Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 14

Consensus

Most of you would be pleased to know that in light of this, it now looks like a whole host of previously unresolved votes did in fact have consensus and can now be closed.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I always suspected this, especially with Londo and Corleone. It was just too much of a coincidence that a stack of new users joined the project from nowhere and voted all the same way when we opened the polls - and had that same policy of making no compromises that Londo always had.

Jeff, you are a saint - I can't thank you enough for stitching all of this together. I'm absolutely ecstatic that we can now get on with the job at hand and know that we can fix everything up to prime standard without fear of retribution from a group of editors (now, zero). MDM (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So with all votes by the editors in that case (except 1, I suppose) can be ignored. This might change a few of the votes a few months ago on the infobox final votes. I'll check this. Most of our pointless discussions are with these people/person so ... good.  The Windler talk  06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we know where we stand yet with the !votes? Can all that club number business be reverted? •Florrie•leave a note• 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering printing off the checkuser report and framing it. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Presumably Alexsanderson83 (talk · contribs) gave himself barnstars as Londo06 (talk · contribs). What a wanker.-Sticks66 19:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Now knowing what we know about socks, would it be appropriate to remove the sock members from the project participants list? Do we need them there as a reminder? •Florrie•leave a note• 07:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As no-one objected, I have marked the sock-puppets as sock-puppets on the member's list and made them "in-active" but have not removed the names. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As per the case above, he's still at it and has been blocked. Keep an eye out for newbies that pick things up too quickly.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Revised consensus

I've trawled through the archives and this is, I hope, the most accurate version of consensus reaching without the votes of (known) sock-puppets.

Previous votes/percentages which included those of sock-puppets are in parentheses.

Poll	F	N	A	W%	Notes / Result
Ban colours	5	2	(9) 6	(56) 46	Inconclusive - up to further debate
Use of "cm" rather than "m"	(8) 7	(4) 3	(3) 2	(53) 58	Inconclusive - up to further debate
Use of "championships" rather than "premierships"	(3) 4	(5) 3	3	(27) 40	Inconclusive - up to further debate
Removal of "current club" field	7	1	(5) 2	(54) 70	Later discussion agreed that current club for English based players only.
Removal of the word "details"	5	2	(2) 0	(56) 71	Motion passed
Removal of the "Youth Club" field	(7) 6	(6) 4	0	(54) 60	Removed later per guidelines of infobox.
Coaching to include only head coaching positions	(8) 6	(1) 0	2	(73) 75	Motion passed
Moving "height" and "weight" to "playing information"	(7) 5	0	0	100	Motion passed permentatly
Having "updated" only for current players	(5) 4	(2) 1	0	(71) 80	Motion passed
Pld/W/D/L/@% system for coaching section	4	0	0	100	Motion passed permentatly
Inclusion of junior representative teams	(4) 2	0	4	(0) 66	Motion not passed (close enough)

I have also collected copies of all the previous infobox discussions and put them into a chronological archive at Template talk:Infobox rugby league biography.•Florrie•leave a note• (forgot to sign, sorry. 'Notes/result' added to table by SW.) •Florrie•leave a note• 06:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

SW said:: Later discussion agreed that current club for English based players only. - yes, based entirely on the arguments of Londo06, "Corleone" and "Alexsanderson"! The original discussion, minus socks, was in favour of removing current club by 70%. •Florrie•leave a note• 06:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, well lets see what reaction we get by removing it.  The Windler talk  06:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. And while we are enjoying the freedom, what are the chances of returning height/weight to Playing Information? That was put back in Personal Information to appease socks, if I recall correctly, although I don't know that we had another !vote on it... •Florrie•leave a note• 14:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll ask Jeff, he and Londo had a little war over it, which I cromprimised by the "retired=yes" parameter.  The Windler talk  20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually really happy with height/weight appearing under personal information for current players and playing information for retired/deceased players. It's a good little system we have with the retired field. No need to change it I think. But this means we can do away with club colours right? Manser felt really strongly about them going and I pretty much agree with him. Mainly because of the duplication across teams (St. George, St. Helens, Wigan, Illawarra, etc.), their absence for historical teams and the creation of colour icons for minor teams which Londo's been doing (oh, and speaking of whom, I don't believe for a second that he won't be back in one guise or another).--Jeff79 (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that sorts that bit. I am going to begin removing colours, it was I that started it, and I feel that it should be me that removes them (though I won't be removing all of them).  The Windler talk  04:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

North london stags???

I just noticed this new article; it looks non-notable to me, but not knowing anything about rugby, I thought I would put a notice here and let a "rugby-enabled" editor put a speedy delete or prod tag on the article, if that is appropriate. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ken Stephen Medal

I just added the Ken Stephen Medal info to Preston Campbell's article and wondered if it is worth doing an article on Ken Stephen (an administrator) himself or an article on the award (probably the better)? I can't find anything in WP on him or the award except for mention in various articles that a player has received it. It's been going since 1988. [1] •Florrie•leave a note• 00:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always meant to get to the administrators. Harry Sunderland and Kevin Humphreys are half-started; the J J Giltinan story needs telling and others too up to modern times. I won't do the Medal article but may get to Ken Stephen himself one day. -Sticks66 13:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Notability Discussion

ATTENTION WP:ATHLETE is being re-written. There is a very big discussion here. The re-writing is focusing mainly on amateur athletes. You may well wish to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Two infoboxes

Are there WPGuidelines for considering competing infoboxes (eg a footballer , then a politician) . I've run into a editor who's dumped my RU infobox (and all the data contained) on Nicholas Shehadie other than commandeering a footballing image of him for the politician infobox. Is there a problem with two infoxes on the one subject ? -Sticks66 14:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Help

A biased aussie rules fan in trying to delete the article Rugby league in Victoria saying it has no relevance. I thinkit has relevance. The game in alive and well in voctoria and thew crowds are increasing and the SoO will be held there. Those rules fans have sucessfully deleted the rugby league in sa and wa articles as they want to show the league is only popular in nsw and qld. It's popularity in other places cannot be denyed

I think that some of his criticisms of the article have validity, the references cited don't support the suggestion that league is increasing in popularity in Victoria and it does read to much like a fan site. That said there is no way that this article ought to be deleted (though as far as I can tell it has happened once already).GordyB (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't think that his name (rulesfan) is indicative that he's being a little bit anti nrl? I have included another link that shows increased crowds through the years. I asked for help writing the article here, but not one person offered. It is not easy to stop it reading like a "fan site" when all the info we can gather is from site and books on Melbourne Storm. If any QLD or NSW wikipedian wanted to help make the site look less like a "fan site" i'd be more than happy for them to contribute.

With respect to the fan site comment, it is a question of tone more than the content. If you read NPOV then it would be a good place to start from. Re: rulesfan I would assume that he is acting in good faith as he has been editing Wikipedia for some time and there hasn't been an issue with him until now. I have left a message on his talk page and hopefully we can discuss this amicably.

The fact that Storm's attendences are increasing isn't the same as the sport is more popular. "More popular" is a meaningless phrase that is better avoided. Does the sport have increasing participation levels? Increased TV figures? More media awareness? Better to concentrate on specifics rather than blanket statements.

I will do what I can to help sort the article but I don't have all that much spare time at the moment. Rugby league in Queensland and Rugby league in New South Wales were both started and largely populated by me, an Englishman so I wouldn't expect a great deal of support from those states. Ironically I only started those articles because the Victoria article already existed. As far as I know there never have been similar articles on Western Australia or South Australia.

You might find Rugby league in England to be a good model.GordyB (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at the page, the real problem area is The rise of rugby league in Victoria - almost everything in this section violates the NPOV rules even and especially the title.GordyB (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, it is rising in participation (the first link states that) and tv audience (look at the figures for the Melbourne viewing audience of the 06 and 07 grand finals). And the media has been much better than it used to be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.8 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Title it Popularity of rugby league in Victoria. Back up your specific claims (i.e. increased TV audience not increased popularity) with decent references and remove things like celebrity fans that aren't encyclopaedic.GordyB (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Sports__flags about Irish sporting flags which is related to this project can you please have a look Gnevin (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tuvaluan Rugby League

I noticed there was a request for an article on the Tuvaluan National Rugby League team. I figured the logical thing to do before setting out on this article would be to get some background information about rugby league in Tuvalu in general. Wikipedia currently does not have an article for this, so I decided to make one first.

Here's my best attempt, although I'll confess this is my first article. Comments appreciated, of course. =)

Unfortunately, precious little news ever comes out of Tuvalu, and this is reflected in the trace amount of information in my article. I'm frankly struggling to find anything else out using the Internet. I've checked Amazon for books, none available. I question the notability of having an article on a Tuvaluan team which exists, at best, on an informal basis. Thanks, Ginger Warrior (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Ginger_Warrior

You are right, there isn't much and as a result this reads more like an article on why rugby league in Tuvalu isn't notable. Maybe you could add a bit to the main Tuvalu article as a sport section if there isn't one already. •Florrie•leave a note• 01:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've revamped the article on Tuvalu, in its culture section. I don't think there's much more we can do. I'll remove the request for the article. Ginger Warrior (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Ginger Warrior

By the clock

I haven't had a lot of time for editing but I've been observing the editing of some of the Grand Finals sections of the seasons pages over the last few weeks. They seem to be going from a narrative to a minute by minute report, followed by a "when they scored section" as if the minute by minute bit weren't enough[2]. My personal preference is for a narrative and I did restore the report to the 2005 article and left the "when they scored" below. Do we have any thoughts on a format for Grand Finals? I notice that the Grand Final pages that were created recently, such as this one, have been deleted, which is good. •Florrie•leave a note• 00:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This was also discussed here. The minute by minute table could be kept, but then again it could quite easily be incorporated into the article, and in the write up for the 2006 Grand Final which I did it is. I am definitely not a fan of "when they scored" as a heading (this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid). Perhaps a good way to have the write ups done is with a time at the beginning of each significant play, starting in a new line. I think I might have seen a format like that before. I'll have a look.--Jeff79 (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with both of you and we ought be the "keepers of the flame" on this. The narrative is what's important , not a blow-by-blow description. Remember that the match report is appearing in a season article as a few paragraphs; it needs be entertaining as would befit the story of the game we are using to illustrate that whole season. In that context a missed field goal or tackle may be just as important as a try that was scored so listing every try and the time on the clock then misses the point. The 2005 section is good - the Marshall/Richards try was pivotal and deserves two long paragraphs (if well written) ; the next two short paragraphs describe three fairly pedestrian tries and that too is how it should be. All we can do is keep editing and finessing.-Sticks66 13:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Rugby League Club Competitions

So what do we think of this: {{Rugby League Club Competitions}}? Someone's been going about adding it to articles. I'm so tired of wishful thinking by rugby league editors. I say it goes.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Queensland and New South Wales are countries? That's nice. Delete. •Florrie•leave a note• 01:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it is very confused but has some potential. Removing SOO, NSW & QLD would be a start. Probably removing the two RLC's also. Btw he also made one for rugby union, so hes not just a wishful RL editor. Mattlore (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We already have Template:International Rugby League, Template:Rugby League in Oceania, Template:Rugby League in Australia links, Template:Rugby League in New South Wales etc etc which all have a logical flow. This new template is a bit of this and a bit of that (and not accurate 'that'). I'd hope that existing templates could be improved/extended rather than adding yet another bit at the bottom of a page. •Florrie•leave a note• 23:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Rugby League Championship and Rugby League Conference really have to go as well. THe former is a semi-pro tournament below SL and therefore isn't a top level competition. The Conference is amateur but includes Welsh and Scots divisions. Since those divisions have their own articles, the template ought to link to those if it really must cover the "top level" Scots and Welsh rugby league competitions.GordyB (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If we were keeping the template I'd suggest changing the format to World: WCC, Professional: NRL, SL/CCup and then the rest rather than the current Transnational/Top Level split. But now that florrie mentions the other templates, they really do need a update/sort out anyway - The competitions listed in those are just in a random fashion with club and rep competitions all mixed up. Perhaps someone could attempt to sort them out instead. Mattlore (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In the short term, I'd suggest (again) deleting this template as confusing/misleading and adding the review of existing templates to the "to-do" list.

The Kangaroos

I noticed a redlink dab at Australia national rugby league team and found that The Kangaroos as a disambiguation page no longer exists and The Kangaroos is a redirect page to a wrestling team known as The Fabulous Kangaroos! There is now only one disambig page for "kangaroo". Shouldn't "The Kangaroos" then point to Kangaroo (disambiguation)? It's all rather confusing. •Florrie•leave a note• 00:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no way that's primary topic. I think The Kangaroos should be a disambiguation page linking to the above, as well as the Australian national rugby league team and I think there is/was an AFL team called the Kangaroos. Probably others too.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I toddled off to look at fixing the pages and you've already done it! Ta. •Florrie•leave a note• 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Category for deletion

I've put Category:University and college rugby football clubs up for renaming to Category:University and college rugby union teams as it is not Wikipedia policy to have categories that straddle union and league. At the moment there is no particular need for a league equivalent category but moving the rugby football cat to a dedicated union one would allow for the creation of a dedicated league cat that could slot into the hierarchy of league categories.

There has been a lack of votes on the issue. To express your opinion please follow the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_30 GordyB (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Super League season results pages

As me and User:Julianhall have been discussing, the Super League XIV's results page will be done in a format more similar to the NRL seasons' results pages, in tables instead of lists. I think it would be a good idea to go back and replace all the past Super League seasons with this format. What do you guys think, before I do it and it gets rollback'd? GW(talk) 12:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm my support for this, i agree with the proposal. Julianhall (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it.  florrie  17:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Rugby films

Another cross-code category up for deletion. Please vote.GordyB (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_16#Category:Rugby_films

Archive links

Links for archives 13 and 14 which do exist aren't appearing up beside the table of contents there with all the rest. Dunno how to fix it.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/header.  The Windler talk  21:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

links to archives 12, 13 and 14 all take us to archive 12.--Jeff79 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed,  The Windler talk  05:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

NRL 25 man squads

Does anyone know anything about these? When they are officially selected, who announces them etc? It would be good to have a timetable of when we can update the squad templates for each team. Mattlore (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the Wests Tigers already following a news-release by the club in November (but I'm expecting it will change after the trials are done - eg one has just been ruled out for the season with an injury, talk of another being released etc) - I suppose it depends on each club and checking sources such as the club website or news releases, RLW etc.  florrie  23:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Amendments to the notability guidelines.

Last September, this project ratified the notability guidelines for biographies regarding rugby league players currently in place. While only guidelines, I at least have used them in reasons for WP:PROD. After recently getting back into the mood of rugby league, I went through these guidelines and have three additions and two ammendments to existing rules. Four of five are minor enough to not really need to much attention, the other concerns inheritant notability, which was discussed before, but not ratified. But after going through many rugby league player articles over the past few days, I see this may be a worthy addition to the guidelines.

• Rule 2 (added to the "In general" section): A permastub is an article currently a stub that has no reasonable prospect for expansion. (taken from essay WP:PERMASTUB)
• Rule 6 (amendment): addition to the end of the guideline of "therefore resulting in a useless permastub."
• Rule 7 (amendment): addition to the end of the guideline of "therefore resulting in a useless permastub."
• Rule 8 (added to the "In relation to biographies" section): Officials, organisers and administrators, 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, officials, organisers and administrators are not notable enough to warrant information of their lives to warrant a reliable secondary sourced article, therefore resulting in a useless permastub.
• Rule 9 (added to the "In relation to biographies" section): Any biography in which they are claimed to be notable based on the team/competition in which they relate to, should not be eligible 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.

An example of Rule 9 is "Player X is a RL player for the Team Y." and thats it. Its basing the notability from the fact they play for Team Y, with nothing else. Once you bring other information into it, especially sources, I believe it is worthy of an article, because it is establishing the players notability.

I'll leave these up to consideration and comment first, thankyou  The Windler talk  06:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

They all seem pretty self-explanatory and unoffensive. The good thing about them is that they are pretty much in place throughout wikipedia as policy anyway - it just helps to codify them for prod arguments and the like. With the proposed #9 it pretty much just reinforces the second half of #1 "on the condition that it meets the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources." Mattlore (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

With the Grevillea leucopteris season fading, we hopefully won't have too many problems with 9. I fully embrace 9, preferring this 23 minutes to these nine games.  florrie  15:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it seems a good response from a few responders, thankyou, just to be formal, I'd like to have a ratification vote (open for 7 days) below:

Ratification of amendments in our biography notability guidelines

Please note, please comment above. By just supporting or opposing you are supporting/opposing to all five amendments above. By specifically stating what you support/oppose then you are stating also that you are the opposite for the others.  The Windler talk  09:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support,  The Windler talk  09:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support, all five Mattlore (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support  florrie  13:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nationality v Ancestry

Anyone care to lend a hand with this delightful editor who insists on flagging footballers by select bits of ancestry over nationality or national team (when they have actually played at international level). See here where Anthony Minichiello is Italian and Willie Mason, American or here where Aaron Cannings, who has represented for Tonga, was made a Cook Islander and Anthony Laffranchi is another Italian.

No matter, he/she pissed off another editor and has been blocked. I'd still like to hear opinion on this...

And on this, with the World Cup behind us, where are we left with players who were named in training squads but didn't make selection to play any games? Are they still primarily Australian or does a training squad place take precedence? I'd have thought they are still Australian being eligible and all, but then again... •Florrie•waltz a matilda• 12:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

...Why do they vandalize? Anyway, I'd have thought the player's birthplace takes precedence over any international duty, but I was dealing with Mark Calderwood the other day and apparently he's English because he plays for England now, not Scotland (he was Scottish beforehand). Consensus seems to be with the national team they are currently playing for, else their birthplace. I guess that means they're Australian since they're currently in the Australian team. GW(talk) 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer if the flags went completly. Per WP:MOSFLAG, flags are discorauged. So thats my opinion.  The Windler talk  21:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to remove the flags from the Wests Tigers page, based on the principle flags are not to be used to denote nationality in infoboxes. So why do we have them in other templates? Anyway, I couldn't delete from one page without mucking up the whole list. I'd back removing them from the template. •Florrie•waltz a matilda• 00:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

someone has now added additonal flags alongside the australian ones on the raiders page --sss333 (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationality is too complicated to sum up with a binary inclusion/exclusion or a flag, so they're often misleading and we don't need the decoration - fully support getting rid of them. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no support/oppose to this issue, per WP:MOSFLAG, they have no place in Wikipedia.  The Windler talk  11:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately MOSFLAG is more lenient with flags when it doesn't involve infoboxes - [3] I'd still prefer the flag section be removed from the template. I replaced the rugby league squad template with a table on the Wests Tigers pages.  florrie  14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

MOSFLAG seems pretty clear about sporting nationality. The last nation that the player has played for or declared for comes first, if the player has not declared for anyone then nation of birth is usually the best fit. I think the wider training squads for the RLWC should be discounted as many players were named in two or more or were never realistically going to turn out for a smaller nation. In most cases I'd imagine that this rule would leave us with only one nationality per player which means we could probably leave the flags in the templates and hopefully fight off any vandals that consider Ancestry to be relevant. Mattlore (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I wasn't having a dig at anyone or anything - i just used italics because it was in the article. Mattlore (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Missed this, sorry. Yes, I know what MOSFLAG says about sporting nationalities, but unfortunately the little vandal has different ideas. Willie Mason has a US flag? Anthony Minichiello an Italian, Chev Walker a Jamaican, etc etc. Rubbish.  florrie  23:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for the offer, bot. Its great that we get a personilised approach to these things to show that you really care! Just in case, This group dosen't really have any co-ordinators just a few editors that keep coming back and helping on rugby league, and aren't (at least me, anyway) really interested in the colloboration on Wikipedia.  The Windler talk  10:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So good looking, it's being considered for deletion. No thanks GW(talk) 16:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Two Phil Fords?

Can anyone provide further information on Phil Ford (rugby league footballer) and Phil Ford (rugby league). They appear to be different players but there are no references or complete dates etc. Also, if they are different perhaps they should have better disambiguators. (Sorry if this not the right forum.) Tassedethe (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the same person, as far as I can tell [4]. Both articles were rugby league players, who just happened to be Welsh. I'll merge them. GW(talk) 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Quick work! Tassedethe (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 jerseys/kits

As some users may know I made an extensive series of jerseys for all past seasons. Now I am only going to make and upload more jerseys for a period of 4 weeks from Round 1 to Round 4, hopefully every team will have played a home and an away game by then, thus I can see if there are any changes from their past seasons and make new ones. If you have a request, please post on my talk page and give an internet link to a picture of the jersey. Those requests can be made all year round. Hope to continue the great work of this project,  The Windler talk  21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Suspect edits

Can someone please take a look at the edits of user:Folau111 for me? I don't know anything about any of the players they are editing, but something smells iffy. They're marking heaps of players as being Jamaican. -- Mark Chovain 07:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just gone through and proposed deletion of all five (one of them by another editor) of his article that Folau111 created today. All of the seem to be non-hoaxes but lower grade players. I might get round to checking his other edits soon. Thanks for the alert,  The Windler talk  09:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing his contributions, I couldn't be bothered and am too tired to go through them and check if they really are true or not. Maybe we should ask for all his contributions to be reverted? He seems very suspect editor.  The Windler talk  09:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think most of his edits and categorizations especially should be reverted - as per the Nationality v Ancestry talk up there, he is not using Sporting Nationality but categorizing players by there ancestry. However he seems to have acted in good faith so perhaps blindly reverting all his contributions is a bit harsh? A warning/explanation of what he is doing wrong might be better unless he fails to stop. Mattlore (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a bunch of his edits. Instead of just putting players seemingly arbitrarily into these categories I suggest he use that mysterious and oft-forgotten phenomenon known as body text to make a mention of a player's heritage and cite it.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Posted on his talk page with some advice, hopefully he reads it and takes it on board...(I can hope right?) Mattlore (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for addressing this concern, and sorry I proposed deletion one of the articles, which had already played first grade, it just looked so similar to the others, thankyou ...  The Windler talk  11:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No biggie, was easy to miss - I was just lucky that it was the first one I checked, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered going through them all. Thank you for fixing up my comment to him so it actually made sense! Mattlore (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As can be seen from the various talk pages related to this editor's edits, reasoning and explanations don't do much. He's already been blocked as User:124.179.79.34 and as Folau111 [and as Iestynharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and an earlier incarnation as Biglez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)]. There are other ips involved, but I can't be bothered. It'd be nice if warnings could be added to the relevant talk page when reverting his edits. Otherwise it's just a list of warnings with my sig attached.  florrie  14:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Without meaning to confuse the issue, or resort to argumentum ad hominem, he did start this fairly innocuous piece on the Celtic Crusaders' captain, Jace Van Dijk. Not all of his edits are intentionally malicious, it seems GW(talk) 14:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt any of his edits are intentionally malicious. But they are a nuisance and require tidying up and removing instances of copyvios and I have other articles I'd rather be editing than trying to improve a bio and find references on some player I've never heard of.  florrie  15:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Category changes

Is anyone following what is happening here with categories? Where they should belong is not my strong point but given this user's edit history, it may need looking at. And may I say...Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo rugby league footballers makes fascinating reading.  florrie  15:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, we need to investigate the possibility of sources for categories. There is no obvious notable source saying they are, for example: Democratic Republic of the Congo rugby league players. And while they may be born there, we know that dosen't make them Country X rugby league players. I have gone through all of the previous users (which Florrie made note to self above) new articles, and proded some, taged practically the rest. Sorry if I made a mistake, Mattlore, they are just all "a load of crap" really. Its hard after going through them to release they may have actually played first grade. I might get round to Folou111, but if he keeps editing like he is, it will be an endless task, we may have to ask for intervention.  The Windler talk  21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU is the admin who assisted me the last few times with "intervention", but he did request that I share the love with other admins if the nuisance kept going. There is another admin that I found helpful with RL articles - Mattinbgn and there's also Casliber who is a member of the project. And as Gordy mentioned below, as there is no Congolese National Team, do we put a CfD on the cat page? I'll have a go at that.  florrie  00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We use sporting nationality not birth nationality for categories so as Congo has no national rugby legaue team then there are no Congolese rugby league players.GordyB (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Gordy, what about the re-organising of the categories? Do the changes there seem right (other than cats for countries without a team)?  florrie  00:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably okay in some cases. Category:Asian rugby league players seems a bit silly, aside from Lebanon, no Asian countries play international league so no need for this parent cat.GordyB (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had a read through the deletion process for categories and it's a bit daunting and I think each category has to be considered for deletion unless there is spelling involved. From what I can see the rugby league by region categories (ie, Asia, Europe, Africa) have been filled with sub-categories by country such as Pakistan and The Philippines - so they have been over-categorised. But as there was never any discussion on these changes, we could just be WP:BOLD and move everything back to the broader categories again. There's work involved whatever happens.

And while getting the links to these pages, I found Chinese rugby league players containing one entry - an Eddie Harrison who supposedly plays for the Titans but there is no record of him playing first-grade and I couldn't even find him in the NYC team! I took the time out to delete the Titans from his page and put a speedy on him. It's a can of worms out there, I'm sorry I looked.  florrie  01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries Winder, what you did was good - I just saved a few I thought were worth putting some effort into. As for the categories they are a big mess and I had a look before but its going to be pretty hard to sort out. What Folau/Anon/etc have done is change the intro to something like "players who have played for the country and players with heritage". I think we need to go through and change that opening sentence to make it clear that the categories are just for players who have played for the country (or are born in that country?). Any nation without a national team should also not really have a category. Maybe we should also formulate our sporting nationality conversation above into a policy/document so we can refer people to that - I'll draft something if you guys think its a good idea. And yes now i'm convinced that warnings and offering him/her/them advice won't solve the problem :) Mattlore (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Is there a quick way to delete an empty category? Mattlore (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it has to be empty for four days. The speedy delete criteria are here.

Why cant rugby league players have two nationalities like israel folau being tongan/australian and minichiello being italian/australian i see it done with rugby union players, wrestlers and lots of other sports. I believe the weaker nations deserve to be mentioned. (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Folau111

Yes, they do deserve to be mentioned. In the article, it is a good line to say that the player has Tongan heritage, but if they have come to Australia (for example) and played for Australia, they are an Australian rugby league player. They may have been a Tongan rugby league player, and it is good to mention that in the article, but otherwise. Also you need SOURCES, SOURCES, SOURCES. How do we know Israel Folau is Tongan, you could be making it up, you could be baseing it on looks, speak or whatever. According to the article Israel Folau, the first line of the Plying Career has that he was born to parents with Tonagan descent. That for me, would not necessarily make Israel a Tongan, especially as he was not born, or seems to have ever lived there. So you need sources, they arnet all as clear-cut as Israel Folau.  The Windler talk  20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They should at least have 2 categories of international teams regardless of whether they have a national team or not, how come its allowed to have it in other sports in rugby union pages Frano Botica is a croatian rugby union and new zealand rugby union player and im pretty sure he hasnt represented them or is there a rule on wikipedia where they can only have 1 country? Folau111 (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No player has to have a set number of categories - why should they? If they play for Tonga and then play for Australia/are Australian born, fair enough, but not for the sake of trying to give a mention to "weaker" nations! If your interest lies in promoting "weaker" nations, have a go at building up the national team's articles. As for what other projects may or may not do, that's similar to the Sewage principle.  florrie  06:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And this is going to get you a long way.  florrie  13:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Its really beside the point, but Frano Botica did represent both NZ and Croatia in RU and only NZ in RL - hence his categories. Mattlore (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate categories

Hi, it seems that a number of duplicate categories have been created, such as Category:Salford City Reds rugby league players which duplicates the pre-existing Category:Salford City Reds players and makes a mess of Category:Rugby league players by club. I have raised a requested move at CfD which can be found here, please feel free to comment. Regards King of the North East 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Should probably try to get views from more members on this. I admit responsibility for a push to include "rugby league" in player categories by club in the past, to save any future work arising from another sporting league creating a team of the same name or an existing team changing codes (I thought at the time I'd read or heard something about a North Sydney Bears basketball team or Western Suburbs Magpies Aussie rules team or something like that, there's also the Harlequins case). I could go either way now that it's come up. Either we leave the player categories as they are, or we remove "rugby league" and deal with situations like the above in the future as they arise. Right now we have a mixture. All Australian clubs and some English clubs include "rugby league" in player categories but alot of English clubs don't. It'd be nice if we could choose one way to go so we're consistent across the board. A point in favour of removing "rugby league" is that it isn't included in clubs' coach, season or template sub-categories but it is just for the player categories.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If enough support is gained for the categories to be merged to the shorter form, after the current discussion has been closed I will propose that the remaining rugby league player categories are also moved to create uniformity (except in cases where disambiguation is neccessary such as the Harlequins category). King of the North East 19:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Drop "rugby league", it is unecessary to remark that a Salford City Reds player is a rugby league player, SCR are a rugby league team so all their players are rugby league players.GordyB (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You should comment on the categories for discussion entry for this subject. Regards King of the North East 19:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Past NSWRL league ladders

It wasn't until fairly recently (I think maybe the 1990's) that points difference was used to determine rankings on NSWRL competition ladders. It is for that reason that I ask the question - should the ladders that are displayed on each season's info page reflect equal placings? For example, in 1960, Easts, Wests, Canterbury and Balmain all finished equal based on the rules of that season. However because of points differential, their rankings go 2, 3, 4 and 5. Further to that, all are highlighted in green as having played in the finals series but - do playoff matches count as finals? My opinion is that playoff matches are used to determine teams which earn the right to play in the finals series, hence they are not part of the finals series as such.

In any case, I think the ladders should reflect the actual positions. 1960 should be listed as =2. Balmain, =2. Canterbury, =2. Eastern Suburbs, =2. Western Suburbs (alphabetical) in my opinion. Azkatro (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a different colour could be used to indicate that they at least qualified for a playoff match? Mattlore (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good start. Another possibility to consider is whether rankings should reflect playoff results. Using 1960 as an example again, the playoffs were used to determine final ranking, the results being Wests 2nd, Easts 3rd, Canterbury 4th and Balmain 5th. So they are the places if you take into consideration playoff results. If you don't consider playoffs here, you have to say they are all equal 2nd. The current page on Wikipedia has Wests 2nd, Easts 3rd, Balmain 4th and Canterbury 5th which is a result of points differential - however that is a method that was not considered at the time and hence should not be used. And if that's not confusing enough, take a look at 1988 and 1989 - each of those seasons saw a single playoff match, even though several teams were tied (Balmain, Canberra, Manly and Penrith equal 3rd in 1988 and Brisbane, Canberra and Cronulla equal 4th in 1989). The only logical conclusion I can reach in these two seasons is that points differential WAS a factor, but only to consider the two lowest teams in the logjam, who played off for 5th place. So it's almost as if points differential was used up to 4th place, then for 5th and 6th, points differential was not a factor and a playoff was required to separate the teams ... Azkatro (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the table should appear as they did at the end of the regular season. However if we cannot find out the rules used at the time then maybe ranking them using playoffs is an adequate solution. Either way they shouldn't be ranked by PD if that wasn't used at the time! Another idea is perhaps we could add playoff brackets like they appear in New South Wales Rugby Football League season 1909 to make it graphically clearer that some teams only qualify for a playoff. If you think its a worthy idea I could whip some up using Template:4RoundBracket-Byes. Though I'm aware that that's just mainly duplicating information that is already provided in the match summaries. Mattlore (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Current Squad Boxes

they are last years one they should be made to 2009 squadsYoundbuckerz (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortenely, we can't do everything and we can't all do everything at once, so thats why we appreciate help from the outside including IP's because they usually like to fix these things up. Perhaps you can help,  The Windler talk  05:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Additions to season page

What are your thoughts on the addition of player transfers and coaching changes to the National Rugby League season 2009 article? None of it referenced and quite a bulky table format. I'd have thought the info would be more applicable to the various club season articles. Any other opinions?  florrie  07:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It takes up a lot of space, and no similar information is included on past NRL or SL season pages. At the moment I'd say get rid of it. Maybe it'd be okay to keep if it was limited to major changes - but how do you develop a criteria to do so (internationals? 100+ games? only mid-season changes?) - so probably better to just get rid of it altogether. Mattlore (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Floz. See article's talk page.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Florrie. Its just a annoying blob, that no-one would really be interested in. Really, its trivia in the context of the article's name. Must move them to seperate season articles. And if it was to go to FA status, or go improvement, it would be first to go.  The Windler talk  10:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone on and done that so ...  The Windler talk  11:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:37, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I know you are a bot, and you won't reply but this is a message to fellow users of this project. I wouldn't mind it as the only work required by us is to initialise it. But I wouldn't personally use it day in day out or watch it. But as it is a tool I think is good, maybe we should have it for the sake of it.  The Windler talk  10:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the sound of this - it'd be good to get notification on stuff without having to check through deletion pages etc. The alerts should be displayed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Article alerts - when it happens. I think.  florrie  13:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Grevillea Leucopteris

Fronsdorf, FYI.  florrie  01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, just what we need.  The Windler talk  05:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. You can take the foot out of the sock but he can't seem to keep his hand off his puppet. -Sticks66 16:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NRL Stats

Does anyone know if there is a new url for the stats pages? Ta,  florrie  22:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's weird, because there is undeniable that those links are not dead but just blocked by the website. Mainly because you can go to http://203.166.101.37/NRL/index.html and then click "Player:" then "Bio's" then any player and the information appears that is on the blocked website. The problem is, no hard link is provided. I don't know why. Hope that helps, it probably dosen't though as I know alot of Sources use that website for information.  The Windler talk  05:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously they didn't like their "copyrighted data" being hotlinked. Bloody hell, money has a lot to answer for!  florrie  23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Debated image

I am concerned about the image : which claims to be the 'Barassi line' this line claims to be the parts in Australia where Aussie rules (the green part) is more popular than Rugby League. It was created by a editor called rulesfan who had put a lot of anti league info on the Rugby league in Victoria page. He is obviously biased (hence his name). Although Aussie rules is popular in the yellow bits (as well as the green parts), I seriously doubt it is more popular than RL in western NSW. A more appropriate image would be perhaps all of NSW up unil the riverina colourer yellow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.0.121 (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

He can talk about this all he likes on the article about the Barassi Line but I have a real problem with it appearing on the article Sport in Australia. He states that the Barassi Line itself is fictional and that it separate the areas "where generally AFL blah blah". Do we attack it as having no place in the encyclopedia, being weasly or having no citations ? Or some other grounds we can cite.-Sticks66 13:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture is an illustration of what Barassi was talking about when he made his statement. THe picture is only as true as Barassi's statement which was rather sweeping. You obviously cannot draw a straight line through Australia in this way, you would need a curved line at best. I agree with Sticks, the picture is okay in the Barassi line article but isn't sufficiently accurate for the Sport in Australia article.GordyB (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started a talk section on the relevant article:- Talk:Sport_in_Australia#Barassi_Line_image

It seems to me, that it is a whole lot of crap. To say that one straight line means that rugby league is popular on one side than the other with AFL is dodgy, and I don't believe that article is justified to even be even there. It is originally researched, and is based on the theory (based on the references) of one book. I have removed the image from Sport in Australia as it is fictional and tagged the article with original research.  The Windler talk  00:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)