![]() | 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. |
It was something that I have commented on previously, with Super League players having 5 fields filled up, which looks decidely ordinary if I'm honest. I thought there was momentum to fix the problem, but nothing has been sorted while I've been abroad. Are there any plans to fix the problem? Fronsdorf ( talk) 13:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
They do look ugly, can something be done. MortonStalker ( talk) 10:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If it is difficult to make it so height & weight appear under Playing Information for retired players only, then I think everyone should just put up with the status quo. On the other hand, if it's not a big hassle to make heigh & weight appear under Playing Information for retired players only (and under Personal information for current), why don't we just do that? Should please everybody? If I knew the nuts & bolts of the coding I'd do it myself-- Jeff79 ( talk) 13:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Definitely something that wants sorting out, why has nothing been done about it; they look bad. GarethHolteDavies ( talk) 08:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's good to know how much a 60 year old coach weighs or that a man died at the healthy weight of Xkg. Wake up to yourself. It is utterly absurd. I think we're gonna need two infoboxes (at least). One for current and one for retired. The American football wikiproject (one of the few sports wikiprojects which is actually further advanced than ours) has a multitude of different infoboxes for different situations. I think that might have to be the way to go.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 09:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we please have some resolution on the schoolboy football in the infobox issue? I'm fed up with being reverted. If we don't have consensus then surely the status quo should hold - and that was - anything other than senior rep teams go in the article text, not the infobox. Frankly, this is ridiculous. The youth fields were removed for a reason - or so I thought. • Florrie• leave a note• 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think they have a place in the infobox. It's scary from an English point of view the number of players that come through the Australian system. MortonStalker ( talk) 10:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Windler ! " Karmichael Hunt ....one of the only real competent player articles". Indeed it's a very good article, and thanks to your hard work it's in fact the only featured player article. But it would be very easy to take offence at the suggestion that all of the other 1,390 Aust & 458 English Player articles are less than competent. But I won't take offence.- Sticks 66 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems this discussion is going off track again. The Windler talk 11:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Furthering the discussion once more as we seem to have stalled yet again...
As mentioned before in the above section there was the issue with the question on height and weight on the infobox vote being mis-leading. I shan't be making an ammendment to the infobox, but I shall be bringing it to a vote at the wiki-project. Londo 06 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
If no-one opposes me I will remove the Australian Schoolboys / NZ Juniors soon and put the height and weight in the personal information to avoid your "5 field problem". This is a compromise, I have put it in bold to gain your attention so that if you have a chance to oppose it or whatever. It's time we ended this repetative and going no-where debate. I'll do it later this week. The Windler talk 09:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don't think height and weight should be moved to personal information for retired or deceased players. The only reason there are 5 fields under playing information (which I think is what they're complaining about?) is because of the 'current club' and 'club number' fields, whose inclusion is on thin ice as it is. 9 times out of 10 the club number corresponds to the player's position, so in fact no useful information whatsoever is being conveyed. If anything has to go, it's that. And the schoolboys is a no-brainer. It belongs in the body text. I'm so sick of seeing articles whose infobox reaches further down the page than their body text. Surely others are too. It's embarrassing. Anyway, I've lost count of how many times I've asked if it is too difficult to make hight/weight appear under personal information for current players only, so I'll assume the answer is yes. So we're faced with either having 'height' and 'weight' under personal information for deceased and elderly persons or under playing information for current players. I think it's pretty obvious which is the lesser of two evils. Those (assuming it's in fact more than one person) whingeing about 5 fields being present under playing information look to be the same as "those" who pushed for the inclusion of 'current club' and 'club number' fields. This is a complete waste of time. Sort your ideas out and get on with actually improving things (if you're capable). I (don't) look forward to reading more utterly inane arguments against what I've said here.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 02:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Fixed infobox; per the offer in this new section. Londo 06 07:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we include states and counties as many places where players are born are unknown to the worlds population and it would seem a useful link and would look better to know straight away. GarethHolteDavies ( talk) 09:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, before this devolves to yet another edit war and WP:OWN issues, can we please discuss exactly why it is necessary to include the preliminary squad info once the actual squad has been named? eg, Anthony Laffranchi...
Fascinating, I'm sure. But once the player has been selected in the squad, that trumps the preliminary squad and the information is entirely redundant, not to mention it looks shabby and reads poorly, almost like reading a list. I'll be editing such material as I come across it. • Florrie• leave a note• 13:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
If a player is selected as a national representative or makes a tour or World Cup squad then that should be the starting place from which to detail how many tour matches played, Tests played, points scored etc. Presumably he would have been selected in a preliminary squad if such was picked at an early stage of those selection processes. So what ? It hardly adds notable detail to the article of such a player. On the other hand, if the player made it no further than a preliminary squad mention, then fair enough that such is mentioned in the article. - Sticks 66 22:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been working for some time at the infobox, if you ask, I have completed the infobox to allow rugby union section come first.
Simply add "first = RU" (exactly) to the infobox and the rugby union section will be first on the playing section. "coachfirst = RU" will put the coach union section first.
This was done as part of a request from the talk page on the templates talk page. Also, the template is also sole rugby union friendly.
And finally, a sacrafice has been made. The temlate now makes use of sub-pages, which means most of the content is not on the original page.
Thanks. The Windler talk 04:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
A while ago, while I was going through the NSWRL season articles I discovered the "Dave Brown Medal" which apparently was awarded to the man-of-the-match for Grand Finals until Clive Churchill's death in 1985. I've found a few sources confirming this but recently there's been this retrospective awarding of the Clive Churchill Medal business, and reading about that in the news, I can find no mention at all of the Dave Brown Medal anywhere. It's as though it never existed. I searched the words "Dave Brown Medal" on google and some results said it was awarded to the man-of-the-match in the final of something called the "Scanlens Cup" which I'd never heard of. Searching "Scanlens Cup" I couldn't find anything clearer about it and was wondering if any of you guys with access to books and old magazines and stuff could help shed some light on this issue.
Related discussion: Talk:Clive Churchill Medal#Dave Brown Medal.
-- Jeff79 ( talk) 07:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did notice when you raised this question in August. I'll see what I can find out. I can always ask Sean Fagan what he knows. - Sticks 66 13:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I created a number of Rugby league categories back in 2007 such as Category:Leeds Rhinos players I have noticed that user:Jeff79 is going around creating duplicate categories such as Category:Leeds Rhinos rugby league players and then making the original categories sub-categories of the new ones. Can anyone see any reason for this activity? E P 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Please note that UK, Irish, Australian, NZ and South African articles must use international, not US date formats. Dates should not be autoformatted.
I'm auditing many sports-related articles and finding this aspect very poorly handled. Please let me know if you require further information. Tony (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that this article was a blatant copyright infringement. I therefore speedily deleted it, and then recreated a tiny stub with non copyvio information.
Can I a) request your help in re-establishing the article and b) ask for your vigilance in looking out for copyvio in Rugby League articles - I've also hacked the middle out of Brian McTigue (metaphorically!) for the same reason. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I wish to implement a policy adopted by this project to help with the deletion of non-notable RL players. About a month ago, I proposed deletion for some articles, but I found sometimes my case too hard to argue.
If we implemented a MOS for notability of RL players, we could simply say in violation of the policy widely accepted by this project.
We widely accept that First grade players deserve there own article, but there have been a fair few Toyota Cup players, and the sort popping up. Such as Matt Mundine. It's unsourced, and really, only St. George Illawarra diehards are going to look at (and create it).
However, if we decide to follow down this path, which I hope we do. We do need to set on notability guidelines. Below is my first attempt at it. Feel free to edit or make your own. The Windler talk 11:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The Windler talk 11:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Notability is currently (or elements of it) under request for comment here. Have you had a look? There seems to be some thought that wiki-projects shouldn't be able to set their own notability criteria which are used to (or attempt to) over-ride general notability requirements as some feel this will open the flood-gates even more to poorly referenced articles, particularly in regard to sports related articles. I have to agree, WP:Athlete is a bit of a joke.
But, as you have out-lined, what we want to do is to tighten up the criteria for articles, obviously, to prevent many of the one line stubs. Regardless, WP:N will trump any of our guidelines, no matter how many games have been played (or not played), and for whom, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jordan Rankin is an example - only one game but notable because of his age and significant media coverage.
So, basically, I agree with either tightening up the WP:RL criteria for inclusion and crossing fingers that it will be adhered to, or, more simply, sticking to WP:N, where "reliable" is just that, "significant" is more than a name in a team list and "independent of the subject" precludes one line mentions on a club's website.
I recently had one unreferenced article successfully deleted, someone-or-other Bobongie, who hadn't played in the NRL but in the past it has been more difficult, usually with our own members arguing against the deletions. It would be nice if we could all agree for once. • Florrie• leave a note• 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The Windler talk 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I am in favour of hard-line enforcing of our current rules; inherent notability with first-grade or international- yes, if not delete. A proposed 50 games before an article seems a little excessive. Would it not be best to simply nudge everyone in the direction of saying third party references are a must. Significant coverage if what it sounds like is a little extreme; we are moving from warranting an article to 'Why the fuck has this guy not got an article' if we go with 50 games of first-grade. I cannot all good conscience back the 50 game ideal; however I would back a proposal upon the lines of third-party references being a necessity for all new articles, an attempt to clarify their inherent notability. Londo 06 08:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Players such as Mark Dalle Cort will still be eligible for an article when he plays in the Super League. I have been holding off on creating articles for our players as I think they may be deleted if I created them now. As I understand the rules at the minute they would not be article worthy until they play Super League. Annoying because I could have done some really nice articles. GarethHolteDavies ( talk) 08:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ratification vote question; just confirming all NRL & Super League players are eligible for articles. 'Should be should be' probably just a typing error. Fronsdorf ( talk) 11:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
As soon as our Celtic Crusaders boys take the pitch, they can have articles, yes? As long as they are sourced. GarethHolteDavies ( talk) 10:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Its time to vote to (if you agree and want to) the guidelines as outlines in the "revised" section above. If you support, then you are in favour of the 8 guidelines above. If you oppose you do not agree with at least one of the guidelines above. There is no neutral, don't vote if you couldn't care less. And finally, please put comments above. The Windler talk 09:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I've ratified the rules 1-8 and proposing a 9th rule, as below. This isn't ratified, and I would like comment. The new page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability.
9. Any biography in which they are claimed to be notable based on the team/competition in which they relate to, should not be recommended for an article based on the notability of the team/competition unless the biography establishes notability of itself while meeting the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources.
OK. The Windler talk 09:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | 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. |
It was something that I have commented on previously, with Super League players having 5 fields filled up, which looks decidely ordinary if I'm honest. I thought there was momentum to fix the problem, but nothing has been sorted while I've been abroad. Are there any plans to fix the problem? Fronsdorf ( talk) 13:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
They do look ugly, can something be done. MortonStalker ( talk) 10:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If it is difficult to make it so height & weight appear under Playing Information for retired players only, then I think everyone should just put up with the status quo. On the other hand, if it's not a big hassle to make heigh & weight appear under Playing Information for retired players only (and under Personal information for current), why don't we just do that? Should please everybody? If I knew the nuts & bolts of the coding I'd do it myself-- Jeff79 ( talk) 13:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Definitely something that wants sorting out, why has nothing been done about it; they look bad. GarethHolteDavies ( talk) 08:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's good to know how much a 60 year old coach weighs or that a man died at the healthy weight of Xkg. Wake up to yourself. It is utterly absurd. I think we're gonna need two infoboxes (at least). One for current and one for retired. The American football wikiproject (one of the few sports wikiprojects which is actually further advanced than ours) has a multitude of different infoboxes for different situations. I think that might have to be the way to go.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 09:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we please have some resolution on the schoolboy football in the infobox issue? I'm fed up with being reverted. If we don't have consensus then surely the status quo should hold - and that was - anything other than senior rep teams go in the article text, not the infobox. Frankly, this is ridiculous. The youth fields were removed for a reason - or so I thought. • Florrie• leave a note• 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think they have a place in the infobox. It's scary from an English point of view the number of players that come through the Australian system. MortonStalker ( talk) 10:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Windler ! " Karmichael Hunt ....one of the only real competent player articles". Indeed it's a very good article, and thanks to your hard work it's in fact the only featured player article. But it would be very easy to take offence at the suggestion that all of the other 1,390 Aust & 458 English Player articles are less than competent. But I won't take offence.- Sticks 66 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems this discussion is going off track again. The Windler talk 11:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Furthering the discussion once more as we seem to have stalled yet again...
As mentioned before in the above section there was the issue with the question on height and weight on the infobox vote being mis-leading. I shan't be making an ammendment to the infobox, but I shall be bringing it to a vote at the wiki-project. Londo 06 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
If no-one opposes me I will remove the Australian Schoolboys / NZ Juniors soon and put the height and weight in the personal information to avoid your "5 field problem". This is a compromise, I have put it in bold to gain your attention so that if you have a chance to oppose it or whatever. It's time we ended this repetative and going no-where debate. I'll do it later this week. The Windler talk 09:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don't think height and weight should be moved to personal information for retired or deceased players. The only reason there are 5 fields under playing information (which I think is what they're complaining about?) is because of the 'current club' and 'club number' fields, whose inclusion is on thin ice as it is. 9 times out of 10 the club number corresponds to the player's position, so in fact no useful information whatsoever is being conveyed. If anything has to go, it's that. And the schoolboys is a no-brainer. It belongs in the body text. I'm so sick of seeing articles whose infobox reaches further down the page than their body text. Surely others are too. It's embarrassing. Anyway, I've lost count of how many times I've asked if it is too difficult to make hight/weight appear under personal information for current players only, so I'll assume the answer is yes. So we're faced with either having 'height' and 'weight' under personal information for deceased and elderly persons or under playing information for current players. I think it's pretty obvious which is the lesser of two evils. Those (assuming it's in fact more than one person) whingeing about 5 fields being present under playing information look to be the same as "those" who pushed for the inclusion of 'current club' and 'club number' fields. This is a complete waste of time. Sort your ideas out and get on with actually improving things (if you're capable). I (don't) look forward to reading more utterly inane arguments against what I've said here.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 02:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Fixed infobox; per the offer in this new section. Londo 06 07:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we include states and counties as many places where players are born are unknown to the worlds population and it would seem a useful link and would look better to know straight away. GarethHolteDavies ( talk) 09:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, before this devolves to yet another edit war and WP:OWN issues, can we please discuss exactly why it is necessary to include the preliminary squad info once the actual squad has been named? eg, Anthony Laffranchi...
Fascinating, I'm sure. But once the player has been selected in the squad, that trumps the preliminary squad and the information is entirely redundant, not to mention it looks shabby and reads poorly, almost like reading a list. I'll be editing such material as I come across it. • Florrie• leave a note• 13:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
If a player is selected as a national representative or makes a tour or World Cup squad then that should be the starting place from which to detail how many tour matches played, Tests played, points scored etc. Presumably he would have been selected in a preliminary squad if such was picked at an early stage of those selection processes. So what ? It hardly adds notable detail to the article of such a player. On the other hand, if the player made it no further than a preliminary squad mention, then fair enough that such is mentioned in the article. - Sticks 66 22:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been working for some time at the infobox, if you ask, I have completed the infobox to allow rugby union section come first.
Simply add "first = RU" (exactly) to the infobox and the rugby union section will be first on the playing section. "coachfirst = RU" will put the coach union section first.
This was done as part of a request from the talk page on the templates talk page. Also, the template is also sole rugby union friendly.
And finally, a sacrafice has been made. The temlate now makes use of sub-pages, which means most of the content is not on the original page.
Thanks. The Windler talk 04:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
A while ago, while I was going through the NSWRL season articles I discovered the "Dave Brown Medal" which apparently was awarded to the man-of-the-match for Grand Finals until Clive Churchill's death in 1985. I've found a few sources confirming this but recently there's been this retrospective awarding of the Clive Churchill Medal business, and reading about that in the news, I can find no mention at all of the Dave Brown Medal anywhere. It's as though it never existed. I searched the words "Dave Brown Medal" on google and some results said it was awarded to the man-of-the-match in the final of something called the "Scanlens Cup" which I'd never heard of. Searching "Scanlens Cup" I couldn't find anything clearer about it and was wondering if any of you guys with access to books and old magazines and stuff could help shed some light on this issue.
Related discussion: Talk:Clive Churchill Medal#Dave Brown Medal.
-- Jeff79 ( talk) 07:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did notice when you raised this question in August. I'll see what I can find out. I can always ask Sean Fagan what he knows. - Sticks 66 13:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I created a number of Rugby league categories back in 2007 such as Category:Leeds Rhinos players I have noticed that user:Jeff79 is going around creating duplicate categories such as Category:Leeds Rhinos rugby league players and then making the original categories sub-categories of the new ones. Can anyone see any reason for this activity? E P 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Please note that UK, Irish, Australian, NZ and South African articles must use international, not US date formats. Dates should not be autoformatted.
I'm auditing many sports-related articles and finding this aspect very poorly handled. Please let me know if you require further information. Tony (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that this article was a blatant copyright infringement. I therefore speedily deleted it, and then recreated a tiny stub with non copyvio information.
Can I a) request your help in re-establishing the article and b) ask for your vigilance in looking out for copyvio in Rugby League articles - I've also hacked the middle out of Brian McTigue (metaphorically!) for the same reason. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I wish to implement a policy adopted by this project to help with the deletion of non-notable RL players. About a month ago, I proposed deletion for some articles, but I found sometimes my case too hard to argue.
If we implemented a MOS for notability of RL players, we could simply say in violation of the policy widely accepted by this project.
We widely accept that First grade players deserve there own article, but there have been a fair few Toyota Cup players, and the sort popping up. Such as Matt Mundine. It's unsourced, and really, only St. George Illawarra diehards are going to look at (and create it).
However, if we decide to follow down this path, which I hope we do. We do need to set on notability guidelines. Below is my first attempt at it. Feel free to edit or make your own. The Windler talk 11:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The Windler talk 11:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Notability is currently (or elements of it) under request for comment here. Have you had a look? There seems to be some thought that wiki-projects shouldn't be able to set their own notability criteria which are used to (or attempt to) over-ride general notability requirements as some feel this will open the flood-gates even more to poorly referenced articles, particularly in regard to sports related articles. I have to agree, WP:Athlete is a bit of a joke.
But, as you have out-lined, what we want to do is to tighten up the criteria for articles, obviously, to prevent many of the one line stubs. Regardless, WP:N will trump any of our guidelines, no matter how many games have been played (or not played), and for whom, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jordan Rankin is an example - only one game but notable because of his age and significant media coverage.
So, basically, I agree with either tightening up the WP:RL criteria for inclusion and crossing fingers that it will be adhered to, or, more simply, sticking to WP:N, where "reliable" is just that, "significant" is more than a name in a team list and "independent of the subject" precludes one line mentions on a club's website.
I recently had one unreferenced article successfully deleted, someone-or-other Bobongie, who hadn't played in the NRL but in the past it has been more difficult, usually with our own members arguing against the deletions. It would be nice if we could all agree for once. • Florrie• leave a note• 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The Windler talk 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I am in favour of hard-line enforcing of our current rules; inherent notability with first-grade or international- yes, if not delete. A proposed 50 games before an article seems a little excessive. Would it not be best to simply nudge everyone in the direction of saying third party references are a must. Significant coverage if what it sounds like is a little extreme; we are moving from warranting an article to 'Why the fuck has this guy not got an article' if we go with 50 games of first-grade. I cannot all good conscience back the 50 game ideal; however I would back a proposal upon the lines of third-party references being a necessity for all new articles, an attempt to clarify their inherent notability. Londo 06 08:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Players such as Mark Dalle Cort will still be eligible for an article when he plays in the Super League. I have been holding off on creating articles for our players as I think they may be deleted if I created them now. As I understand the rules at the minute they would not be article worthy until they play Super League. Annoying because I could have done some really nice articles. GarethHolteDavies ( talk) 08:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ratification vote question; just confirming all NRL & Super League players are eligible for articles. 'Should be should be' probably just a typing error. Fronsdorf ( talk) 11:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
As soon as our Celtic Crusaders boys take the pitch, they can have articles, yes? As long as they are sourced. GarethHolteDavies ( talk) 10:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Its time to vote to (if you agree and want to) the guidelines as outlines in the "revised" section above. If you support, then you are in favour of the 8 guidelines above. If you oppose you do not agree with at least one of the guidelines above. There is no neutral, don't vote if you couldn't care less. And finally, please put comments above. The Windler talk 09:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I've ratified the rules 1-8 and proposing a 9th rule, as below. This isn't ratified, and I would like comment. The new page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability.
9. Any biography in which they are claimed to be notable based on the team/competition in which they relate to, should not be recommended for an article based on the notability of the team/competition unless the biography establishes notability of itself while meeting the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources.
OK. The Windler talk 09:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)