Talk:Melbourne Storm

Drew Horn

Who is drew Horn? News Limited owns the Storm. Changed. Paulyt (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Coaches

Adding a coaches section. --Cyclone James 07:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Feeder club?

What does that mean?

A feeder club is one that 'provides' juniors for a bigger club. Usually it's teams in the area or the club's own junior teams (in NSW Premier League for example), but Melbourne does not have its own junior team and RL is obviously not very strong in Melbourne, so they get most of their players from Brisbane Norths (and recently Nth Sydney Bears too). When they're dropped from first grade also, they usually go back there. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 02:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up!? and other gripes

OK, apart from the fact that a reference to a (admittedly) poorly written sentence was removed, but the sentenced re-written, the article needs a major cleanup. There is a lot of superfluous information that maybe shouldn't be there, moved or in it's own article. On top of that, some parts are poorly formatted, repeated or unclear.

Does anyone agree with me? Does anyone not see the point of being bothered with doing that? It should be set up so that it is low maintainance, has little day-to-day information, and is more like an encycopedia article, hopefully even fully referenced! Maybe even one day FA status....well, maybe that's a little while away!
Cheers Guys BradK 08:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Melbournestorm.jpg

Image:Melbournestorm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Run-on side

Moved to 2007 page Londo06 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC review

Hi, I've put this article on hold. There are several reasons for this. I'm going to go through the good article criteria as listed here and list the reasons. I'll try to be as comprehensive as I can. I'll then list some suggestions that if ignored will not prevent the article being listed as GA, but that you may want to do anyway.

1a and 1b.

• "The Melbourne Storm are an Australian professional rugby league football club based in the city of Melbourne, Australia. The Melbourne club play in the Australasia's elite competition, the National Rugby League premiership." I would removed elite, is peacocky and pointless, also remove Australian in the first line because it's redundant (the team is based in Melbourne, Australia)

•  Done changed to first grade.

• "The club also became the minor premiers in 2006. They made the grand final in 2006, but lost to Brisbane and became Runner Up." - wiki-link minor premiers, and why does Runner Up have capitals?

•  Done

• Overall I think the lead needs expansion, more on their history, and you should probably add their major records, and something on their colours.

•  Not done I personally don't think it needs expanding, but if you still insist.[ Just noticed the checklist for this article's development. I am writing a more expansive history for consideration} Proberton (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• "and Ribot steps" - you mean stepped? Also, can Super League be linked, especially as many will not know about the Super League wars.

•  Done

• "finals in 3rd position" - third not 3rd

•  Done

• "was thrashed" avoid this kind of language, give the score instead (it's not listed) and people can make up their own minds whether it was a thrashing.

•  Done

• "St. George Illawarra were clear favourites due to comfortably defeating Melbourne just three weeks earlier." reference this, only because it may be controversial. Remove clear as well.

•  Done

• "With three minutes remaining, Craig Smith, the winger for Melbourne, went over the line however was knocked out by a high tackle which caused him to lose the ball." Instead have "With three minutes remaining Melbourne winger Craig Smith was knocked out by a high tackle which caused him to lose the ball over the try line." Also wiki-link winger if you can.

•  Done

• "Between 2000 and 2002, the Melbourne club performed poorly. Cracks were starting to appear between Johns, Ribot and Anderson through out the period, and Anderson quit as coach of Melbourne mid season of 2001, and was replaced by Mark Murray." Cracks and poorly? Be more encyclopaedic. Detail their 2000, 2001 and 2002 performances, where did they finish on the table? Wins/losses? Cracks started to appear? What does that mean, be more specific, disagreements? If so about what?

•  Doing...

• "Between 2003 and 2005, Melbourne made the finals under coach Bellamy, but lost before the grand final." This might not be clear to some people, you mean that they were knocked out before the grand final right? rewrite this to make that clearer.

•  Done

• You should delist the coaches section. There have only been three coaches and I that section would be much better with some prose. See Wikipedia:Embedded list#Lists within articles for help.

•  Done Not done Removed, its pointless really.

I agree - the few coaching appointments are already listed in the main history section anyway. mdmanser 09:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Many of your section headings violate the MoS. You have capitals where there shouldn't be. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Capitalization.

•  Done

• See WP:DASH regarding dashes. It's annoying i know, but you need – dashes (eg 43–12) between scores.

•  Done

• Your wiki-linking is a bit off. You don't need to wiki-link the same thing multiple times in one section. In the history section Brisbane Broncos and Glenn Lazarus are linked more then once.

•  Doing... Then why do you want Super League (above) linked twice within a section.

• The names for clubs is inconsistent as well. For some you write the full name, for others only part of it. It's not consistent (eg Auckland for Auckland Warriors yet Brisbane for Brisbane Broncos etc etc).

•  Doing...

• Jargon wise be careful. There is no linking of try for example.

•  Doing...

2

• No issues here.

3

• The history section needs expansion. I don't believe there is nearly enough information there. Especially about the 2000-2005 seasons. I would expand considerably if possible, even if only another three sentences on each of those seasons.

•  Not done For the history section, I think it's long enough. If you check out Sydney Roosters and the size of it's history. Considering that the Sydney Roosters have been around since 1908 and Melbourne only since 1998, I think it's long enough.

• There is no section on the clubs grounds (unlike Sydney Roosters). I have no problem on their not being a supporters or rivalries section, as I think these are generally POV and full of OR.

•  Doing... Though I think that this article dosen't need to be carborn copy of the Roosters. And Melbourne have only been at one stadium so it's not going to be a big great section.

• Maybe more could be said on how the team of the decade was selected.

•  Doing...

4

• No problems here.

5

• No evidence of edit warring

6

• Only logo here. Fair use rationale is acceptable.

That's everything. I will place the article on hold. The history and grounds sections may require more work then is possible in a week. However if it fails when you renominate let me know on my talk page and i'll review it quickly. For my advise regarding improvements not necessary for GA status:

• Images - I would find some images of the team and add them. Obviously they have to be free or if not have a very good fair use rationale, but they would significantly improve the article.
• References - your referencing style for the book 'The History of Rugby League Clubs" looks pretty awful. My advice is add a bibliography section, then reference the books pages like this: "Collis (2004), pg 344." This will save you time and make the references section look much nicer.
• Other advice - I think the article will need significant expansion before being ready for WP:FAC. The history section and records section would need to be expanded a lot. Also the prose may cause problems, there are some people that hang around FAC that would pick it to pieces!

Anyway thats it, any questions or concerns feel free to contact me on my talk page. - Shudde ^talk 03:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK it's been a week so I thought I'd come back and check whats up. The following things still need to be addressed:

• The lead needs to be expanded. The best way to do it is to summarise the article. So summarise each subheading (except lists).There needs to be more info on history, colours and emblem, and mention the most notable club records.
  •  Not done Per WP:LEAD, an article that has less than 15000 characters (which it does) should only have a lead about one or two paragraphs. Considering it has three, I don't think expanding the lead is necessary. SpecialWindler talk 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• The history section needs to be expanded. I know that it's only ten years old, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't mention each season.
  •  Not done Each season may not be as notable as another. 1998 was there first season, notable. 1999 won premiership, important 2000-2005 didn't go as well. Look at Brisbane Broncos, its a good article, it has been there for 20 years, won the premiership 6 times but manages to summurize that all in less than what this page has done in 10 years. SpecialWindler talk 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• The coaches section is important! It needs to be there! All I'm saying is delist it, wouldn't need to be long, only three or four sentences summarising when and why they were hired and fired (or quit) and if possible how the team performed with them in charge. Again, only a summary but better then a list.
  •  Done this has been done in the history section.
• The wiki-linking can be done two ways. Either something is linked when first mentioned in the article, or when first mentioned in each section (the exception is lists). I don't care which way you do it.
• Doesn't matter if the stadium section isn't long, but as it's mentioned in the lead you should have it in the main article. What you have there is fine but it must be referenced.
  •  Done
• Need to say how the team of the decade was selected, only need a couple of sentences.

As per your above list not everything has been done.

• •  Done only one sentence.

It has been a week already, so please do these things pretty quick. Otherwise you'll have to renominate at a later point. - Shudde ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I have passed for GA. I still think the history section needs expansion. I'm not saying a subsection on every season, but I do think that just saying they didn't do well for three years is not good enough. I for one would have loved to have found out more about the clubs history, and I finished reading it feeling kinda unsatisfied! - Shudde ^talk 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On a couple of points, if I may add my 2 cents...

• Colours: Should it be mentioned that the official club colours are "Navy Blue, Purple, Gold and White. It has always been that way and still is - and on that note, should the melbourne colours picture be changed to reflect that? (As listed on the NRL website)

Within that colours section, might it be an idea to talk about the evolution of the playing jersey? or is that just needless?

• Club Records: Should we have those in a more "nice" looking set of tables than there used to be? Or too unnecessary? (sp!) Such topics as heighest scorer, most games, best/worst results list? Perhaps add win/loss record home/away to all time results?
• Perhaps, if we are copying parts of the roosters page, with respect to a fans section, talk about the Bai Stand, the official renaming of the existing stands and perhaps even the uniquness of the crowd (including cowbells etc.)
• Also copying - a rivalries section? incl. St George for obvious reasons, and then the sharks and the sea eagles for HB theft, and I guess Brisbane perhaps

I hope this is maybe helpful, if not, just ignore me.

BradK 11:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Rivalry

Is it just me or is this whole section pure fiction? It's gotta go.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced pov, OR, whatever you want to call it. It's gone. •Florrie•leave a note• 01:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on Jeff, we've been in the league for 10 year. So you say it's too early to have a rivalry with anyone? Fair comment, B8ut Melbourne Victory have been in the A-League for under 5 year yet already have rivalies with several clubs. Why don't you go complain about their "made up" rivalry?60.224.2.159 (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

New gurnsey

The 2009 one has a silver stripe rather than a white one. The image should be updated.60.224.2.159 (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)