Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


would it be possible for this template be used for NRL and ESL clubs using team colours as well --sss333 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A photo

Another slightly fuzzy photo of a Manly NRL player - it might help his article?

Can someone help identify this player? Feel free to add the photo to the appropriate article too! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick Bradley-Qalilawa, a former London Broncos and Harlequins Rugby League winger. One real good season in London, seems to have settled for a few games a year in the NRL.Londo06 11:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 3457 articles are assigned to this project, of which 336, or 9.7%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

more photos

I have uploaded some more photos of Manly players here and think that some would complement the eponymous articles nicely... I'm under an arbcom restriction to not edit BLPs, but would be happy for anyone to use this appropriately! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

ps. thanks Londo for identifying and adding Nick! Privatemusings (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Good pics, added them into the player articles. Did you enjoy the win over the Eels, looked like Parramatta didn't even get off the team bus.Londo06 08:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
first half was pretty cagy actually - we didn't know Orford wasn't playing until right before kickoff, and the boys looked a bit ruderless at times.. 2nd half was normal service though - most looking forward to the Storm in a little over a fortnight! - thanks for adding the photos, there might be more from the Panthers and Storm if it's not too bloody cold! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RL shortcut

Is anyone aware of a reason for the removal of WP:RL as a shortcut for Wikiproject Rugby League? This [1] was removed today in favour of adding it as a shortcut for Wikipedia:Requested lists which already uses WP:WPRL, WP:REQL and WP:REQUESTLIST. I can't find any discussion regarding it, but I may not be looking in the right places. I've left a note on the editor's talk page. Florrieleave a note 07:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There are about 5 entries listed on that page. It seems ridiculous that the redirect goes there. Therefore I have just changed it back. MDM (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and I've restored the shortcut link on the project page. And on lists, I've added us to the list of Project shortcuts as we weren't included. Florrieleave a note 08:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I still think that WP:RL should not redirect to this Wikiproject, since WP:RA does not redirect to Wikipedia:Recent additions, and there are still some notable lists not having English edition. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC) 22:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Link fix
Normally whoever takes the shortcut first, recieves it. That is my opinion of the matter. With Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond, "WP:JB" was taken to Wikipedia:WikiProject Jam bands, so we had to work around it. We did however on the Jam bands WikiProject page at the top state you may have been misdriected. I would see no problem with you doing such a thing on our page.  The Windler talk  05:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not an article I really support

Hesitate to raise questions of core principle since we can't even get consensus on infoboxes but here goes... A user asked me to consider linking this article as it's been orphaned 2 years. I won't do that for these reasons. But it got me thinking. So someone bothered to write this stub, it can stay for all I care. But the project tags on the Discussion page say this article is supported by the WP:RL and invites assessment and comment. But do we really ? Do we the Project, really support go-nowhere stubs like this ? -Sticks66 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

On the same discussion page. It has above for the WikiProject Biography, and for that project, it states "This article is within the scope of ...". Perhaps we should change the template banner to something similar.
The Biogrpahy WikiProject is massive about 500,000 articles (about 1 quarter of all), so they don't expect to support every single minor person. But it does belong in their category, so thus it is in the scope of the project.
This project has a similar position. While we don't have such a magnitude of articles, we do have many stub articles and when I did alot of tagging class and importance tags there were many artcles names I had no idea. So I don't really support them.
I'm not going to be rushing to any article if its under threat of deletion, or needs clean-up. And I don't think any of the rest of us would.  The Windler talk  11:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we the Project, really support go-nowhere stubs like this ? - Me, personally, no I don't support stubs like this and I don't see the point of trying to expand an article for someone who fails any real notability. Florrieleave a note 14:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

topical pic

Sonny Bill Williams playing for the bulldogs.... will he cut it in union?

recent news reminded me to go through a few old pics from last season and see if I could dig anything out... this one isn't great, but might inspire someone else (a frenchman, I guess!) to do better.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland

Looking through a number of player articles have the Irish rugby flag rather than that ROI flag. I understand the reason for this as the Irish rugby league side is now also one of the unified Ireland. Just wondering whether that flag is purely for rugby union and whether we would be better off with the Ireland flag. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Super League XIII

I have noticed that the Super League XIII article only has a set of results up until mid-April and from then on there is only fixtures which have already passed. I wondered whether anyone was planning on updating the article. I have added a results table to the article which I will complete. Thanks. 03md (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone else. Well done on updating the SL table, it was quite out of date.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  14:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Flags vs Leagueicon in club pages

I'd be interested to know what people thought of moving towards New Zealand Kiwis colours.svg and Australian colours.svg to distinguish between the two big names down under. I find it a little hard to distinguish between the Kiwi and Aussie flag, perhaps this may be a solution?  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  14:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Australian flag has a white star beneath the union flag and the New Zealand flag doesn't. There are other differences, but for the little flagicons that's the most noticeable one.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think we need the change. MDM (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of Melbourne Storm Players

these may be useful in some places - though apologies for problems with identifying some of the players. The wise and astute amongst you will no doubt be aware that Manly is just luring the Storm into a false sense of security - our clever tactic involving not being able to win a match despite a dominant performance. Bring on the grand final, I say (although I wouldn't cry if someone else put Melbourne out.... :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dual-code internationals

Have just posted this article Dual-code rugby internationals which I've been working on a wee while. Some obvious gaps on the tables which should hopefully resolve themselves but a less obvious issue could do with some help some from the Project: I believe there've actually been 37 New Zealand DCIs which means I'm missing 26. Any name suggestions appreciated, just drop on my talk-page. -Sticks66 12:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox bot

Ok, the bot request is almost done. Umm, I don't have much time at the moment, and some help would be appreciated to move this quickly.

On the Template:rugby league biogrpahy page, there needs to be a parameter something like "new=yes" so that some infoboxes that haven't changed are still able to function. I tried but it didn't work.

And the bot creator, which I must thank, dosent want/seem the reason for changing the birth of date/date of death into their seperate parameters. So for now can we comment that out and just put a normal parameter under the same name of the old parameter.

I should be able to help out tonight, but other help is appreciated.  The Windler talk  21:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand where this "new" field needs to be added and how it will work. I'm more than happy to work on it but I'm not sure what exactly is required. Does it need to be added to every single field? Will both old and new fields be in use during conversion, with a set to be removed later? MDM (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The point is that there will be the two infoboxes written on the template page. And one big if statement is needed. If the template requres the new version it will use that one, otherwise it will use the old one. But I've done that now.  The Windler talk  02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I understand how it works now. MDM (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
So sorry, I've just seen this and I'm on my way to work. I'll have a look tonight, unless anyone else has time during the day? Florrieleave a note 23:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I've completed the task, a bit latter than I wished, but none the less. MDM/Sanbox3 is no longer used in the mainspace. If on the template, you add the parameter "new = yes" then it will be in the new format. Though this won't work for all parameters of the old one.  The Windler talk  02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else has seen the variation on a theme that I have worked on, it being very similar to the current proposal but with the addition of an 'other clubs' section and a banded section that holds the club no (important for SL, not so for NRL) the current club and position. Worth a look for any that haven't yet seen it. Put it into practice for a few players such as Adrian Lam, Tom Butterfield, etc.Londo06 09:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sonny Bill Williams one looks really good, not sure the Karmichael Hunt one wasn't a more useful tool beforehand. Will have to get the union guys interested in your template, the scoring system would be useful for them as well.Fronsdorf (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Which one are we moving to, as the issues which have been discussed at length are in some way covered in the SBW version. These appear to SL or Northern Hemisphere issues but I do think they should be taken into consideration, ie squad numbers, metric/imperial , etc.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  14:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the bot is for the earlier version.Londo06 16:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the colouring scheme on the infobox slightly to try and make an obvious distinction between the playing and coaching sections. I'm very happy with how it has turned out on the two pages I have looked at - Brad Fittler and Phil Gould (although I've found a problem we may have to address there as you will see). Can I also reiterate the point that I find leagueicons very invasive on infoboxes and totally unnecessary. We may need to have another serious discussion regarding their widespread use. MDM (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I like the way the headers look, although there may be too much 'information'. Could the main headers be something like "Playing career" rather than "Playing information" or maybe just leave the "information" bit off the sub-header so it is just "Club" and "Representative"? Joel mentioned something about the birth/date/age template at the top of this section. Florrieleave a note 12:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I've changed the subsections originally including "information" to "details". As for the date issue - I did read that earlier on today and have just thought of the solution. It would indeed be to be keep the original format as one entry field (as for individuals using Template:Infobox Actor). MDM (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I fully understand the reason behind it, but I'm gonna agree with Florrie.Londo06 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
With respect to what? If you're talking about dates then I have already said I agree with Florrie and Windler (although I may not have explained my words well). MDM (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the sub-headers, MDM, I like it! Florrieleave a note 01:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

For Phil Gould I gotta say I don't like Canterbury-Bankstown going onto two lines. This adds to my feeling that the leagueicons are a bad idea. In a case like this could Canterbury alone suffice? Or are we gonna be strict about the full name even if it pushes itself onto two lines? (coz I thought we'd already decided on one line only) Or is it just my compuer that sees that?--Jeff79 (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we have agreed on that area. Canterbury-Bankstown would be reduced to Canterbury to avoid it going to two lines.Londo06 20:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It seems to fit fine for me using my browser (only just) but it would certainly be possible for it to carry over two lines on other browsers.
Londo, as for leagueicons, there are a number of things that still need to be addressed in my opinion. Check out Manual of Style to see what I'm on about - "Flags should not be used on sportspeople's individual infoboxes." Apart from that, check out the section above and I realise that we've pretty much violated that entire section too by creating them. But yes, amongst others, they will also limit our ability to use full team names in the infobox. MDM (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to drop the leagueicons, but I like them, but sometimes sacrafices need to be made. You can get rid of them all, and if you alert me that you've started, I will help. Though maybe some other users should voice their opinions first.
On names that go on double lines. I think 800x600 resolution is the smallest of all screens. But if the template is a fixed width, I don't think it matters. So if the name fits in the 800x600 version, then it should fit on all. I don't think we should take into account people who have bigger fonts in their browser.
MDM, with your infobox, you may want to check out Phil Gould and that if only the year is entered it stuffs up. The template should accomindate years by themselves, or any possible outcome.
When the conversion process is happening, there won't be any conversion in the birth, death and date parameters. That means for now, it will be in the old format, with just whatever was there.
And finally, to all those who are creating prototypes for other versions of this template. PLEASE use the parameters that are used in MDM/Sandbox3 version. This will save doing this entire process again.  The Windler talk  02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As for leagueicons, I won't remove them until a few things are cleared up with other editors, but I do appreciate your willingness to compromise.
In order to prevent team names from carrying over two lines, we will have to find the most problematic browser and test every club name/moniker combination possible. Then we should write up a standard set of rules for club naming on infobox for others to follow as a guide.
I'm trying to change the date entries so that we can use the old format (simply one field), but am having a bit of trouble since the new template seems to have dozens of interlinked "if" values that stuff up if any others are touched. I'll keep on having a go to try and get it back to what we used to have. Once I work out a way the Phil Gould issue will fix itself.
As above - we'll keep the original date parameters, rather than use the new ones. MDM (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Update - I've found a fix for the date fields and so those fields no longer need to be converted from the old style to the new style. There is now, however, a bit of unneeded information left in the coding. This won't affect the template in any way apart from making the file size unnecessarily larger. Preferably someone will eventually be able to work out how to remove that excess stuff successfully.
Also, could you ask the bot programmer whether he can simply remove the "repupdate" field? I don't think we particularly need two of them. All that is needed now is a conversion from "pcupdate" to "updated" (which I'm about to make). I think that's what we'll call newly combined field. Once that's all fixed up I think we're good to go... MDM (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will.  The Windler talk  09:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The Bot request will hopefully go into the testing stages for now. But it may take some time before the whole thing is done. But we're getting there.  The Windler talk  09:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of leagueicons I support them being there 100%. I would obviously get behind the tweaking of the infobox with the addition of the lighter colour bands. I do prefer the box a few days back, but if there is a majority I would obviously push for momentum in that area.Londo06 09:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I like them, but am willing to give them up. MDM has done a lot for this project, and it is my understand that he absolutly loathes them (sorry if thats wrong). I think we should show him respect and take a backward step on them.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "lighter colour bands" bit.  The Windler talk  09:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Club details and Representative details in a lighter hue.Londo06 10:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I liked the use of them on season pages when we first introduced them two or so years ago in a highly localised manner (on those pages only, as a response to the crackdown on the use of logos), but in hindsight they are not only breaching Wikipedia policy, but are becoming a bit of an eyesore since they've started to appear on every rugby league page.
I most appreciate your support SpecialWindler, but I haven't done as near as much as you and several other editors. Of course, if everyone else is fully behind any given issue, I'll take a step back. But in this case I just feel very strongly not having colours and there is at least one other editor that shares my opinions to the same extent. But amongst other things, the use of colours will also limit our aim of keeping team names to just one line on the infoboxes. MDM (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like alot of progress has been made today. Just a few things to iron out, one being they still seem to have the wrong measurements for UK based players.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  17:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can something be done about peoples' height being expressed in metres rather than centimetres. It's pretty absurd.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it absurd? All human heights in Australia are recorded in centimetres - medical, defence, police, sport - all centimetres. Florrieleave a note 05:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, of course they are. They are in most other parts of the world too. But NOWHERE is human height recorded in metres (i.e. 1.95m) like on Willie Mason. I'm sayin it should read 195cm.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, must've misread your post! I thought you wanted it expressed in metres rather than centimentres. I think it comes down to, possibly, only one option being able to be used in the template and, as with other infobox issues, there's a difference between northern and southern hemisphere usage. Currently the northern hemisphere option is displayed, metres over centimentres. Maybe we should go with northern and southern versions of the infobox and be done with it. Florrieleave a note 06:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no worries. Actually wasn't worded very clearly now that I look at it. I dunno about Northern Hemisphere preferences, but I've lived in both Japan and Korea and in those countries metres are definitely not used. I think it's just an error that needs to be fixed. I'm sure no one will complain.--Jeff79 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
In the UK we almost exclusively leave feet and inches for height, along with stones and pounds for weight. However on the continent it would be metres and kilograms.Londo06 09:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yet you have been 'changing over' to metric since 1965 and anyone under 40 would have learnt metric at school. Why the adherance to imperial in Wikipedia? I had a quick look through Super League websites and these [2],[3],[4],[5],[6] use metric exclusively in player profiles, while these [7],[8],[9],[10] use a mixture (usually height in imperial, weight in metric), Harlequins display both, and Castleford and Warrington don't seem too fussed about height or weight in any form. Maybe Wikipedia should give UKMA a hand and only display metric! :) Florrieleave a note 13:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL. The overiding system is feet and inches, both for recorded details and in everyday conversation in the UK, much as cm and kg seems to be the dominant system down under.Londo06 14:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In relations to those sites I have often wondered why they appear to be going down that route. I have no issue with our league infobox displaying feet and inches in brackets at this point as I do not understand the coding enough to fix it in the current format for the infobox.Londo06 14:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Both emperial and metric should appear. I just want it in centimetres, not metres. Expressing Willie Mason's height as 1.95m is like expressing his weight as 0.114 tonnes.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

new shortcut

To get to this talk page a little quicker, I have created WP:RLT

For Wikipedia:Rugby league talk.

I was just sick of going WP:RL and then clicking on talk.  The Windler talk  09:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I always get here thru my watchlist.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I normally do, but just today, when I've been surfing through rugby league articles, waiting for responses, I don't really like going to my watchlist as it's crammed.  The Windler talk  10:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I have the page bookmarked but even that is a hassle sometimes. Florrieleave a note 01:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't WT:RL be more appropriate? "WT:" is automatically expanded to "Wikipedia talk:" in the same way that "WP:" is expanded to "Wikipedia:", so that redirect page would actually be the talkpage of WP:RL. Happymelon 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sonny Bill Williams candid photo

I suppose this photo of Sonny Bill Williams [11] can't be placed as a link on the article ? I expect not, so post it here only. There is a reference to the event as on the article as ref 24 Boylo (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Mal Cochrane

Updated DYK query On 16 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mal Cochrane, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Go us! (I didn't see it at all and it's already archived. Not sure why it was picked up, hardly a mind-blowing DYK! # ... that Mal Cochrane is the hooker in the New South Wales Rugby League's "Indigenous Team of the Century"?) Florrieleave a note 02:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Final Infobox Votes

Well, I think we should finally get this over and done with. If you would like to add a new poll, please do so. Comments and neutrals are not required but are encouraged if there is opposition. If a new poll is not opened, it will be assumed that everyone is happy with the infobox as is.

  • Each new poll that someone creates will remain open for sevens days.
  • New polls will be ignored if created after this Sunday, 24 August 2008.
  • This section will therefore be open for a maximum of two weeks.
  • If a 2/3 majority is achieved, the vote is final for a period of 12 months when the issue will be allowed to be reconsidered.
MDM (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote against the Use of Colours

I propose that colours be banned from all infoboxes based on a number of grounds. Firstly, they look messy. Secondly, the very creation of them goes against Wikipedia guidelines. Thirdly, flags and the like are discouraged from infoboxes anyway. If you support or oppose this measure against the use of colours in infoboxes, please cast your vote below.

  • Support MDM (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Jeff79 (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've always been able to see both sides when it comes to the colours. Something that does annoy me in particular though is the inclusion of lower-level teams' colours, which are sometimes just .svgs/.pngs borrowed from top-level teams. The larger the array of teams and colours, the more their benefit is diluted. Another contentious infobox issue is that of which club football to include and which to leave in the body text. I've avoided bringing it up so far as to not delay the rollout of the infobox any longer. If it's decided that the colours stay, then those who advocate inclusion rather than exclusion when it comes to lower-level club football will need to become more flexible. If colours are retained, no club listed in the infobox should be without them. I'm sure all can agree that gaps in the colours looks worse than no colours at all. And that isn't to say we should go about creating more icons for the minor teams. There is enough duplication of colours between clubs already without adding anymore. Take a look at Trent Barrett's infobox and consider how it would look if he moved to St. Helens Saintscolours.svg next season. If that isn't bad enough, imagine if he'd also played for Redcliffe Dolphins Redcliffe colours.svg and represented England England colours.svg. Or a 1980s player who went from Souths Brisbane Western Suburbs colours.svg to Western Suburbs Western Suburbs colours.svg to Widnes Widnescolours.png while also representing The Kiwis New Zealand Kiwis colours.svg. You get the picture. Having no colours at all is surely the lesser of two evils. Cases like these will be less likely the more selective we are with which club football we include, but the more clubs that are listed, the more likely situations like the above will become. So, while I think it's best to forget colours, if they are retained there might need to be a tradeoff: A longer list of clubs with no colours, or a shorter list of clubs with colours. Just something to think about before a final decision is made.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Florrieleave a note 11:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support-Sticks66 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I sorta like them but see where you're coming from. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Reject - If used sparingly and sensibly I have no problem with colours in infoboxes. Gialloneri (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Colours are not really needed in the infobox but can be placed in the article. Bidgee (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I don't mind either way. I don't mind if they go, but if they stay, I won't mind either. I'm being honest in saying I prefer them but I can let it go. If they are in, them I am against the use of country flags. If in a tight one, I would tend to Weak Reject. The Windler talk  08:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject - I support the use of colours, how good does the a league info box look? colours are just as much apart of a team's identity as the name. A newbie to rugby league searches the nrl on google, and goes to the wiki page, they scroll to the bottom of the page, and they want to find out more about the team they saw the other day, but they dont know what its name is, they then see the blue and white next to the bulldogs in the info box, and whammy, they have found the team they are looking for. What about overseas viewers who know the club by the colours but not the name? or what about people who are weaker readers, they know the colours, and they see the colours in the info box, and they can choose the link then. --Thirdayparadise (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject - I think the infoboxes are fine as they are. I think colour makes articles look better and flags are used fine for the national team userboxes. I don't think colour is messy. Poiuytre (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

MDM, where in the Wikipedia guidlines, does it say that images/colours shouldn't be used.  The Windler talk  10:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Go here. I refer to the sentence, "Flags should not be used on sportspeople's individual infoboxes." If you look at the section above, it is stated, "The practice of inventing a new flag to fill a perceived need for one is not simply deprecated but expressly forbidden by policy, as it constitutes original research." That alone is good enough for me to outlaw the use of colours in infoboxes. MDM (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
If it is clearly against policy then it seems pointless to even discuss the issue, regardless of personal preferences. Florrieleave a note 23:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of editors who certainly won't like it if I pull this one down. But I guess if there is an issue concerning a violation of Wikipedia protocol then we'd might as well address it now rather than have a few administrators come across it in a few months and deleting all the work of a number of people who posted the colours. What does everyone reckon? MDM (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand the flags angle having read the link, but I don't agree that the leagueicons are a violation.Londo06 08:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
What about the following:
"The practice of inventing a new flag to fill a perceived need for one is not simply deprecated but expressly forbidden by policy, as it constitutes original research; additionally it will most often advance a personal viewpoint which may have political or other contentious undertones, and it constitutes the neologistic invention of something that is unlikely to be recognizable or meaningful to anyone else. One example of such an invention is a bogus "North American flag"."
To me if we redesigned a flag, I would get behind the motion 100%, however we are merely using the colour of the kit, which enhances the infobox in my view.Londo06 06:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on that? MDM (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of centimetres to express height rather than metres

I had never seen human height expressed in metres in my life until I saw Willie Mason's infobox. My Queensland driver's licence has centimetres. In Japan and Korea centimetres are also exclusively used. They're also used on the Super League and NRL official websites.

I'm surprised by how many people are opposed. I'd just like to make it clear that this poll is purely for the metric side of the height/weight. This is not a poll on the exclusion of the imperial height/weight, which will of course appear alongside the metric. This is purely centimetres vs metres (i.e. 195cm vs 1.95m), nothing more.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "Championships" rather than "Premierships" in the coaching section

"Championship" is a better cover-all term than premiership, as in the UK the two have had different meanings for a large portion of the sport's recent history. In Chris Anderson's case (and I'm sure there are other coaches who would have similar issues), he coached Halifax to the Championship but not to the Premiership during his time with the club. He later coached Melbourne to the NRL premiership. Australia's premiership (which I'm assuming usage of the heading "Premierships" is based on) is synonymous with England's Championship. If "Championships" is used there will be no confusion. Even for people unfamiliar with rugby league, "Championship" is a better cover-all term for the meaning intended by the infobox.

This is another one where the degree of opposition is somewhat mind-boggling. I trust that people who aren't very familiar with the subject clicked on the links provided for Championship and Premiership above and had a read before voting. What Australians have always called the 'premiership' has always been known as the 'championship' in England. The English 'premiership' is something else entirely. So which do we choose for the infobox (which will inevitably appear on coaches who've worked in both countries)?. The (almost certainly non-existent) confusion that may be caused to an Australian reader who finds the one column for "Championships" on an NRL coach's article will obviously be less than the genuine confusion caused to an English reader who finds an RFL coach with the one column for "Premierships".--Jeff79 (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support--Jeff79 (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I was more for W/D/L/W% in the coaching section, but I seem to have met considerable opposition. So I'll stick with the current format. The problem here though is that "championship" has never been used to describe a title in Australia. Therefore I suggest "Titles" instead. MDM (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with W/D/L/W% and would be willing to argue for that. Was it considered too detailed? "Titles" would be even more problematic due the the multitude of competitions available to British clubs over the years. I'd really be surprised if any Australian readers would be confused with what the intended meaning of "Championships" is.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall any discussion on the W/S/L/W%. But there has been so much... Happy with either format if you are looking to revert it. Florrieleave a note 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'd prefer Premierships but I can live with Championships if that is considered more flexible. Florrieleave a note 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'd prefer Premierships but get where you're coming from.-Sticks66 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral/not fussed I'd prefer Premierships but get where you're coming from too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Gialloneri (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I don't really mind, I would say I must prefer premierships but like Florrie, I can live with it.  The Windler talk  09:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • OpposeLondo06 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So if the infobox says "Premierships", what number shall we put in John Monie's beside Wigan, who he coached to the Rugby League Premiership once, but to the Rugby League Championship four times?--Jeff79 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You telling us that makes it appear as though you haven't read any of the above discussion before voting. Please have a read.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 'current club' field

I think whether a player is retired or still playing (and which club they're playing at) is made perfectly clear in articles without having a 'current club' field. See Reg Gasnier, whose "Club" is "retired". And if a player is deceased will it say "deceased"? Not good in my opinion. I think it's just overkill.

  • Support--Jeff79 (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support MDM (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Florrieleave a note 11:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support-Sticks66 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not fussed either way. I am easy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Gialloneri (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It really serves no purpose, in any way, unless the reader is unable to see the bottom team on the list of teams.  The Windler talk  09:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is one of the more puzzling ones; it seems a standard throughout to have the current club. With SL players we will have a number which will have no context in the infobox.Londo06 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I can see where you're coming from with the club numbers (which, by the way, should never be used for Australian clubs). My biggest problem is with retired and deceased players. If the "Current Club" field were limited to current players, I could possibly bend on this issue.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree, it doesn't look the greatest when you have current club: retired.Londo06 06:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the word "details"

The sub-headings "Club details" and "Representative details" appear under headings "Playing information" and "Coaching information". In this context 'details' and 'information' mean exactly the same thing. In the name of streamlining one of them should go. I think 'details' should, as "Playing information" and "Coaching information" are in line with the first heading, "Personal information".

  • Support --Jeff79 (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support "Playing information" with sub-headers "Club" and "Representative". Florrieleave a note 12:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support In fact, I've changed the infobox according to what I think you are requesting. Jeff, let me know if this is what you intended it to look like. MDM (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -Sticks66 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Gialloneri (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Don't really mind.  The Windler talk  09:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • NeutralLondo06 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Alexsanderson83 07:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Youth Club" from infobox

State of Origin is determined on the first senior club played for after reaching the age of 16. This can be mentioned in the text, if it is known, and expanded on if necessary (ie, actual location) rather than a meaningless list of two or three junior or school-based clubs. (The last count on this [12] was 3 for removal, 2 for retention, 1 neutral)

  • Support Florrieleave a note 11:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support and in addition, schoolboy teams (international or otherwise) should not be placed in the infobox (where full test teams go).--Jeff79 (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the infobox is a summary of a professional career. MDM (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -Sticks66 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Gialloneri (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As per comment made before.  The Windler talk  09:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - it was previously traded for something else to gain consensus.Londo06 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Come on the Mothers (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Alexsanderson83 07:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Ssiww (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Power (Usert talk:Parra-Power) 10:34, 22 August 2008 (AEST)

Coaching Information section to include head coach positions only

Just as someone's article shouldn't be placed into a category of coaches unless he is appointed head coach of a top-level team, coaching career data shouldn't be included in the infobox unless it is for a head coach position at a top-level team. 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. For example, Kevin Walters' coaching data for Catalans Dragons can be included, but his time at the Ipswich Jets can remain in the body text. Assistant coach, strength & conditioning coach, defensive coach, etc. information can also stay in the body text.

Moving height and weight to the "playing area"

I'm not really fond of height and weight for retired players, and then Florrie suggested it go under the player information. I would like this to hhappen.

  • Support It would then make it refer to that the height and weight is playing career.  The Windler talk  09:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Logically speaking, this makes the most sense. The only drawback on this though is that the "club" subsection line is separated from "playing information", making the infobox not look as good. That said, this proposed format is technically the most correct. MDM (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
We can make it work somehow. Its already apart if the "position" parameter is in between anyway.  The Windler talk  09:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It's the neatest way. Although it could be argued that height and weight are indeed 'personal information' and should be placed under that heading, a moment's thought should make people realize why it's under 'playing information'.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'm happy with either placement in the infobox but if this suggestion makes retaining the information for retired players more acceptable to other members, I'll go for it. Florrieleave a note 10:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This is only for retired players though.Londo06 22:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy if this were for retired players only too. With current players it's not an issue is it? Although if it were the same across the board that would also be fine.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Come on the Mothers (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support just checking, as per the line this is only for retired players. Alexsanderson83 07:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not having the "updated" parameter for retired RL persons

Currently, the infobox forces the "updated" parameter to appear, even for deceased persons. I don't see the parameter for any purpose beyond current players. I propose that this parameter becomes option for retired players/coaches.  The Windler talk  09:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support  The Windler talk  09:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I know my limitations. I don't have enough knowledge of the nuts and bolts of infoboxes so I'm staying out of this one.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - which reminds me of something else. Florrieleave a note 10:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I've made both this field and the source field optional. If anyone has a problem with the latter, open up a new section below. MDM (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(Comment: Great, thanks!) Florrieleave a note 11:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Coaching section presentation

There are two options here. We can either use the existing "Premierships" field or the old "W/D/L/W%" ones that you find in the representative coaching section. One benefit of using the latter are the fact that numbers will line up all the way down the infobox, (see currently Phil Gould on why it could look better) however some may see this added information as slightly irrelevant. Also it'll fix the issue of whether to call the old column "premierships" or "championships". Now that I think of it, the majority of these "premiershps" fields will probably be "0" anyway. I can see the benefits of using the current format, but I just prefer an infobox where all the numbers line up. So do you all prefer changing it back to "W/D/L/W%" or leaving the columns as is? I thought this had been talked about extensively in the old archived discussions but there seems to be a few here who didn't get a say then, so that's why I've opened it up again. One other issue i've just noticed is that the "premiership" text takes up more space than it should, forcing the "Pld/T/G/FG/P" columns above it to spread out more than they should. This will restrict what can be written in the "club" columns.

  • Support MDM (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I support lining up - so I would be supporting G/W/D/L/% and I'm more than happy to see premierships/championships listed in the text. I fixed Tim Sheens' infobox this morning and thought then it looked a little off whack with the different columns. Florrieleave a note 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the W/D/L System but Support removel of premiership for spacing issues. May I suggest "Titles", it is a little ambigious but I don't like the W/L/D System. But if necessary then I will be nuetral on the subject.  The Windler talk  06:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Change to Support for asthetics reasons. I cant see any other real posibility.  The Windler talk  10:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removes the possibility of Australasian bias in the infobox which is something that really concerns me. It is an international sport whether aussie league fans are aware of it or not, and while the 'premiership' has always been the be all and end all down under, that just isn't the case in Britain where there've always been a number of titles. I see the benefit of the infobox showing at a glance the degree of success a coach has had by listing premierships, but we don't do it for players and they're the ones on the field. If it's ok to have to find out how many titles a player won elsewhere in the article, then it's ok for coaches too. And if having Pld/T/G/FG/P for players is not excessivley detailed, then having G/W/D/% for coaches isn't either. Lining up is also a major pro in my opinion.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguated pages for players who have played both codes

Looking through 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. Wondering if anyone had any thoughts on a possible way to incorporate a title that satisfies both codes.Londo06 14:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My approach to this is simple. If an individual with an ambiguous name is in a rugby league category, then "(rugby league)" is attached to the end of it to differentiate his article accordingly (see Talk:Rugby_league#Naming_convention_for_individuals). Ideally, the same logic would also be used for rugby union articles too. If an individual's article is in both a rugby league category and a rugby union category then we simply use "(rugby)" if one code is not clearly of more importance in his career than the other. The problem is with union articles. For some reason editors of those articles have seen fit to just use "rugby", "rugby player", "rugby footballer" or some other such variant despite placing the article in a rugby union category (which to me indicates their acknowledgement of the need to differentiate between the two codes). The suffix "(rugby)" should only be used if the individual has been significantly involved in both forms of rugby football. Following categorization removes any grey areas. There is no category for "rugby" players - they're either going to be in rugby league categories or rugby union categories or both. The article naming convention following this categorisation approach is to me the most obvious and simplest solution.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to add that the initial message was posted verbatim at the counterpart rugby union project.Londo06 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
To me just adding rugby after a player name indicates that he was a union player. How about rugby footballer? CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Why would you do that? How does adding "footballer" imply league more than union? And would you have Wayne Bennett's and Jack Gibson's articles changed to Wayne Bennett (rugby footballer) and Jack Gibson (rugby footballer)? Not gonna happen. It's already been addressed above and here. The fact is both rugby league and rugby union are forms of rugby football. If a person chooses to believe that union has more claim to the word "rugby" than league does, that's their mistake. I'm happy for wikipedia to inform them of that.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't change people who are rugby league through and through, but for dual code internationals it would be good to acknowledge both codes. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
"Rugby" without "league" or "union" does refer to both codes.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It can but it doesn't in a large part of the world, ie most of Great Britain, along with all of New Zealand and Australia.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  13:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm talking in terms of facts (as an encyclopedia should) not in terms of what people say down at the pub.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The current rugby union disambiguation for rugby union players is "(rugby player)" so it certainly can't be that. Perhaps a suffix of "(sport)" or "(sportsman)" will be suffice. Otherwise I'll have to vote for either "(rugby)" or "(rugby footballer)" as it makes the most sense in the true definition of the word "rugby". But given there has already been inconclusive discussion regarding those words above, maybe "(sport)" is the way to go. MDM (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would go for (rugby footballer) as someone who has represented in both codes.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  14:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(rugby footballer) is a fair comment, works on both sides, definitely the one for me.Londo06 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Then we all agree that 'rugby' without 'union' or 'league' is correct. But nobody's been able to give a reason for adding "footballer". Are you suggesting we to return to the "(rugby league footballer)" suffix too? I look forward to hearing the reason for "(rugby)" alone being insufficient.--Jeff79 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't agree with that first statement. But that the addition of the footballer bit is an attempt at compromise, an appeasement which is a step forwards from where we currenly are.Londo06 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If they are rugby league/union players, having played for both codes, cannot it simply be disambiguated as that? (rugby dual code)? I'm one of those who grew up following several codes and was taught to refer to union as rugby and rugby league as rugby league and soccer as football, so disambigging with just (rugby) or (rugby footballer) does not indicate any duality to me at all. Florrieleave a note 01:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good call Florrie; (rugby dual code) seems the answer for me.Londo06 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
works for me; rugby footballer was still a rugby union player anyway. Our lot would be rugby league footballers.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  17:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact: rugby football has two codes. League and union (I'm not making this up). This is an encyclopedia. Facts should interest you far more than what you "feel" or "grew up with". Again, I welcome you to find a hole in my logic (outlined above).--Jeff79 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(dual code rugby) was a suggestion thrown up at the union community. A backwards step from (rugby dual code) for myself, but another user suggested it and I thought I'd suggest it here to try and prevent any further problems.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  01:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But "(rugby)" alone is still the most logical and consistent with the general styling of wikipedia regarding the two codes anyway.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Gotta disagree with you on that one. Reviewing all the discussion above for me that is two steps backwards from where we are now.Londo06 05:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're very good at talking about opinions and feelings. I've repeatedly invited logical arguments for the change, but still I wait. Wikipedia guidelines state that differentiating articles of the same name should be done in the simplest and most succinct way possible. That alone is reason in itself for the suffix to remain "(rugby)". But not only that, it is consistent with the already well-established way that Wikipedia treats the word "rugby" (i.e. as two codes of football) in the multitude of articles that deal with the subject (such as Field goal (rugby), Forward, Penalty (rugby), Try, Scrum (rugby), Tackle (football move), Tri Nations, Offside (rugby), etc.). The only thing I've heard is that some editors feel personally that "(rugby)" alone refers only to rugby union. Some people make that assumption, but a lot of people don't. The people that don't are according to Wikipedia in fact more correct.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
In the UK rugby is rugby union, rugby league is rugby league, rugby football is rugby union and rugby league football. In Australia rugby is rugby union, etc. In New Zealand rugby is rugby union, etc.Londo06 06:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

According to who? You? I've been told that in the north of England rugby league is frequently referred to as "rugby", and what I've read about English rugby league on here and in other places confirms that. You'll also find that when an Australian from the southern states says "rugby" it's extremely likely that rugby league is the sport they've been exposed to and are referring to, or that they don't care to differentiate. And if Chinese, Indian or Korean people say "rugby" it's anybody's guess as to which one they've been exposed to. You're going to have to put up a better argument than that.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am originally from the North of England and rugby league was called exactly that. I have been to both Australia and New Zealand and it was rugby league in New Zealand and also a bit in Australia. Rugby is known as rugby union in the North of England to people and in the news. In Australia in my experience rugby union was rugby, and New Zealand rugby union was rugby. I can't even get my head around that you are arguing that. I simply cannot get my head around it.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no doubt that what you're saying is an accurate reflection of your own personal experience at all. This is an encyclopedia though (why do I have to tell you this?). Personal experience/preferences take a back seat to the facts. Click on rugby and see where it takes you. Then click on rugby union and rugby league and see where they take you. Then read the opening paragraph of each. See what I mean? This argument is as old as wikipedia itself and seems to have been settled long ago. Instead of expressing mock disbelief, how about for once telling me exactly what I have got wrong? I've been waiting so long to hear it.--Jeff79 (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, but I am also coming from a "what it is" mentality, not what various terms mean to me. Rugby, as expressed earlier a 15 a-side game, it can be used informally to describe the 13 a-side game. My point of view is that we are trying to be definitive, and to most people who are, or are not in that frame of mind would see it as the winter code. I am seeking to have the ackowledgement of both codes in the title as at the minute it only acknowledges the one.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  07:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that it is not definitive. Remember, the governing body for rugby league in England is officially called the Rugby Football League. Rugby can refer to both codes formally as well as informally. It isn't a clear-cut case. If the suffix "(rugby)" is good enough for dual-code topics' articles like Scrum (rugby), Penalty (rugby), Offside (rugby), Field goal (rugby), etc., then it's good enough for dual-code individuals' articles too.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)