Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

Height and weight look to be the least of that article's problems. There are tags all over the place! Is that why you refer to it as 'controversial'? •Florrie•leave a note• 14:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is difficult to make it so height & weight appear under Playing Information for retired players only, then I think everyone should just put up with the status quo. On the other hand, if it's not a big hassle to make heigh & weight appear under Playing Information for retired players only (and under Personal information for current), why don't we just do that? Should please everybody? If I knew the nuts & bolts of the coding I'd do it myself--Jeff79 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Will look into it in a sandbox over the coming days.Londo06 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the position parameter, which plagues Leon Pryce. It should put it on one line now. I don't really have a problem with the current look. I don't believe that it is ugly at all.  The Windler talk  22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made an example here on my sandbox of Leon Pryce. It just places the Rugby league parameter that is on when a player plays rugby union a well such as Wendell Sailor. Sorry forgot to sign.  The Windler talk  13:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Will try and give it a go in my sandbox. I am after a return to the 3 field setup seen with your sandboxed Leon Pryce. I will try my best to come up with a solution that works.Londo06 12:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely something that wants sorting out, why has nothing been done about it; they look bad. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this has been rectified.  The Windler talk  08:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better now.Londo06 08:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's good to know how much a 60 year old coach weighs or that a man died at the healthy weight of Xkg. Wake up to yourself. It is utterly absurd. I think we're gonna need two infoboxes (at least). One for current and one for retired. The American football wikiproject (one of the few sports wikiprojects which is actually further advanced than ours) has a multitude of different infoboxes for different situations. I think that might have to be the way to go.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer a "retired=yes" system. Saves the effort.  The Windler talk  10:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So why haven't we done that?--Jeff79 (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably because no-one has changed it. I'll let you two sort it out, and be careful you may be blocked soon because of WP:3RR.  The Windler talk  11:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

I would consider State of Orgin higher than Australian Schoolboys. NSW and QLD Schoolboys would be below AUS Schoolboys. I would even consider the Queensland Cup of higher level than Australian schoolboys. Notice that states are part of Australia, City Country is part of a state etc. All still part of Australia. Schoolboys are limited to 16-17 years old (I don't know the actual elgibility rules) so how does that make someone who started playing rugby league after that age and goes on to represent Queensland in SOO. I would consider that person higher than a schoolboy who reached City Country.  The Windler talk  12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Does that mean that by achieving schoolboy status, that makes you on the fringe of selection for the Kangaroos. I think not. By becoming a schoolboy, it states you are the best 16-17 year old in a team in Australia. It does by no means mean you are on the route to green and gold. Andrew Johns, Darren Lockyer. These people weren't schoolboys.  The Windler talk  12:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, merely stating that it is a national representative team, and the others are state side with specific criteria on selection. Joey and Locky sound pretty articulate without any formal schooling. (an attempt to bring some humour back to the project) Alexsanderson83 12:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But its not. Its an age-limited national representative team. It dosen't compare to even City/Country or the such. Its worthy of inclusion in the main article when outlining the players early career. Take Karmichael Hunt for example (and I'm sorry for being biased but its one of the only real competent player articles) - There is a three sentence paragraph on Hunt playing for the Schoolboys. It outlines he played for them, who he played against, what coach he had, the number of games, tries etc he played/got and a judgement. Then there is an entire two sections on Hunts QLD and AUS representative fixtures, which give game details as such. I just don't think that Schoolboys in the infobox is worthy of inclusion in the infobox, where it can be noted like in Hunts articles, just as well, in the same manner as in the infobox.  The Windler talk  01:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Windler ! "Karmichael Hunt ....one of the only real competent player articles". Indeed it's a very good article, and thanks to your hard work it's in fact the only featured player article. But it would be very easy to take offence at the suggestion that all of the other 1,390 Aust & 458 English Player articles are less than competent. But I won't take offence.-Sticks66 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL.Londo06 14:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are alot of nearly competent articles. But most of them are unsourced. And I would say at least of half (probably 75% even) of the 1390 and 458 Australian and English players are stubs. So, I'm sorry if you were thinking of taking offence, but it was the only example could think of. And I would like someone to prove me wrong. Thanks.  The Windler talk  22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It can be read competent player article... Oh and have to agree it is one of only a few really well sourced articles.Londo06 07:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems this discussion is going off track again.  The Windler talk  11:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should bring this part of the discussion over here? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Height/Weight and Schoolboys

Furthering the discussion once more as we seem to have stalled yet again...

(Copied from Template talk:Infobox rugby league biography)[2]:

As mentioned before in the above section there was the issue with the question on height and weight on the infobox vote being mis-leading. I shan't be making an ammendment to the infobox, but I shall be bringing it to a vote at the wiki-project.Londo06 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Misleading in what way?  The Windler talk  22:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question, but on a re-read I think Londo means the question at the consensus build was misleading. Personally, I don't care anymore. If h/w in the "playing information" is so offensive, take it out of the infobox altogether as I don't see it looking any better moved up a few lines. In fact, I'd be happy to see h/w anywhere anyone wishes as long as the bloody Australian Schoolboys, Junior Kiwis, PMXIII, Australia B, Fiji C et al disappears from the infobox, as was supposed to have happened. The way we are going we will be back to the old infobox, only with the addition of a few goal/point stats! •Florrie•leave a note• 01:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As Florrie clarifies for me, it was the question at the consensus build; with the example given with retirees, and discussion previous to that with issues on retired players height and weight.Londo06 08:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK, I can se your point. I agree with Florrie. If we can remove the youth rep teams etc, I'll support the move. I beleive it was Florrie and our insistence that the height and weight got moved below that header.  The Windler talk  09:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If no-one opposes me I will remove the Australian Schoolboys / NZ Juniors soon and put the height and weight in the personal information to avoid your "5 field problem". This is a compromise, I have put it in bold to gain your attention so that if you have a chance to oppose it or whatever. It's time we ended this repetative and going no-where debate. I'll do it later this week.  The Windler talk  09:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the Junior Kiwis and Australian Schoolboys useful. It's amazing the side Australia sent over to play our boys a few years back. I would keep them for sure, they are a big part of players careers. But I do think we do need to sort out the issue on Super League players, as it does look bad. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats just your opinion, were talking about the justification of youth clubs in the infobox. And really they arne't important in most first grade players careers. Its just important at the time.  The Windler talk  00:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think height and weight should be moved to personal information for retired or deceased players. The only reason there are 5 fields under playing information (which I think is what they're complaining about?) is because of the 'current club' and 'club number' fields, whose inclusion is on thin ice as it is. 9 times out of 10 the club number corresponds to the player's position, so in fact no useful information whatsoever is being conveyed. If anything has to go, it's that. And the schoolboys is a no-brainer. It belongs in the body text. I'm so sick of seeing articles whose infobox reaches further down the page than their body text. Surely others are too. It's embarrassing. Anyway, I've lost count of how many times I've asked if it is too difficult to make hight/weight appear under personal information for current players only, so I'll assume the answer is yes. So we're faced with either having 'height' and 'weight' under personal information for deceased and elderly persons or under playing information for current players. I think it's pretty obvious which is the lesser of two evils. Those (assuming it's in fact more than one person) whingeing about 5 fields being present under playing information look to be the same as "those" who pushed for the inclusion of 'current club' and 'club number' fields. This is a complete waste of time. Sort your ideas out and get on with actually improving things (if you're capable). I (don't) look forward to reading more utterly inane arguments against what I've said here.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed infobox; per the offer in this new section.Londo06 07:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And I have removed most references of Australian Schoolboys. There are probably others, no doubt. I will begin adding references to their schoolboy careers in the main body text of their articles soon. And finally, I'm resting from this project until the beginning of next NRL season. I will check here to make sure nothing goes through un-slipped or the such. But won't really be contributing for a while.  The Windler talk  08:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I was working my way through the Schoolboys list adding the information to the text, but really, I don't have enough time at the moment. Maybe some of the editors who consider the information notable could take some time to add to the text. •Florrie•leave a note• 14:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

States/Counties

Can we include states and counties as many places where players are born are unknown to the worlds population and it would seem a useful link and would look better to know straight away. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe states and/or counties are necessary as the link of the town will no doubt explain as such what state or county it is in. I believe "Newcastle, Australia" is better than "Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia".  The Windler talk  08:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents: I think it's worthwhile to include the states. A) because it fits. We lose nothing by including it. The infobox is pretty wide, might as well use it. And B) because, for me at least, it's interesting to see whether a player is QLD or NSW born (or in the case of some, other states e.g. Peter Wallace). Some players are born in well-known places like Melbourne, Newcastle and Brisbane, but many aren't. And perhaps most importantly, some places in different states share the same name too, e.g. Brighton or St. George. There's definitely duplication of township names in different counties of the UK too.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jeff.Londo06 08:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not an issue I'm too worried about but I do strongly oppose abbreviations. I have seen some "Newcastle, NSW, Australia". I do oppose that.  The Windler talk  08:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Unless space becomes an issue.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

World Cup redundant material

Okay, before this devolves to yet another edit war and WP:OWN issues, can we please discuss exactly why it is necessary to include the preliminary squad info once the actual squad has been named? eg, Anthony Laffranchi...

In August, 2008, Laffranchi was named in the preliminary 46-man Kangaroos squad for the 2008 Rugby League World Cup.

He has been named in the Australia squad for the 2008 Rugby League World Cup.

Fascinating, I'm sure. But once the player has been selected in the squad, that trumps the preliminary squad and the information is entirely redundant, not to mention it looks shabby and reads poorly, almost like reading a list. I'll be editing such material as I come across it. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the poor quality angle. But what I have done for a number of the articles is linked the two events; showing that a player was a consistent selection, in line with the reference.Londo06 13:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a phrase to add to the second reference may be something like the 'final squad', '24', 'final selection', etc.Londo06 13:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Have added 'selected in the final 24 man', unless there is a better phase.Londo06 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The information is redundant. If you have been so productive as to link the two events for a number of articles why couldn't you do that on Anthony Laffranchi instead of persistently reverting my attempts to edit the information? And if you can understand the poor quality angle why not let those of us who want to improve the quality of articles get on with it??? •Florrie•leave a note• 14:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If a player is selected as a national representative or makes a tour or World Cup squad then that should be the starting place from which to detail how many tour matches played, Tests played, points scored etc. Presumably he would have been selected in a preliminary squad if such was picked at an early stage of those selection processes. So what ? It hardly adds notable detail to the article of such a player. On the other hand, if the player made it no further than a preliminary squad mention, then fair enough that such is mentioned in the article. -Sticks66 22:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I have been working for some time at the infobox, if you ask, I have completed the infobox to allow rugby union section come first.

Simply add "first = RU" (exactly) to the infobox and the rugby union section will be first on the playing section. "coachfirst = RU" will put the coach union section first.

This was done as part of a request from the talk page on the templates talk page. Also, the template is also sole rugby union friendly.

And finally, a sacrafice has been made. The temlate now makes use of sub-pages, which means most of the content is not on the original page.

Thanks.  The Windler talk  04:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Joel. Can you post here a link to to the amended template ? -Sticks66 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the effort you've put in, Joel. I can see by the edits how much time you've spent trying to perfect it! •Florrie•leave a note• 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortently, perhaps for my edit count, is I prefer to do little edits and do a bit more. Users like you prefer to do it all in one edit. So those edits may be a tad biased. Its the same template Template:Infobox rugby league biography, otherwise I'm not sure by "Can you post here a link to to the amended template".  The Windler talk  06:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Grand final man-of-the-match

A while ago, while I was going through the NSWRL season articles I discovered the "Dave Brown Medal" which apparently was awarded to the man-of-the-match for Grand Finals until Clive Churchill's death in 1985. I've found a few sources confirming this but recently there's been this retrospective awarding of the Clive Churchill Medal business, and reading about that in the news, I can find no mention at all of the Dave Brown Medal anywhere. It's as though it never existed. I searched the words "Dave Brown Medal" on google and some results said it was awarded to the man-of-the-match in the final of something called the "Scanlens Cup" which I'd never heard of. Searching "Scanlens Cup" I couldn't find anything clearer about it and was wondering if any of you guys with access to books and old magazines and stuff could help shed some light on this issue.

Related discussion: Talk:Clive Churchill Medal#Dave Brown Medal.

--Jeff79 (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, and sorry that I can't relly help you.  The Windler talk  07:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice when you raised this question in August. I'll see what I can find out. I can always ask Sean Fagan what he knows. -Sticks66 13:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate categories

Hi, I created a number of Rugby league categories back in 2007 such as Category:Leeds Rhinos players I have noticed that user:Jeff79 is going around creating duplicate categories such as Category:Leeds Rhinos rugby league players and then making the original categories sub-categories of the new ones. Can anyone see any reason for this activity? EP 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going for consistency in category names. Right now it's a mixed bag. Pretty simple really.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change the category names I suggest you go to WP:CfD where such things are discussed, rather than creating lots of duplicate categories. EP 20:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

International dates (unless North American rugby league)

Please note that UK, Irish, Australian, NZ and South African articles must use international, not US date formats. Dates should not be autoformatted.

I'm auditing many sports-related articles and finding this aspect very poorly handled. Please let me know if you require further information. Tony (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Frano Botica

Hi. I noticed that this article was a blatant copyright infringement. I therefore speedily deleted it, and then recreated a tiny stub with non copyvio information.

Can I a) request your help in re-establishing the article and b) ask for your vigilance in looking out for copyvio in Rugby League articles - I've also hacked the middle out of Brian McTigue (metaphorically!) for the same reason. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Botica was a dual code international which is one of my obsessions. I'd be happy to flesh out the remaining stub. -Sticks66 03:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Formal policy on notability for rugby league biographies

I wish to implement a policy adopted by this project to help with the deletion of non-notable RL players. About a month ago, I proposed deletion for some articles, but I found sometimes my case too hard to argue.

If we implemented a MOS for notability of RL players, we could simply say in violation of the policy widely accepted by this project.

We widely accept that First grade players deserve there own article, but there have been a fair few Toyota Cup players, and the sort popping up. Such as Matt Mundine. It's unsourced, and really, only St. George Illawarra diehards are going to look at (and create it).

However, if we decide to follow down this path, which I hope we do. We do need to set on notability guidelines. Below is my first attempt at it. Feel free to edit or make your own.  The Windler talk  11:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

SpecialWindler's Guidelines

1. Any rugby league player who has played more than fifty games of first grade rugby league should be eligible for an article, no matter it's class.
2. Any rugby league player who has played first grade rugby league consistently in either the 2024, 2023 or 2022 season's should be should be eligible for an article on the condition that is not a stub.
3. First grade can be defined as the top competition or equivilant for their respective country over any period of time. Current first grade competitions are the National Rugby League and the European Super League.
4. Any rugby league coach who have coached a first grade team for more than 3 years should be eligible for an article on the condition that is not a stub.
5. Any current first grade rugby league coach eligible for an article on the condition that is not a stub.

 The Windler talk  11:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

---

I see no problem with the hard-line policing of the current system which is first grade or international yes; fine...if not then delete.Londo06 11:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I just want to implement a policy which will allow me, and perhaps others, to delete these articles. Because its a long process to delete an article.  The Windler talk  11:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure if we nail down the; must have played first-grade in a given area, or played at international level then we could look into the speedy deletion element. At the minute the project does not have an admin, but we can prod them for speedy on the proviso that they do not pass the first-grade or international criteria.Londo06 11:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If this project accepts the policy (in a vote), does that mean it would be formal enough for speedy deletion policy. I'll investigate.  The Windler talk  11:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, per here, Notability on its own does not assert speedy deletion, probably because, no matter on any policy you could justify an article. If someone has made a lengthy sourced detailed article on say a Toyota Cup player, then I don't mind really. But most of them are one sentence long with an infobox and no sources.

My idea was that you could put it up for WP:PROD, because then, a non-RL (experienced) user won't come along and remove it for the sake of it. Thats happened to me on the occasion. If that fails then I would put it up for WP:AFD.  The Windler talk  11:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anyone having an issue with the guidelines we currently have in place. If it is merely a case of ratifying those details you will certainly have my support and endorsement of the current criteria for rugby league articles.Londo06 11:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I know we have a policy, I just want to put it in writing and get a vote to "officially" ratify it.  The Windler talk  11:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I was under the mistaken impression that we did have something linked to rugby league. As long as it is not a demonstrative move one way or the other from first-grade and international players & coaches I would have no issues with this becoming gospel. Any help needed just holler.Londo06 12:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

At the minute the project does not have an admin - not sure in what context you meant this, but there are three admins (that I know of) that are members of WP:RL. Not that an admin needs to be a member of a project to help with advice, etc. •Florrie•leave a note• 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry didn't know we had any here. My thoughts about that that we could push through any deletions with players such as Jarrad Borbongie or whatever the St George junior was called. At the minute we can prod any non-first graders or internationals.Londo06 17:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability is currently (or elements of it) under request for comment here. Have you had a look? There seems to be some thought that wiki-projects shouldn't be able to set their own notability criteria which are used to (or attempt to) over-ride general notability requirements as some feel this will open the flood-gates even more to poorly referenced articles, particularly in regard to sports related articles. I have to agree, WP:Athlete is a bit of a joke.

But, as you have out-lined, what we want to do is to tighten up the criteria for articles, obviously, to prevent many of the one line stubs. Regardless, WP:N will trump any of our guidelines, no matter how many games have been played (or not played), and for whom, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jordan Rankin is an example - only one game but notable because of his age and significant media coverage.

So, basically, I agree with either tightening up the WP:RL criteria for inclusion and crossing fingers that it will be adhered to, or, more simply, sticking to WP:N, where "reliable" is just that, "significant" is more than a name in a team list and "independent of the subject" precludes one line mentions on a club's website.

I recently had one unreferenced article successfully deleted, someone-or-other Bobongie, who hadn't played in the NRL but in the past it has been more difficult, usually with our own members arguing against the deletions. It would be nice if we could all agree for once. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

On that, I have noticed that it seems subject specific guidelines will stay but only as giving relation to the general notably guidelines. So have revised my guidelines and also encompassed new guidelines which includes any possible (hopefully) rugby league related person (above guidelines only refer to players and coaches).

If you can make an article fully referenced, complying with the general notability guidelines, by all means create the article. But that means sourcing, significant coverage etc. I hate articles which say: "XXX is a rugby league player for YYY" Thats its. So...  The Windler talk  08:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

SpecialWindler's Revised Guidelines

1. First grade is defined by the Rugby league Wikiproject as the top competition in any country at any given time presuming that the competition has notability in itself and it's country. Note: This is not a guideline, but helps define a term used in the below guidelines. Current first grade competitions are the Australasian National Rugby League and the European Super League
2. Any current or former rugby league player who has played first grade rugby league should be eligible for an article on the condition that it meets the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources.
3. Any current or former rugby league player who has played none or limited first grade rugby league should not be eligible for an article unless it meets the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources. However, normally these players only have information listed on their club's official website, which is a violation of Independent of the subject in the general notability guideline.
4. Any current or former rugby league player who has none or limited first grade rugby league but has played in international representative fixtures is eligible for an article on the condition that it meets the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources.
5. Any current or former rugby league coach of a first grade team should be eligible for an article on the condition that it meets the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources.
6. Any current or former rugby league coach who has done none or limited coaching of a first grade team should not be eligible for an article. Normally these coaches only have information listed on their club's official website, which is a violation of Independent of the subject in the general notability guideline.
7. Referees, no matter their statistics as such, should not be eligible for an article unless it meets the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources. Normally, referees are not notable enough to warrant information of their lives to warrant a reliable secondary sourced article.
8. Commentators, no matter their history as such, should not be eligible for an article unless it meets the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources. Normally, commentators are not notable enough to warrant information of their lives to warrant a reliable secondary sourced article.

 The Windler talk  22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

---

• Comment I like the simplicity of this. I'm happy that WP:N will trump anything that we outline - even a fifty game player for a notable club isn't necessarily notable in himself. Unless we are assuming inherent notability? Whatever, when we are agreed, whatever we agree, can we please put it into essay form and add it to Category:WikiProject notability essays? I notice you didn't mention international players in these guidelines. In your opinion, where would a player such as Alipate Tani stand? •Florrie•leave a note• 01:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a rule above there, it is number 4. So they are my guidelines. I don't mind if Alipate Tani has an article on the presumption they have sources.  The Windler talk  05:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to make the guidelines fit in with the general notability guidelines. So really they are a rugby league interpretation of the guidelines.  The Windler talk  05:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a clause for internationals. •Florrie•leave a note• 05:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we need it in essay form to make it one of those in that category. I would just say take away the numbers.  The Windler talk  06:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I couldn't see any actual essays in the category, it's just a glorified category title, I think. Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability - it's pretty much a list. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of hard-line enforcing of our current rules; inherent notability with first-grade or international- yes, if not delete. A proposed 50 games before an article seems a little excessive. Would it not be best to simply nudge everyone in the direction of saying third party references are a must. Significant coverage if what it sounds like is a little extreme; we are moving from warranting an article to 'Why the fuck has this guy not got an article' if we go with 50 games of first-grade. I cannot all good conscience back the 50 game ideal; however I would back a proposal upon the lines of third-party references being a necessity for all new articles, an attempt to clarify their inherent notability.Londo06 08:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is a proposal, on my sketchy prelimanary opinions. There are open to objection and discussions. I just want to rule out those one-five game wonders. Fifty might be excessive. I'll change it to 15.  The Windler talk  09:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've got rid of that rule (which was #2) and the new #2 has added "and former" at the start there. Same with the coach rule whichwas five years.  The Windler talk  09:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that I see anyone who takes the field in an NRL, SL or international match as inherently notable. Without sullying the article I think it is up to us, as the editors to re-affirm their importance through third-party references. Anything else and we will be moving into even more dangerous territory than you had experienced with attempting to delete players; people trying to assert importance. My viewpoint is simple; first-grade NRL, SL or international is fine, but you must qualify it with references to demonstrate that they have played, or something to that effect. Otherwise we could end up with the next Israel Folau injured on 14 games, and people arguing, oh he would have played if he had been fit.Londo06 09:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies; didn't read your replies properly. Much apologisings.Londo06 09:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So, after all that, we are pretty much back to WP:N. "No matter how many games have been played (or not played), and for whom, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A player who walks onto the field in a first-grade game and lasts ten minutes can have an article - as long as he meets WP:N criteria. Agreed? Maybe we can move all those one line player articles to a "list of [insert club name here] players" articles like the Sydney Roosters. And then delete them. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But the problem with having a set number, is that it's too subjective. 50 got shot down but current players allowed. I think a player who lasts 10 minutes a never is heard of again won't get the significant coverage bit. Not unless there are articles on his early career and post career. I don't think a 10 minute long last player will be heard of when he dies. Theres not going to be a news announcement that player X has just died. Sorry for all those negative thoughts but its a good way to note notability. And if there is a lengthy article on that 10 minute player so be it. But most of these articles wont be sourced wont have significant coverage as such.

I think a number would be good to have in the guidelines, perhaps 20 or such. And having red links such as here dosen't help as it encourages an article.  The Windler talk  10:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't apologise, it's good to discuss, even if we are back to where we started. I don't think we need a set number. I only want us all to agree that notable means notable and, even better, that reliable sources means reliable sources. My concern mainly lies with inherent notability. If we accept that a player can run on to the field for a notable club, even if it is for ten minutes and never again, that WP:N may be bypassed. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying ten-minute man is deleted or is fine. My stance is that he still is inherently notable, by the fact that he has played first-grade. My proposal is beef up articles with references, not necessarily 'asserting' notability, but showing that he did indeed play first grade rugby league.Londo06 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Players such as Mark Dalle Cort will still be eligible for an article when he plays in the Super League. I have been holding off on creating articles for our players as I think they may be deleted if I created them now. As I understand the rules at the minute they would not be article worthy until they play Super League. Annoying because I could have done some really nice articles. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ratification vote question; just confirming all NRL & Super League players are eligible for articles. 'Should be should be' probably just a typing error. Fronsdorf (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Thanks for alerting me of that typo. Yes all NRL and SL players are eligible for an article.  The Windler talk  20:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Eligible but they still need to meet the guidelines for notability, yes? •Florrie•leave a note• 00:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume so, but on that I don't want hundreds of current players deleted for the sake of no sources etc. But eventually yes. I'm not 100% sure what you mean.  The Windler talk  10:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Same for me; SL, NRL & international players have inherent notability, but we don't want hundreds of articles listed for deletion because they don't have sources as of yet.Londo06 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point that, just because a player spends 10 minutes playing in one NRL match and never plays again he doesn't necessarily warrant an article on the basis that he played for a notable club. I suppose I simply have a problem with inherent notability. It would be nice if we could agree to hold off creating a player article beyond the player running onto the field for the very first time, unless of course, as with Jordan Rankin, there is notability attached to that first run onto the field. I certainly don't propose the deletion en mass of already created articles. •Florrie•leave a note• 00:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You see, I don't have a problem with Jordan Rankin, there are 4 sources, its not perfect, but its got enough to show notability. Theres a basis for an article even if he never plays again. If there were no sources, etc ... I would have a problem. I don't believe 100 percent on inherent notability, though normally debuts are mentioned if a player makes it for a notable club, so there are normally sources on that.  The Windler talk  06:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have a problem with Jordan Rankin, either! I created the article, after all. :) I totally agree, even if he doesn't play again it was still a notable run-on. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As soon as our Celtic Crusaders boys take the pitch, they can have articles, yes? As long as they are sourced. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ratification Vote

Its time to vote to (if you agree and want to) the guidelines as outlines in the "revised" section above. If you support, then you are in favour of the 8 guidelines above. If you oppose you do not agree with at least one of the guidelines above. There is no neutral, don't vote if you couldn't care less. And finally, please put comments above.  The Windler talk  09:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support  The Windler talk  09:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Fronsdorf (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• n/a Removed sock puppet vote. --Bob (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Londo06 07:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support GarethHolteDavies (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Removed sock puppet vote. --Bob (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per the guidelines 1-8, not the discussion above re inherent notability. •Florrie•leave a note• 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose no one worries if I ratify these now?  The Windler talk  20:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW; they are not sockpuppets of me.Londo06 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure.--Bob (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would like to say, that there is no "confirmed" to say that GarethHolteDavies are the same as Londo06. The evidence suggests that Fransdorf is sockpuppet, but I don't believe GHD is, from the case page. So, in an "innocent until proven guilty" world, I would presume GHD vote stands.  The Windler talk  11:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've ratified the rules 1-8 and proposing a 9th rule, as below. This isn't ratified, and I would like comment. The new page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability.

9. Any biography in which they are claimed to be notable based on the team/competition in which they relate to, should not be recommended for an article based on the notability of the team/competition unless the biography establishes notability of itself while meeting the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources.

OK.  The Windler talk  09:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't read Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill before and, while I realise it is only an essay and not a policy, I wish the section on "People" was more accepted. A person who is recognized in relation only to a single topic, where the topic is far more notable than the person him/herself, should be mentioned within that article rather than having an article devoted to that person.

Thanks for trying to pull all this together. •Florrie•leave a note• 14:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)