Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcuts

Super League XIII

The Super League article really needs to be updated with full results now that the 27 rounds have finished. I have been trying to add results but no one else has updated the page. Could you let me know on my talkpage if you can help. Thanks. 03md (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each season seems to follow a different format, it's a bit of a mess to be honest. Maybe some of the UK members can help out and organise a format that can be applied to each previous season. •Florrie•leave a note• 14:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Finals series articles

There's another one: NRL 2008 Finals Series. It's probably the one to be deleted and then the other one, 2008 NRL Finals series should be merged with 2008 NRL season results. Yes? •Florrie•leave a note• 08:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think so, but once again I'm finding it extraordinarily difficult to get consensus on solving what appears to be the simplest and most obvious of problems.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Rugby league

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Rhinos

I've tried tidying this up, but in order for it to become a good article I think it will need someone who knows more about the club to add information. Any takers? Red Fiona (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of AfD's in progress

There are (at present count) 58 pages up for deleletion in AfD Discussions at the College Football Project (American football at the college level). Since your project is listed as a related project, your project members may wish to participate. This large volume is really more than we can handle in such a short period of time and the project asks for your input. Please review Articles & Pages being considered for deletion immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived material

Anyone know why recent talk and ongoing debate has been moved to an archive. To my mind there are a number of issues still up in the air. Just wondering if anyone knew. Fronsdorf (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, archiving is much too fast. Really needs to be slowed down.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs to be slowed down. Alexsanderson83 08:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to bring a vote on disambiguated players who have played both codes

It is something that has previously been discussed and has since been archived. I shall add to this, but at this time my main point is that I intend to bring a vote to everyone.Londo 06 12:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per the archived page a number of pages have been set to (rugby) alone, and to me this indicates that a players rugby union career was more important than his league career. I propose moving players such as Jonathan Davies (rugby) to Jonathan Davies (dual-code rugby) to allow this page to show the importance of both periods of his game. (rugby) is the standard following rugby union teams that need to be disambiguated such as the Brumbies. Those in favour of the (dual-code rugby) would indicate their support and those against it would list their opposition. I personally will follow the result which is reached here.

Vote

SupportLondo06 13:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alexsanderson83 14:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all Jeff's arguments. Obviously, in some parts of the English-speaking world, there are two sports known as rugby and rugby league. Equally obviously, in some (albeit fewer) parts of the English-speaking world, there are two sports known as rugby and rugby union. But none of this applies to Wikipedia. Here, there are two sports known as rugby league and rugby union, and both have an equal right to be called rugby. This means that the entire disambiguation system for rugby players should be changed. Either all rugby player disambiguations should use only "rugby" (taking in "league" or "union" only when needed to disambiguate against a player of the opposite code), or they should all use the code by default. As they are disambiguated now, it looks like rugby union players play rugby while rugby league players play rugby league, and that's biased. -- Jao (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't understand the argument listed above, but in Scotland rugby union is rugby, and rugby league is rugby league. Come on the Mothers (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When a person comes to Wikipedia they are searching for more information on someone they already know the identity of. So they type into search "John Doe" looking for that particular person who is an architect or biologist or rugby player/manager/whatever. If that name has no other pages which would cause ambiguity, they find the player just by their name. If there are others with the same name, they find themsleves at a disambiguation page, which has as its purpose guiding people to the right person among that group who share the same or similar names. The purpose of a disambiguator is to provide them with simple clarity as to which is the right person, and not to define further the exact role of the player in their area. John Doe (chemist), not John Doe (organic/inorganic/physical/theoretical chemist). This seems especially true here where clarity appears not to be served by dual code, because there appears to be little agreement here of whether that appellation is even correct. Maybe (rugby player) but not (this form of rugby) verses (that form of rugby).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a couple of good points; (rugby) as a disambiguator lacks a little clarity, especially given that it is the standard for teams when disambiguated. (rugby player) may well have been a road to go down, unfortunately union players are there at the minute, as calls for it to me moved to (rugby union) seem to have been dismissed as too much hard work. With regards to the opening line, surely we have to take in to account the reader who knows little of either game, taking the logical step and see rugby as rugby union and rugby league as rugby league. I feel we do need to come up with something; if nothing else sort out the rugby union team naming conventions to avoid dual-code players and rugby union teams having the same disambiguator. Fronsdorf (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Those arguing for the addition of "dual-code" know that "(rugby)" alone as a disambiguator does it's job of directing people to the article they're looking for. It's clear, even to them, that adding "dual-code" to the disambiguator in brackets does nothing to assist in directing people to the correct article, and they're not even arguing that it does. They're saying that they feel using 'rugby' alone in the title only acknowledges rugby union (based on their part of the world's general usage interpretation of the word rugby). Well, the job of disambiguators in brackets is not to summarise a person's notability or to 'acknowledge' their achievements. It is to disambiguate them, and nothing more. If it were used to acknowledge different aspects of individuals' notability, the disambiguators in brackets would be completely varied across wikipedia, and the cause of endless edit warring. So instead we use disambiguators that are just enough to differentiate the articles and nothing more (this is why Alan Jones (broadcaster) is not Alan Jones (dual-code rugby coach). "Joe Bloggs (rugby)" is unambiguous, "Joe Bloggs (dual-code rugby)", while also unambiguous, is less simple. End of discussion. But even if we were to indulge this argument about what the disambiguator does or doesn't acknowledge according to readers' interpretations of the word "rugby", clearly it acknowledges both rugbys (because there are, in fact two, not one). Rugby football was split long ago into two codes: rugby league and rugby union. The names of both sports now share the word "rugby". So 'rugby' is pretty convenient when you're looking for the simplest disambiguator that acknowledges both. And if we want to bring this discussion down further into the realms of personal experience and feelings and preferences (which I loathe to do), in my experience, people from the north of England and the southern states of Australia will use 'rugby' to refer to either or. Is their common usage less important than Scotland's? It's not for us, or anyone on wikipedia to say. We're not using '(rugby)' to show a preference to any particular region's common usage, we're using it because it's factually correct as per this encyclopedia and because it is the simplest suffix that in unambiguous.--Jeff79 (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am arguing that it does. Fronsdorf (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, "it does" does it? Well whatever it is you're arguing for, you're doing a fantastic job :D Keep it up.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry fella, it was a response to your words in the first couple of lines on your opposition listed above. Regardless of the outcome something needs to be done with the Jonathan Davies (rugby) article, as we have "Not to be confused with Jonathan Davies (rugby union)" as the first words of the article, that would certainly confuse people who are not altogether keyed up on the subject. Fronsdorf (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we write articles, you see. The article title and the article itself are actually not the same thing. It's complicated. I know.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't follow; the article title and the article are not about the same thing, who is it about then? Fronsdorf (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jonathan Davies (rugby) article is definitely about the former DCI. What I'm saying is those first words need to be re-written to avoid any possible confusion for the unitiated. Fronsdorf (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must alert WP:RU of this vote and:

Oppose, though do support the use of (rugby union) for sole rugby players. The Windler talk 07:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - I also support that motion, perhaps a bot could be recommended to the rugby union project. Fronsdorf (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support GarethHolteDavies (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (rugby) is the standard following a rugby union team, not an individual, also (rugby player) needs to move to (rugby union). CorleoneSerpicoMontana 09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jao and Fuhgettaboutit have it right. This is a disambiguation that is neither intuitive nor necessary based on a "standard" usage of rugby to refer purely to rugby union that is nowhere near universal. Feel free to use (rugby player) as opposed to (rugby) for biographies, but this arbitrary code-based rule for articles serves noone. Knepflerle (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ridiculous discussion. It's about a clear disambiguator (which "rugby" is) and not about political correctness and pandering to the nuances of the word to different groups. -Sticks66 15:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not sure what to say, really. MDM (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support —Preceding unsigned comment added by MortonStalker (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - rugby is rugby union in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the South Sea Islands, where else is the game played. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to previous discussions on the matter

See Talk:Paul_Moriarty_(rugby).Londo 06 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Archive_10#Disambiguated_pages_for_players_who_have_played_both_codes.Londo 06 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) See Talk:Rugby_league#Naming_convention_for_individualsLondo 06 13:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead & buried issue

See Talk:Paul_Moriarty_(rugby).--Jeff79 (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 fields issue

It was something that I have commented on previously, with Super League players having 5 fields filled up, which looks decidely ordinary if I'm honest. I thought there was momentum to fix the problem, but nothing has been sorted while I've been abroad. Are there any plans to fix the problem? Fronsdorf (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look great, but I've not got the formatting skills to fix the problem. Alexsanderson83 08:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do look ugly, can something be done. MortonStalker (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly? How? You think having 6 lines followed by 3 lines is prettier than 4 lines followed by 5? •Florrie•leave a note• 10:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what Fronsdorf is talking about, Can I have an example. The Windler talk 11:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing if it it's the same thing that I am on about, it is shown here with the controversial Leon Pryce and the height, weight, position, club and number all in the same area. Alexsanderson83 11:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thought this was interesting....

saw this article this morning, and thought it was interesting :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike most "Controversy" sections. Other than a mention of a player playing for a certain team, some articles consist entirely of "controversy"! Very much WP:UNDUE when the article only exists in the first place because of the subject's supposed notability within rugby league. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a discussion about it on the Australian Wikipeidan's noticeboard. •Florrie•leave a note• 05:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. We certainly shouldn't want to bar citeable information being put into articles. A better way to solve the imbalance would be to find more info about the player's football career and insert that, so the controversy is diluted. Negative press should be seen as a kind of incentive to improve the article.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true but sometimes it seems that there isn't a lot to be said about a player except for his involvement in controversies. The original Craig Field article was deleted on the grounds that it focussed on controversies rather than his playing career. There must be a decent balance. It also concerns me that incidents are included - with citations - but are never followed up with a result, which can often be a positive result for the player, not only negative. Richie Williams' assault charge is one example. Maybe it is ongoing, maybe not. I couldn't find any online references when I went looking a few months back. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this argument from both sides; controversy is noteworthy, but sometimes they dominate articles too much. The answer would be to add any controversy in a neutral manner and give the article a more rounded feel by adding to the areas that are weakest. Alexsanderson83 08:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like a section on controversy that would out weigh the playing career. Craig Gower, despite all his contreversys, is still more notable for being a rugby league/union player. I believe that contreversy should be part of the players history, not have a section that simply points out possibly every minor incident that has occured. The Windler talk 11:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Club

Am I mistaken or was the current club field not linked to club number so that it didn't show for NRL players? I've noticed quite a few NRL players with a current club displayed where before, even if the field was entered, it did not display. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What articles is this on, I would like to see. The Windler talk 07:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've fixed it. Someone reverted it on the template page. The Windler talk 07:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I've been taking current club fields out of NRL and retired players' infoboxes and I don't expect to be reverted. For Super League players I've left it in.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! •Florrie•leave a note• 07:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favour of it for our players as well as the English ones, were it to be brought into the open again. Alexsanderson83 08:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion before, and it was agreed that only SL players would have current club. The forcing of club number just is a measure as NRL players do not have numbers. The Windler talk 08:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we've got them for Super League players I'm not massively bothered about players in the NRL at this point in time, although our ones do look ugly at the minute. MortonStalker (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolboy football

Can we please have some resolution on the schoolboy football in the infobox issue? I'm fed up with being reverted. If we don't have consensus then surely the status quo should hold - and that was - anything other than senior rep teams go in the article text, not the infobox. Frankly, this is ridiculous. The youth fields were removed for a reason - or so I thought. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We voted here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Archive_8#Representative_teams_should_be_notable_enough_to_have_own_article_.28unlike_Brad_Fittlers_City_Firsts.29 that teams present should have their own article, which the team immediately below the 'roos does have. Alexsanderson83 09:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussion related to senior reps, as in City/Country seconds, no mention of schoolboy football at all! How do you manipulate that to mean schoolboy stuff? And "the team immediately below the 'roos"? Since when? •Florrie•leave a note• 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of no intermediate team in existence. Alexsanderson83 11:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State of origin, maybe? Followed by City/Country? Junior Kangaroos? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland and NSW are state teams, and City vs Country is essentially a selection game for SOO. At national level you do have the Junior Kangaroos, but I haven't heard too much about that side over recent years, although I wouldn't wish to speculate whether it is still in existence. Alexsanderson83 12:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Australia > Queensland, New South Wales > City, Country > Queensland Cup, NSWRL, CRL. Just to name a few. The Schoolboys are a completly different league, they are not below the national team. Consider this - If the Schoolboys are the second after the Kangaroos, then wouldn't that make the Schoolboys, the second best representative fixture avaliable. I don't think so. And any way, just because some thing is below the main one, dosen't make the second lot notable or worthy of inclusion. The Windler talk 12:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not attempting to assert their importance, only the route taken when wearing the green and gold. Alexsanderson83 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And...[1] The same rules for inclusion of playing data should apply. This means coaching of junior representative teams such as Australian Schoolboys and non-top-level teams such as those in the Queensland Cup should be in the body text only. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That rule means that the team should have an article. It dosen't mean that every team with an article gets a place on the infobox. It was just a measure to remove non-notable second tier teams. The Windler talk 11:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was for coaching only, and as such cannot be considered as a standard at this point. Alexsanderson83 11:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which referred to the current position on inclusion of playing data! •Florrie•leave a note• 11:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I can see no reference to that within that link. Alexsanderson83 12:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I've said before, certainly have schoolboy footy in the article, it's great, definite keep. But in the infobox everyone knows the fields will never be filled. It just doesn't belong there. The most insignificant football in the infobox alongside the most significant? Really out of place.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they have a place in the infobox. It's scary from an English point of view the number of players that come through the Australian system. MortonStalker (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its comparable to the recent PM XIII, there hasn't really been any decent reports. The only news is on some of the players chances in possibly breaking into the World Cup team. If it wasn't a World Cup year, then interest would be even more minimal. Like schoolboys, no-one really cares (PNG will care, but its still not top level RL). The schoolboys falls under junior clubs for me and shouldn't be there AT ALL. We voted on this ages ago, that junior games were not to be counted in the infobox. The Windler talk 10:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]