Talk:2010 Melbourne Storm season

Rugby league Mid‑importance

	2010 Melbourne Storm season is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Rugby league Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2010 Melbourne Storm season 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rugby league (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Untitled

Disagree that this article should be merged with Melbourne Storm as I contains too much info about this event which was very significant by itself. That is why this info was extracted from Melbourne Storm in the first place and replaced with a summary. There could be merit, however, in combining it with the Melbourne Storm 2010 season page instead. Anderch (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also disagree. It was put in melbourne storm page by anti-melbourne fans who made sure it took up almost 50% of the total article. Bulldogs salary cap breach does not take up nearly this much, so neither should melbourne's regardless if it was a bigger one.60.224.3.242 (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is against the merge. I'm removing the tag accordingly. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]