Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 19

David Smiths

Is David Smith (rugby league), who played for England in 1977 likely to be the same guy as David Smith (rugby league played for Easts), as http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/players/David_Smith/summary.html suggests? If they are different people, what disambiguator is preferred to the very clumsy (rl played for Easts)... (Australian rugby league player) or something else? Is there a website/book where DOBs can be found? Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To seperate rugby league plays from other articles with the same name, usually it's "<subject> (rugby league)". To seperate two rugby league players, state which year they were born. See Tony Smith, Warrington Wolves head coach. GW(talk) 10:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but in this case we don't know when they or he was born. We don't even know if they are one or two (or even 3?) people. Is there a decent site that has most dates of births of first grade or international players? The-Pope (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless the RLP/Englandrl are wrong (which is possible) what I've seen suggests these two articles are for the same person. The international stats on englandrl show only one David Smith who played in two England matches inc. one against France in 77. The RLP stats show only one international match against France in 77. He seems to have had a very long career though. LunarLander // talk // 13:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

They're not the same person, I can remember the Easts' David Smith, booted some towering goals when they played out of Henson Park in 87. He would been about 10yo in 1977. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.99.15 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

NRLUS Teams, Chinese Rugby League and South Wales Scorpions

Should teams for the new NRLUS competition have a wikipedia page created(I would be willing to do it all as long as its not deleted)? there is suppose to be more news coming at the end of the month or should we just wait until it is all confirmed and also there is rugby league in china now i started a page on china national rugby league team before but it was deleted if anyone is willing to re make it here is the website http://www.chinarugbyleague.com/ also does the South Wales Scorpions have a coach yet?Youndbuckerz (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Are the teams due to play in the NRLUS currently playing in a semi-professional competition? If not, then they still fail notability. Amateur sides may only have their own page if they're notable for something else.
• Making an article on the Chinese national team, because they (barely) have their own Federation doesn't make sense. Perhaps making an article on Rugby league in China would be more appropriate, since the Chinese national team have yet to compete in any major international rugby league event, if I recall correctly.
• South Wales as far as I know, have no coach. Given a Google search yields no results, I doubt there's a reliable source anyway, so don't bust a gut trying to find out the answer. GW(talk) 12:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There are very many amateur teams with articles already. I think you are confusing the rules on players with those with teams. PLayers need to have played one pro game to be notable but there is no such rule for teams.

South Wales as yet have not announced their coach.

China rugby league is based in Brisbane. It definitely should not be the basis of an article.GordyB (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

NRL All stars vs indigenous all stars

A page should be created on the NRL All Stars vs Indigenous All stars game i dont know what the name of the page should be called but i will give it a shot if someone can fix it up that would be goodYoundbuckerz (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is already created NRL All Stars Game i dont know if that what it should be called but i added a category to it also the page 2010 in rugby league should be made Youndbuckerz (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure about whether this game is notable enough for its own article, as in 2010 NRL All Stars Game. I think it would be better to document the game with a section of its own in the article NRL All Stars Game. As the article grows with the competition, individuals games can be split off into smaller articles. The "Indigenous" part can be added to the section's title without needing to move or create a new article. GW(talk) 12:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Maltese Rugby League editing

If anyone is interested on editing maltese rugby league on wikipedia see http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=351287Youndbuckerz (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Rugby league to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. GW(talk) 09:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

National Rugby League looks like a niiice target. B-class, popular, very recent so sources shouldn't be problematic, but been around long enough to sustain an article of excellent quality. Apart from rugby league, it's the most popular rugby league-exclusive article. I'm tempted, but I sadly I don't have time. GW(talk) 10:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While the statistics section maintains separate NRL records, it's flawed. That'd be the first thing to fix. The pointscoring table that accompanies it includes pre-1998 scoring, and Joey's total is wrong.

Very interesting. Amazing how many "low importance" articles get very high pageviews e.g. the articles comparing rugby league to union or to American football. Perhaps some of these articles should be given a higher importance?GordyB (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Z-man. LunarLander // talk // 15:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah some interesting stats there. I second your motion Lunar regarding reviewing some of the high view pages such as comparing rugby league to union an american football.
--VikingJohn (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rep team templates

Currently there are two rep team templates: {{Infobox rugby league state}} and {{Infobox rugby league nation}}. They are broadly similar, though the nation template has different fields to do with RLIF rankings and World Cups. The state template is used for NSW, Qld, City and Country at the moment.

There are probably at least handful of teams (some with yet to be created articles) other than those above that could use a similar template. Some possibles: Yorkshire, Lancashire, Māori, Aboriginals, NRL All Stars, Dominion XIII...

Please give your thoughts, below are the most obvious options:

• (Roughly status quo) Use and adapt the state template to be used in non-national team rep team articles. This allows the option of differentiation between different levels (nation/state) of teams, allowing the national template to be focussed on national teams and the state template to be more flexible for various other rep teams. On the other hand, shouldn't national and other rep teams look consistent and don't some teams such as Other Nationalities and the Māori have a bit of a crossover?
• Combine the two in a single rep team template. Flexibility to cover different types of rep team but less focussed. Less maintenance. LunarLander // talk // 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:NRL Team Season

Three notes:

1. I've added a new "Play-off result" field to the template, since where a team finishes in the league isn't necessarily where they finish at the end of the season. Gotta give Melbourne and Bradford credit for their Grand Final wins outside the top two. It only appears if the 'PlayOffs" field is used, for pre-play-off seasons.
2. For the "League" field, I'm planning a way of moving the initials after the result into the first column itself. So, instead of "League: 1st [[NRL]]" in 2000 Brisbane Broncos season, it'll be "[[2000 NRL season|League]]: 1st". This is already done in the Challenge Cup field for European teams. I should be able to do it without having to go over all the articles on which the template is already transcluded. Super League seasons may be more bothersome because of the Roman Numerals, but I could just exploit some redirects.
3. I'll put its instructions into some documentation. I'm worried only those knowledgeable on the template can use it as it currently stands, hence its non-inclusion in most club season articles. GW(talk) 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I was struggling with it the other week. Clear documentation and simplicity is important. LunarLander // talk // 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, I think the season article template needs to be reviewed anyway as I think it can be improved in a lot of ways to not only look better, but provide better information.It also needs to be made more generic so its not heavily biased against one continent or the other. For example instead of being called NRL Team Season, it should be called Infobox rugby league team season. To make the league/cup information more generic instead of having the parameter such as Challenge Cup have parameters of Cup1 Name, Cup1 Position, Cup2 Name, Cup2 Position etc etc
--VikingJohn (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you on all three points. LunarLander // talk // 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: Has already been discussed (here, but I've since deleted my sandbox).

I agree, and thanks for telling me about the difficulty, Lunar. The stuff you're suggesting would entail making a new template. What I propose is that I make a new template, based on the old one, with the changes you've suggested. Then systematically replace the templates on the articles which currently use it. Then delete the old template. You can't just move it across the namespace because the transclusions would be vandalised, especially if fields like "ChallengeCup" are going to be replaced with "Cup1" etc.. When it's done on my sandbox, I'll let you know. GW(talk) 21:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to delete, the ChallengeCup bit (and others) can be grandfathered. Add the new fields then later, when the articles are adjusted to the newer fields, the older ones can be removed from the template. Moving the template to a new namespace would have no effect on the articles.
You might have found it but your old design is in the oldest version of your sandbox. LunarLander // talk // 22:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Forget my old design, with hindsight, Windler was right. This is much better. The coding is finished, available here. An example can be found here (ignore all the clutter underneath the infobox). I'll add documentation tomorrow so you can test/break it. So, what you're suggesting is to put fields for "ChallengeCup" and "Cup1", even though they'll both do essentially the same thing, adjust the articles to the new fields, and then remove the old field? I'm fine with that. In that case, this should be the plan:

1. Update {{NRL Team Season}} with the new coding;
2. Move the template to new name, presumably {{Infobox rugby league team season}};
3. Adjust all the articles which have the infobox transcluded on them for the new fields;
4. Remove the old fields from the template.

Is that what you're thinking? GW(talk) 01:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking. I'll reply again with comments on your new version. LunarLander // talk // 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good Warrior, you move fast! :) What about having a section at the bottom where an image for the team kit can be displayed for that season such as used in the Premier League seasons e.g. Liverpool F.C. season 2008–09. It doesn't have to be as complicated as the one used on the football info box as that uses further templates to make up the individual sections of the kit. Maybe just have a field where we can specify an image to show the kit for that season. For historical purposes it will be good to be able to display the kit for that season.
VikingJohn (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

...I tried adding the kit template as it's used on the Premier League club season articles, but without any joy, and their coding is so long I frankly could not be bothered to find out why it worked on theirs and not mine. What I can do is add a field that allows the user to put the raw code in from {{Football kit}}, or alternatively, to just add an image. This way those who prefer the kit templates, and those who prefer The Windler's self-made kit images can be satisfied. I agree on the historical reference, although it should be remembered Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source of information, and kit colours will have to be formally referenced elsewhere in the article. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GW, it's got a nice look and feel. I know some of these things are just stuff that was already there. My comments, things I've noticed, personal preferences are:

• {manager}, {manager_title} be changed to {coach} and {coach_title} as the most common term in the sport and as it is already in use on the NRL template.

Agreed. Coach is the general term in the UK too, though not in France. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• "List" should be display as "Seasons" at it is more informative and is used in competition season infoboxes.

How about "List of seasons"? Much clearer than both terms alone. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. LunarLander // talk // 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• List link is completed using {club} which leads to a need for redirects, for example if a club changes its name. Note in documentation to say old names need redirects to season list.

Sure. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• For the season and scoring records, there should be a note in the documentation to note stats will be from competitive matches only.

Yep, and the format said information needs to be presented in too. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• There should be more {cupX} added to future and past proof the template. I haven't checked the years of play but there are Yorkshire/Lancs Cup, Regal Trophy, Premiership, Charity Shield (UK) and more to cater for.

Easy. I'll go to six, just in case. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are fields for three championships to be listed at the top, I think it would need to keep at least 2 of those (past-proof for years when clubs played for county and national league championships). The template needs separate cup winners fields (rather than using {championship}) because of the different terminology (cup winners, league champions) equalling the number of cup fields added.

OK. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The colour used for {championship} is a bit orange. My personal preference is for a golden colour rather such as #FFD700 (used in season ladders already).

Agreed, also to avoid contrasts with Castleford and Wests Tigers. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• A link to Rugby league positions#Captain for {captain} label would be good.

Yep. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• What is the intention with {alt_captains}? Clubs have had vice captains appointed, if VCs are the reason then the label needs to be changed from "Alternative captains" to "Vice captains". If this field is meant for one match, or a few, when someone else was the captain because of injury or resting a played, I think that could probably just be handled in the text of the article. It's a bit overkill to have it in the infobox.

It was meant with the super-dooper Leadership Team of Wigan in mind, but I agree that it's perhaps unnecessary. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Either way: the coding could be improved by having alt_captain2, 3, 4 rather than just using break because then you can let the template change the label to read "Alternative captain" or "Alternative captains" depending on the number entered.

• Should a facility be made for a leadership group? Clubs other than Wigan have used and might use this in future. Possibly with a customisable label. Or it might actually just be simpler to use captain2, 3, 4, etc. in a similar way to how I've mentioned above.

Except that the super-dooper Leadership Team hasn't actually been announced yet. I arrived back from Wakefield with no idea who our captain was today. I'm completely unsure about what to do about the super-dooper Leadership Teams. I think the best thing to do is follow the NFL's example of listing all the captains equally, and not picking out one as superior to the others. In which case, we would need to use {captain_2} etc., probably up to nine. And as you suggested, put in a title field for captains too. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• It would be better to leave the {previous} and {next} season fields working as they do now on the NRL template in the simpler way "| prev_season = [[Wigan Warriors 2008|2008]]".

I thought it best to leave as much coding out of the hands of the user, so absolute Wiki dummies can use the template. However, this probably allows for a greater deal of flexibility, for instance, when the British season changed from Winter to Summer rugby. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The current NRL template has both chairman (should be changed to display just "Chair") and CEO which can be useful. Up for discussion.

I've allowed for the title to be changed. For all we know, a club could go into administration, in which case, neither term would apply. So I'd prefer to keep this as is. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fair point, although I consider default of "Chair" preferable - we're an inclusive sport afterall. Plus Kath Hetherington! LunarLander // talk // 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are a several problems surrounding fields that combine to form links. Problems based around {year} and {club}.
  • There can be conflict between dating of past British and Australian seasons for the World Club Challenge with YYYY-YY and YYYY, respectively. Also for French non-Super League teams who use the YYYY-YY format but also enter the Challenge Cup.
    For this issue I suggest offering the option of entering a full link at each competition.
    The following changes to each league and cup should do it: Replace [[{{{year}}} {{{cup}}}|{{{cup}}}]] with {{#if:{{{cup_link}}}|{{{cup_link|}}}|[[{{{year}}} {{{cup}}}|{{{cup}}}]]}}. No [[ and ]] around {cup_link} because it would limit flexibility, e.g. when cup competitions are a section in a wider article.

So, to clarify, it would default to how it is right now, unless the field {cup_link} is used, in which case, it will use that value instead? Makes sense. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. LunarLander // talk // 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• • The above suggestion would also sort the issue of Super League articles not using years. In 1997, the redirect would go to the SL (A) season, not the UK one. {league_link}.
  • The list link uses {club} and so is reliant on redirects when a club has changed names. Perhaps use something similar to my {cup/league_link} suggestion.

{list_link}? Understood. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• On a related note, perhaps there should be consideration of using {PAGENAME} for the infobox title. LunarLander // talk // 17:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this should always equal the infobox title, this is correct. It would also remove the need for a {club} field if its use is being made redundant everywhere else in the article. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To summarise, I've got to do the following:

1. Add a field for kit templates/images;  Done - did something genius with this one. I'll explain in the documentation.
2. Change {manager} to {coach};  Done
3. Change "List" to "List of season" (debatable);  Done
4. Add more {CupN} fields;  Done - and also a second {leagueN} field
5. Leave two {championship} fields, add an equal amount of cup fields;  Done
6. Change colour of {championship} rows;  Done
7. Get rid of "Alternative captain", make a field for a manual title to be inserted in place of "Captain", and add fields for additional captains, conditioning this to the default title of "Captain" for the plural over the singular;  Done
8. Allow users to insert manual links for previous and next seasons  Done
9. Remove {club}, and instead follow the {cup_link} and {PAGENAME} changes you've suggested;  Done
10. Add a field for the {list_link}.  Done

I'll get to work, and tick off these as I go along. GW(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be shaping up nicely, I'm intrigued by the playing kit remark! LunarLander // talk // 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

About the 'genius'? In hindsight, it wasn't really genius. I just didn't work for the first half hour or so I was trying, and then suddenly I realised what was wrong. Eureka! Anyways, all done. I'll do documentation tomorrow, if I get time. GW(talk) 02:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Couple of things I've just thought:

• Clubs winning the league in Aus are called premiers rather than champions. I don't know what you think, it might be less faffy to create a single additional field called {league_premiers} to cater for this on NSWRL/ARL/NRL club articles and for there to be separate NRL and SL blank templates in the doc.

The text that appears on the template in its used form is manually inserted by the user. If an Australian uses it, they can just as easily put in "Premiers" instead of "champions". I wouldn't encourage the use of NRL/SL templates - that's exactly the non-flexibility the template needs to move away from. GW(talk) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've noticed {league_rank} is used in both leagues in the template.  Done
• Minor one, but league champions are plural, cup winners isn't: {league_champions2} {cup_winner}. It just needs to go one way or the other.  Done - generally, a team is referred to as plural, even if this is technically wrong. We say "The Dragons", "The Rhinos" etc.
• Minor again, several fields put the '2' at the end e.g. {league_champions2} and {cup_link5} when it might be more logical to put {league2_champions} and similar in most of these cases (perhaps not points for and against.  Done
• In the playing kit section there is currently a link x2 to the association football article on kits [[Kit (association football)|colours]] which could just use the word "colours" until some time in the future when there is a rugby league version.  Done

Although speaking from a reviewer's POV, "colours" is a very ambiguous term. I think removing the wikilink to the football article is the best move. Forget this, colours is fine. GW(talk) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• The link to Rugby league positions#Captain for the {captain} label is still to do.  Done - oops
• {{#if:{{{cup_link|}}}|{{{cup_link}}}|[[{{{year}}} {{{cup}}}|{{{cup}}}]]}} needs doing for league and league 2.  Done
• With all the cups and leagues added plus the champions/winners golden bars at the top we could do with a discussion on layout. Perhaps the golden bars should be displayed just above the info on that competition rather than separated off at the top. Or maybe the golden bar and the info could be merged so that if a team wins a competition the label/info can be made to have a gold background. LunarLander // talk // 03:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think they should be at the top, league before cup, since that's the order they appear in the template. GW(talk) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. LunarLander // talk // 03:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that for {league} and {league2} perhaps Points for and Points against being displayed in the same row: "Points scored For X, Against X". Wins/Losses/Draws don't get a row each after all. LunarLander // talk // 03:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Did it with some fancy {{#expr:}} coding. I'm thinking... do the same with the season results field? GW(talk) 16:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking good Warrior, I like the changes. Let me know when its all up and running and I'll give it a test.
VikingJohn (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's shaping up nicely. Documentation is looking good too. 2 things:

• Loses > Losses for several fields
• I think draws need to be added for the cups. There have been replays for cups (necessitated by a draw) or games played over two legs. LunarLander // talk // 18:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, course it doesn't happen now since we have a golden point, although the CC Final interestingly can still be replayed. Would have been at Bolton this year, a town famed for its rugby league, of course. If that's all, I'll get cracking on the documentation, then I'll add the old fields from the old template, then I'll do a cut-paste job, then I'll move the old template to its new destination. GW(talk) 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about how best to release this onto the articles concerned. I could put in fields that are already in the old template into the new one, and then just move the template over as agreed above, but this creates problems with fields that hold the same name, but have different functions in the two templates—"year" for instance. Not to mention there's less than 50 pages on which he template is currently placed. Is there anyway of manually replacing them? Maybe releasing the new template in its own space, keeping the old template, replacing the old with the new, and then somehow phasing out the old template with a redirect to the new template? GW(talk) 01:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The build has got a bit more complicated since the agreement above so I'd be fine going along with creating in a new namespace first ({{Infobox rugby league team season}} or whatever) and then working through articles to replace. At the end redirecting and then propose the NRL version for deletion. LunarLander // talk // 17:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Chairman field in new template? --sss333 (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but the {{{CEO_title}}} field can be used to change the label to anything. I've put "Chairman" on all the English/Welsh articles, "President" on the French and I'm unsure about the Australian terms so I left it as "CEO". {{{CEO}}} is the field where you want to insert the name of the person, whatever his/her title is. GW(talk) 19:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about all teams but the Canberra Raiders have a CEO and a Chairman--sss333 (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's too late for me to add a {{{Chairman}}} field now, but I can add a {{{CEO2}}} field instead for teams that have both. GW(talk) 11:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks really good. A lot of work has gone into this. But I'll just say the width makes me a little bit nervous. Remember what happened to our player infobox.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Before my time. What happened to our player infobox? I know it's a bad argument, but I wouldn't worry since this is a GA and has a wider infobox than this start-class. GW(talk) 19:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I added this to the talkpage on the template but I dont think anyone has it on watch :)
Record/Points Fields and Points Difference
I think we should split the 'Record' and 'Points' into two separate sections. It currently gets a bit confusing as it calculates cup and league wins in the 'Record' field, but only takes into account the league points in the 'Points' field.
A user browsing the page might think that the Record and Points fields refer to only the league and could become confused when the games won drawn and lost in this field differs to the league table.
I think it will be a lot more clearer if we split it into 'Cup Record' and 'Cup Points' and 'League Record' and 'League Points'.
I think it would also be nice to add another field that calculates the points difference as well.
VikingJohn (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

8 incubated BLP rugby articles need referencing

These 8 rugy articles were mis-listed as being Australian and were incubated, I re-categorized them as Athletes:

• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Athletes/Andy Haigh  Done
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Athletes/Alex Murphy  Doing...; needs a thorough rewrite as well as referencing.
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Athletes/Alastair Biggar- Referenced  Done Rugby union
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Athletes/Andre Markgraaff- Referenced  Done Rugby union
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Athletes/Arwel Thomas- Referenced  Done Rugby union
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Athletes/Aurélien Cologni
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Athletes/Basil Richards
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Athletes/Avtandil Kopaliani- Referenced  Done Rugby union

Okip (formerly Ikip) 07:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rugby union and rugby league?

Was there some kind of argument before with two groups? So they split apart? Maybe there should be some kind of explanation and history why there are tow very similarly named groups at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby page. Okip (formerly Ikip) 07:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Two different sports, have been for around a century. LunarLander // talk // 12:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

History_of_rugby_league#The_schism_in_England. As for the WikiProject, I have no idea. But they are two seperate sports and anyone with any knowledge of rugby would understand why two seperate WikiProjects exist. GW(talk) 14:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Stats in infoboxes

I have just seen updating of some stats in the infoboxes for some rugby league players, but there appears to be no way of checking out these changes as the source and update fields in the infobox have not being completed. Is there any plans to update all the player articles and add this information to the infoboxes so that changes can be verified. The football people have similar fields completed and usually update them when ever there is a change to the stats information. Keith D (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are at least 400 active players and if we updated each time they played a game that would be impossible to update each player. Most players are updated on a yearly basis. You are quite welcome to add sources and the updated field, which is usually the day after the players last game or if they haven't played any since, todays date.  The Windler talk  22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are far more active footballer articles yet they have the fields updated as a matter of course, surely when changing the information you can update the date of change & add the source for the information as you have it to hand. The information should be removed if it is unsourced as there is no way of verifying it. Keith D (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't and can't control everyone who edits a rugby league article. LunarLander // talk // 03:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The most the project could do is organise some sort of drive to have all players' infoboxes updated with their relevant RLP/SoO stats, but frankly, there's only a dozen active members here at most, and at least two hundred times that amount in player articles. It's just not feasable. If content must be removed as per WP:V, so be it. As Lunar said, we can't control everything. WP:FOOTY has had 567 members, not to mention countless more anonymous editors. GW(talk) 11:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Melbourne Storm

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Melbourne Storm/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus: Field goal, drop goal

I'm hoping we can establish a consensus on usage of the terms drop goal and field goal.

Based on Fagan, Sean (2007). Dixon, Kim (ed.). The rugby rebellion centenary edition: Pioneers of rugby league. Australia: RL1908. p. 393. ISBN 978-0-9757563-0-0. I was able to put together a table on the changes to rugby league scoring values over time, here: Rugby league gameplay#Point scoring. Based on this, there are two definitions for "field goal" here: List of rugby league terms#Field goal stating that a field goal was a type of goal scored using a "soccer-style" kick until 1922. After the 1920s, the term field goal has come to be another name for a drop goal.

There is a bit of information on a rugby union site also saying that a field goal and a drop goal were different things, here: http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/scoring.htm - "March 1905, Field goal is abolished... A dropped goal (except from a mark or penalty kick) equals 4 points... A field goal was scored when the ball was kicked between the posts during open play."

Roughly, I propose:

• Articles that describe the sport such as Rugby league and Rugby league gameplay (and those that cover the game over a period of time e.g. lists of records, team histories) should not use field goal to refer to the drop goal. A note might be included to mention that field goal has come to mean drop goal, if it adds value to the article. Australian/NZ RL articles might need some more consideration - debate below.
• Articles on footballers with careers that began before the field goal was abolished (1922) should also be stricter in application of terms.
• {{Infobox rugby league biography}} should be adjusted to show DG rather than FG on player articles.

• In this infobox, the drop goal fields used are named e.g. "fieldgoalsD". At some point use of a bot should be looked into to change these to e.g. "dropgoalsD". Though this isn't urgent as...

• Goals from mark and real field goals presumably are covered by the number of "Goals" scored. There's not much point catering for them separately, I think, as the official stats I've seen don't.

• Articles that have post-1922 subjects use either term in the text, as happens currently.
• Templates to use Drop Goal/Drops/DG.

Please add your thoughts below. LunarLander // talk // 00:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple of links to this discussion on Talk:Rugby league gameplay, Talk:Rugby league and Talk:Drop goal. Please add any further links you think appropriate.

You might be confusing goas

I would just like to point out that in the infoboxes players stats (mostly?) link to sites that refer to field goals not drop goals--sss333 (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think there might be confusion on the part of people accessing those sites to find stats for WP? Useful to consider. The sites, I assume, refer to field rather than drop goals because they are Australian and the original FG was abolished around 87 years ago. Plus the older stats - or even some of the later ones - don't separate out the types of goal. LunarLander // talk // 18:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Away from the infobox, what are your thoughts on naming some articles where greater care should be taken. Ones that immediately spring to mind are Rugby league, Rugby league gameplay, History of rugby league, Laws of rugby league, List of rugby league terms. LunarLander // talk // 18:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Drop goal to me is an English term, but even worse - a Union one. In Australia, field goal is mostly used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.234.138 (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This WikiProject is neither a place for Anglophobic policies nor rugby union bashing. GW(talk) 11:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A useful contribution... no really. Field goal is the predominant term in Australian rugby league, and Australia is the dominant power in rl at present. So why should it be excised from Wikipedia?

I would strongly oppose this idea. NRL stats, which I believe is an official provider of stats uses the term field goal[1], as does rugbyleagueproject [2], the NRL's own website [3] and any media sources I can find. The abbreviation DG is something I've never seen around rugby league articles and would almost constitute original research. Mattlore (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the main part of my opposition is towards the idea of changing the infoboxes and templates, history articles may be a different matter.

To the IP poster above: it wasn't a proposal to exorcise the term altogether.
Mattlore, DG isn't original research (see englandrl.co.uk). On the infoboxes: with the way stats sites/books present the records (i.e. original field goal not being a separate number), it's not a major or urgent change and I'd be OK leaving that proposal if it has no other support. Maybe come back to it in the future if a specific case is found of it causing trouble e.g. in an older biog.
Do you support the proposal for the history articles? LunarLander // talk // 16:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The term 'drop goal' is certainly not OR, and is the dominant term in Britain and France. Where rugby league articles have a clear geographical boundary, the regional term should be used. For example, NRL articles should use 'field goal', Super League articles should use 'drop goal'. This is not contradictory - Wikipedia has no preference between British, American or Australian English. The problem is when an article doesn't fit neatly into "Australian" or "European". I don't see any need to set a rule across the whole Wikiproject over which term should take precedence in "mixed" articles, consensus should be reached on an individual basis for each article, and this consensus should be applied consistently throughout the whole article. If a pattern starts to emerge through debates on these articles, then we'll think about a universal rule, but applying one now seems a step too far at this point. GW(talk) 22:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant to mention the articles highlighted above in my last post too. Looking at Drop goal, Rugby league, Rugby league gameplay, History of rugby league, Laws of rugby league and List of rugby league terms: the articles have the potential to be confusing to readers. If it says in an article that the field goal was abolished in 1922, should field goal alone be used to describe a drop goal after that point historically? I've not noticed some major problem with these articles but think a consensus of putting drop goal first when appropriate, e.g. "drop goal (now also referred to as a field goal)", would be useful. LunarLander // talk // 02:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have objection to increasing the use of the term "drop goal" over "field goal" in text and I'm quite aware drop goal is used over field goal in European RL. It was the use of the abbreviation 'DG' that I was saying was almost OR, as I'd never seen it used before (until LL's englandrl website). Mattlore (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to using drop goal instead of field goal - both terms are widely used. But the abbreviation DG is quite confusing. I've never seen it used before. --Wikitoov (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Will Hopoate

Hi there, I created an article for Will Hopoate. Any improvements would be greatly appreciated. --Wikitoov (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edits - I've also put up Trent Hodkinson. --Wikitoov (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Jerseys

I have created some jerseys that are used for 2010, and some which have been requested.

• 
  Knights 1998
• Storm away 2010
  Storm away 2010
• Storm home 2010
  Storm home 2010
• 
  Maroons 2010
• 
  Knights away 2010
• Raiders away 2010
  Raiders away 2010
• Panthers away 2010
  Panthers away 2010
• Dragons away 2010
  Dragons away 2010
• Titans away 2010
  Titans away 2010
• Titans home 2010
  Titans home 2010
• Broncos away 2010
  Broncos away 2010
• Broncos home 2010
  Broncos home 2010
• Sharks home 2010
  Sharks home 2010
• 
  Widnes 2010 home
• 
  Widnes 2010 away
• 
  St. Helens 2010 home
• St. Helens 2010 away
  St. Helens 2010 away
• 
  St. Helens 2010 heritage

As I am in jersey making mode, it would be wise if you have any requests to quickly get them on my talk page, as I don't like making jerseys really, and only make them in batches. So if you miss me now, you'll probably have to wait until this time next year for me to create them. Hope you like these anyways.  The Windler talk  08:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They look great SW, well done. LunarLander // talk // 15:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Club Infobox Consensus

I think we need a discussion to decide on the correct infobox to use for clubs. Some pages such as Wigan Warriors are using {{Infobox rugby league team}}, whilst others such as St Helens RLFC are using {{Infobox rugby league club}}.

I think the {{Infobox rugby league club}} looks a bit dated, it looks old and ugly, there is also too much information such as the years all the championships were won, the infobox should be a quick high level overview of the club, more detailed information should be contained within the article. For example the infobox should just list the number of premierships/minors/cup competitions won etc, if the user then wants to know exact year they where won they should navigate to the honours section within the article.

Personally I prefer the {{Infobox rugby league team}}, it looks a lot more contemporary, fresh and clean, it also fits in with the existing wiki style that is used by for the content box on the top left of article pages. It is also a similar style to the infobox {{Infobox Football club}} used for football clubs such as Liverpool F.C.

I think we should review the template and update/add any new fields, maybe bring the template in line with the new look and feel of the {{Infobox rugby league team season}} infobox that is used on season articles such as 2010 Widnes Vikings season so that we have some style consistency between articles?

--VikingJohn (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason St Helens and Widnes have those infoboxes is because they have images for kits (i.e. ones that SpecialWindler has made.) If he can be persuaded to mass make Super League jerseys then this infobox should and would become more common, but it's a lot to do (both NRL and Super League as well as State of Origin and internationals).

I agree with what you say John, in that the ones seen on SL articles are very old and somewhat aesthetically unattractive. However, the "years" part of the honours section of these boxes are used on all NRL articles if I'm not mistaken, including Sydney Roosters (featured article.) Therefore, I think this part should remain, as well as the fact that I personally find it useful.

Thanks,

Ymron (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm up for making ones that are simple, with lines, etc. If you provide all the ones you want me to make with links of the pictures on my talk page. The last jerseys I'll be making this year will be just after Heritage Round in the NRL. The Widnes 2010 one I made above will probably the most complex one I will do. But you can place links on my talk page anyway.  The Windler talk  11:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So could I post links of all jerseys in Super League, and you pick and choose which ones you can do?

Ymron (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats OK. Though preferably on my talk page, with a format similar to this:

Broncos 2010 Home Away

Titans 2010 Home Away Heritage

Cowboys 2010 Home Away

 The Windler talk  12:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If only the ability to place jersey images is desired, then why not translate the code across from one template to the other? You can't argue a template that's only used on two articles should be used because it will be more popular in the future. We're not crystal gazers, and it's better to have one flexible template than two rigid templates. GW(talk) 13:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds a good idea.

Ymron (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Australian rugby league clubs

Category:Australian rugby league clubs, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

AMNRL Squads

I am in the process of updating 2010 teams if someone could help me that would be nice but dont delete any of the players that are added to the squads as i am finding out through twitter. It looks like Daniel Wagon will be coming in May http://www.hometeamsonline.com/teams/?u=astonbulls&s=htosports&t=c. Youndbuckerz (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

u20s squads

i have added u20s squads to the broncos, warriors and storm and so far my broncos one has been removed what i want to know is should they be listed on team pages or somewhere else i think that it should be kept on team pages or instead on the National Youth Competition page just want to know others thoughts on this Youndbuckerz (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In the context of clubs as a whole, which encyclopedia (not news) articles like Brisbane Broncos are about, the list of miscellaneous redlinks who happen to be playing in the Toyota Cup (which, in my opinion, is less notable than senior competitions like the Queensland Cup or New South Wales Cup) at the moment are not at all notable enough. My suggestion is that they go somewhere down the bottom of club's season articles if there's consensus to include them at all (related discussion here).--Jeff79 (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Broncos list just looks like a long line of redlinked names to me. Couldn't you at least make it a 2col or 3col meaningless list and spare me the pain of scrolling ? -Sticks66 13:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There's going to be a ton of edits now..

... listeing to this press conference now about Melbourne Storm lossing thier premierships--sss333 (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we perhaps work out a consistent way to handle this? Notations for tables, both for this season and past seasons?  Afaber012  (talk)  06:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I jumped the gun by editing Manly to say they had won eight Premierships. --Wikitoov (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and notes on premierships lists--sss333 (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne Storm has been locked down for IP editors for 12 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hall of fame

A note from an OTRS correspondent:

I have tried to find the list of UK Rugby League tables since 1895 through the links on your site. Every link however takes you to a sportswear company, HALL OF FAME, rather than the Rugby League Hall of Fame site where they are (this is currently down for maintenance). I suspect this firm hacked in. Can you investigate this?

I don't know what the issue is and am not familiar with the content so I'll leave it to you folks to have a look. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 1895–96 Northern Rugby Football Union season onwards are the articles in question. Second EL down directs to this site. It may not have been 'hacked', and probably not since it appears to be a legitimate company now trading off that website, but the domain name could have been taken over. After checking the other ELs, the link on Manningham is a dead link, and the link off the Warrington Wolves website directs to the club's main page. Both of these links obviously need replacing. GW(talk) 19:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Please help to provide references for all rugby league related unreferenced biographies of living people (you only have 63 at the moment - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Full_list has over 2000) or they may also be deleted, as a 7 year veteran and leading try scorer recently has been. I have asked for that article to be undeleted, as he is clearly notable.The-Pope (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Alex Murphy

is still in the article incubator, this is a plea to anyone who has some paper sources to add references as this article reallly should be back in mainspace.   pablo_hablo. 12:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Guess who's back

Back again. That's right. If anyone has anything to add, here's the latest checkuser case. Cheers.--Jeff79 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that I oppose it, but out of interest, what triggered this action? GW(talk) 21:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Caption removal again.--Jeff79 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So...not a lot has changed around here?  florrie  06:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Flagicons in squad boxes

It recently came to my attention that flagicons were added to the squadbox of Crusaders. I thought these were not recommended? I am asking to see whether to revert the changes.

Thanks,

Ymron (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, go ahead. Given it's exceptional for rugby league, but a team being Welsh hardly justifies contradicting WP:MOSFLAG, especially when there's no attributable source to attach the nationalities to, nor any attempt at distinguishing country of origin from sporting nationality. GW(talk) 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

3 old rl infoboxes

Please be aware of this: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_3#Rugby_league_infoboxes. I support the nomination for deletion, though I think the user nominating should have placed a message here. One of those nominated is still in use on a few articles so a few edits are needed. LunarLander // talk // 00:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories for City and Country Origin players?

are they needed or is there already one? Youndbuckerz (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationalities

i have brought this up again because i think it makes more sense to categorise rugby league players by nationality by there backround e.g petero civoniceva ia fijian australian so he is australian and fijian rugby league player not just australian and willie mason who is nz,samoa,tonga,american this way all categories by nationality are filled up and not empty and also other sports are like this to like rugby union and american football.Youndbuckerz (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple. If you want to add a person to Category:(nationality) (occupation) the article must state that they are of that nationality (and preferably be supported by third-party reliable sources). If the article does not state that a person is of that nationality, they may not be added to that nationality's category.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

please read up on the wikpedia article nationality because there have been changes made on articles i recently edited. on wikipedia it states that nationality can be acquired, by country of birth, parents countries and residency Youndbuckerz (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to getting a link to the "wikipedia article nationality" so I can read that.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Category changes

Please stick to existing categories, YB. There needs to be consensus to change these ones. LunarLander // talk // 14:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)