Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league

Main page

New articles

Requests

Participants

Notability Guideline

Style Guide

Assessment

Resources

Welcome to the discussion page of the Rugby League WikiProject! To start a new discussion section, please click here

Looking to bring a vote on disambiguated players who have played both codes

It is something that has previously been discussed and has since been archived.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.Londo06 12:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As per the archived page a number of pages have been set to (rugby) alone, and to me this indicates that a players rugby union career was more important than his league career. I propose moving players such as Jonathan Davies (rugby) to Jonathan Davies (dual-code rugby) to allow this page to show the importance of both periods of his game. (rugby) is the standard following rugby union teams that need to be disambiguated such as the Brumbies. Those in favour of the (dual-code rugby) would indicate their support and those against it would list their opposition. I personally will follow the result which is reached here.

Vote

• SupportLondo06 13:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Alexsanderson83 14:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per all Jeff's arguments. Obviously, in some parts of the English-speaking world, there are two sports known as rugby and rugby league. Equally obviously, in some (albeit fewer) parts of the English-speaking world, there are two sports known as rugby and rugby union. But none of this applies to Wikipedia. Here, there are two sports known as rugby league and rugby union, and both have an equal right to be called rugby. This means that the entire disambiguation system for rugby players should be changed. Either all rugby player disambiguations should use only "rugby" (taking in "league" or "union" only when needed to disambiguate against a player of the opposite code), or they should all use the code by default. As they are disambiguated now, it looks like rugby union players play rugby while rugby league players play rugby league, and that's biased. -- Jao (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I don't understand the argument listed above, but in Scotland rugby union is rugby, and rugby league is rugby league. Come on the Mothers (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose When a person comes to Wikipedia they are searching for more information on someone they already know the identity of. So they type into search "John Doe" looking for that particular person who is an architect or biologist or rugby player/manager/whatever. If that name has no other pages which would cause ambiguity, they find the player just by their name. If there are others with the same name, they find themsleves at a disambiguation page, which has as its purpose guiding people to the right person among that group who share the same or similar names. The purpose of a disambiguator is to provide them with simple clarity as to which is the right person, and not to define further the exact role of the player in their area. John Doe (chemist), not John Doe (organic/inorganic/physical/theoretical chemist). This seems especially true here where clarity appears not to be served by dual code, because there appears to be little agreement here of whether that appellation is even correct. Maybe (rugby player) but not (this form of rugby) verses (that form of rugby).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - a couple of good points; (rugby) as a disambiguator lacks a little clarity, especially given that it is the standard for teams when disambiguated. (rugby player) may well have been a road to go down, unfortunately union players are there at the minute, as calls for it to me moved to (rugby union) seem to have been dismissed as too much hard work. With regards to the opening line, surely we have to take in to account the reader who knows little of either game, taking the logical step and see rugby as rugby union and rugby league as rugby league. I feel we do need to come up with something; if nothing else sort out the rugby union team naming conventions to avoid dual-code players and rugby union teams having the same disambiguator. Fronsdorf (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Those arguing for the addition of "dual-code" know that "(rugby)" alone as a disambiguator does it's job of directing people to the article they're looking for. It's clear, even to them, that adding "dual-code" to the disambiguator in brackets does nothing to assist in directing people to the correct article, and they're not even arguing that it does. They're saying that they feel using 'rugby' alone in the title only acknowledges rugby union (based on their part of the world's general usage interpretation of the word rugby). Well, the job of disambiguators in brackets is not to summarise a person's notability or to 'acknowledge' their achievements. It is to disambiguate them, and nothing more. If it were used to acknowledge different aspects of individuals' notability, the disambiguators in brackets would be completely varied across wikipedia, and the cause of endless edit warring. So instead we use disambiguators that are just enough to differentiate the articles and nothing more (this is why Alan Jones (broadcaster) is not Alan Jones (dual-code rugby coach). "Joe Bloggs (rugby)" is unambiguous, "Joe Bloggs (dual-code rugby)", while also unambiguous, is less simple. End of discussion. But even if we were to indulge this argument about what the disambiguator does or doesn't acknowledge according to readers' interpretations of the word "rugby", clearly it acknowledges both rugbys (because there are, in fact two, not one). Rugby football was split long ago into two codes: rugby league and rugby union. The names of both sports now share the word "rugby". So 'rugby' is pretty convenient when you're looking for the simplest disambiguator that acknowledges both. And if we want to bring this discussion down further into the realms of personal experience and feelings and preferences (which I loathe to do), in my experience, people from the north of England and the southern states of Australia will use 'rugby' to refer to either or. Is their common usage less important than Scotland's? It's not for us, or anyone on wikipedia to say. We're not using '(rugby)' to show a preference to any particular region's common usage, we're using it because it's factually correct as per this encyclopedia and because it is the simplest suffix that in unambiguous.--Jeff79 (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I am arguing that it does. Fronsdorf (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, "it does" does it? Well whatever it is you're arguing for, you're doing a fantastic job :D Keep it up.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry fella, it was a response to your words in the first couple of lines on your opposition listed above. Regardless of the outcome something needs to be done with the Jonathan Davies (rugby) article, as we have "Not to be confused with Jonathan Davies (rugby union)" as the first words of the article, that would certainly confuse people who are not altogether keyed up on the subject. Fronsdorf (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That is why we write articles, you see. The article title and the article itself are actually not the same thing. It's complicated. I know.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't follow; the article title and the article are not about the same thing, who is it about then? Fronsdorf (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jonathan Davies (rugby) article is definitely about the former DCI. What I'm saying is those first words need to be re-written to avoid any possible confusion for the unitiated. Fronsdorf (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You must alert WP:RU of this vote and:

• Oppose, though do support the use of (rugby union) for sole rugby players.  The Windler talk  07:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

'Comment - I also support that motion, perhaps a bot could be recommended to the rugby union project. Fronsdorf (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support GarethHolteDavies (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support (rugby) is the standard following a rugby union team, not an individual, also (rugby player) needs to move to (rugby union).  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Jao and Fuhgettaboutit have it right. This is a disambiguation that is neither intuitive nor necessary based on a "standard" usage of rugby to refer purely to rugby union that is nowhere near universal. Feel free to use (rugby player) as opposed to (rugby) for biographies, but this arbitrary code-based rule for articles serves noone. Knepflerle (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, ridiculous discussion. It's about a clear disambiguator (which "rugby" is) and not about political correctness and pandering to the nuances of the word to different groups. -Sticks66 15:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not sure what to say, really. MDM (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• support —Preceding unsigned comment added by MortonStalker (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - rugby is rugby union in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the South Sea Islands, where else is the game played. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the case, rugby league is "rugby" in Yorks, Lancs and Cumbria (and that's over 14 million people).GordyB (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - There doesn't seem to be an overriding majority one way or the other. Would it be better to get (rugby) changed as the standard for rugby union teams and get the discussion going for the move with (rugby player) to (rugby union).Londo06 12:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I believe it should be (rugby league) for RL players, (rugby union) for RU players and (rugby) for both. Though we can't just start changing the RU articles without consensus from the RU project. Be aware of that.  The Windler talk  22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Will bring it up at the rugby union wikiproject. (rugby player) to (rugby union) seems to solve any issues raised here, and will also look into the naming standards of teams to avoid (rugby) being the standard for teams.Londo06 11:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This has now been brought up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Vote. Please add your vote and any feelings there.Londo06 12:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - to me rugby is rugby union, but as I understand it, there is a move to shift (rugby player) to (rugby union). Perhaps if we can get that sorted out it may be better. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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.Londo06 10:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to previous discussions on the matter

See Talk:Paul_Moriarty_(rugby).Londo06 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Archive_10#Disambiguated_pages_for_players_who_have_played_both_codes.Londo06 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) See Talk:Rugby_league#Naming_convention_for_individualsLondo06 13:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead & buried issue

See Talk:Paul_Moriarty_(rugby).--Jeff79 (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

5 fields issue

It was something that I have commented on previously, with Super League players having 5 fields filled up, which looks decidely ordinary if I'm honest. I thought there was momentum to fix the problem, but nothing has been sorted while I've been abroad. Are there any plans to fix the problem? Fronsdorf (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Ugly? How? You think having 6 lines followed by 3 lines is prettier than 4 lines followed by 5? •Florrie•leave a note• 10:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm guessing if it it's the same thing that I am on about, it is shown here with the controversial Leon Pryce and the height, weight, position, club and number all in the same area. Alexsanderson83 11:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thought this was interesting....

saw this article this morning, and thought it was interesting :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I really dislike most "Controversy" sections. Other than a mention of a player playing for a certain team, some articles consist entirely of "controversy"! Very much WP:UNDUE when the article only exists in the first place because of the subject's supposed notability within rugby league. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There's now a discussion about it on the Australian Wikipeidan's noticeboard. •Florrie•leave a note• 05:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. We certainly shouldn't want to bar citeable information being put into articles. A better way to solve the imbalance would be to find more info about the player's football career and insert that, so the controversy is diluted. Negative press should be seen as a kind of incentive to improve the article.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's very true but sometimes it seems that there isn't a lot to be said about a player except for his involvement in controversies. The original Craig Field article was deleted on the grounds that it focussed on controversies rather than his playing career. There must be a decent balance. It also concerns me that incidents are included - with citations - but are never followed up with a result, which can often be a positive result for the player, not only negative. Richie Williams' assault charge is one example. Maybe it is ongoing, maybe not. I couldn't find any online references when I went looking a few months back. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see this argument from both sides; controversy is noteworthy, but sometimes they dominate articles too much. The answer would be to add any controversy in a neutral manner and give the article a more rounded feel by adding to the areas that are weakest. Alexsanderson83 08:15, 29 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)

Right. I've always been one for putting things down chronologically. If a player gets drunk in public, wins a premiership, then gets drunk in public again, it should go in that order.--Jeff79 (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Current Club

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)

What articles is this on, I would like to see.  The Windler talk  07:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've fixed it. Someone reverted it on the template page.  The Windler talk  07:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I've been taking current club fields out of NRL and retired players' infoboxes and I don't expect to be reverted. For Super League players I've left it in.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! •Florrie•leave a note• 07:59, 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. Alexsanderson83 08:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before, and it was agreed that only SL players would have current club. The forcing of club number just is a measure as NRL players do not have numbers.  The Windler talk  08:30, 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)

Schoolboy football

Can we please have some resolution on the schoolboy football in the infobox issue? I'm fed up with being reverted. If we don't have consensus then surely the status quo should hold - and that was - anything other than senior rep teams go in the article text, not the infobox. Frankly, this is ridiculous. The youth fields were removed for a reason - or so I thought. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We voted here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Archive_8#Representative_teams_should_be_notable_enough_to_have_own_article_.28unlike_Brad_Fittlers_City_Firsts.29 that teams present should have their own article, which the team immediately below the 'roos does have. Alexsanderson83 09:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And the discussion related to senior reps, as in City/Country seconds, no mention of schoolboy football at all! How do you manipulate that to mean schoolboy stuff? And "the team immediately below the 'roos"? Since when? •Florrie•leave a note• 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Queensland and NSW are state teams, and City vs Country is essentially a selection game for SOO. At national level you do have the Junior Kangaroos, but I haven't heard too much about that side over recent years, although I wouldn't wish to speculate whether it is still in existence. Alexsanderson83 12:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Hmmm, Australia > Queensland, New South Wales > City, Country > Queensland Cup, NSWRL, CRL. Just to name a few. The Schoolboys are a completly different league, they are not below the national team. Consider this - If the Schoolboys are the second after the Kangaroos, then wouldn't that make the Schoolboys, the second best representative fixture avaliable. I don't think so. And any way, just because some thing is below the main one, dosen't make the second lot notable or worthy of inclusion.  The Windler talk  12:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And...[1] The same rules for inclusion of playing data should apply. This means coaching of junior representative teams such as Australian Schoolboys and non-top-level teams such as those in the Queensland Cup should be in the body text only. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That rule means that the team should have an article. It dosen't mean that every team with an article gets a place on the infobox. It was just a measure to remove non-notable second tier teams.  The Windler talk  11:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yeah, as I've said before, certainly have schoolboy footy in the article, it's great, definite keep. But in the infobox everyone knows the fields will never be filled. It just doesn't belong there. The most insignificant football in the infobox alongside the most significant? Really out of place.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they have a place in the infobox. It's scary from an English point of view the number of players that come through the Australian system. MortonStalker (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Its comparable to the recent PM XIII, there hasn't really been any decent reports. The only news is on some of the players chances in possibly breaking into the World Cup team. If it wasn't a World Cup year, then interest would be even more minimal. Like schoolboys, no-one really cares (PNG will care, but its still not top level RL). The schoolboys falls under junior clubs for me and shouldn't be there AT ALL. We voted on this ages ago, that junior games were not to be counted in the infobox.  The Windler talk  10:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Height/Weight and Schoolboys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disclaimers page

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 don't know why or how or if it even does link to Wikipedia:General_disclaimer but it seems that it only is because there is an atempt to redirect from the image page. I cleaned it up/fixed it for you.  The Windler talk  01:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Rugby league world cup squads

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)

Yep, all "possible" run-on sides have got to go. Most recent side is more appropriate.--Jeff79 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think most recent side is necessary. For Australia that would be nearly 6 months ago. Players there may not play in this tournament. And what purpose does a most recent team have any way. Squads are good.  The Windler talk  01:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it's factual and citeable for a start. I for one would be far more interested in seeing who actually played for a side 6 months ago than who some wikipedian footy fan thinks will play for them in the future.--Jeff79 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

True, it dosen't really mind me. But if had a preference, it would be that. I just said, I don't think their necessary. The Windler talk  01:29, 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)

That's exactly what I had in mind.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2009 NRL Draw

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 [3]. Hope that helps.  The Windler talk  01:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Change of current club squads

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)

Was gonna raise this today as well. I have reverted a number of squads as the NRL and SL finals series are not yet over. In England contracts run November through November. You could argue that 2009- may be crystal balling as players can get injured, or walk out on contracts. I honestly can't remember what we did last year, when we would have had the same issues.Londo06 13:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I did alot of it in February/March of this year. Its after I came back from my break from rugby league articles. So we'll see what happens, it won't really matter to me if its done now or in a few months. I plan to take another break from RL articles after the world cup anyway.  The Windler talk  22:19, 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.Londo06 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.Londo06 11:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It might seem silly but it would be clear because there is no longer a present. It may be refering to 2009 until unknown. I will start updating after the World Cup final blows over. That will be December, so it should be all right.  The Windler talk  11:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be much happier with that. It's much closer to be being factually accurate, and that is what we should endeavour to achieve.Londo06 11:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem updating players who have already left for their new clubs, is there? Just wondering why there was all the fuss over removing Mark Gasnier from the St. George Illawarra template? •Florrie•leave a note• 05:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't over Gasnier, it was over the addition of the likes of Darius Boyd, etc.Londo06 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Can't think why I got that impression.[4] And then you add the navbox back on Brett Hodgson! Please. Is this a game to you? •Florrie•leave a note• 09:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So, if there's no problem moving nav boxes for players who have finished at a club - can you please explain why you keep [5],[6] reverting my edit at Brett Hodgson? Get it off your chest and move on to something constructive. I am tired of your shit. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I may have made my point unclear. I support the removal of current squads after the last game, just not the addition of the new club until later. For Israel Folau, he isn't really part of Melbournes "current" squad. But at the same time he isnt really part of Brisbanes "current squad'. Thats what I believe, sorry I've been mainly stating about future clubs.  The Windler talk  10:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. So, I can remove the current squad template from Brett Hodgson. Thank you. I didn't realise it was so controversial. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:21, 6 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.Londo06 13:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Formal policy on notability for rugby league biographies

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

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

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

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

SpecialWindler's Guidelines

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SpecialWindler's Revised Guidelines

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

States/Counties

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