![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello to all, I've been away and now I've returned. Suncorp Stadium seems to have moved to Lang Park, now I've grown up knowing Lang Park as the ground Wally Lewis graced. To me Suncorp is the Stadium that has replaced that. The stadium has only ever held the one sponsor. Everyone knows it as Suncorp Stadium, hell it's even written on the side of the building. Anyone agree with me or am I on my own on this one. Alexsanderson 83 07:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Jeff79 ( talk) 04:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
So really its a decision to use sponsor name or the un-sponsored stadium. I believe, we should use which is more popular, but at the same time, what is the most recognised name over time. I prefer "Stadium Australia" over "ANZ Stadium", but prefer "Suncorp" over "Lang". The Windler talk 07:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Just looking for the article to be Suncorp Stadium, what everyone knows it as, refers to it as, what it says on your ticket, what it says on the side of the building. Alexsanderson 83 07:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't know too much about the history of the place, but I have always known it as Suncorp Stadium. Fronsdorf ( talk) 13:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Can't say I've ever been to the stadium or know too much about the history of the site, so I'm staying out of this one. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 07:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It is known as Suncorp Stadium. It is an issue that I have commented on the page; for me Lang Park is the old stadium, Suncorp is the new stadium. In the same way as old Wembley and new Wembley. Suncorp Stadium and Lang Park are deserving of two different articles. Londo 06 07:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Not old enough to see anything but the current stadium on live TV, so my opinion probably ain't worth too much. But from reading here and there it seems logical enough to have two articles. Fronsdorf ( talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning to sort this out; there seems to be some support and a fair bit of apathy, so I'll be bold and take one for the team. Alexsanderson 83 18:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I've made the "current club" field only appear for northern hemisphere players, by requiring the "clubnumber" field to be filled before "current club" appears. This is because there seems to be a consensus amongst the southern editors to remove it, whilst visa versa from you northerners. If there are any issues with this, let us all know here. MDM ( talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The numbers are a big deal in the UK, I know from living in various parts of London over recent years, totally right that they don't belong on our NRL pages, but for me they do have a place on English Super League pages. With regards to current club, they do have a home on both Southern and Northern Hemisphere pages. Alexsanderson 83 11:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
-
Not really a fan of this proposed style that I've seen with Matt Gidley. Can we please go back to the template that we had a few days ago, the squad number looks awful when placed there. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 07:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Just seen what this new style does, and it looks pretty crap if you'll pardon my bad language. Londo 06 06:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem with that is they're not cap numbers. I'm not really that familiar with the numbering system in Super League mind you. I was under the impression that 'cap number' referred to the sequence in which players make their debut for a team, so these days cap numbers are in their hundreds. I don't think cap numbers can be in the infobox as each club would have to have one. If known, they can be mentioned in the article text where the player's club changes/debuts are mentioned. The numbers for SL players are more like squad numbers (I think). It'd be nice if someone could put some info about them in the Super League article, which would also help justify why they're important and necessary in the infobox. Do they change each season? Or players keep the one number till they leave the club? If a player has the number are we absolutely guaranteed that only he will play in that number? Either way, some people have asserted their importance and I'm not familiar enough with Super League to oppose them. So if the club number remains in the infobox, I get the feeling that there needs to be a corresponding club. I thought that the club number being present was what the inclusion of a current club field hinged on, as the number alone would be quite meaningless. I can understand that, especially if a player's club number will change if he moves to another team. I think going back to how it was ('current club' with 'number' below) and making sure everyone understands that neither field should appear in NRL players' articles will result in the least conflict.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 10:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
For Super League squad numbers they are very similar to Premier League (English football) squad numbers. The core squad will normally occupy the first 25, with several juniors getting later squad numbers. Teams such as Leeds and St Helens quite often will feature teams with close to 1 through 17 on there backs, whereas others may not. Some players choose numbers on superstition, some mid-season transfers get stuck with high numbers, but normally players would want a number closest to the 13 or 17 as possible. Fans often get replica shirts with player names and numbers on the back of their shirts. Just trying to paint a picture of why they are a part of English sport; cricket, football, rugby league, basketball, etc. Londo 06 07:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone fix it because it really doesn't look very good. We are trying to move the infobox forwards and this just makes it look like the squad numbers were a bit of an afterthought. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 08:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think current club should be automatic for any league. There are so many players out there that cannot be distinguished between retirees and current players. Also there is the fact that it looks not so great, and that we seem to be going it alone on this infobox in terms of current club, and for one country only. Fronsdorf ( talk) 09:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems to quite a thorny issue this one. For me a return to form would be the simplest solution; for SL players there would be three fields filled, and for our NRL players there would only be the two. Alexsanderson 83 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, not a thorny issue at all. I've heard only two arguments for the inclusion of the "current club" field in the infobox:
As for the first argument, this just isn't the case. See Markus Naslund (NHL), Jonny Wilkinson (R. Union), Ben Cousins (AFL) and Sachin Tendulkar (cricket). As for the second argument, it only applies to Super League players and no one else. So that leaves a total of zero effective arguments for the inclusion of a current club field for NRL players. The arguments against are quite obvious. It's clear enough as it is. Ask a friend or family member to come to the computer, and to type in either Matt Prior or Shannon Hegarty or Petero Civoniceva or any of the abovememntioned athletes and see how long it takes them to find out if he's retired or still playing. Give readers some credit. The people who I assume are more familiar than me with Super League have insisted that the squad numbers, and hence the current club, be included in the infobox and I'm not resisting that. But there is absolutely nothing to say they're needed for NRL players. Things should be left as they are.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 03:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Karmichael Hunt uses "height(m)" and "weight(kg)" parameters for the infobox. Shouldn't these appear regardless? The Windler talk 11:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the Australan Schoolboys and Prime Ministers XIII teams in the representative part of the players infobox. I would propose to have them removed. On the grounds, that there not really rep fixtures, and nothing that can't be said in the article. Any other thoughts, opinions. The Windler talk 08:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I just wish people could understand that when we want content not to appear in the infobox, that doesn't mean we're trying to obscure it or that we don't want it appearing at all. I think schoolboy rep teams being detailed in the article is great and is an important piece of information that enriches a player's biography. But trying to cram as much content in the infobox regardless of relevance really cheapens it and gives the distinct impression that editors desparately want the infobox to be filled (even if it means putting in minor teams, obscure nicknames, etc.). To me, a meatier body of text is far more impressive than a long and colourful infobox. Sometimes less is more.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 06:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It was something that was agreed upon that only teams with articles would be included within the infobox. Alexsanderson 83 07:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
If there is an article, then there is a place. For me they should definitely stay. Fronsdorf ( talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should vote on inclusion right here and now:
Voting for the inclusion of junior represetative teams in the representative section:
I have noticed the use of {{ nobreak}} on clubs like St george illawarra Dragons to get the whole name to fit in the template in one line. Should we allow this? Should we work it into the template. I don't really like it. The Windler talk 09:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I would have to say I am split on where I stand if I'm honest. If we are looking to go one way or another then I may have to abstain. With a side like the Rabbitohs then I would go with South Sydney for a shortened version, however for a side like Manly I would always call todays side the Manly Sea Eagles. For North Queensland Cowboys I would have North Queensland rather than NQ Cowboys and I would have Cronulla Sharks rather than Cronulla-Sutherland and St George Illwarra rather than SGI Dragons, etc. Londo 06 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This may seem dauting, but the template needing completing is now less than 1000. (Actually, only templates without the parameter new=yes go into this category) Remember if you complete fully a infobox, remove the new=yes. Heres the category, here (the names melded but ehh) Category:Infobox rugby league biography templates updated.
Thanks. The Windler talk 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I know I take my life into my hands in asking an Infobox question but can someone confirm that where we show the Austn Jerseys for Kangaroo Captains are they now meant to look as big as this ? Keith Barnes - Sticks 66 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The Super League article really needs to be updated with full results now that the 27 rounds have finished. I have been trying to add results but no one else has updated the page. Could you let me know on my talkpage if you can help. Thanks. 03md ( talk) 13:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
There's another one: NRL 2008 Finals Series. It's probably the one to be deleted and then the other one, 2008 NRL Finals series should be merged with 2008 NRL season results. Yes? • Florrie• leave a note• 08:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tried tidying this up, but in order for it to become a good article I think it will need someone who knows more about the club to add information. Any takers? Red Fiona ( talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There are (at present count) 58 pages up for deleletion in AfD Discussions at the College Football Project (American football at the college level). Since your project is listed as a related project, your project members may wish to participate. This large volume is really more than we can handle in such a short period of time and the project asks for your input. Please review Articles & Pages being considered for deletion immediately.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know why recent talk and ongoing debate has been moved to an archive. To my mind there are a number of issues still up in the air. Just wondering if anyone knew. Fronsdorf ( talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It is something that has previously been discussed and has since been archived. I shall add to this, but at this time my main point is that I intend to bring a vote to everyone. Londo 06 12:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No consensus for move
Clear majority for opposition to move in light of
sock puppetry being uncovered.--
Jeff79 (
talk)
06:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
You must alert WP:RU of this vote and:
There is no overriding majority and so I have attempted to open up another, some may say a better way of getting the issue sorted at over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Vote, but that move for (rugby player) to (rugby union) does need attention as at the minute it is only a majority, not a clear consensus. Please take a read over there. Many thanks. Londo 06 10:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Paul_Moriarty_(rugby). Londo 06 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Archive_10#Disambiguated_pages_for_players_who_have_played_both_codes. Londo 06 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) See Talk:Rugby_league#Naming_convention_for_individuals Londo 06 13:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Paul_Moriarty_(rugby).-- Jeff79 ( talk) 13:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
saw this article this morning, and thought it was interesting :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't like a section on controversy that would out weigh the playing career. Craig Gower, despite all his contreversys, is still more notable for being a rugby league/union player. I believe that contreversy should be part of the players history, not have a section that simply points out possibly every minor incident that has occured. The Windler talk 11:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all, I was having a look at the WP:DISCLAIMER page and noticed some strange redirecting from some Rugby League articles. Does anyone care to clean this up? Cheers! Witty Lama 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice on some team articles, some one has put up "possible run on sides" as if they are the coach of the team. No one knows for sure what sides will run on till official team listings are announced a few days out. this is a violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. This was similarly discussed with agreement at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Discussions_forums/Putting_up_weekly_run_on_sides_on_team_articles Michellecrisp ( talk) 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Perhaps a recent side could still be listed with date last played. Michellecrisp ( talk) 01:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you all know that the 2009 NRL Draw has been released, so I suppose 2009 team articles and the like can start appearing as there should be enough information on the season ahead. Heres the draw [1]. Hope that helps. The Windler talk 01:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Am I mistaken or was the current club field not linked to club number so that it didn't show for NRL players? I've noticed quite a few NRL players with a current club displayed where before, even if the field was entered, it did not display. • Florrie• leave a note• 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I would be in favour of it for our players as well as the English ones, were it to be brought into the open again. Alexsanderson 83 08:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
As long as we've got them for Super League players I'm not massively bothered about players in the NRL at this point in time, although our ones do look ugly at the minute. MortonStalker ( talk) 10:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC) For someone like myself it would be very useful. I watched my first NRL Grand Final at the weekend, and really enjoyed. When I look through Australian players I often have to go all the way to the bottom to find out what club they play for. GarethHolteDavies ( talk) 08:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
After this weeks grand final in the NRL. Can we begin ending players tenure at one club. And beginning a new club for that player. For example. Israel Folau after this weeks gran final, will have ended his playing tenure at the Storm. It would be assumed that you would take the present away from the infobox and the template for the Melbourne current team away.
However. Do we put that the Brisbane Broncos "2009-" (in this example) for him and the Brisbane Broncos current squad. For all players not in the World Cup, they would go over to their new clubs within the month (presumably). (World Cup players would be with their respective team squads). Should we change over all the current squads etc. and that after the grand final or the beginning of next year?? The Windler talk 13:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Over in the soccer community they only add transfers when a player officially begins a contract with their new club. In the UK contracts will normally commence until November, I can't speak for NRL players but it may be best to hold fire as players at the world cup such as Mick Crocker will still be listed by Sky Sports and the BBC as a Melbourne Storm player, Garreth Carvell as a Hull FC player, Mark Calderwood as a Wigan player, etc. Londo 06 10:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Verifiability being the key, it seems clear that prospective player movements cannot be added to the infobox, but should be qualified in the first few lines of the players article. Bearing in mind that player contracts do not even take effect until November and insurance documents only beginning then as well players remain with their 2008 club until that time. The other issue is 2009 to present is a little silly, a future date to the present time, an inaccuracy that cannot be considered encyclopaedic. Londo 06 11:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have written this elsewhere but Mark Gasnier has been released from the final weeks of his insured contract with the Dragons to take up a rugby union contract with Stade Francais. If Brett Hodgson had been called up by Australia he would still be insured by Wests and Australia, regardless of his future contract for the 2009 season. Londo 06 13:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello to all, I've been away and now I've returned. Suncorp Stadium seems to have moved to Lang Park, now I've grown up knowing Lang Park as the ground Wally Lewis graced. To me Suncorp is the Stadium that has replaced that. The stadium has only ever held the one sponsor. Everyone knows it as Suncorp Stadium, hell it's even written on the side of the building. Anyone agree with me or am I on my own on this one. Alexsanderson 83 07:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Jeff79 ( talk) 04:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
So really its a decision to use sponsor name or the un-sponsored stadium. I believe, we should use which is more popular, but at the same time, what is the most recognised name over time. I prefer "Stadium Australia" over "ANZ Stadium", but prefer "Suncorp" over "Lang". The Windler talk 07:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Just looking for the article to be Suncorp Stadium, what everyone knows it as, refers to it as, what it says on your ticket, what it says on the side of the building. Alexsanderson 83 07:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't know too much about the history of the place, but I have always known it as Suncorp Stadium. Fronsdorf ( talk) 13:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Can't say I've ever been to the stadium or know too much about the history of the site, so I'm staying out of this one. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 07:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It is known as Suncorp Stadium. It is an issue that I have commented on the page; for me Lang Park is the old stadium, Suncorp is the new stadium. In the same way as old Wembley and new Wembley. Suncorp Stadium and Lang Park are deserving of two different articles. Londo 06 07:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Not old enough to see anything but the current stadium on live TV, so my opinion probably ain't worth too much. But from reading here and there it seems logical enough to have two articles. Fronsdorf ( talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning to sort this out; there seems to be some support and a fair bit of apathy, so I'll be bold and take one for the team. Alexsanderson 83 18:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I've made the "current club" field only appear for northern hemisphere players, by requiring the "clubnumber" field to be filled before "current club" appears. This is because there seems to be a consensus amongst the southern editors to remove it, whilst visa versa from you northerners. If there are any issues with this, let us all know here. MDM ( talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The numbers are a big deal in the UK, I know from living in various parts of London over recent years, totally right that they don't belong on our NRL pages, but for me they do have a place on English Super League pages. With regards to current club, they do have a home on both Southern and Northern Hemisphere pages. Alexsanderson 83 11:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
-
Not really a fan of this proposed style that I've seen with Matt Gidley. Can we please go back to the template that we had a few days ago, the squad number looks awful when placed there. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 07:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Just seen what this new style does, and it looks pretty crap if you'll pardon my bad language. Londo 06 06:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem with that is they're not cap numbers. I'm not really that familiar with the numbering system in Super League mind you. I was under the impression that 'cap number' referred to the sequence in which players make their debut for a team, so these days cap numbers are in their hundreds. I don't think cap numbers can be in the infobox as each club would have to have one. If known, they can be mentioned in the article text where the player's club changes/debuts are mentioned. The numbers for SL players are more like squad numbers (I think). It'd be nice if someone could put some info about them in the Super League article, which would also help justify why they're important and necessary in the infobox. Do they change each season? Or players keep the one number till they leave the club? If a player has the number are we absolutely guaranteed that only he will play in that number? Either way, some people have asserted their importance and I'm not familiar enough with Super League to oppose them. So if the club number remains in the infobox, I get the feeling that there needs to be a corresponding club. I thought that the club number being present was what the inclusion of a current club field hinged on, as the number alone would be quite meaningless. I can understand that, especially if a player's club number will change if he moves to another team. I think going back to how it was ('current club' with 'number' below) and making sure everyone understands that neither field should appear in NRL players' articles will result in the least conflict.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 10:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
For Super League squad numbers they are very similar to Premier League (English football) squad numbers. The core squad will normally occupy the first 25, with several juniors getting later squad numbers. Teams such as Leeds and St Helens quite often will feature teams with close to 1 through 17 on there backs, whereas others may not. Some players choose numbers on superstition, some mid-season transfers get stuck with high numbers, but normally players would want a number closest to the 13 or 17 as possible. Fans often get replica shirts with player names and numbers on the back of their shirts. Just trying to paint a picture of why they are a part of English sport; cricket, football, rugby league, basketball, etc. Londo 06 07:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone fix it because it really doesn't look very good. We are trying to move the infobox forwards and this just makes it look like the squad numbers were a bit of an afterthought. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 08:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think current club should be automatic for any league. There are so many players out there that cannot be distinguished between retirees and current players. Also there is the fact that it looks not so great, and that we seem to be going it alone on this infobox in terms of current club, and for one country only. Fronsdorf ( talk) 09:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems to quite a thorny issue this one. For me a return to form would be the simplest solution; for SL players there would be three fields filled, and for our NRL players there would only be the two. Alexsanderson 83 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, not a thorny issue at all. I've heard only two arguments for the inclusion of the "current club" field in the infobox:
As for the first argument, this just isn't the case. See Markus Naslund (NHL), Jonny Wilkinson (R. Union), Ben Cousins (AFL) and Sachin Tendulkar (cricket). As for the second argument, it only applies to Super League players and no one else. So that leaves a total of zero effective arguments for the inclusion of a current club field for NRL players. The arguments against are quite obvious. It's clear enough as it is. Ask a friend or family member to come to the computer, and to type in either Matt Prior or Shannon Hegarty or Petero Civoniceva or any of the abovememntioned athletes and see how long it takes them to find out if he's retired or still playing. Give readers some credit. The people who I assume are more familiar than me with Super League have insisted that the squad numbers, and hence the current club, be included in the infobox and I'm not resisting that. But there is absolutely nothing to say they're needed for NRL players. Things should be left as they are.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 03:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Karmichael Hunt uses "height(m)" and "weight(kg)" parameters for the infobox. Shouldn't these appear regardless? The Windler talk 11:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the Australan Schoolboys and Prime Ministers XIII teams in the representative part of the players infobox. I would propose to have them removed. On the grounds, that there not really rep fixtures, and nothing that can't be said in the article. Any other thoughts, opinions. The Windler talk 08:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I just wish people could understand that when we want content not to appear in the infobox, that doesn't mean we're trying to obscure it or that we don't want it appearing at all. I think schoolboy rep teams being detailed in the article is great and is an important piece of information that enriches a player's biography. But trying to cram as much content in the infobox regardless of relevance really cheapens it and gives the distinct impression that editors desparately want the infobox to be filled (even if it means putting in minor teams, obscure nicknames, etc.). To me, a meatier body of text is far more impressive than a long and colourful infobox. Sometimes less is more.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 06:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It was something that was agreed upon that only teams with articles would be included within the infobox. Alexsanderson 83 07:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
If there is an article, then there is a place. For me they should definitely stay. Fronsdorf ( talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should vote on inclusion right here and now:
Voting for the inclusion of junior represetative teams in the representative section:
I have noticed the use of {{ nobreak}} on clubs like St george illawarra Dragons to get the whole name to fit in the template in one line. Should we allow this? Should we work it into the template. I don't really like it. The Windler talk 09:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I would have to say I am split on where I stand if I'm honest. If we are looking to go one way or another then I may have to abstain. With a side like the Rabbitohs then I would go with South Sydney for a shortened version, however for a side like Manly I would always call todays side the Manly Sea Eagles. For North Queensland Cowboys I would have North Queensland rather than NQ Cowboys and I would have Cronulla Sharks rather than Cronulla-Sutherland and St George Illwarra rather than SGI Dragons, etc. Londo 06 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This may seem dauting, but the template needing completing is now less than 1000. (Actually, only templates without the parameter new=yes go into this category) Remember if you complete fully a infobox, remove the new=yes. Heres the category, here (the names melded but ehh) Category:Infobox rugby league biography templates updated.
Thanks. The Windler talk 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I know I take my life into my hands in asking an Infobox question but can someone confirm that where we show the Austn Jerseys for Kangaroo Captains are they now meant to look as big as this ? Keith Barnes - Sticks 66 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The Super League article really needs to be updated with full results now that the 27 rounds have finished. I have been trying to add results but no one else has updated the page. Could you let me know on my talkpage if you can help. Thanks. 03md ( talk) 13:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
There's another one: NRL 2008 Finals Series. It's probably the one to be deleted and then the other one, 2008 NRL Finals series should be merged with 2008 NRL season results. Yes? • Florrie• leave a note• 08:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tried tidying this up, but in order for it to become a good article I think it will need someone who knows more about the club to add information. Any takers? Red Fiona ( talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There are (at present count) 58 pages up for deleletion in AfD Discussions at the College Football Project (American football at the college level). Since your project is listed as a related project, your project members may wish to participate. This large volume is really more than we can handle in such a short period of time and the project asks for your input. Please review Articles & Pages being considered for deletion immediately.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know why recent talk and ongoing debate has been moved to an archive. To my mind there are a number of issues still up in the air. Just wondering if anyone knew. Fronsdorf ( talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It is something that has previously been discussed and has since been archived. I shall add to this, but at this time my main point is that I intend to bring a vote to everyone. Londo 06 12:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No consensus for move
Clear majority for opposition to move in light of
sock puppetry being uncovered.--
Jeff79 (
talk)
06:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
You must alert WP:RU of this vote and:
There is no overriding majority and so I have attempted to open up another, some may say a better way of getting the issue sorted at over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Vote, but that move for (rugby player) to (rugby union) does need attention as at the minute it is only a majority, not a clear consensus. Please take a read over there. Many thanks. Londo 06 10:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Paul_Moriarty_(rugby). Londo 06 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Archive_10#Disambiguated_pages_for_players_who_have_played_both_codes. Londo 06 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) See Talk:Rugby_league#Naming_convention_for_individuals Londo 06 13:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Paul_Moriarty_(rugby).-- Jeff79 ( talk) 13:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
saw this article this morning, and thought it was interesting :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't like a section on controversy that would out weigh the playing career. Craig Gower, despite all his contreversys, is still more notable for being a rugby league/union player. I believe that contreversy should be part of the players history, not have a section that simply points out possibly every minor incident that has occured. The Windler talk 11:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all, I was having a look at the WP:DISCLAIMER page and noticed some strange redirecting from some Rugby League articles. Does anyone care to clean this up? Cheers! Witty Lama 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice on some team articles, some one has put up "possible run on sides" as if they are the coach of the team. No one knows for sure what sides will run on till official team listings are announced a few days out. this is a violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. This was similarly discussed with agreement at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Discussions_forums/Putting_up_weekly_run_on_sides_on_team_articles Michellecrisp ( talk) 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Perhaps a recent side could still be listed with date last played. Michellecrisp ( talk) 01:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you all know that the 2009 NRL Draw has been released, so I suppose 2009 team articles and the like can start appearing as there should be enough information on the season ahead. Heres the draw [1]. Hope that helps. The Windler talk 01:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Am I mistaken or was the current club field not linked to club number so that it didn't show for NRL players? I've noticed quite a few NRL players with a current club displayed where before, even if the field was entered, it did not display. • Florrie• leave a note• 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I would be in favour of it for our players as well as the English ones, were it to be brought into the open again. Alexsanderson 83 08:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
As long as we've got them for Super League players I'm not massively bothered about players in the NRL at this point in time, although our ones do look ugly at the minute. MortonStalker ( talk) 10:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC) For someone like myself it would be very useful. I watched my first NRL Grand Final at the weekend, and really enjoyed. When I look through Australian players I often have to go all the way to the bottom to find out what club they play for. GarethHolteDavies ( talk) 08:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
After this weeks grand final in the NRL. Can we begin ending players tenure at one club. And beginning a new club for that player. For example. Israel Folau after this weeks gran final, will have ended his playing tenure at the Storm. It would be assumed that you would take the present away from the infobox and the template for the Melbourne current team away.
However. Do we put that the Brisbane Broncos "2009-" (in this example) for him and the Brisbane Broncos current squad. For all players not in the World Cup, they would go over to their new clubs within the month (presumably). (World Cup players would be with their respective team squads). Should we change over all the current squads etc. and that after the grand final or the beginning of next year?? The Windler talk 13:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Over in the soccer community they only add transfers when a player officially begins a contract with their new club. In the UK contracts will normally commence until November, I can't speak for NRL players but it may be best to hold fire as players at the world cup such as Mick Crocker will still be listed by Sky Sports and the BBC as a Melbourne Storm player, Garreth Carvell as a Hull FC player, Mark Calderwood as a Wigan player, etc. Londo 06 10:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Verifiability being the key, it seems clear that prospective player movements cannot be added to the infobox, but should be qualified in the first few lines of the players article. Bearing in mind that player contracts do not even take effect until November and insurance documents only beginning then as well players remain with their 2008 club until that time. The other issue is 2009 to present is a little silly, a future date to the present time, an inaccuracy that cannot be considered encyclopaedic. Londo 06 11:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have written this elsewhere but Mark Gasnier has been released from the final weeks of his insured contract with the Dragons to take up a rugby union contract with Stade Francais. If Brett Hodgson had been called up by Australia he would still be insured by Wests and Australia, regardless of his future contract for the 2009 season. Londo 06 13:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)