Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 9

team of centerry

Just though I'd let you know, there are 100 names on Australian Rugby League's 100 Greatest Players but doing research, I've found that Steve Menzies (who is on the list) is not part of that top 100. I think someone biased might have just slipped it in there.  The Windler talk  11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

An anon decided to replace Dally Messenger with Steve Menzies. Fixed now. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

specialwindler

I just thought I'd let you know that I won't be on Wikipedia as much from now. I'll still edit, but sparingly and if I get time maybe a bit more. But I won't be as dedicated to this project any more as I used to be. I may return to help with my goal of a featured topic.

Thanks to my fellow editors, and I have a bot request somewhat made for the above template changes here.  The Windler talk  08:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We're going to greatly miss your skills and persistence. All the best Joel. -Sticks66 13:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Really sorry to hear that, Joel. Many thanks for all your work on the WT history. Hope you get to come back soon. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Top editor, really moved the community forwards, glad to hear you will be contributing, albeit on a much smaller scale.Londo06 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I may still work with this project after all, but still my editing will be restricted.  The Windler talk  11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to get a reply in so late, but thanks for everything mate. The project wouldn't have come this far without your input. Hope to still see you around. MDM (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That drive for consensus on infoboxes

What are we going to do with all that infobox discussion ? Is it time to archive it ? I know it wasn't just driven by Windler but now that he's backing away it's possibly gone as far as it will go. On the one hand it was a thorough and thoughtful debate but I also wonder if it mightn't scare new contributors off if they think we discuss all points of principle in such detail. Is there somewhere handy it can be archived ? -Sticks66 11:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The two sections not resolved were the youth club and the non first-grade clubs, weren't they? If youth club were restricted to one and one only, I wouldn't be too bothered but the first-grade issue is more complex. Could we maybe ask for third-party comment? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit over the discussion. It goes in circles. I say let's allow he or she who's prepared to knuckle down and actually do the infoboxes to get on with it. -Sticks66 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does go in circles a bit. I'm waiting for the new infobox to take place, so I, along with all of us are making edits for the number of games, and scorings. As I have said, it can all be changed later, may I propose you ask on Bot requests to do it for you.  The Windler talk  04:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we take the vote again and if needed (no 2/3 majority either way) ask for some third party input as well. MDM (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

League icons

Such as these: . I understood they weren't for use on article pages except for season results, SoO teams etc? Recently I see them being added to info-boxes and other bits and pieces. See Steve Southern and Wayne Bennett (rugby league). Doesn't worry me either way, as long as I know which it is. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it either, and I'd rather them there than not. So as we are bringing it up, I'll may as well push for them.  The Windler talk  09:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For Super league players/coaches, do you use the Blues, Australian etc colours? •Florrie•leave a note• 13:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have, but at least for Australia, I know they wern't green and gold for the super league (it was blue and green). But then, we have North Queensland players in mid 90s, with their current colours. Grey used to prominetly be in the Cowboys colours then ... so I wouldn't mind. Some examples at Brett Kimmorley and Scott Prince.

Also the images should be 16px. You can use {{leagueicon}}.  The Windler talk  13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly against the use of these in infoboxes. Wayne Bennett's article is the best example of colours gone wrong; firstly there are too many of them and secondly some minor clubs (in this case, one) may not have colours. They are not even an official identity of the club - they are merely a creation of a few of our editors. I don't see how putting them in the infobox is going to improve it in any manner (I think they ruin it). Perhaps we need both a vote and an external opinion on this. MDM (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit, it is pretty ugly on Wayne Bennett, but in my opinion taht is because there are too many, and the old template. Personally, I like it better with the new template, it seems more fluent.

Compare 1 and 2.

 The Windler talk  03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Players/Coaches who go to a club, leave, and come back

Take Justin Hodges as example, he played for the Broncos, left for theRoosters and returns years later. I believe they should be merged, not seerated (as some are). Someone - like Wayne Bennett (rugby league) has coached Queensland on 3 seperate occasions, why should they be seperated.  The Windler talk  09:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the stats separated for each occasion at the same team. It is much more precise. That's the statistician in me, can't bear to see them lumped in together. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Florrie and not just for absolute clarity but because otherwisee it makes such lines the longest in the infobox which will in turn make the infobox box wider. You can see it already occurring in the Justin Hodges Broncos line and the close date isn't even in there yet. -Sticks66 06:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be divided to show that there was a clear break between their times at the club. Alexsanderson83 06:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I believe some discretions should be made, for example: Darren Lockyer might miss this years State of Origin series all-together, but come back next year. I don't think that should be a case of seperation. But Scott Prince, who hasn't played for Queensland since 2004, should probably be seperated.  The Windler talk  07:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with that, after all he is still playing for the same team.Londo06 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand, do you want them merged or seperated.  The Windler talk  08:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Merged, for representative teams.Londo06 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Club issue, not a Representative issue. Many players over the years miss consecutive representative Tests, tours and state series; sometimes with years gaps in between. The convention in Whiticker & Hudson as well as the Malcolm Andrews reference (both of which we regularly cite) is to show the years they commenced and finished their representative appearance with that state or national side. See Billy Wilson to see how his staccatoed Sydney club career shows in the box, and enlightens the information on his career. He didn't represent in '61 or '62 but returned to his level in '63. However the convention is to show his rep years as 1959-1963 -Sticks66 09:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an easy one. If the games and points data is available separately for each playing spell, then separate them. If there is only one total available (which is usually the case), then lump them together. It'd be silly to have two spells at a club separated only by the years but with the matches and points of both spells next to one.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So (Sticks66) you believe that club should be seperated when a player goes with another club. But rep teams should be merged, no matter how much seperation there is. I don't mind that either.  The Windler talk  09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't at all mind a continuous range for representative games (unless they went off and played for another country in between). •Florrie•leave a note• 12:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And Jeff do you propose to treat Arthur Beetson, Col Maxwell, Ron Bailey Bill Tyquin Brian Davies Brian Carlson Harry Wells (who all had two stints with NSW country or Qld clubs where the appearances and points aren't available) differently to Billy Wilson, Frank McMillan, Larry O'Malley, Brad Thorn who had stuttered stints in NSWRL/NRL ? In my view it enlightens the at-a-glance history of the player by showing this in the infobox (see the 1st seven) more than it could be suggested it detracts (see the last four) by having their club points on one line only of the two stints -Sticks66 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure. I guess we have to decide which is the lesser of two evils.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS for you proud* Qlders I would have thought it was a highlight that Beetson and Tyquin's careers both went full circle back to Qld clubs from where they still represented for their state in their career twilights. The separated club line makes this clearer. -Sticks66 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I find that with the Larry O'Malley example, it gives the distinct impression that the data is unavailable for the second spell, and that the article is in fact incomplete - something that detracts from it more than just having an elongated playing priod at one club (in my view). It's a tough one. But if we have just one line per club, the body text fixes everything for us anyway. Is the infobox meant to be a timeline of a player's progression through their career or just a list of data? My vote is for the latter. The body text is for following the path of player's career.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Club careers should be listed chronologically. If a player had two stints at the club, they should be shown separate. This not only clearly shows a player's movement over his/her career, but also prevents the infobox from getting out of whack with distorted column widths.

On the other hand, representative careers should be listed as one entry each, even if a player had 3 or 4 years break between being selected. This is because a player is not contracted to a state/country (they can't move between teams), but rather bound to it and it only. Just my thoughts. MDM (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

City or Country colours

Do we have (or is any article already using) the small image colours for the City or Country (NSW) rep sides ? -Sticks66 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Country colours.svg and Image:City colours.svg  The Windler talk  12:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mortimer brothers

An article on the Mortimer brothers was created earlier. Coming across it, I managed to expand it somewhat despite knowing very little about RL. I imagine that with a bit of interest and work it could end up something like Harvey family, a worthy article. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 06:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

State of Origin InfoBoxes

Why do our SoO Infoboxes express the total series crowd attendance and then say "average xx,xxx per match". 1) It's tautological & 2) It makes the box wider than it need be . Where can I change this ? Where lives the box ? -Sticks66 13:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Issues

To reduce the amount of text on this page, I have moved the long discussion and subsequent vote on the new infobox to Archive 8.

In summary, here were the issues voted on:

Issue	F	N	A	Result
"Club information" should only list First Grade teams				England - No Australia - Yes
"First Grade" is to be defined as the top competition in a given region				England - No Australia - Yes
The infobox should list the first junior/youth club for a player	4	2	3	see below
Representative teams should be notable enough to have own article	8	0	0	Y
Height and weight				see below
First Grade and Representative coaching sections should be merged	2	1	6	Y
The use of "since (year)" over "(year)-present" or "(year)-(blank)"	3	0	5	Y
The addition of a "commentator" section to the infobox	3	0	6	Y
The use of team nicknames in the infobox; e.g. Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks	5	0	0	Y by recount
The Australian Flag icon instead of the word "Australia"	3	0	5	Y

I propose we have a recount right now, just to see whether opinions have changed. In particular we also need to address the use of colours in the infobox. What are everybody else's thoughts on a recount? MDM (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Recount

Please read through the archives (latest ones) to see opinions, if you wish to base your opinion on that. This is a recount, which means the old votes mean nothing. This time however, you should give clear reasons on why you believe as such. Voters who don't give reasons, will be considered wasters. "Per (another voter)" is acceptable.  The Windler talk  03:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a divide here as there are only Australian sentiments here. Whilst there is obviously nothing wrong with that it does once again throw up the difference between the northern and southern hemispheres, notably we have professional clubs and players playing outside of the Super League. I remember reading through the old stuff and the proposal of an 'Other clubs' sub-section was met favourably by several parties. That is the major issue for myself if we are to move towards a new infobox. I will add my feelings on the other sections when I get more quiet time at work.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The infobox should list the first junior/youth club for a player (Note:Not senior club)

• Oppose: As I stated above, this information can be easily said in the main article, and wastes space in the infobox. No-one really wants too know, from reading the infobox, that he played for "South Redfern" or something like that. But it may be interesting in the article.  The Windler talk  03:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: The infobox is a summary of a player's professional career, as is every other infobox, whether it be for sport, politics or acting. If it is really important for a certain individual player, then it can be written in the text. MDM (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral I think you'll find that they base Origin representation (I assume this is the club you're referring to here) on where a player first played senior football. So calling it "junior" or "youth" club would hardly be appropriate anyway.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment- You're right there. First senior club from age 16. So that could be a feeder club or anything that isn't age controlled, is that right? So why do we want youth or junior clubs at all except for curiosity? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure. I imagine maybe it's the first time they play in an open-age comp. But I don't really know.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: It isn't important to the player's career. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think a single club is something that is mentioned in commentary, detailed in player profiles and something that is in my opinion something that deserves a line, not a section in the infobox.Londo06 14:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support reckon we could find space for a line of a players club that taught them how the game is played. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Height and weight (Choose from: All players, Current or none)

• Current (but won't mind All): I think once a player has moved on from rugby league, the height and weight are insignificant. And this infobox dosen't have to follow other infoboxes. If All, it should state that it was their playing weight and not imply that it is there current weight.  The Windler talk  03:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Current: The NFL infobox only uses this field for current players and I'm sure they decided this was to be the case in a similar discussion they probably had a year or two ago. A retired player, whether a recently-retired one or a long-retired one will have changed height and weight dramatically after they finish their careers. If this field is so important and unique for a certain player who has recently retired, it can be shown in the article proper. MDM (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral--Jeff79 (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• All: providing there is a reference for ex-players. I don't see the harm in leaving the information there when a current player retires. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• All: as per Florrie, providing it's referenced it belongs there.Londo06 14:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• All if the information is out there, then use it. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of league colour icons next to club names

• Strong Support: I personally believe that, when used appropriately and not in excess, that they benifit, not ruin, the infobox attraction. I would like too see them become part of the infobox, but I do admit, they can look a bit ugly in some situations, but that may be perhaps of the white background mixes too much with a white section on the colour icon. Maybe if we put a border around colour it may be a bit better.  The Windler talk  03:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: Too many colours can really make the infobox look messy and unprofessional and in some cases there aren't even colours for a club (which affect vertical text alignment). I say we leave them out altogether in all cases, just like every other infobox on Wikipedia has. MDM (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. Plus colours can be common to so many clubs across all the different competitions. For example, if a pre-1987 footballer played for Widnes, Wests Magpies and Souths Magpies, he'd have three identical black and white boxes, so any percieved benefit for ease of recognition goes out the window.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral: Really, I don't mind as lon g as we have a decision one way or the other. Although Jeff has a point with the similarity of colours between some teams. •Florrie•leave a note• 10:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support I was initially against them, beyond aesthetic reasons I believe they were discouraged by an agreed standard set elsewhere. On the proposed infobox they seem to work quite well. My vote of neutral could be described as weak support if there is a deadlock on this one.Londo06 14:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Changed from Neutral to Support
• Support They work for me. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any consensus?

This discussion has been open for twelve days. Are we any further forward? •Florrie•leave a note• 10:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there has been sufficient time for people to vote. Height and weight and colours are the only two issues without a unanimous decision. I therefore suggest we push ahead and close the other issues and get this infobox up and running. For the moment in new infoboxes can we press on with no colours (as is the case at the moment) until we get some sort of consensus? That is something that can be easily changed eventually if there is support the other way. As for height and weight, I say we just leave everything as is on each article at the moment, but tag retired player infoboxes with a "retired" field just in case we want to easily remove height and weight in the future. How does this sound for everyone? MDM (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know that it was up for discussion again. My only real bone of contention is in England we have clubs that are professional but exist outside Super League. Are they to be put in an 'Other clubs' section or not? I will read through the other comments at work tomorrow and offer responses.Londo06 19:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already said there are problems with the classification of clubs that have been in and out of Super League. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the changes for the infobox on the WP:BOTREQ page. So theres no porblem there. The bot will only convert the infobox not change/add the parameters.  The Windler talk  05:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you are pushing through the changes. There are at least three parties that have not added to the new poll, myself, Alexsanderson83 and Londo06 who have not added there thoughts to the new section. There are still issues on the 'Other clubs' section, and looking at the Brett Kimmorley article the casual reader wouldn't even know what club he plays for. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought of another issue that is a Northern Hemisphere issue, squad numbers, something that belongs on a Super League player infobox, but not necessary for NRL players.Londo06 09:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Added my thoughts to all sections, happy with any given outcome, but do have major concerns over the possibility of clubs being ineligible for the infobox under the current rationale. The 'Other clubs' line seems to be an appropriate middle ground.Londo06 14:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I will this poll again when I get some free time at work tomorrow.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Propose the sounding out of linking of App, T, G, FG, and P as while everyone here realises what they stand for a casual reader may not.Londo06 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. MDM (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want the infobox rollout to be delayed any further. On the issue of defining First Grade and whether listed clubs should only be from the top flight, I think this needs to have two different definitions - one for the Northern Hemisphere and one for the Southern Hemisphere. We simply cannot have one rule to cover two different competition formats and so I say we all use common sense and have two different rules instead. I am also willing to make a compromise to some - I will change my votes for the junior club field and the height and weight field if others will change their votes on the colours issue. MDM (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the two First Grade polls and will let common sense prevail on those issues. There is a uniform push from Australian editors for one direction and an opposite push from northern editors. MDM (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also the issue of SL players having squad numbers. If the base code is similar to the cricket statistics box then it shouldn't be too big an issue. Someone brought up the issue with Noddy's infobox not making it too clear which club he plays for, if one at all reading through the points box. I do think these issues do need to be addressed before we undergo a more complete roll-out of the new infobox.Londo06 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The number problem can be easily solved as can the current club issue. I'll have a think about that. Also regarding the colours issue - my vote is against them. As promised, I'll change my votes on the other two issues if we have consensus against the use colours. MDM (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And if an Australian goes to play in the SL, he has another half dozen teams added to his infobox that wouldn't be there if he stayed in the NRL? Or do only second-tier teams that he might play for in the SL count, not previous teams in Aus?

Australian First Grade teams (as we defined earlier) would be shown. Then once he moves any SL or National League team he plays for will be shown as well. MDM (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why this disappeared from this page and I don't know why no one would even comment on it. I think it's a pretty sound resolution. It'd be nice if I could get some feedback.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

- ::But somehow you need to define it. Do you mean from 1996 the only clubs in the infobox should be Super League? And what about pre-1996? Only First Division clubs? I was thinking that because the infobox is more a list of data (appearances, points, etc.) than a list of clubs, maybe the criteria for inclusion should be if the data is available. If the infobox is simply saying that a player was at a club from this year to that year, that could be better said in the article text. The infobox isn't needed to communicate that. Whereas listing appearances, tries and points totals in article text doesn't really work and that's what the infobox is needed for. The data is usually available for time spent in top level clubs, but not in lower levels. So rather than us being the judges of what to include, let the sources that provide the data be the judge (in-line with the general philosophy of Wikipedia anyway). So if you want a club to have its own line in the infobox, the onus is on you to find the data to fill it up properly, otherwise just put it in the body text. (this is just an idea I'm throwing up).--Jeff79 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC) - :::Actually the more I think about this idea, the more I like it. I like it because it eliminates grey areas effectively. I don't think there's any other way to make it black and white. Ask yourself, is the new infobox meant to just show a list of clubs, so only one column is occupied while others are blank? I don't think so. I think ideally that should be avoided. The columns for tries, points, etc. are there to be filled. Any thoughts?--Jeff79 (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC) - ::::No one's even commented on this idea. Is it really that bad?--Jeff79 (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I would presume that we would enter all the T/G/FG data. But I don't know what to do with unknown information. Say, pre 1950s, not all information is there. So Jeff, the point of the change in infobox is to represent the highest level of rugby league and when compared with player to player. Take Darren Lockyer and SHane Perry. Lockyer has played 280 games for Brisbane while Perry has played about 40. But Perry has also played 200 odd games for Redcliffe Dolphins. If all clubs put next to each other it may mis represent that Perry may be a better player than Lockyer in games played. Thats the main reason.

I understand your point but to me, the English Super League and its previous equivelants and the NRL and previous equivelants. There seems to be a relegation/promotion process in England, but I still think that a top grade player would change clubs if his club was relegated. Sorry that I havn't responded to your messages, its just your text, to me, seems like a pile that never ends. Sorry for the delay.  The Windler talk  10:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the benefits for the proposed 'Other clubs' section, they don't have full App,T,G,FG,P just apps and pts. This works on aesthetic level as a multitude of players from different parts of the world and different time periods simply don't have the records available in that detail.Londo06 10:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not worried about that aspect of the 'Other Clubs' bit. I personally believe that non first grade/representative teams are unworthy for the infobox, because they arne't as important in respect of the persons career. And such information can be conveyed in the article.  The Windler talk  10:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd far prefer career info without at least more than "years" and "club name" columns occupied in an "other clubs" section without such columns rather than in the "main" club section with empty Apps/T/G/FG/Pts columns. I'm also of the opinion that the infobox would be better if other clubs just went into the body text. But I think I'd be willing to bend on that if I could see how such a proposed version would look. Maybe you could whip one up in a sandbox Londo? Definitely the "main" club section should be properly filled up. If it can't be, perhaps "other clubs" will have to do as a compromise (for the sake of moving this thing along). Maybe in an "other clubs" section, "years" and clubs' "name" would be the only two columns. If that's all you can find data for, put the info in the "other clubs" section.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'll definitely give that one a go once a get a bit of free time at work today.Londo06 10:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've given it a go with Andreas Bauer. Added in the players shirt number, which is something that would be applicable for SL players and not for NRL players. Put current club as issues raised with Brett Kimmorley and the non-versed reader not being sure who he plays for. Current club, number and position all under a thin blue bar. The other departure from the existing proposition would be the other clubs section which is free-floating in that it can be placed anywhere in the infobox and also can have App, T, G, FG, P added. Regardless of any decision on implementation I do think it best to link App, T, G, FG, P to allow the reader to know what these stand for.

Thanks for taking the time to present this version, but I find it a little confusing. I do see that you have put in 'current' club but I didn't see it right away as my eye was automatically drawn to club information. Why is Hull listed under club information if Bauer's current club is Doncaster? Why are the Warriors listed as other clubs when they are top level? And did this player play for three clubs in 2007 or are they just dummy dates/figures? •Florrie•leave a note• 16:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's all free-floating and as such the 'Other clubs' section can be shifted within the infobox. In 2007 he was with the Warriors, Mt Albert Lions and Hull KR. At the end of 2007 he moved to Doncaster.Londo06 11:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have recently implemented this trialled infobox on a few players articles that I have created. I have trialled it on a range of players, mostly fledgling NRL players and minor national internationals, with one exception; Sonny Bill Williams. This was my attempt to stop the possible addition of a raft of French rugby union clubs appearing on the infobox. The coding has been taken from the basic template that I believe is to be our way forwards, with a few minor tweaks and can be found at User:Londo06/Sandbox35. Interested on the feedback on this dry run.Londo06 17:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the players that I have added the variation on a theme infobox; Sonny Bill Williams, Phillip Leuluai, Adrian Lam, Adel Fellous, Andreas Bauer (rugby league), Danny Houghton, Jeff Robson, Dylan Skee, Mark Taufua, Tom Butterfield, Frédéric Vaccari, Ben Barba and Junior Tia-Kilifi. The only major high-profile case would be SBW, and that was for reasons stated above. The rest are relative juniors, so not to offend people with removal of information from an existing template. I have not yet linked apps, tries, goals, drop goals or points and have yet to set the coding in place for British players and the dominant system in the UK coming first. I have tried to work out a few details Adrian Lam with his representative coaching section, but I'd be happy to hear any thoughts on this variant and also any movement forwards gained elsewhere.Londo06 13:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I was hopin it'd look better than that. I'm not a fan, sorry. It'll make people wonder why it's complete in some parts but not in others. If the data's unavailable it's better off in the body text I reckon.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The required level of information isn't available for a great many players in the Northern Hemisphere including current SL players. The Other clubs section is free floating.Londo06 13:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Playing data should be kept with playing data. I noticed Lam's went playing, coaching then playing again. The playing info should be kept together, but differentiated by further re-formatting. Perhaps other clubs could be two columns wide instead of one, since all that space to the right won't be filled anyway. Is that possible?--Jeff79 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the playing data should be kept together, 'Other clubs' section moved up. Not quite sure what exactly you mean with "be two columns wide instead of one" As you say there are no stats there at the minute, so I have set it so the name can fill the full length. I have tried the old style apps and pts without true success. A,T,G,FG and P is something I considered, but went against it.Londo06 14:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant having it two clubs wide instead of just one. Like this:
1991-93 Featherstone • 1997-98 Brisbane Easts
2003-04 Toowoomba • 2005-07 Barrow
Kinda thing.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a really good idea. Will look into the coding on it, but it could be done manually as well.Londo06 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Given it a go. Have returned it to the way it was, it will work when manually input. Unfortunately my skills aren't too clever in this area. I can get them to appear alongside each other, but it affects the A,T,G,FG and P so I thought better of it.Londo06 15:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

More discussion

I'm still going through with the request of the bot requests for this template. Hopefully the request will be processed through soon, sorry for the delay.  The Windler talk  08:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We do need to look into the Super League issue of squad numbers, the issue I raised about Brett Kimmorley and the current club issue. There is also the issue of Britain using feet and inches, along with stones and pounds as the dominant measurement system, with kilograms and metres in brackets. Oh just thought I'd inform that I made a slight change to the infobox code changing the team name width from 13 to 15 to allow for St George Illawarra to fit. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Another issue that has arisen is that end years are being put in place to when the statistics available are accurate for. This seems to be for rep football. Basically what the issue is that it appears that players have called time on their rep careers when what someone actually means is the information is correct up to that year. I don't have a solution apart from recommend leaving it open. For instance Willie Mason is more than likely to appear at the World Cup for the country that he learnt his football in, but according to the infobox he retired in 2007. I understand that is when the stats are accurate to, but to the casual reader it looks like he may well plump for Tonga or even the Kiwis. Craig Fitzgibbon is another example, while he may well have a swansong in London, it would be crystal-balling to suggest that his rep career is now over.Londo06 12:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, and using Willie Mason as an example. He has "2003-" in his New South Wales part. The only time I could consider a representative player to be incumbent is during a series. Once a series is over, I don't think, whether they have retired, going to be dropped or continue playing that they are still playing for that representative team. I think only teams that they are certain to play for (which for rep teams no-one is) should state that they are incumbent.

Also people are entering "{{0}}" in the "yearXend" parameter. Please don't do this because it may break the template. I will change the "since YEAR" to just "YEAR-" soon. It needs to be entered with the word "present", so please change this and I will fix the template.  The Windler talk  08:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the template, and will proceed with altering the current uses of the template.  The Windler talk  09:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, otherwise people think that players have retired from rep football. We would be truly on our own if we go down the route of putting the end year when they haven't verbally said they are giving it up.Londo06 10:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I read it that you had taken care of the rep stuff. I understand the rep point of view, but we are going it alone here in terms of setting a standard by closing the years. I does appear to me and likely to editors and readers from outside the community that they have retired from the international or inter-state game.Londo06 10:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Some more thoughts:

• Asterisks next to numbers for international caps explaining whether the figure is for ALL matches, including tour matches against local teams, or full internationals only, i.e. tests and World Cup matches (which are apparently no longer differentiated between). If different sources are available they may provide different numbers depending on which way they go. In these cases we need to decide which way we're gonna go. Personally, I think the figure should be for full international matches only, i.e. any game played against another national side, whether in a world cup, tri-nations, ashes, european championship, or whatever.
• If a player is retired, the "Current club" field should not be occupied at all. Not by "deceased" or "retired" or anything. A person will be able to see clearly from the years in the infobox (and the very first sentence of the article) whether a player is retired or deceased without an unnecessary extra line in the infobox spelling it out for them. Actually, I'm not sure the Current club field is necessary at all, even for present players, for the same reasons.

--Jeff79 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In relation to international games that would certainly be something important for years gone past with proper tours. I think that it would best to get a verifiable figure on all. For the current club issue, that would be something for me that adds to the infobox, it works as a standard point of reference.Londo06 12:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In the coaching section of the prototype infobox under 'club career' subsection we have a 'premierships' column. That's fine for Australia, but in Britan, historically, the premiership has been secondary in importance to the championship. Perhaps we (Australian editors) should just make a compromise and use that word. Australian readers won't have any confusion about what the indended meaning of "championship" is because we just have the one competition (I certainly don't think readers would be concerened with mid-week or pre-season comps and nor should we). Another (shorter) alternative may be "titles", however this is quite non-specific, and in England they have a few different titles up for grabs each season. I think the synonymous championships/premierships are the titles intended to appear here. But could a different heading be devised for the 'representative career' sub-section? I'm not sure what alternative to use. Perhaps "titles" as it's general enough to cover Ashes series, World Cups, Tri-nations, etc. Or separate columns for each? Soemthing to think about.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the original W/D/L/W% layout, as it not only addresses all the issues listed above but also gives a better statistical analysis of the coach's career. I just did a bit of work modifying the representative coaching section to work for Phil Gould's page - tell me what you think and whether this should also be the standard for the club coaching section. Note that I've coded the W% column so that it can automatically calculate the number based on wins and games. MDM (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that solves the representative section. Looks good. But I'm still concerned about the use of the word 'Premierships'. Some coaches have coached clubs in both Europe and Australasia and I think 'Championship' would be a better cover-all term. Or do you mean just use the same layout for coaching and rep and do away with the premierships/championships column?--Jeff79 (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Premierships in England was a few years back the second tier of our leagues, below Super League it was The Northern Ford Premiership. I had thought of it a while back but have not been able to come up with another word, term or phrase that fits. As an Englishman I have no great objections at this point as I would want to move the infobox closer to being put into action.Londo06 09:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine, I don't really like the W/D/L system. Its allright for rep games because there are few games. But really draws and losses are pointless because you can just minus them from the wins. I like W%. And "Championships" should probably be changed if it interferes with the English system.

Two points, why is in the coaching section it have "Pld" for the number of Games column. They hardly played the games. And I personally now, prefer in the playing career part, it to have "Pld" instead of "Apps". Any thoughts.  The Windler talk  09:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll change "Apps" to "Pld" in playing section. That heading is just a remnant that has survived from the Football infobox when we first made it a few years back. MDM (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

For premiership tables, "G W L" is used right? 'G' being for games. I think that works just fine. All one letter each. Good for cinsistency throughout wikipedia and may save some precious space too.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree G for Games rather than "Pld" for coaches (unless it is likely to be confused with G for Goal?) Is G/W/% enough for coaches? •Florrie•leave a note• 10:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I kept "Pld" was because "G" meant "goals" in the table above it. I remember Londo making a point about linking headers a month or so ago - that's something I'll do now. MDM (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I support "Pld." for playing, but agree with the point made above about coaches not playing. G (games) or M (matches) should be ok as it's a different section of the infobox. Total matches is also the first column of the playing section above so I don't think people would get confused about the meaning. --Jeff79 (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A new point: I would like to move the "Position" parameter below the Playing career heading like here comapared to the current version.  The Windler talk  09:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning is that a players position dosen't really come under the Personal details bit.  The Windler talk  10:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I support that.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I had attempted to do that, shown here with Dave Halley. I had attempted to delineate personal and professional areas with a thin line, and also at the same time, fix a Super League issue which is squad numbers.Londo06 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I like that. You could even put height/weight there if you wanted to ensure there was no confusion over playing height/weight as opposed to retired height/weight! •Florrie•leave a note• 10:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Integrated most up to date prototype with the delineation. Danny Houghton, Adrian Lam and Nathan Brown are examples of the current prototype with the delineated line. At this point I haven't added the height or weight into that area. I think it works on both an aesthetic level and a design level.Londo06 12:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually prefer Windler's version. The "Club information" section title is there anyway, might as well use it. It removes the need for the extra dividing line. As already mentioned height and weight could be moved down under it too.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Merged the MDM and Londo version so that it works for SL players.Londo06 15:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The three players listed above, had at the time of posting a delineated line, but now have the merged MDM/Londo version as it stands at this point.Londo06 15:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(New talk page section)

Perhaps instead of a "currentclub" field, the infobox could somehow automatically detect what the current club actually is. I'm guessing this can be done and so I'll have a go and try to find a way to make this possible. The same goes with the parameter "new". I think the same outcome could be possible without it. MDM (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I reckon it can be done, although I am afraid I don't know how it would be setup. On the current club bit it seems to be a desireable line on my part. The reasons for this in terms of SL players are that squad numbers to go there and it keeps it all together there. I have also found that a great many sports have the current club on the infobox. This would be beneficial in my opinion for both casual readers and also those who parooz wikipedia regularly.Londo06 15:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly can be done and it would require the Wiki program searching for the "clubXend" being labelled as "present". The problem with this is that not all pages using the old infobox have "present"; some are actually left blank which I think would prevent it from working. MDM (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of height and weight outside the personal information line I would not be in favour of it. To me it does not look good and also seems to go against the likes of rugby, cricket, football, etc which seem to see that as personal info as opposed to professional details.Londo06 15:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm either for either all the information appearing in the "personal information" section, or as it currently stands. This includes height and weight, current club and club number. The argument for having it the way it stands is that height and weight won't necessarily represent that individual's situation in 50 years or so, whereas if it was to go under "playing information", that would stand to be technically correct forever. Right now it isn't that urgent though - a decision on this won't affect the way the bot rollout given we're just moving things up and down. MDM (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that in my opinion a current player is best shown in the format shown with Danny Houghton. I do believe that that band should only be filled by a few features, pos, team and no (where relevant). This worked for the old infobox and seems fairly standard elsewhere. I get the idea behind playing weight, but for ex players it would be cited where appropriate.Londo06 16:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The citation ideas out the window, the infobox really doesn't like that one being inserted.Londo06 16:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't support the "Current club" bit being over two lines, as here. I would prefer it not there at all, but if it needs to be there, then it should at least be two lines.  The Windler talk  22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Everytime I see articles like Adrian Lam's I can't help thinking how much better it would be if the other clubs section just wasn't there. I also really feel that there is absolutely no need whatsoever for a "current club" field in the infobox. A player's current club will be mentioned in the first or second sentence of the article as well as already being clearly shown in the club section of the infobox. One more gripe I have is the word "details". There's no need for it either. The sections already say club and rep "information". Therefore, what appears below those sections will be that: information. I don't know why this extra word, "details" is put there too. My vote for the best section headings would be:

• Personal information
• Playing career
  • Club
  • Representative
• Coaching career
  • Club
  • Representative

Apart from these things it's starting to look really good though.--Jeff79 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's an opinion. The other clubs section is filled to illustrate it being there. I'd be happy to move Brisbane Wests into the club details. I am wholly in favour of the club where a person currently is line. Agreed on the fact that we are moving ever closer to a wide scale implementation.Londo06 00:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As it stands I would be happy for the version of the Infobox rugby league biography to be widely dispersed. I'd imagine they may be a few cosmetic issues, but I believe we are on the ways to getting it put out there.Londo06 01:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the efforts to find consensus on this infobox, I feel that we have moved from attempting to streamline the infobox (so that it contains basic and essential information), to containing just about everything we had before plus some.

• Some of the samples provided confuse me - Adrian Lam's infobox - is he a half-back or an assistant coach? Or is he a playing assistant coach? Why is an assistant coach's position even mentioned? It's like listing every second-grade team a player played for. Not notable. Representative coaching, fine, but nothing other than head coach, surely, is really notable.
• I still don't see the point of mentioning the current club twice. This is how the present infobox is set-up, so where is the improvement? On the newer versions however, it appears even more redundant and fussy, particularly on one-club players such as Karmichael Hunt.
• The continued presence of "other clubs" to list non-first-grade clubs. I didn't understand it when we began this discussion many months ago and I've read nothing since to help my understanding of the need for this section, at least not for Australian players.
• The infoboxes now look so cluttered I agree with MDM that the club colours have definitely got to go.

If someone can explain to me how these are basic and essential, I'd greatly appreciate it. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Lam asst role is there as I cannot get that line to disappear from a non-player without it leaving a water-mark. I can understand what you are getting at with Hunt being a one club man, most aren't and we have to create a standard I feel, not one for one-club men and another for journeymen. The other clubs can go. I am however absolutely intransigent on the issue of leagueicons.Londo06 01:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe try this, on the Brett Kimmorley example here. Where the current club is put in bold. As I have said, I am against the Current club bit, but it seems other people prefer it.  The Windler talk  02:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Londo, is the main reason you'd like a "current club" field because you think that presentation wise for Super League players, it makes sense to have the "player number" field alongside the team he is playing for? MDM (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with everything Florrie has said above. Anything other than head coach can go in the body text. I don't think making the current club bold is necessary. It's obvious enough as it's on the last line of the list. I would actually prefer if on Lam's page Brisbane Wests went into the main club section with the rest. I've tried bouncing a few ideas around for how best to determine which clubs to include and maybe we'll just have to put up with gaps in the "Pld,T,G,Pts" fields and include all clubs (although at heart I'm all for streamlining and notability only in the infobox).--Jeff79 (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the progress we have made over the last couple of days. I like the coloured bands for the bits like the representative coaching, it looked a little odd, like it was just an after-thought in the club coaching section. Big fan of the coloured bands. I like playing information section with the three fields currently there.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  10:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)