Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 15

Rugby League Project (resource)

Hi all,

I'm new to Wikipedia with regards to contributing, but I felt it would be the benefit of you guys if I helped explain one of your rugby league resources. I created and maintain the site http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/. The reason I created this site was because of the inconsistent (and unobtainable) nature of rugby league statistics.

Most people know of RL Stats, an excellent long-running site (http://stats.rleague.com/), but I was always interested in being able to obtain the team lists for individual games as well. Additionally, I wanted the information to extend beyond the realms of Sydney and into Europe, and also International results (an area which I feel is sorely in need of attention in the community of Australian RL stats). So my ultimate goal is to provide not just results, but the teams of all games that I can, both in Australian and European elite league competitions. On top of that, Tests, Internationals, tour matches, representative matches, cup matches etc etc are also the subject of interest. In other words, any top-level rugby league match I want as much info as possible about on the site.

Currently, I have a good coverage of Tests/Internationals dating back to 1908. NSWRL-based competitions date back to 1908 for scores. The match scorers have lots of gaps still, particularly in the mid 1950's, although I have every first grade player and their corresponding clubs and seasons. Appearances and scorers are complete from 1980 onwards at this stage. For the English league, I have all appearances for league games from 1998 (Super League III) onwards. I have access to all results, scorers and team squads dating back to the 1980/81 season so I plan to get that info in during this year (time permitting). Individual match appearances are still on a wait-and-see basis.

Originally I only published information that I knew was complete, but in order to improve output, the site now simply shows everything I have in the database. It is for this reason that some info is not available, or not yet entered. I am working on a new layout which will include more feedback on whether information on a page is 100% complete or not. The important thing to remember when accessing and using the site as a resource is that ALL stats are calculated on the spot. League ladders, player appearances and tries, match lists, coaching records, you name it ... it is all determined based on individual games, scores, scorers and appearances. So there are instances where numbers don't match official records. This may be for a number of reasons, but I am always striving to match these up. However the official stats do sometimes have mistakes, and usually when I find these I note it on the site.

I'm just letting you all know that it is not an official site affiliated with any organisation. It is an ongoing effort. I do it because I love rugby league. With that in mind, any errors or issues you come across, you can let me know about and I will endeavour to fix them. I don't make money off the project so I have no real desire to drive traffic there, but I have noticed a bunch of Wikipedia articles link to the site so I want to do the best I can to help you guys, as the point of it is providing info that was previously the closed domain of statisticians, asking for a fee to provide information - with little underlying evidence - that fans have to take at face value!

One last thing - some links on the site are currently broken and I am well aware of it. As I mentioned, I am working on a new layout and this will be released sometime before the 2009 NRL season commences. With that in mind, it would be a good idea to double check the existing links. I am doing my best to make sure it is 100% backwards compatible, but I am only one man ... also, anything else I can do to with the site (technically or otherwise) to help Wikipedia in some way, please let me know. My aim is to provide a good quality resource for everybody.

Azkatro (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And a good quality resource you have provided that is well appreciated as it can be extremely hard to find statistics about rugby league players even in the NRL and predecessors. For one man you have done an extremely good job as it is, and any work you have, are and will is all greatly appreciated, not just by this project, but regular people wanting to know how many games their favourite player has played. Thankyou for contacting us, and good luck on Rugby League Project and Wikipedia.  The Windler talk  10:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Love your work. Cheers,  florrie  15:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Great work. Thx so much for bothering to contact us and to explain why sometimes there can be inconsistencies. Plse let me know (talk page) if there's anything I can do to help your work or let us know if any issues crop up for you with how we cross-ref to your site. Are you Andrew or Shawn ?-Sticks66 12:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I will keep an eye on things here, keep in touch and give you updates where I can. I am just as much on the lookout for info as you. For example, things that are notoriously difficult to obtain are goal attempts, captains, sin bins and sendoffs in the English Super League. I used to rely on an online subscription of League Express but that is no longer available. The next best thing is on the Sporting Life website which has a live updates popup, but for past games you have to hunt through the numbers (URL) to find the game you're looking for. I'm Shawn, by the way! Andrew is a guy who got in touch with me keen to help out, and he has been a brilliant contributor, especially to International results. He has also been entering all teams of finals matches from 1908 onwards. Azkatro (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Update ... the new layout is live. There is still more work to do (ie no records pages yet, lots of tables can't be sorted yet) but most of it is in fairly good shape. There's a fair amount of extra content, some subtle (such as results for a team in a season showing their ladder position after each result), some obvious (like the transfers pages).

I am running checks on the links (managed to find the External link search and combining that with the W3C link checker). There are over 1100 articles linking to the site. Because of a couple of technical adjustments I've made over the years, I should point out the following:

- The TLD was moved from .com to .org last year. So the URL has changed from www.rugbyleagueproject.com to www.rugbyleagueproject.org.

- The address was originally sans-www; this is no longer the case and all URL's now start with www. A lot of links not only point to the old .com address, but also without the www. Again, all links are now www.rugbyleagueproject.org/*.

- Player pages, competition pages, Test series' and other "summary" type pages (mostly what are linked to) have gone from ending in .html to ending in /summary.html. For example, what used to be www.rugbyleagueproject.org/players/Darren_Lockyer.html is now www.rugbyleagueproject.org/players/Darren_Lockyer/summary.html.

Note that the above changes are well covered by 302's (permanent redirects) but obviously my webhost would like it better if it wasn't doing redirects all day! Having said that I'm sure it's a pointless idea to manually go through and update all the links - is there a tool that can automatically find and update the links based on where the 302's take them? Azkatro (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll try, but we can't do them all at once, we'll slowly update them. 1100, I didn't think it was that much.  The Windler talk  08:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not actually Dally

Due to the fine pioneering work of MDManser two years ago (and probably before we knew about the easy & accepted use of the PD rationale) this "Dally Messenger" photo is in a lot of our articles including here, here, here and this featured article . Trouble is it's actually more of Dan Frawley (with the ball on the wing) with Dally in the background (at outside centre). I'll change the tags but I reckon we've by now built up a better library of RL shots across our articles to use in these spots. Any suggestions as to which other RL shots might be better in the above articles?-Sticks66 12:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dodgy page

I came across this page which, aside from its title, doesn't strike me as a notable enough article for an encyclopaedia. Should I propose its deletion? I'm not sure what grounds I should use, though. GW(talk) 12:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest WP:NOBJ, WP:NOT#LYRICS, and the fact the one source used dosen't seem (although I didn't look thouroughly) to have the songs there. I will nominate for PROD for you, as I want to test out Article alerts (see above). Thanks,  The Windler talk  12:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I've set it up correctly, Joel. Maybe we need that /header page to collect anything tagged with the WP:RL template. All we've had so far have been admin notices and stuff I'm not particularly interested in.  florrie  00:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it works, it was just that the project didn't have any alerts to worry about. [1]  The Windler talk  03:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also just placed the alerts on the main page, under the News section. This was because it was never updated, and provides information these article alerts does anyway. Just for information, if you transclude the article alerts page, only the article alerts part will be transcluded, the "Other news" section (which is a pain) will apparently be removed in the next bot version. Also, if someone could come up with a better title for where the article alerts is on the main page header, that would be appreciated.  The Windler talk  03:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Another page. I would do it myself but I really am caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. Leon Walker who, as we know, sadly passed away recently to the shock of the rugby league community. In response to his death, fans started the article, however, he doesn't meet the WikiProject's guidelines on notability, since to the best of my knowledge, he's never played top-flight rugby league football, yet proposing the page's deletion seems rather... insensitive, especially when he's mentioned on the Recent Deaths page. I'd rather a more experienced editor makes the call. GW(talk) 23:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the article says "he earned representative honours with Yorkshire and England in 2007" which probably makes him notable. I'll have a look around and see if I can add an infobox/stats etc later. Mattlore (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So from what I've found out he was an "England youth international" and had played National League 1 with Salford. Also not sure what level Yorkshire rep teams play at nowdays but I don't think it is particularly notable. Its a tough one, because does the manner of his death alone make him notable? I'm going to update his page just because its there but would be interested to hear your thoughts on if it should go through the AfD process. Mattlore (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that the manner of his death qualifies him as notable. If anything, a mention on the club season page would be fitting. See Wikipedia is not a memorial site. His presence on the recent deaths page is also a little misleading as all entries are required to meet notability. If you'd rather not speedy it, then a merge template would be a good move.  florrie  06:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought someone passing away during a reserves match, resulting in a match being postponed, would at least place a player into the category of notable? As others have mentioned, it is a sensitive issue, but the reality is that many fans and casual observers would take interest in knowing who he was based on the manner of his death. I would think anybody dying during a professional sporting pursuit is Wiki-worthy. Azkatro (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It has sources, referring to the death, and deaths usually allow third party sources to detail their past. Notability certainly has increased as, if this hadn't happened, he certainly wouldn't be mentioned when he may have died at an older age. I would keep it, for the sake it has sources. It may not expand into anything, but the sources are there. And remember, Notability is not temporary. On this type of topic, Azkatro, it maybe wise to introduce a death part to your website. I was looking up Sonny Fai the other day, and it was his birthday. Or what would have been, so maybe a little note, or at least stop the current age from ticking over.  The Windler talk  06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. He is notable only for the manner of his death and - as I said somewhere else (if I could remember) - if his death does have an impact on the club/game with changes to tackling techniques or whatever, then that should be noted on the club or sport page - Rugby League in the UK or similar. I notice he has been re-added to the Wakefield club category, which is inappropriate as he didn't qualify as a reserve grade/junior player. The sources will be just as valid after a merge.  florrie  22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice there is currently no mention whatsoever on regulations or rule changes within the European Super League, which seems strange, given the RFL usually changes one or two regulations every year, and that these changes also lead to some minor rule differences between European league and Australasian league. Now might be an opportune moment to add this information, which can be found in the Yearbooks, thus providing a place on the project for this death to be truly notable, if the inquiry leads to any changes (which is questionable anyway). GW(talk) 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this page: NRLUS? Mattlore (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a lot. I've put a merge onto it to Rugby league in the United States. No inline citations to speak of and it's written as a list. Can be merged and tidied up.  florrie  07:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk about dodgy pages.  The Windler talk  12:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Summery? It's beautiful!  florrie  14:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of RL stadiums

Just wondering if we should start moving across all stadiums pages using their real name as opposed to their sponsored name, like we've done with Suncorp Stadium moving to Lang Park. WIN Jubilee to Kogarah Oval, etc. Bongomanrae (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed last year, here and there seemed to be agreement but I don't know what happened to prevent the changes as many seem to still be under the sponsored names.  florrie  02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Not by me it isn't

This pointless list has one of those tags on the talk page that says it's supported by the WP:RL. Is it really? Why ? -Sticks66 11:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a pointless article, used because someone thought it would be good. Lists are pointless, especially when, in this case, a category does exactly the same thing. I'm proposing deletion. We could perhaps change the banner to say "under the scope of" rather than "supported".  The Windler talk  12:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein, there is this: List of indigenous Australian rugby league players. The Category:Indigenous Australian rugby league footballers page is obviously under-populated, though.  florrie  14:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We could ask a bot or manually go through them. But like List of footballers, it will have to go.  The Windler talk  20:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It was created a long time ago back when there were only two dozen articles on rugby league players and categories were not really utilised properly. It is no longer necessary or useful.GordyB (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(belated reply) yeah, the scope and size of the 'pedia has meant alot of these lists are now big and unwieldy and need splitting. No problem really, and a good point to start subdividing. A quick note about templates, I think the role of templates is changing as there are more and more bots around. I generally tag an article with a wikiproject which may be interested and able to help should new material be inserted (and need sourcing), or questions come up about notability, vandalism etc. rather than limiting using templates to only ones which have been consciously added by active members etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Referencing drive

There is alot of discussion about the headache of growing number of unreferenced stubs on WP, with alot of senior editors feeling like it is a lost cause. I have started reffing stuff today in an effort to see how big the task is here. I have books covering the mid 40s to mid 70s and one from 1984/5. Anyone is welcome to ask me stuff, but I will continue to try and trawl through. If others muck in we can see what we can do. It'd be good to see how the Aritcle Assessment looks in a few weeks if we can expand and ref a bunch of stubs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with unreferenced stubs as long as there are sources that can be found. Unreferenced stubs with little to no sources are the problem, which should be deleted. I would have thought that the rate articles being created would be dropping rather than remaining stable if not increasing. Once article count starts to drop, and I would presume the edit rate will remain similar, the average edits per article will rise, and eventually lead (hopefully) to more sources. I think the formal method of having sources is also a discouragement. I would be all for references (for stubs, even start and C class articles) just to be <ref>Website URL</ref> than a complicated date, publisher etc. Because that is not too hard, even for IP's. Also a lot of people don't update Article Assessment templates so it may not be a fair representation in a few weeks. I will try to help, but may not be able to,  The Windler talk  03:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Flagging web refs for later formatting is fine - but the way book refs etc. are done is by the lovely cite format. Yes they are tedious but you get used to it after a while (and are necessary for FA, and now GA and DYK now). Anyway - all help much appreciated.

PS: Dunno if article growth will drop off anytime soon - see how many RL players are still redlinked? And these are those which would fulfil ntoability criteria...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Liberal use of semi-protection

I thought I'd post this as I semi'ed a couple of articles which I felt were at high risk of vandalism, and see what others thought. There is alot of discussion about how the WP community can better protect BLPs - I myself have used semi-protection alot, and probably more than others. I guess all football players are fair game to vandalism by fans of opposing teams, and (as we've all seen in the papers) there has been alot of speculation as well as cases of misconduct reported, so I am wonderign how folks feel about either:

• Semi protecting all living footy players (preemptively)

• If not all, then at least semi protecting those who we know could be a high risk target for whatever reason (preemptively)

• or just sticking to standard protection policy (per WP:RFPP)

I am happy to semi protect any when asked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My preference is to be reactive rather than proactive and deal with problem articles as they crop up.--Jeff79 (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed last night that you had semi'd Willie Mason and someone else, and did wonder why as they don't seem to have attracted too much activity in that way. I thought the possibility of vandalism was not a reason to semi-protect? One article I do think will need to be either semi or fully-protected over the next few days is Brett Stewart, with his court case set for 7 April. Not just on his behalf but also because of the possibility of the girl being named in the article.  florrie  02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Stupid edit conflicts ... There generally isn't too much vandalism, that it is out of control. I have always believed 90%+ vandalism is the work of IP's, which is the point of semi-protecting. But I don't see how semi-protecting all players could work, it is just the high profile, like Israel Folau, that recieve plenty of attention. But then again, less notable players do to like Scott Minto, but I don't think we need any protecting yet, as Jeff79 said, it isn't a problem. Yet.  The Windler talk  02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought of Willie Mason as he is high profile, and at times controversial (and I am sure there are still some unhappy doggies fans out there) - hence my semi. Sonny Fai (Florrie knows about) - Brett Stewart is important too. There is alot of discussion about how harmful BLP vandalism can be. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Might wanna add Israel Folau too. His article's copping a caning by vandals these days.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions wanted here

The soccer articles are trying to vote to change from association football (soccer) to just association football. It is being voted on here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football_(soccer)_in_Australia#User_60.224.0.121_and_football_.28soccer.29_edits. Please give your opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.2.159 (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And it concerns us, why?  The Windler talk  21:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Because football doesn't just mean association football, as some (generally soccer fans) would have it on wikipedia. Rugby league is football too and has an equal right to be called it.--Jeff79 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, But this IP has concerned us about soccer terms, not really concerning us. The article Football has extensive detail on rugby league in my opinion, considering "Football" overall is majority a soccer term. So I'm happy, but our guideline I believe, set when this project first began a while back, is that we use "rugby league" and if we use football, it always has rugby league before it so it is "rugby league football", that way it is more encyclopedic.  The Windler talk  00:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope I'm not being patronising here, sorry if you already know, but just quickly - soccer is a term derived specifically from "association football". Not a single person in the discussion is arguing to just make the term on soccer articles "football", or in any way to affect what other projects are calling their sport. The discussion surrounds either making the reference to the sport "association football" or "football (soccer)" on articles. The main article here on Soccer is titled "association football" so I hope you don't see it as controversial or invading your space. If you guys are keen to join the discussion that is no problem, just so long as you know the intent behind the discussion. Camw (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:National Rugby League templates

What is it meant by templates in these Category:National Rugby League templates?  The Windler talk  02:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't see any point to it at all. A wikilink is a template? Weird.  florrie  14:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Roosters FAR

I have nominated Sydney Roosters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

With all the work done on this back in '07 'twould be a shame if it loses it's FA status. But MDManser isn't around to champion it's preservation. I share the reviewer's concern about the PD rights on the Sports Ground photo (so I'll see if I can replace it); the "original research" appearance of the rivalries section is real worry (Jeff what should we do ?) and we need more citations throughout the article generally (are there any keen Rooster fan editors here to help with that?)-Sticks66 11:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a start, to revert the "Rivarlies" and "Statistics" section to what they were the day it was promoted. This would remove alot of garbage, perhaps some good material added over the 2 and a quarter years this has been FA, but really the Rivalries section is overly not notable in the context of the article and needs to be as short as possible. The statistics section has got way out of hand, the tables don't belong in FA's, etc. The history section is a little biased to recent history, as is the whole article. Any thoughts? We don't have infinite time to fix this, we need to keep our one club FA. We may need to e-mail MDM, whether he will come back, hopefully, but we can try.  The Windler talk  11:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As per comments Jeff's talk page I think the Rivalries section was weak even the day the article was promoted. The Bulldogs bit of it is rubbish & the Souths bit whilst genuine is very sketchy for a rivalry which ought be illustrated with tales from 100 years of history. But it isn't convincing, it reads like original research. Let's just move it all to Sydney Roosters and South Sydney Rabbitohs rivalry. Let's cut boldly and not let our FA be stuffed by hokey insertions by anon editors-Sticks66 12:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with removing it, but if it stays, I recommend replacing with the material back then, as it wasn't full of dirt and OR. A reviewer on the review page believes that it is notable enough and I believe so but the media just don't write about it. What about the statistics section?  The Windler talk  12:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks just like a list of info to me. And we'll spoken our views before on that approach. I see there's a Roosters records page - let's put it there.-Sticks66 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove it all? I don't think we should do that. I think the statistics section is far more verifiable and is in almost every club article.  The Windler talk  12:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a historical list (3 lists actually) of the highest attendances at each stadium they've ever played at. They are tedious and in my view, I feel these lists would have hindered rather than supported promotion. Joel I've started clearing it up, but will stop if you want to get wider consensus.-Sticks66 13:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps you misunderstood. I don't like the statistics how it is now on Sydney Roosters, it is ugly and belongs on a records page. Maybe I misunderstood that you wanted to remove the statistics section, I don't want that. I think that statistics section that are competent, like on Brisbane Broncos and what the Sydney Roosters used to be are necessary. The tables and lists do hinder, but prose does not, and thus I support the inclusion of prose talking about statistics but not lists,  The Windler talk  20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a user suggesting the delisting of it as a FA, so we need to work fast if we want to keep it!!  The Windler talk  12:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I can spare an hour on Monday - what do you need? Just refs?  florrie  13:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Edit: Wow - someone went to town with the {{fact}} tags!  florrie  13:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Most likely, I have done the Crest, Colours, Stadium, Supporters, Stats and Records refs, I hope you (and others) will be able to do the History section, I'll get round to the Current Squad and Notable squads later. If you can find a way to remove the white space in the stadiums section, It would be appreciated. Thanks,  The Windler talk  22:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, they are questioning the validity of the Newspaper headline image, I agree, it dosen't really add to the article, and probably should be deleted, If you agree, remove it and it will be deleted automatically later.  The Windler talk  23:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Righto.  florrie  02:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

These sorts of refs are now 404s since the club websites have gone to the Telstra format. I've update a couple using web.archive.org but there may be more.  florrie  12:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

According to [2], there are quite a few, which is certain to be checked. I'll get round to it tomorrow, but appreciate help, along with any {{fact}} left, and hopefully that will be enough. I can't do too much with the prose, which is the other concern, but the main problem is the references. But it's better than before, anyway.  The Windler talk  12:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you change any sources, see if you can add a more stable source rather than finding the area in the new site where the old info is. Sites like SydneyRoosters.com.au have tendencies to change alot, and it is annoying. Or use web archive links, as they are generally going to be stable for some time. But keep the reference the same adding the parameters archiveurl and archivedate (see {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}). Thanks,  The Windler talk  12:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a nifty little toy!  florrie  14:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are only three {{fact}} tags left in History but there are some sentences which aren't tagged and could do with refs. I've added some already. I've also found some of the attached refs don't particularly support the fact - I'll try and have a proper look tomorrow night after work. florrie  14:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be saved no problem, I thought that as no other sources were being added apart from by me about three weeks ago that nobody was interested. Anyway, I think the references need to be checked to consistent formatting - templates make that easy, and also, SFS, SCG, SSG is used over and over when an abbreviation should be used I think. Also, if possible, subbing out some of the Roosters self-refs would be good. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

If anyone has the time, could they please expand the number of coaches from 6 to at least 8, maybe 10. Because Wayne Bennett (rugby league) isn't showing the 7th club. Thanks,  The Windler talk  02:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've fixed it, thanks Florrie for trying,  The Windler talk  02:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Again, in my opinion, archiving on this page is out of control. What on earth is wrong with having discussion a few months or even weeks old appearing here? No one looks at archives. It's that simple. Any newcomer to this project looking to discuss something will have to start a new topic even if loads of discussion has already taken place about it as it's tucked away in the archive. It makes no sense at all. I've never seen another talk page like this. Just because you can archive, doesn't mean it's awesome and should be done all the time.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Its automatically set to 18 days, change it to a time you feel it should be, eg: So then a discussion has to be 2 months without discussion before it can be archived! I think its fine, as long as this page doesn't get so long it makes the page slow, we don't all have broadband!  The Windler talk  09:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm setting it to 30 days, which is what it is at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. If you're concerned about page loading speed, you should worry yourself with ones that actually do load slowly, such as NRL season results articles which contain literally hundreds of pointless colour icons repeated over and over and over and affect loading speed (see Talk:2009_NRL_season_results).--Jeff79 (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Steve Price

Someone decided to redirect Steve Price without checking what links here etc. I tried to revert but it wouldn't let me. I've left a message on the editor's page asking them to sort it out.  florrie  10:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

a) what a stupid move

b) As it is quite a common name we are probably only going to get more Steve Price's added to wiki.

We should either

1) Move Steve Price to Steve Price (disambiguation) and Steve Price (rugby) back to Steve Price

2) Move Steve Price (rugby) to Steve Price (rugby league) and deal with all the incorrect links

Mattlore (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Or we could ask Casliber to fix it as he/she is an admin.  The Windler talk  23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I put a general request on the requested moves page. Mattlore (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cas may have been able to simply revert and then rename the article correctly, which would have been a help, but it's on WP:RM now so I don't suppose it can be renamed just yet anyway. I've added the page view and what links here figures to the discussion.  florrie  00:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, came here to bring this to everyone's attention. I've X-posted at WP:AWNB as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC).

NRL/NSWRL Coaching Stats

In this guy's infobox are lots of coaching stats. I'd like to fill in this guy's. Is there an on-line sourcing we've been using for coaching stats ? -Sticks66 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I use RLP. Here's Ron's stats from there: [3]. NRL stats used to be good too but I guess all the historical stuff has gone?  florrie  14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thx Flo and two more questions if I may. 1) How does the total work in the InfoBox - seems like the player points scored add themselves up to a career tally; but the coaching stats don't ? 2) The books say that Ron coached Manly for 10 yrs; RLP says 13yrs - either way doesn't really matter, except it seems he only coached them for 139 games. I'm wondering if he had a little break in that period. Any clues or views ?-Sticks66 11:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with RLP, is that it is incomplete. Click on the little footballs next to the respective team and you'll notice [4] that he coached in 1962, 1970-1974. Now this might be true, but it seems to be more than this. [5] coached 1966-67, at least. It could be a little clearer, especially at this page [6]. I believe the infobox does add up coaches as well, I'm checking it now.  The Windler talk  13:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, can't understand it. There are Iferror statements that I don't understand. But it seems to be logically the same as the appearances one. If you add numbers into Bradford it works, but when there are no numbers in players it still works, strange. Must have something to do with the percentile part. Can't help sorry,  The Windler talk  13:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thx Joel. Comments on your Talk page. -Sticks66 13:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I've had a look at some of the points you've raised in this chat and I'm going to look at how I can make some of those coaching stats pages a bit clearer. Azkatro (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok so I've fixed the link to match list from team coaches page (before it was incorrectly linking to all matches coached by that individual). I think that was causing the most confusion. Also I've fixed the display of years under the coach page, so for example Ron Willey now has '1962, 1970-74' for Manly. Just to add a point to this, if you select a team and view Seasons, you can see their coaches year by year. However this doesn't help much for rep teams, so I've also added a column called "Years" (to the Team / Coaches page). While I think it might be a bit better suited if there was a way you could view purely based on chronology (eg Ron Willey would appear as 1962, then again down the list as 1970-74), it should hopefully still be more useful than before! Azkatro (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox width issue

I've been updating infoboxes of late, and I was I believe consensus was that as long as the name fit in space given, it was acceptable. That's fine. But I have always made Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles as Manly-Warringah because I presumed that it always went over the edge creating two lines. But I was reverted by Jeff, and I noticed it didn't go over. But then I did a few tests and came up with this.

I don't understand it, two similar templates, with similar information, but the first one it overlaps, and the second it doesn't. I believe we should make it consistent, and so all instances of Manly and St. George Illwarra and others are the same on all infoboxes.  The Windler talk  13:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: The problem seems to be the fact that on the first one, there is the column Games, Tries, and Pts have three digits. In the second this isn't and the columns isn't forced over.  The Windler talk  13:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Colour scheme

This may sound trivial, but can you guys change the colour scheme of this talk page? Blue is the colour used to highlight a closed debate (primarily one where a consensus is to be obtained on some issue). So whenever I see blue background, my first instinct is that further duiscussion is not permitted! dramatic (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Really, I haven't noticed that, what colour do you suggest gives you the instinct that discussion is permitted?  The Windler talk  08:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything but blue. Perhaps I visit too many AFD pages :-) dramatic (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the blue. But I would...  florrie  14:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any real need to change it, the namespace is of a talk, if the first instinct says that "further discussion is not permitted", then the second should realise that is not the case.  The Windler talk  12:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

London League

This is an amateur league competition held in London. The article is currently at London League (rugby league) because there is an article on a defunct soccer league at London League. I discovered a traffic statistic analysis tool that shows you how many times a particular page was viewed in a day and to my surprise the rugby league article had over twice as many hits as the soccer article.

I am trying to see if there is any interest in getting the page moved before putting in a move request.GordyB (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably, you can try, they will probably make London League a disambig, then make the soccer article have (soccer) at the end of it. I don't really have any interest in RL in northern hemisphere, but it is interesting that a league article got higher traffic than a soccer article, especially in England, even if it is defunct.  The Windler talk  12:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Automated reports

As users may have been aware, we now have three automatically (by bots) generated maintenance reports:

• Article alerts (updated daily) which notes immediate attention tasks such as PROD, FAC etc.
• Cleanup listing/Articles needing attention (updated monthly) which notes articles which have tags such as {{unreferenced}} on them.
• New articles (updated daily) which notes new articles with the key words "rugby league" in them.

These automated lists are to help maintenance in the project. You may want to help the backlog of articles needing sources, attend to articles nominated for deletion or see what articles have been created. The last one of these I instigated due to our old New articles page, being inconsistently updated and not all users update as such. Also because I tag all rugby league articles with {{WikiProject Rugby league}}, and many new articles don't get tagged. If anyone comes across a rugby league article with its talk page not tagged with that template, just add it. Don't need to add class or importance. Also with the automated list on New articles, it is currently bound to the one rule that if it has "rugby league" in the article, it is listed. Obviously a few more rules would help, but I don't have the time, so see User:AlexNewArtBot for full details. I will begin on the Cleanup listings page and doing some of the easier tasks, and articles I know and removing tags when I fix them. Help is appreciated.  The Windler talk  10:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing all these up, Joel - it makes it a lot easier to track new stuff.  florrie  23:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Rugby league concepts

I've created Template:Rugby league concepts with the aim of "knitting" together several key concepts. It is based on Template:American football concepts. It could do with some improvements but I think it's mostly OK (see what you think) and I'll start putting it on pages appropriate soon. Currently many links go to Playing rugby league, List of rugby league terms, Rugby league positions and "joint sport" pages - pages that detail the meaning of something in several sports.

I was thinking this could be a good time for a push to expand this area of RL on wikipedia. Creating main articles for rugby league subjects that go into detail rather than the most detail being on an article shared with other sports (see Winger (sport) or Try which is a horrible mish mash of bits for union, bits for league, bits for both) or having just a few sentences overview.

With the coming of National Rugby League USA next year and hopefully a surge of interest in rugby league, perhaps a target completion date could be end of 2009 or before any major promotion (whichever is first).

Is anybody interested in helping with this? LunarLander // talk // 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A surge in interest in rugby league in USA, you must be very optimistic. I'm not sure about the template, it seems just unnecessary because it seems to be two main articles Playing rugby league and Rugby league positions.  The Windler talk  22:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did say hopefully!

The template might be slightly unnecessary right now but it shouldn't be when there are new and detailed articles. I stumbled across several of the articles/concepts the first time though. Rugby league positions includes very brief mentions of roles, substitutions and the positions have no history on their development over time. Articles could be made of how defensive tactics have developed and work with illustrations too maybe.

Are you interested in working on more RL specific articles? LunarLander // talk // 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who at first had to use Wikipedia to learn about rugby league, I can honestly say that the Playing rugby league article is confusing. It seems to swing from general tactics, to established rules, to regional exceptions to those rules incoherently, leaving the reader utterly unable to understand what the article is saying. It's also broadly narrative, and to make this worse, has practically no sources or illustrations. We'd be doing much better if we split it up into separate articles for organisational purposes, in order to explain the concepts more clearly and concisely (one for penalties, one for offensive/defensive tactics, one for the pitch/equipment), else, provide illustrations and focus on the List of rugby league terms instead to avoid any confusion. I also second LunarLander's comments about the article on rugby league positions – it's nowhere near detailed enough and provides no information at all about each position's history in the game. Of course, it's easy for me to say that from the sidelines, I'm not knowledgeable enough to add to those articles anyway. GW(talk) 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To LunarLander, I only played the game in my youth and for a small amount of time, and so I cant exactly contribute to articles about the game, other than the basics. I like working on historical aspects, such as biographies and teams, as they don't need an understanding of the actual game to write about them. Like Ginger Warrior, I don't have the knowledge to contribute, but I don't mind if you and others go ahead. But the problem is sources. Sources are necessary to ensure its survival on Wikipedia. I predict when the initial hype and interest in Wikipedia and when the article creation rate drops, a great purge on unworthy articles will happen. An article which has sources, practically ensures its survival, because Random article is a dangerous tool. One day, a user may come to a your article, and see it has been unreferenced since May 2009, and will delete it, now in 20 years when they get to an article like that, they will want to get rid of it. Thats the truth, in my opinion anyway, whether its true or not. Time will tell. But be bold!  The Windler talk  10:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the things Lunarlander's been doing are really good and I'm totally behind you. As for that template, it might be a bit ambitious. A lot of those articles on the American football version are not really necessary and completely unreferenced themselves. I've followed American football's lead with a few things here on wikipedia (e.g. navboxes) but that might be going a little overboard. Definitely the rule changes are something I've been interested in for a while. Playing rugby league and Rugby league positions are two articles that I've helped build and have kept my eye on. I've left them be for a while as I've been working on other stuff, but if you wanna add to them or create more articles I'll definitely join in. Also has anyone else noticed how much the rugby league article sucks? I think this should be made a priority too. Anyway, Lunar, I think your mind's in the right place. "You have my bow!"--Jeff79 (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got quite a few older books on rugby league which include stuff on playing the sport. If you want anything looked up/sourced, let me know and I'll see what I can find.  florrie  11:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

With the rugby league article, I believe the needs to be an equal balance between the game and the history of it. Alot of the initial history of rugby league is the differing rules from union, so ... It really is a disgrace, and needs to be completely rewritten.  The Windler talk  12:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing I don't want to see on the rugby league article is talk of how it differs from rugby union (you can be sure there's no mention of rugby league's rules on the rugby union article). This is taken care of on the Comparison of rugby league and rugby union article. So yeah, with this, the history, the playing and the positions, we need to make sure the right stuff's going in the right articles.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying a direct comparison, But just an (extensive) note that states that rugby league was derived from rugby union and why, not how.  The Windler talk  05:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bomb kick

Just thought I'd bring this discussion to the attention of this project.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have commented. LunarLander // talk // 15:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

New template

Just thought I'd inform everyone here who edits articles relating to the Challenge Cup that I made a new template for the final's infobox, based on the NRL's template. You can see it here. Cheers GW(talk) 10:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. However it is my sincere hope that the Challenge Cup tournamets and finals will not be covered on separate articles as the creation of this template seems to suggest. Similarly, the Super League seasons and finals desparately need merging in my opinion.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I do hate when users create these articles on grand finals and final series and then when we try an merge them, they come up with an arrogance to attempt to keep them there. I really have no problems if the user is prepared to do the hard work and write a decent article with sources rather than a brief synopsis and alot of tables. For instance, I like 2008 NRL Grand Final but not 2009 Challenge Cup Final but the 2009 article has not come yet, so preferably it shouldn't be there, but hopefully Ginger warrior is prepared to do the hard yards. The templates good,  The Windler talk  11:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the broader Wikipedia community has a problem with notability and finals, considering one its Featured Articles is an article on the 1956 FA Cup Final. I accept that the Challenge Cup articles are generally poor in quality, but I think most would also accept mine and others attempts to raise the quality of the 2009 competition's article (a C-class article as it currently stands, in my opinion) have been successful in contrast to the 2008 article (which is, at best, a start-class). I'm prepared to offer similar time to the Final article. GW(talk) 11:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you mention the issue of notability. Nor is anyone opposed to your raising the quality of any article. The problem is you've got information about one competition split unneccesarily between two articles. See Wikipedia:MergeOver#Merging. I say we merge all Super League seasons and grand finals as well as Challenge cup tournaments and finals, then if they are expanded to the point where one article is too small the case for splitting them can be put forward. Why have 2 stubs when you can have 1 decent article, or, as the case is, about 60 stubs instead of 20 articles? What it looks like is just a sad attempt to increase the number of articles. Not good.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In developing a combined article to the point it would be considered a good article, you'd have made the article detailed enough for there to be a case for a split anyway, especially given the final is usually the focus of a tournament's article. Article length does not equate to its quality either; and likewise, a short but well-written article/list is still nevertheless a good article/list. I can't see any case for merging in those guidelines you've linked me to that can't equally be countered with a case for splitting the two up. To state that it's a large overlap is tenuous, when you consider only the "Route to the Final" part is overlapped, whilst the rest of the article contains unique information. Where I would agree with you, and User:Florrie, in your archived conversation from September 2008, is that there is no need at all for an article about a play-offs, but as User:SpecialWindler says, the 2008 NRL Grand Final article is good on its own. GW(talk) 16:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)