Talk:2008 Rugby League World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Rugby (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 2008 Rugby League World Cup is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Rugby league.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Rugby league (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 2008 Rugby League World Cup is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!
If you wish this article to be re-assessed, go to our Assessment Department and add it to the list.
If you wish this article to be peer-reviewed, go to our Peer Review Department and add it to the list.
If you rated this article you may want to leave some comments here on how the article can be improved.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


To Do[edit]

Now

  • Team statistics
  • Player Statistics
  • Seperate Pool articles for Pool A, B and C
  • Feedback from media
  • Effect on next World Cup


Please feel free to add to this list.

Tidy up[edit]

  • Removed info on the history of the NSWRL. This has no relevance to the article.
  • Attempted to make sense of the qualifying matches info.

--dan, dan and dan 11:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Edited the qualifying match info, as there was too little data on Europe, but the rest of the layout was much better in the new set-up.

I have removed some of the links, as teams were being linked in three or four places, and they should only be linked in the first instance. Btw, good work getting the latest result updated so quickly, pods!--dan, dan and dan 06:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rockhampton fixture[edit]

This was listed in yesterday's Courier Mail print edition. --dan, dan and dan 02:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)



Team Icons[edit]

Concerning "Team" heading and it's contents.

I originally made this table to give a very rough look at the teams, hence the reason I put captain and coaches names. Since then somebody has added another section about how the teams did in the 2000 World Cup which I feel is welcome, but can be discussed here. Also since then, the flags have been changed from Rugby League icons to the nations flags. One of the main reasons I chose league nation flags over national flags was that people could identify the colours with the colours that that particular team plays in. For example the Australian flag is predominantly blue, however the Kangeroos play in Green and Yellow. The Fiji flag is also blue, but the Fiji RL team play in black and white, there is no blue on there shirts. Hopefully we can get a discussion going about this issue, looking at the advantages and disadvantages of both. Until then I have undone the edit but will not mind redoing it if there is support against the Rugby League flags. Thank you. Poiuytre (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

3rd and 5th place[edit]

The article states that there will be play-offs for 7th and 9th place. Will there be a play-off for 3rd place? And who will be considered 5th: The 4th of group A or the looser of the Qualifying Final? UncleOwen (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of stadiums[edit]

I don't think they're necessary. should be in the stadiums' own articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Match results[edit]

Do you think the article will become too long if we list all of the scorers from every match? Instead we could perhaps just list the scores here and then have another page "2008 Rugby League World Cup matches" or something to list the full results. Thoughts? Mattlore (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe check out the 2007 Rugby Union World Cup articles for ideas.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Right, had a look over there and they have separate pages for each pool - not sure we need to go that far with only ten teams, but at least one extra page is needed IMO. Hopefully will be able to start on the weekend if no-one else has done so by then. Would like to get it up by the time the games start on Sunday. Mattlore (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
2008 Rugby League World Cup Matches Mattlore (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
IMO with only 18 matches the size of the page was fine. I think the scores should be on the first page (actual World Cup matches only) - without the extended details such as try scorers. It feels really empty and a bit disorganised without the scores. What does everyone think? Pcpp (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I nearly didn't remove the matches from the main page but I figured if I hadn't then with that current template people would continuously add the other extended details and make the page too long. Perhaps we could add in a box system showing the scores such as used by the 07 RWC? Mattlore (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
-Just had a look at 06 Fifa WC and they list all the match scores on the main page, so if they can don't see why we shouldn't. Perhaps steal there template for the pool games so they have smaller scores etc? Mattlore (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the 06 Fifa WC way; this is also similar to the way previous RLWC results have been done. The 07 RWC way isn't really appropriate as that kind of table is suited to playing an opponent twice, in this world cup you only play your group opponents once. Regarding people adding further details that we only want to be put on 2008 Rugby League World Cup Matches: we could just insert a hidden comment on the edit page along these lines: <!-- Please do not add further match details --> JoelUK (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In the news --> Main page[edit]

to make to the main page something of the final section must be added. I don't know or follow rugby so I can't add details, but in the next 2 hours if someone add a documentation like 2007 Cricket World Cup#Final it should stand in good stead for the main page. Lihaas (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

I think the fact that the three best teams in the world were at the same group should also be added to the criticism section. It seemed more fair if all of them were distributed by the three groups and it really put Papua New Guinea in a delicate situation.213.13.240.220 (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That was a device to deflect criticism, otherwise you'd have the strong teams playing the mickey mouse teams, for little point or interest. PNG was tricky, but going with idea of keeping the strong from playing the weak, without putting someone in there, it was automatic qualifying for the big 3, again making round robin games largely irrelevant. PNG were deemed the strongest of the dregs I assume. To me, the problem was - we already knew who the best team was, so it was either: run the comp to merely confirm it, or as what happened, get a result which doesn't really reflect reality. Good on NZ, but the 3 wins from the previous 19 games tell a different tale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.198.102 (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So called "winners box"[edit]

Even though it is retarded (something that should be obvious to anyone), for some people that isn't reason enough and the fact that it exists somewhere else overrides all common sense. So for those people: It isn't present (for good reason) in 2003 Rugby World Cup final, 2007_Baseball_World_Cup#Knockout_Rounds or 2006 FIFA World Cup final. Regardless of that it really shouldn't be here anyway.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that you think it is "retarded" is a good reason to get rid of it. It is present on the 2003 Rugby World Cup and 2006 FIFA World Cup pages - which are the equivalent of this page, not the examples you used. The box provides the information quickly and graphically. I've tried to talk about this to you and all you seem to want to say is that you don't like the box for no particular reason. Mattlore (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I really didn't think I'd have to type this kind of crap out for you. So let's get this straight. The box "provides the information quickly and graphically". So by "the information" you mean the fact that New Zealand won? And by "quickly" you mean that after a person has seen the infobox at the top of the article, the introduction, the Final's scoreline and the match summary, the giant flag at the bottom somehow speeds things up for them? And by graphically you mean it has the flag of New Zealand? Which is already present in the infobox at the top of the article and right there at the scoreline. Man, it's like Londo06 all over again.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
(damn edit conflicts) I dont think that just because it is on another similar page, it means we need to follow a similar manual of style. I personally believe it dosen't add anything to the article, and first I was wondering what you were disputing. The visual element seems pointless as, the only addition is a flag, and if you havent picked up on who won the tournament by the time you get to that point in the article, you probably just clicked on Random article to get here.  The Windler talk  10:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for your 2c Windler, I wasn't wedded to the concept - more just a gut reaction to revert the edits because I wasn't getting a reasoned response. I do think they work well in the Festival of World Cups page though, but again that's just my opinion. Mattlore (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The pics in the RLWC Final section[edit]

I don't think images of a different match should be used in the RLWC Final section, without explicitly saying their not that match.  The Windler talk  12:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Irish flag[edit]

See Talk:Ireland national rugby league team#Flag for why 4 province flag is appropriate for Ireland team and why the edits changing it to the tricolour have been reverted. LunarLander // talk // 22:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think the fact that the 4prov is used on their jerseys [1] is the strongest evidence so far. Mattlore (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if it relevant but there is an archived discussion here at WP:RU on the use of the 4 province flag and copyright/fair use. Not sure of the outcome, but it may be of interest as far as usage of the image goes.  florrie  23:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Lets move this conversation to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league#Irish_flag, so we don't have to reply twice to everything :) Mattlore (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Rugby-league-wc.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Rugby-league-wc.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rugby-league-wc.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

5th and 6th place[edit]

Is there a source for those placements? Papua New Guinea has been given rank #5 and Ireland #6. However, it was Ireland who qualified for playoffs while PNG did not. 82.141.67.208 (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)