Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league

Main page

New articles

Requests

Participants

Notability Guideline

Style Guide

Assessment

Resources

Welcome to the discussion page of the Rugby League WikiProject! To start a new discussion section, please click here

2010 Squads

Do you think its an appropriate time to be adding the 2010 squads to NRL Teams pages and Super League teams pages?Youndbuckerz (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No.  florrie  15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not until squads are confirmed and most signings/transfers are completed which probably won't be until pre-season starts. Mattlore (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have "2009 squad" lists anyway? They aren't contextual, and are far more applicable to their respective 2009 season articles. "Current squad" would be far better, and remove the national flags, WP:MOSFLAG. GW(talk) 22:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I'd like to see the same on other club pages.  florrie  09:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I find that in many (actually almost all) ways, American sports wikiprojects are far more developed than anyone else's and I often look to them for inspiration and ideas. Look at the Oakland Raiders article for example. Not unlike theirs I think each club should have a section "Players" and beneath that two subsections: "Current roster" (which in the case of the NRL should have the 25 numbered players to be paid under the salary cap with any additions differentiated somehow) and "Notable players" (which should be some kind of hall of fame, and/or lists of members of a national hall of fame, award winners, etc. and perhaps a list of captains as well).--Jeff79 (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

what about when players from outside the top 25 play for the team, it would definitely be mentioned on the season page but should it also go somewhere in the players section on the main page? also on a side note someone re-added the Notable supporters setion on the raiders page, should it be there? --sss333 (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree Jeff, I do like the NFL pages. The problem is that I dont think the 25 man squads are ever released by the NRL in any official capacity? I certainty didn't see them this year when I was having a look around. Its not like the NFL where the rosters are governed quite strictly. And also, numbering the squad 1-25 creates problem. Much easier to just have a numberless squad of ~25 based on the what you can work out is the official squad and who has played that season so far. Mattlore (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Should NYC Squads be included as well?Youndbuckerz (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I re-introduced the notable fans, but 100% are cited (please delete any that are not) and it helps with the "Supporters" sections which I think are worthwhile but are usually quite thin on content. Maybe the 25 numbers won't have to be assigned to individuals, but there should be a list of 25 if possible, perhaps just listed alphabetically. And as I stated above, additional players from outside the top 25 (WHO ACTUALLY RUN ON AND PLAY ONLY!) should certainly be tacked on to the list somehwere, with an explanation. I think mentioning the 25 is important as it ties in with the info on the NRL article about the salary cap.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I did up a template for the Wests Tigers using the Oakland Raiders template as a base.[1] The players are listed alphabetically, there are no nationality flags and the only other info is positional and debut round. I've also included coaches, update date and source. What do you think? More info needed?  florrie  02:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's perfect. More information tends to create confusion rather than clarity in this case.Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I had another fiddle: [2] I did add some more info: not selected (Tigers had two players named in the original top 25 who did not play at all), from ESL (to cover Gareth Ellis) and you could do a "club debut" as opposed to "NRL debut" for club transfers.  florrie  03:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, its pretty good. Maybe less information than more if anything - just italic and no dates for debut/rookies perhaps? - but most clubs won't need the 'from ESL' category anyway so its no big deal. Mattlore (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the earlier version for comparison. I design systems so I do tend to over-think stuff. Can we keep the debut round though? I see it as sort of a visual indication of injuries in the team.  florrie  11:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I probably prefer the second one after seeing them like that :) Mattlore (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Another thing - I originally imagined this template as one that would be updated from year to year, but in order for a copy of one year's template to remain on the season page, we'd need to create a new template for the next year. So it 'should display as XXXXX 2009 Squad rather that XXXXX Current Squad. Does that make sense?  florrie  12:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the players should be under sub-headings for thier positions like in the Oakland Raiders so there dosen't need to be two brackets next to a player for a round debut, i just personally don't like all those brackets --sss333 (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with sub-headings is that players do move around. We'd have editors moving players from week to week depending on if they were played at full-back, wing, centre, half etc. Or if someone started on the bench and then played at hooker and second-row. There's now a version with less parentheses.  florrie  05:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I just pop in here and contribute that this should be nowhere near as complicated for the Super League? Given the difference in squad numbers between both hemispheres, I'd think it appropriate I get to work on a separate template for the European league (one without wild an unverified claims to Afro-Caribbean descendency). GW(talk) 12:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't do just the one? What do you need to do differently?  florrie  15:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

European teams have squad numbers, and lists are usually ordered as such. Therefore, there's absolutely no need for us to arrange alphabetically, or by positions since we already have a method of listing them (especially when the latter is subjective anyway). If you can find a way of hiding squad numbers for Australian teams, whilst including them for European teams, then yes, we can put them both into the same template. Seems unnecessarily complex though. GW(talk) 16:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So the squad numbers are important? Sorry, based on previous discussions I thought they weren't important, more recently the discussion up there a bit. When teams are listed here - week by week - they are given positionally but the complete squad list, as on club pages, is usually listed alphabetically. Cheers,  florrie  02:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Just did a check on all fourteen Super League clubs on how they arrange their full first team profiles:

• Bradford - Alphabetical
• Castleford - Squad no.
• Catalans - Alphabetical
• Celtic - Squad no.
• Harlequins RL - Alphabetical
• Huddersfield - Squad no.
• Hull FC - Squad no.
• Hull KR - Squad no.
• Leeds - Alphabetical
• Salford - Squad no.
• St Helens - Squad no.
• Wakefield - Squad no.
• Warrington - Alphabetical
• Wigan - Squad no.

So a bit of a mix really but most websites going for squad numbers. When teams are listed for each match it's listed in position though, so for example, even though Cameron Phelps is #21 he's still read out first at full-back. GW(talk) 12:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

He's #21 but fullback? How do folk know that then if they aren't familiar with the players? Just curious, doesn't affect your format! Cheers,  florrie  01:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on discussions above (Jeff - Oakland, GW - Super League, Florrie - NRL, etc.) I've knocked up a couple of templates.

• User:LunarLander/Template - this is the box that lists the players
• User:LunarLander/Rugby league squad player - this is the player template I made for it based on {{Rugby league squad player}} (which doesn't work with it) but you could just enter free text instead if you wanted into User:LunarLander/Template .

It has less permanent symbols than Florrie's but is similar and keeps the text formatting hidden away more. A couple of examples here: User:LunarLander/Match. It could be used on Super League, NRL, international squads etc. (if enough people like it as I realise there are a few ideas floating around). Some finishing touches are needed but the basic concept is there. LunarLander // talk // 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 European Cup Top point/try scorers

could someone add up the points/try scorers for the 2009 European CupYoundbuckerz (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC) and make sure its right also for the Pacific Cup as well.

NRL Grand Final articles

Looks like the 2009 NRL Grand Final article is here to stay. I guess I don't really mind so much. In this discussion it was decided that whole seasons should only be covered by season articles and season results articles, but it looks like a third 'grand final' article is going to be created from here on in. I'm not going to argue. But I think 2008 seems like a random and arbitrary date to start splitting them from. I say it makes much more sense to do so from the 1998 season onwards, as this was the NRL's first season. Although this will leave most season's main articles pretty thin on content, I am working on beefing these up little by little. I definitely do not support splitting grand finals away from pre-NRL season articles however. These should all remain as one article. On main season articles I suggest a match summary format like the ones you see on World Cup articles that just show date, score, venue, scorers, etc. with a "main article" linking to the grand final article. Thoughts?--Jeff79 (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say just let them naturally evolve. Rather than splitting all 1998 to present articles now just split them into GF pages once/if the finals article gets too big. I could see arguments for some notable pre-98 GF's, like 1989, to have there own article, if anybody ever wanted to take on that project. Mattlore (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the 2008 or 2009 season articles were too long just because they included grand final details. Article length is not what's driving these splits (just look at the Super League seasons). And having one format for one season but a different format for another with no apparent pattern would be a messy way to do things. At one point the 1972 NSWRFL Grand Final was a stand alone article simply because someone decided to create it, but as consensus then was to have everything in just one article it was quickly merged, and rightly so. I was happy with the grand finals staying in the season articles, but there is a push for them to be split. I think the justification of the person who created the 2009 Grand Final article was that they could get it into the "in the news" part of the main Wikipedia page. Not a bad idea. What we have to decide is what point we want to start separating the grand finals from. The British game has them split from Super League onwards and I just think it makes sense for the Australasian game to mirror that.--Jeff79 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 squads discussion reply

In case it has been missed because it's an old discussion I've replied to #2010 Squads with templates for squad lists.

• User:LunarLander/Template - this is the box that lists the players
• User:LunarLander/Rugby league squad player - this is the player template I made for it based on {{Rugby league squad player}} (which doesn't work with User:LunarLander/Template) but you could just enter free text instead if you wanted into User:LunarLander/Template.

A couple of examples here: User:LunarLander/Match. LunarLander // talk // 22:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had replied, sorry. Browser must have messed up. Anyways, I complimented the templates, especially the way you've used another template to make the original adaptable depending on whether it's used for an Australian or English team, and the three-column template in particular. My only criticism was the categorisation of players into "backs" and "forwards". When a team sheet is read, it's easy to categorise (1-7 backs, 8-13 forwards, rest interchanges). But when you look at something on a year-wide basis, how do categorise when someone has played at, for example, centre (3+4) and second-row (11+12) at various points in the season? For that reason, I'd stick to the table I've made in 2009 Wigan Warriors season, but this template is still very much preferential to those currently used on club articles, Wigan Warriors for example. It could also be used in a club season article. The Leeds Rhinos example you've used would fit quite nicely into a new section on the SL Grand Final, like the Steelers article has for the Super Bowl with a roster showing their final team. GW(talk) 00:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments! A fair point on the backs/forwards lists, I can change those to something like 'left' (currently 'back'), 'centre' (currently 'forward'), 'right' (currently 'other' for the third column) or whatever. Most of the headings can be customised or omitted too. For the various positions people play, User:LunarLander/Rugby league squad player will now let you enter up to six positions for a player (more can be added easily).

•  7 Sam Tomkins (c) - , SH, , SO, , HK, , FB The Super League example ordered by squad number.
• Darren Lockyer (c) - , FE, , FB The NRL example which can be ordered by surname.

For the club season articles that have dedicated editors entering detailed information e.g. 2009 Wigan Warriors season#Player statistics, this new template is not needed. But it would be good for a club's main article and international competition articles too, I think. LunarLander // talk // 02:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've created a new category for various squad related templates I've found while looking around: Category:Rugby league squad templates. LunarLander // talk // 02:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a sqizz at [3] and wondered why you have included flag icons when the issue of nationality flags is one of the main reasons we are looking at a new template? I'd definitely prefer not to see any provision for flags. Do "c" for captain and "vc" for vice captain need to be explained in a legend? I like the look of your sample 2009 England squad but without the icons and legend. Cheers,  florrie  02:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Florrie, the templates are now live at {{Rls}} and {{Rls player}} - but they're the same as you've seen. My thinking throughout was to have enough flexibility to cope with whatever might be needed of it. I think most problems will disappear when best practice is agreed upon (with examples provided on the template documentation and in practice uniformly on articles). The fields that allow icons simply won't be included, even unused, on articles once the template is rolled out. I expect editors will simply follow what is set out, and if they don't we will have agreed standards to point to and revert.

Re. the legend, I believe most editors of club pages will expect to be able to enter their team's captain- although I'm not certain vc needs to be retained. I believe the legend should stay, especially as it would just be blank space otherwise in the coaching column; there is also an 'other' field on {{Rls player}} that would work with optional additional legend fields should the need arise. LunarLander // talk // 03:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my experience, if the option is there for flag icons, then it will be used, as in the current template. I'll stick to my bare-bones version until it's nutted out some more.  florrie  05:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Roosters

Can people have a look at the constant addition of the famous fans. It's unencyclopedic to say the least, hard to work out who is more important, etc, etc, and it will wind up in FAR again if this carries on YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to elaborate on "it's unencyclopedic". As for working out "who is more important" I can only presume you mean who is notable enough to go on the list. That's pretty simple. Wikipedia's notability guidelines can decide that for us. If they don't have an article, they don't go on the list. Easy. But since you deleted the entire list rather than anyone without an article yet, your case seems to rest wholly on the part about a list of notable supporters not being encyclopedic. I don't see why it isn't. It certainly enriches these sections entitled "Supporters" that otherwise just have info about trends in match attendance or what section of the crowd supporter groups might stand in. You'll note that 100% of the names listed were supported by reliable third-party references. No one on the lists is/was involved with the club, or even rugby league in any way as there would be the strong possibility of bias in their team of choice. Similarly, I removed politicians such as the mayor of Brisbane from the notable Broncos supporters list, as its safe to assume any city's mayor would pronounce themselves fans of the local team. If these problems weren't already solved, I could see what you mean about being unencyclopedic. You made a comment when deleting it that you thought the list would spiral out of control, reaching "hundreds". The list of Roosters supporters is at 10. How about we start worrying when it reaches 20? And even if that happens (unlikely), instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, just put a cap on the number of supporters allowed in the list and discuss (or just let article length decide) who gets listed on the talk page. Is it the fact that it's a bullet point list rather than a list in a sentence? I need help in understanding what the problem is.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I'd say is that lists in general are uncyclopaedic, especially when they can be presented in alternative formats. There is nothing preventing someone from putting this information into words and a paragraph in the "Supporters" section. As for notability, Wikipedia's core policies do that bit for us. There's not even a debate to be had there. GW(talk) 18:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm not really a fan of lists of famous fans, but if it was written in prose then it would be a lot more palatable. If it is a list then it needs to have a clear criteria of who is included, you've suggested something like "People who are notable to have their own wikipedia page and are fans of a certain rugby league club but are not involved in local politics or rugby league already"? Mattlore (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

World Club Challenge winner navbox templates

Put up (and rightly so in my opinion) for deletion. Vote here.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we make a collapsible template for players with multiple final winning templates? Because if your opposition to them is inspired by visual nightmares like this, then I agree, it needs sorting. But there's more constructive ways around it. GW(talk) 13:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

More the fact that they will be almost perfect reproductions of grand final winning team templates. But yeah, there's a thing you can do where all the navbox templates are put into one and you can click show/hide, like this. But even if we do that, I still say WCC winning squad templates shouldn't exist.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

there already is one Template:Navboxes --sss333 (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Kwai Nyu"

Does "Kwai Nyu" mean anything to anyone here? (This related AfD and the fact that that article was later recreated as an earlier version, since deleted, of "Kwai Nyu" make it look very dodgy to me.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Results from google only include youtube and facebook, but nothing in news or books. Seems like a joke.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You do not surprise me. -- Hoary (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject activity

How many editors are there remaining on this WikiProject? Given, there's currently no rugby league matches to commentate on, but as editors our role is not simply to parrot the news in our own words, it's to improve the scope and quality of rugby league articles.

It may sound strange for someone to be this personal on Wikipedia, but it feels lonely here. I can't contribute as much as I could three months ago because of starting university, but from what I still see, there's no collaboration amongst project members here any more. As a result, the quality of articles is being diluted as lay-persons take a more dominant role in editing rugby league articles as opposed to regular editors who are familiar with the MoS.

For example, on a WikiProject with more members, maybe someone would have realised I was no longer able to complete my work on 2009 Wigan Warriors season, but that I'd laid the groundwork for others to do so. It pains me to see that article incomplete and knowing I just don't have the energy or time to complete it and put it through the GA process, but also that the WikiProject I've done that work for can't come in and help collectively.

In order to establish how many editors actually remain, can we please update the participants list? Maybe those who are left can think of intuitive ways of raising people's enthusiasm on this project. GW(talk) 00:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that; but I personally am in an anti-Wikipedia and anti-rugby league mode at the moment, I still regularly observe but edit rarely, but I am slowly getting back up there with edits, but just not to rugby league. Note that rugby league isn't the most popular sport in the world, and outside of Australia and New Zealand, and to an extent England, it isn't extremely well known and therefore editors to the rugby league cause are always going to be low, especially during the off season.  The Windler talk  07:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it has been 2 and a half years since our last, and only (I think), roll call --sss333 (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm only checking in occasionally at the moment as there is a lot happening that is more important than Wikipedia. Sorry I can't help with your Wigan article.  florrie  07:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel similar to Florrie. Life moves on and my reduced Wiki time gets shared between RU and Aust military matters with RL running 3rd. In any case my edits always veer toward RL matters of history and discussions about Player Nationality flags or arguments about the notability of some bloke who's played half a season just leave me cold. But I'm sure the project will rise again when the feeling is right and a when bunch of editors come together who respect each other and who enjoy the banter. -Sticks66 09:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems we lose not only our best players to union, but Wikipedia editors as well! :P --Jeff79 (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't mean to sound as though I was having a whine about no-one contributing to my own little project, I was just interested to understand why the strength of the WikiProject seems to dropping. If it's just fatigue, there's nothing that can be done. However, I still want to update the members list. If no-one objects, I'll follow the military history WikiProject's example. Firstly, I'll split the actives from the non-actives. I'll look at members' contributions. Depending on their recent history (three months) of contributions, I'll sort them into either of the two sections. I'm generally impatient, so I'll proceed immediately. Revert if you have any problems. GW(talk) 16:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, there's still some stylistic things I'd like to do to the list, but the essentials are done. I've established which editors have contributed in the past three months, on this page and on articles covered by the WikiProject, and separated them accordingly:

• Active: 14;
• Semi-active: 19;
• Non-active: 83

I'm gonna work on ways of making the WikiProject more collaborative. If you guys aren't interested, that's fine, but there's enough active members there and the proportion of inactive members is alarming. Any ideas would be appreciated. GW(talk) 21:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Interest" didn't come into my reply. It might be best not to alienate those who still do have some interest even though their time is limited! Remember it's the off season, the project always runs low from October to February/March.  florrie  02:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I know its not essential but are you going to keep a list of members with thier cap numbers, because that was one thing that every member was able to keep even if they left the project, and it has been there since pretty much the start of the project--sss333 (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

NRL Independendent Commission?

i dont know what this article means but someone put it in the NRL page in a way that would sound better than mine becausei have no idea what it is talking about22:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)