yorks, Lancs and Cumbria (and that's over 14 million people).GordyB (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - There doesn't seem to be an overriding majority one way or the other. Would it be better to get (rugby) changed as the standard for rugby union teams and get the discussion going for the move with (rugby player) to (rugby union).Londo06 12:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I believe it should be (rugby league) for RL players, (rugby union) for RU players and (rugby) for both. Though we can't just start changing the RU articles without consensus from the RU project. Be aware of that.  The Windler talk  22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Will bring it up at the rugby union wikiproject. (rugby player) to (rugby union) seems to solve any issues raised here, and will also look into the naming standards of teams to avoid (rugby) being the standard for teams.Londo06 11:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This has now been brought up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Vote. Please add your vote and any feelings there.Londo06 12:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - to me rugby is rugby union, but as I understand it, there is a move to shift (rugby player) to (rugby union). Perhaps if we can get that sorted out it may be better. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no overriding majority and so I have attempted to open up another, some may say a better way of getting the issue sorted at over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Vote, but that move for (rugby player) to (rugby union) does need attention as at the minute it is only a majority, not a clear consensus. Please take a read over there. Many thanks.Londo06 10:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Links to previous discussions on the matter

See Talk:Paul_Moriarty_(rugby).Londo06 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Archive_10#Disambiguated_pages_for_players_who_have_played_both_codes.Londo06 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) See Talk:Rugby_league#Naming_convention_for_individualsLondo06 13:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead & buried issue

See Talk:Paul_Moriarty_(rugby).--Jeff79 (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

thought this was interesting....

saw this article this morning, and thought it was interesting :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I really dislike most "Controversy" sections. Other than a mention of a player playing for a certain team, some articles consist entirely of "controversy"! Very much WP:UNDUE when the article only exists in the first place because of the subject's supposed notability within rugby league. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There's now a discussion about it on the Australian Wikipeidan's noticeboard. •Florrie•leave a note• 05:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. We certainly shouldn't want to bar citeable information being put into articles. A better way to solve the imbalance would be to find more info about the player's football career and insert that, so the controversy is diluted. Negative press should be seen as a kind of incentive to improve the article.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's very true but sometimes it seems that there isn't a lot to be said about a player except for his involvement in controversies. The original Craig Field article was deleted on the grounds that it focussed on controversies rather than his playing career. There must be a decent balance. It also concerns me that incidents are included - with citations - but are never followed up with a result, which can often be a positive result for the player, not only negative. Richie Williams' assault charge is one example. Maybe it is ongoing, maybe not. I couldn't find any online references when I went looking a few months back. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see this argument from both sides; controversy is noteworthy, but sometimes they dominate articles too much. The answer would be to add any controversy in a neutral manner and give the article a more rounded feel by adding to the areas that are weakest. Alexsanderson83 08:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like a section on controversy that would out weigh the playing career. Craig Gower, despite all his contreversys, is still more notable for being a rugby league/union player. I believe that contreversy should be part of the players history, not have a section that simply points out possibly every minor incident that has occured.  The Windler talk  11:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. I've always been one for putting things down chronologically. If a player gets drunk in public, wins a premiership, then gets drunk in public again, it should go in that order.--Jeff79 (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

disclaimers page

Hello all, I was having a look at the WP:DISCLAIMER page and noticed some strange redirecting from some Rugby League articles. Does anyone care to clean this up? Cheers! Witty Lama 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why or how or if it even does link to Wikipedia:General_disclaimer but it seems that it only is because there is an atempt to redirect from the image page. I cleaned it up/fixed it for you.  The Windler talk  01:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Rugby league world cup squads

I notice on some team articles, some one has put up "possible run on sides" as if they are the coach of the team. No one knows for sure what sides will run on till official team listings are announced a few days out. this is a violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. This was similarly discussed with agreement at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Discussions_forums/Putting_up_weekly_run_on_sides_on_team_articles Michellecrisp (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all "possible" run-on sides have got to go. Most recent side is more appropriate.--Jeff79 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think most recent side is necessary. For Australia that would be nearly 6 months ago. Players there may not play in this tournament. And what purpose does a most recent team have any way. Squads are good.  The Windler talk  01:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it's factual and citeable for a start. I for one would be far more interested in seeing who actually played for a side 6 months ago than who some wikipedian footy fan thinks will play for them in the future.--Jeff79 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

True, it dosen't really mind me. But if had a preference, it would be that. I just said, I don't think their necessary. The Windler talk  01:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Perhaps a recent side could still be listed with date last played. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I had in mind.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2009 NRL Draw

Just thought I'd let you all know that the 2009 NRL Draw has been released, so I suppose 2009 team articles and the like can start appearing as there should be enough information on the season ahead. Heres the draw [1]. Hope that helps.  The Windler talk  01:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Current Club

Am I mistaken or was the current club field not linked to club number so that it didn't show for NRL players? I've noticed quite a few NRL players with a current club displayed where before, even if the field was entered, it did not display. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What articles is this on, I would like to see.  The Windler talk  07:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've fixed it. Someone reverted it on the template page.  The Windler talk  07:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I've been taking current club fields out of NRL and retired players' infoboxes and I don't expect to be reverted. For Super League players I've left it in.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! •Florrie•leave a note• 07:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favour of it for our players as well as the English ones, were it to be brought into the open again. Alexsanderson83 08:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before, and it was agreed that only SL players would have current club. The forcing of club number just is a measure as NRL players do not have numbers.  The Windler talk  08:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as we've got them for Super League players I'm not massively bothered about players in the NRL at this point in time, although our ones do look ugly at the minute. MortonStalker (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC) For someone like myself it would be very useful. I watched my first NRL Grand Final at the weekend, and really enjoyed. When I look through Australian players I often have to go all the way to the bottom to find out what club they play for. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Change of current club squads

After this weeks grand final in the NRL. Can we begin ending players tenure at one club. And beginning a new club for that player. For example. Israel Folau after this weeks gran final, will have ended his playing tenure at the Storm. It would be assumed that you would take the present away from the infobox and the template for the Melbourne current team away.

However. Do we put that the Brisbane Broncos "2009-" (in this example) for him and the Brisbane Broncos current squad. For all players not in the World Cup, they would go over to their new clubs within the month (presumably). (World Cup players would be with their respective team squads). Should we change over all the current squads etc. and that after the grand final or the beginning of next year??  The Windler talk  13:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Was gonna raise this today as well. I have reverted a number of squads as the NRL and SL finals series are not yet over. In England contracts run November through November. You could argue that 2009- may be crystal balling as players can get injured, or walk out on contracts. I honestly can't remember what we did last year, when we would have had the same issues.Londo06 13:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I did alot of it in February/March of this year. Its after I came back from my break from rugby league articles. So we'll see what happens, it won't really matter to me if its done now or in a few months. I plan to take another break from RL articles after the world cup anyway.  The Windler talk  22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Over in the soccer community they only add transfers when a player officially begins a contract with their new club. In the UK contracts will normally commence until November, I can't speak for NRL players but it may be best to hold fire as players at the world cup such as Mick Crocker will still be listed by Sky Sports and the BBC as a Melbourne Storm player, Garreth Carvell as a Hull FC player, Mark Calderwood as a Wigan player, etc.Londo06 10:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability being the key, it seems clear that prospective player movements cannot be added to the infobox, but should be qualified in the first few lines of the players article. Bearing in mind that player contracts do not even take effect until November and insurance documents only beginning then as well players remain with their 2008 club until that time. The other issue is 2009 to present is a little silly, a future date to the present time, an inaccuracy that cannot be considered encyclopaedic.Londo06 11:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It might seem silly but it would be clear because there is no longer a present. It may be refering to 2009 until unknown. I will start updating after the World Cup final blows over. That will be December, so it should be all right.  The Windler talk  11:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be much happier with that. It's much closer to be being factually accurate, and that is what we should endeavour to achieve.Londo06 11:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem updating players who have already left for their new clubs, is there? Just wondering why there was all the fuss over removing Mark Gasnier from the St. George Illawarra template? •Florrie•leave a note• 05:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't over Gasnier, it was over the addition of the likes of Darius Boyd, etc.Londo06 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Can't think why I got that impression.[2] And then you add the navbox back on Brett Hodgson! Please. Is this a game to you? •Florrie•leave a note• 09:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So, if there's no problem moving nav boxes for players who have finished at a club - can you please explain why you keep [3],[4] reverting my edit at Brett Hodgson? Get it off your chest and move on to something constructive. I am tired of your shit. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I may have made my point unclear. I support the removal of current squads after the last game, just not the addition of the new club until later. For Israel Folau, he isn't really part of Melbournes "current" squad. But at the same time he isnt really part of Brisbanes "current squad'. Thats what I believe, sorry I've been mainly stating about future clubs.  The Windler talk  10:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. So, I can remove the current squad template from Brett Hodgson. Thank you. I didn't realise it was so controversial. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have written this elsewhere but Mark Gasnier has been released from the final weeks of his insured contract with the Dragons to take up a rugby union contract with Stade Francais. If Brett Hodgson had been called up by Australia he would still be insured by Wests and Australia, regardless of his future contract for the 2009 season.Londo06 13:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)