Talk:Queensland rugby league team

State of Origin results section?

Dare I ask why is it necessary to have this table in this page again? It's already been presented in the State of Origin page, where it is probably more appropriate.

Also I dispute the following sentence as POV:

As the twentieth century progressed, New South Wales proved to be the dominant team. Sydney teams funded by poker machine revenue attracted many Queenslanders south of the border, and the "residential" selection policy meant that the Maroons would often be losing to a New South Wales team with many Queenslanders in it.:

This is based on two untested assumptions:

• NSW clubs can only afford players because they're funded by the pokies.
• NSW are only dominant because they used Queensland players.

This explanation conveniently ignored NSWRL's higher rate of development, as well as a well-established junior representative structure. True, some politics are involved, but to attribute NSW's success to poker machines (and the influx of Qlders) is premature at best.--Alexio 07:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Article name

At the moment we have Queensland State of Origin Team and New South Wales Rugby League team. I propose we rename, possibly to:

• Queensland state rugby league team and New South Wales state rugby league team

(this would align with Australia national rugby league team) -- Chuq 01:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye: I don't have any objections to this change, provided that pre-Origin history of both sides are comprehensive yet not lumbersome. We need a good account of each state's performances and histories before 1980; however we don't need a table of results stretching back to Dally Messenger.--Alexio 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Against it. Origin in Queensland is very specific. Ehinger222 10:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Shows how much I know about rugby league. So Queensland has another rugby league team? And this team only plays State of Origin? -- Chuq 04:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm against it. Queensland Origin team refers to the team that plays State of Origin, Queensland Rugby League team covers the teams that play in the Under 17s, Under 19s, touring sides, etc, etc. My 2 cents anyway Steeden 00:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So the 'State of Origin' team is a nickname for the states senior rugby league team? Or to put it another way, what games does the senior team play apart from the State of Origin games? -- Chuq 07:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for two articles. It can all be dealt with on one page. As it is now it's doubling up. Either put it all on one page or change the content on each so there's no overlap.--Jeff79 03:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for two articles for the one team. And what's with the capital T in team? Queensland rugby league team and New South Wales rugby league team should be two the articles, somehow the authors managed to get neither right.

The first letter of all nouns in a title should be capitalised.--Jeff79 05:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. Only proper nouns should be capitalised. -- Chuq 07:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's just in any sentence. We're talking about titles.--Jeff79 09:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I mean. See Naming conventions -- Chuq 11:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should be moved to Queensland Maroons (which currently redirects to this page) because of

• That is the way the team is referred to. No body uses the teams "QLD state of origin team" most people use "maroons" or "queensland".
• stats sites use "Queensland Maroons" and it is a widely accepted fact. The Maroons are like any other team, eg Broncos for Brisbane, Eels for parramatta, so what is the difference.
• The NSW page is a stub, but can be moved to New South Wales Blues (rugby league team) like the bulldogs page.

SpecialWindler 11:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue needing attention now is the fact that there are two articles for the same team. Whatever name is decided on, there should only be one article. The fact that there are junior versions of a team doesn't warrant a separate article being created for them. Admittedly, I haven't fixed it yet coz it is a hassle. But once a general concensus is reached we should act on it. Regarding the article name: I think Queensland rugby league team is ok as long as Queensland Maroons links to it (which is does). Maroons isn't really an official name like Broncos or Bulldogs which are the emblems of the teams. Maroon just happens to be the colour of their jerseys and is more of a nickname.--Jeff79 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to do a project on Queensland Maroons and related pages over the coming weeks, and will fix this problem. I want this article to be more than a stub (which it is). SpecialWindler 09:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Queensland state rugby league team would be best, for the same reason that the national team is at Australia national rugby league team - in fact most major sports teams are at (Country) national (sport) team. As I said the only reason I haven't done it is, although I've been around Wikipedia long enough to see how naming conventions work here, I hardly know anything about rugby league! The main reason I brought it up is because at the time, between the 2 teams, there were three articles using three different naming conventions! One reason I would suggest not using Queensland Maroons is because then you would have to use New South Wales Blues, which would result in a naming clash with the state cricket team, and although there is nothing wrong with using New South Wales Blues (rugby league team) and New South Wales Blues (cricket team), it would be better to avoid it if possible. (Ideally, New South Wales Blues would be a disambig page between the two.) Of course there is no reason that you can't make redirects for as many different alternate names as are needed. -- Chuq (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The word 'state' is completely redundant. People aren't going to be confused with Queensland the country or Queensland the city's teams. Of the countries that have states, very few have representative sporting teams for those states, making the blues and maroons the only examples you'll probably ever find. The national thing I can understand because of place names like Georgia (not that anyone would ever be confused with the Australia national team as opposed to any other kind of Australia team). Naming conventions exist to eliminate confusion where it may arise. Don't go overboard with them. Let's not worry about the name just yet and focus on merging these two needlessly split articles.--Jeff79 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

True, I think the 'national' or 'state' is to specify that it is a state representative rugby league team - not just a rugby league team thats happens to be based in the state. For example, the Brisbane Broncos is a Queensland rugby league team, but it's not the Queensland state rugby league team. Still, I'm happy to go with whatever is decided as long as they use the same convention. Regarding states having teams, there is also Australian domestic cricket and English cricket is county based which is similar. -- Chuq (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have merged Queensland Rugby League Team with this page. (though there was not to merge) SpecialWindler 09:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. If I had to choose between "Queensland Maroons" or "Queensland State of Origin team" for the name of this article, I'd go with Queensland Maroons. Because some of the information on this article is related to non-state of origin teams, but most Queensland teams have played in Maroon (although that wasn't always the case). Most interstate rugby league-related articles acknowledge Super League's Queensland team, and I think this one should too. They wore Maroon, but they did not play 'State of Origin'. Therefore, I still think "Queensland rugby league team" is best because it:

• is simple;
• represents the article's actual topic (teams that have represented Queensland in rugby league, regardless of their jersey's colour, in both origin and non-origin arenas);
• leaves no room for misinterpretation;
• matches the corresponding New South Wales rugby league team

--Jeff79 08:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Actually, nevermind about the jersey colour business. That was before rugby was split into union and league, so outside the scope of this article. Still, I think the case for "Queensland rugby league team" holds up.--Jeff79 09:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

If we can't have two articles per team (Origin/non-Origin) then I think using Chuq's proposal ( Queensland state rugby league team and New South Wales state rugby league team) is the best solution. Bongomanrae 09:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's the same as Queensland rugby league team with the word 'state' needlessly added. It's not like "Washington State" where you need to differentiate between the city and the state. There is only one Queensland. Nobody's going to be confused about which one we mean.--Jeff79 10:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding 'state' lets the user know that it's a representative team, and more importantly, follows the naming convention we use for national Rugby League teams. Bongomanrae 11:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said. No one will be confused with Queensland the country or Queensland the city (mainly because they don't exist). The word 'state' in the title is competely redundant (and looks silly).--Jeff79 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what we are saying. The 'state' is to show it's a representative team, it isn't there to avoid confusion with a city or country. Bongomanrae 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I don't understand. Article's names are usually changed when it's necessary. I'll be extremely surprised if a) anyone ever types 'Queensland state rugby league team' into the search and b) in any article's text the words 'Queensland state rugby league team' appear as a link. However the opposite is true for "Queensland rugby league team". You've gone overboard with a naming convention that does exist to avoid geographical confusion.--Jeff79 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(a) This is an encyclopedia. If we used article names based upon what is most commonly typed into the search box then we'd have an incomprehensible mess on our hands. (b)Thinking logically, a user would find the 'state rugby league team' from Queensland or anywhere else for that matter, very easily because of the naming conventions that are commonly used. Bongomanrae 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

... Sorry, I don't know how to respond to arguments that feeble.--Jeff79 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff has it right, the state is completely unnecessary, cumbersome, and not in common usage. The redirect should be the other way round, not that anyone is going to ever type in 'Queensland state rugby league team'.

Queensland Flag

Might as well put an image of the Queensland flag in at the top there.--Jeff79 03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Maroon

I don't like that bit in the introduction about the pronunciation of 'Maroon' which looks like it should be in an article about the word. I think it's out of place in this article, which is about football.--Jeff79 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No objections, so removed it.--Jeff79 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it noteworthy? If not, don't note it. If it is, it has to be noted with the team, because it is a peculiarity of the football team, not of the word (colour).

It could be argued that it should be noted on a page about Marone, as being a peculiar pronunciation of Maroon to the team, but that's a longer bow still. 60.226.133.172 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Australians pronounce the word the same regardless of whether they're referring to the team or the colour.--Jeff79 06:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Need to contact some Victorians about that then. If that is the case, it should be noted in the Maroon Wiktionary entry then.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maroon#Pronunciation - Only mentions the English pronunciation (roughly: maruun), and not the Queensland-centric (roughly: marone). I've never heard of people talking about "Marone" 5, even in Brisbane. [I know it's WP:OR, but it leads me to the conclusion that it's a pronunciation linked to the team, not a difference based on dialect.]

It's notable, but more trouble than it's worth. Probably best discussed at the RL portal. 60.226.133.172 13:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My newly-created Userbox

I created a new userbox that anyone's welcome to use. I think it's pretty cool:

File:Queensland Maroons home jersey 2007.svg"You can take this user out of Queensland, Ron, but you can't take the Queensland out of this user."

--Jeff79 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You may need to change the image - unfortunately copyrighted images can't be used on user pages! -- Chuq (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? even logos?--Jeff79 19:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure anything which is used under "fair use". i.e. logos, screenshots, etc. can only be used in articles. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy, point 9. (I only found out about this when someone else pulled me up for doing it!) -- Chuq (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! And here I was all proud of myself :( --Jeff79 01:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You can still use the same colours, and a generic picture of a ball, or map of Qld or something! -- Chuq (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Simple duplication of content. Clear-cut merge.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you!  The Windler talk  04:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

DoneJeff79 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was move to Queensland rugby league team. Jafeluv (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Queensland state rugby league team → Queensland representative rugby league team — Relisted to generate more input. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I daresay this is the only instance one would find on earth with the combination of words "Queensland state rugby league team". As per the discussion above I think "Queensland rugby league team" alone would suffice, but as with a similar decision for the naming of "Auckland representative rugby union team", "representative" would be preferable to the ambiguous and hence meaningless "state".Jeff79 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This move proposal seems ok. LunarLander // talk // 02:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just move it to "Queensland rugby league team"? Such as Auckland rugby league team. Mattlore (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you Mattlore. Perhaps that's what I should have named the proposal. Just as long as the status quo ends.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Queensland rugby league team, too.  florrie  10:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the reasoning for an additional word between 'Queensland' and 'rugby league team' is that a reader would be confused about whether it's a Queensland rep team, or a rugby league team from Queensland. However this is pretty flimsy as the sentence will provide context, especially if it includes the wikilink. i.e. "He played for the Queensland rugby league team" or "While at Valleys, a Queensland rugby league team, he was selected to play for the Maroons".--Jeff79 (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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

POV editing by User:Gibson Flying V

I had really hoped I wouldn't have to bring this here, but use of the word "poached" is simply opinionated editing and hence unacceptable. It will obviously be challenged by other balanced editors who come here (if any but obsessed fans and me ever do). Why not use more moderate language now? HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the negative implications of the word "poached" with regard to the AFL, Folau and Hunt are entirely in your head. What is negative about it? On whom does it reflect negatively? I honestly don't know. Sources certainly don't seem to have a problem with it ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]) and neither do I.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)