Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Article Improvement Drive.

I'd like to see this project have a drive (over 6-7 months until the NRL grand final) to get all the current NRL clubs up to or better than "Good article" status.

Currently 5 clubs are of GA status or better:

• Sydney Roosters
• Brisbane Broncos
• Melbourne Storm
• South Sydney Rabbitohs
• Parramatta Eels

These clubs achieved GA status after this announcement
 Cumberland (rugby league team) (9/3/08)

Any other opinions on how we should do this or if we should do this.  SpecialWindler talk  07:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the best approach? Tackle them one by one or leave it up to individuals to improve an article of choice? I've been meaning to attack the Tigers page for a while now so I'll put my hand up for that one. As much as I would dearly love to see the Panthers page fixed up, I wouldn't have time for two, I don't think. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Adopt an article!!

Good Work! See the good articles mentioned above to see an idea of the layout of a club article.  The Windler talk  10:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

SpecialWindler	North Queensland Cowboys Cumberland	old cur	Done -- achieved status on Monday March 10 2008 (UTC).
Florrie	Wests Tigers		I'm looking at it. It's like a block of clay...
Mdmanser	Glebe Annandale	old curr old curr	good article nominee in progress

St Helens RFC

Article under attack over recent days. Have requested action against a user who seems to be against the club.Londo06 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright free photos for our articles on Aust RL Old Timers

I may have mentioned before that I have more failure than success at uploading images, so I'm requesting assistance of the Project to upload to our articles 10 old photos I've found. All are usable under the pre-1955 "copyright expired" rationale that Boylo refers to above and which he successfully quotes in clear detail on the image used on Harry Bath.

The shots are at http://www.pictureaustralia.org/

PLAYERS: Search "Harold Horder" for two that could add to Harold Horder; search "Mick Madsen" reveals a shot & two cartoons for Mick Madsen; search "Duncan Thompson" for a shot and a caricature for Duncan Thompson; search "Vic Hey" for an excellent portrait of the great Vic Hey.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harold_Horder_1919.jpg Now on article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mick_Madsen_1935.jpg Now on article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vic_Hey_c1930.jpg Now on article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Duncan_Thompson_1925.jpg Now on article

- If this is what you are after, I'll keep going. I'm using the same Public domain permission as used by Boylo so I can blame him if these get pulled! •Florrie•leave a note• 23:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATORS: Search "Harry Sumerland" (sic) & "J J Giltinan" for photos to add to the stubs Harry Sunderland and J J Giltinan.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harry_Sunderland.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:J.J._Giltinan.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kangaroos_tour_1908_1909.jpg - with JJ Giltinan

GROUP SHOTS: Search "Founders of Queensland Rugby Football League". This shot would perfectly add early in the History paragraph of Queensland Rugby League plus also appropriate to repeat on the individual articles of Micky Dore and George Watson (rugby footballer).

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Queensland_Rugby_League_Founders_1907.jpg Now on article

TEAM SHOTS: Not generally suggesting we add team shots to individ. articles but for Jim Craig (rugby league) & Bill Tyquin I think the shots from the respective searches "unbeaten Queensland 1924" and "Queensland Rugby League Team in 1949" are appropriate since a) there are no other shots of these guys, b) they're the captains in each and part of their notability is their status as national & state captains.

I can upload the whole pic but I could also crop the individual from the enlarged versions of the pics if you want? •Florrie•leave a note• 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Queensland_Rugby_League_Representatives_1924a.jpg Now on article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Queensland_Rugby_League_Team_1949.jpg Now on article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bill_Tyquin_1949.jpg Now on article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jim_Craig_%28rugby_league%29_1924.jpg Now on article

FINALLY: Search "two captains shake hands" reveals a great shot to add to NSWRL season 1934 since it shows Dave Brown (rugby league) (in his distinctive headgear) and Frank McMillan shaking hands and seems to indeed be the Grand Final. Also appropriate on McMillan's article.

Not a free image - This image is provided for research purposes only and must not be reproduced without the prior permission of the State Library of NSW. •Florrie•leave a note• 23:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with this endeavour ? I'll get on any missing infoboxes for any above players -Sticks66 12:01, 26 March 2008

Fantastic, thanks. And what about the cropped shots of Tyquin and Craig. Wonders never cease. Ta -Sticks66 11:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Club football in infoboxes

I've seen a debate about this somewhere else once, but didn't add to it because I wasn't really sure what I thought at that time. It's about whether BRL club appearances should appear under "Youth Clubs" or "Senior Clubs" (or their equivalents) in the (not yet standardised) player infoboxes. Right now it's all mixed up and depends on whose article you look at. Some ignore BRL matches, some don't. I've decided on a pretty simple solution. I think BRL club football should be considered on a par with NSWRL club football until the end of 1987. 1987 was the last year that a State of Origin player was ever selected from a BRL team. After that it was always from the NSWRL. So if a line has to be drawn, I think the end of 1987 makes the most sense. Leaving BRL club matches out of player infoboxes isn't right. Until 1987 players were selected from the BRL to represent Australia, so everyone can agree that it was hardly a less senior competition than the NSWRL at that time. Certainly the end of 1987, when state and national representation ceased, is a logical 'unofficial' line in the sand after which BRL games can be considered a level below NSWRL games for our infobox purposes here in Wikipedia.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there was no QRL until 1996, which replaced the BRL. The BRL was Queenslands top rugby league figure (though many players were driven to NSW with money) in equal par to NSWRL until 1987, as you say. The addition of the Broncos and Gold Coast changed that. But I would put all games even to now (QRL) in senior games OR add a section to the infobox second grade or something. Players who are fringe players (such as Broncos Shane Perry who are in between NRL and QRL/NSW Premier League still considered Senior Clubs, but definetly not Youth Clubs. SpecialWindler talk  05:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My two cents. I definitely think there is a place for other clubs as a section on the infobox. I believe this would be a good cover-all space for teams currently in the Queensland Cup. Dallas Johnson is a good case, his junior club is the Herberton Magpies, you wouldn't consider his time at the Norths as him playing for a youth club.

Historically with BRL and NSWRL is a more tricky issue as people will no doubt run in problems with clubs that were top-grade and now a feeder-club. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have started this discussion on the template page for the rugby league player infobox, because that's all it's intended to be about. By all means, put all the clubs you like in the body text of players' articles, but I think everyone can agree that the infobox is intended to show the player "at a glance", so should only list the most noteworthy information. I'd argue that the infobox is not the place to include a list of every team a player has played for in his life at every level (we shouldn't lose sight of another very important aspect of players' articles called body text). Anyway, national and state representative career details: definitely include. Top-level club career details: I think so too. Anything below that: grey area. What I was getting at above, is how we should define "top-level club career". My proposed method, is to consider whether players from a club competition are drawn on for representative duties. If so, it is a top-level competition, if not, it isn't. Simple. As far as I understand it, no player from the Queensland Cup (or any other Australian club competition) has been selected to play Origin. Therefore it doesn't warrant inclusion in the infobox (this is not an attempt to diminish the importance of the Queensland Cup by any means. It's purely for the purpose of drawing a line with regard to infobox contents). However until 1987 BRL players were drawn on for Origin representation, so until that point, it can be considered a top-level competition. Now, another part of all this is settling on standard headings for the sections in the infobox. In this discussion I've used "top-level". In the days of reserve grade they used "first grade", but now I feel that's out-of-date. I don't have an answer for that one. It's probably best discussed here or here. In my opinion this issue should be part of the remaining tweaking left to be done on Mdmanser's work in progress infobox, which I personally hope will become the new standard.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say putting on stats for current competitions such as the Queensland Cup may well be too much for some people, I certainly have no interest in rooting round for them, but I do believe they have a place on the infobox as it shows the progression of a player through junior footy, through the competitions to first grade. I think it is relevant to show that progession correctly, rather than showing Toowoomba as a professional club side for one player and a junior for another. I think it would be best to add this detail in to allow Australia club players pages a more standardised format. Another reason for this is alot of players start dates at a club are there debut year. This additional field would illustrate that a player had a back-history and did not simply waltz into first-grade out of nowehere. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Under 20's comp" - Would this go into the "Youth Clubs" setion for players??

Obviously this won't have to be worried about for a while as Under 20 players arne't notable enough for Wikipedia articles, but no doubt some of them will move up to NRL as superstars?  SpecialWindler talk  05:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose we remove "youth clubs" from the infobox altogether. Jeff79 is spot on with his thoughts about how the infobox should merely summarise only the most significant information. Removing that section (which only shows normally one club or team anyway) would also solve the issue about this new Youth Competition appearing in infoboxes - should Jersey Flegg also count as a "Youth" competition? Look at Brad Fittler's article. In my opinion, that is all the information we really need to show in order to satisfy 99% of people who have Googled his name and want to quickly look at his player history. For the 1% of people who want to know more about him, they can simply read the article. Does anybody agree with me? mdmanser (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. I think youth clubs and other information should stay, but not necessarily shown. See {{Infobox actor}}, see how the "Awards" is hidden originally, maybe something like that. have the most important information showing, others can be viewed if wsihed. Just a thought.

Anyway, how do we convert ALL article templates to the proposed on, which I support and I hope Mdmanser (or MDM) didn't mind my slight additions to his template (which added weight). But do we get a bot? Bots can do anything these days.

It may be also benificial to add "abbreviations" down the bottom with "correct to and source" bit. We (unfortuenly) have to be mindful of peoples with no context.  The Windler talk  07:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rugby League barnstar

We've mentioned having a project barnstar before, so I thought I'd have a go at one.

		The Rugby League Barnstar
		You have been awarded this barnstar in recognition of your contributions to the work of WikiProject Rugby League. blah blah blah •Florrie•leave a note• 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the star part was a bit dull though, so I did another with the same adapted star but with the Bruce Stadium goalposts as a background. ->

		The Rugby League Barnstar
		You have been awarded this barnstar in recognition of your contributions to the work of WikiProject Rugby League. blah blah blah •Florrie•leave a note• 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A beanie and scarf would be nice, but what colours? Any interest in one of these? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I spose if you were really smart you'd be able to get input of the colours?? Or just make many of them?? But these two you've got are alright, are they a template yet??  The Windler talk  20:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright? You have such a way with words. Yes, it's Template:The Rugby League Barnstar. At the moment it has the plain star/ball. I thought of doing variations of scarved/beanied stars carrying a footy... or just a pommy and an aussie one! •Florrie•leave a note• 21:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

-> ‎ •Florrie•leave a note• 22:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

All of these are brilliant and the more templates we have the more and finer distinctions we can draw and justifications we can use to award them. History after all shows that if those of us in our little RL world don't award them to each other, then no-one else is going to. More excellent work Florrie. Plaudits and laurel wreaths. :Sticks66 14:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if I add the graphics to the template page, folk can pick and choose a pic to match the message? With instructions on 'how to', just in case. •Florrie•leave a note• 06:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know:

If you look on the Main page, in the Did you know part, you may see a rugby league fact.

If it's not there, see the history of the tempalte here

 The Windler talk  06:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is there. Nice idea! •Florrie•leave a note• 06:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the new article on Jordan Atkins could become a 'Did you know' as his 4 tries in a debut game has only happened twice before and by coincidence the first time was 100 years in the first game played of rugby league in Australia. Boylo (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha nice work mate. mdmanser (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done on that article SpecialWindler, that is a very interesting article to read. Well written. Boylo (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

NRL top 100 players

Found this recent posting of the NRL list of Rugby league's 100 Greatest players. Is it worth having a Category for these ? [1] Boylo (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a category, but we do have a list - Australian Rugby League's 100 Greatest Players - and as a mini project we've added a sentence and ref to each player's article. There are still six player articles to be created if you'd like to help. •Florrie•leave a note• 06:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thx for that. I just been adding some images to some of them. I will see what else i can do. Boylo (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant work Boylo on those images for Dally Messenger, Herb Steinohrt, Tom Gorman and Harry Bath. Is it really that simple ? Since the shots are pre-1955 are we free to use them ? I'm sure you know more about his than me but I will here ask the Project a general question of the size of those portraits in the InfoBoxes. They're probably a touch larger than we would normally use. What do we all think on this ? -Sticks66 12:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm for smaller images. One only has to click on them to see the full-size.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

They do look good - really adds to the article. I had a look at Tom Gorman at 150px and, while the larger pics are more impressive, something around 150 to 200 (depending on the height) works well with the infobox. On the copyright (or lack of) can we then scan pre-1955 pics from books and use those on articles? •Florrie•leave a note• 22:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I been resizing them down, as they were too large. They were just old images i found that were copyright free, i added them with infoboxs and planned to return later and resize and add details. According to Australian copyright law anything pre 1955 has copyright expired, so i use that tag. Anything after that date has problems unless its been released by owner. Not sure about scanning from book photo's that are pre 1955, but i expect copyright would have expired on those also. It be great if we can get more photos up on those players from earlier years. Boylo (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I did try a few different sizes, but it all depends on the width of infobox when its details have been added. Some can be 225 px as then they fit the width of infobox rather become narrower than its width. Also found a image that been previously deleted which now can be used on Dally Messenger. Boylo (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Change of Name

Just a notification that I have successfully changed my username. mdmanser (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. There are benefits to anonymity.-Sticks66 12:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

NRL current squad Navboxes

Adding current squad navboxes for each club. Details taken from club pages, NRL.com and also looked at their wikipedia pages. Any players omitted or incorrectly included please feel free to amend the navbox. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Could the navboxes that are being placed on player pages at the moment be looked at for presentation on Mozilla as well as IE? The boxes with numbers seem to be worst, with names going over the box border. Fine in IE, not so fine in Mozilla. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out Wayne Rooney. Does the problem still occur with the navboxes on his page? MDM (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the 'div' makes a difference. I've used it on the Wests Tigers template as per the other team templates. What is the number you are using? A cap number or a shirt number? ETA: or maybe it isn't the div. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wests one works well for me.Londo06 12:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

seems fine to me, I'd keep the coach on the same line personally, but perhaps that's just me. Also the footy squad bit works best when editing to put the names in easiest. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As per discussion elsewhere just re-itirating my sentiments on surnames only. There is also the need to gain consensus on the coding and or style for the footy navboxes. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a user-friendly 'rugby league' one that works for the NRL, ie no numbers and one that a user can simply fill in with names all alligned. Whether this is an existing template or a new coding I do think we need conformity across the board. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The recent changes to the Wests Tigers template have upset the line-up again in Mozilla. It seems to work fine if using football squad2 player but gets upset with rugby league squad2 player. Is there any reason we can't use the football squad2 player code if it suits both IE and Mozilla? And yes, are we using first and last names or only surnames? I don't mind which but consistency would be good. •Florrie•leave a note• 08:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Navboxes and make a list here of which templates (one under each heading should do) do and don't work. The noted difference between the football and rugby league templates is strange because they are actually identically coded. In the meantime I'll download Firefox to check for future edits I make alongside what I already have, Safari to identify issues. MDM (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla has issues with the rugby league one for me, but the football player one has no problems. For me a squad of 25 players has to be surnames only otherwise it just looks crowded to say the least.Londo06 08:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Florrie, I just downloaded Firefox and I see what you're talking about and why you find that bloody annoying, because I certainly am annoyed too with it now. I'll have a go to see what I can do, but yes, it does seem to have something to do with the rugby league template for some weird reason. As for first and last names, if we use last names only there doesn't seem to be enough words in the navbox making it look too small - that's just my opinion. And that is especially true with the Grand Final teams of 17. But if there is overwhelming consensus against full names then I'll happily back down. MDM (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with the GF teams being full names, its just with a listed squad of 25 it can become a trawl, and you'd like to think the named players would be recognisable by their surnames alone. Just my opinion but it seems to be the standard elsewhere.Londo06 09:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for downloading Mozilla, MDM. As for the identical code, I don't know. Did you copy and paste the code from the football template to the rugby league or write it in yourself? Might sound silly but when working with VBA I've often c&p'd code and if it's not worked I've deleted it and re-entered it myself. No idea why, but it sometimes works. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempted to make a standard in surnames only. There are several different set of codes, versions and variations on a theme. Surnames alone helps to make them, outwardly at least look similar. I think a move towards one set standard is a good idea but hopefully this clears up any aesthetic issue. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rugby league biography

Added a line in the existing Template:Infobox rugby league biography for other clubs. Seemed there was a demand for it. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What demand?  The Windler talk  05:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole discussion that comes back to the subject, it's a solution for the existing template. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

'Demand' doesn't equal consensus. On the template page you have given the purpose of the other clubs field as: a delimited list of non-NRL clubs that the Southern-hemisphere player has been a member of. Do you intend for European Super League clubs to be included here as a non-NRL club? Why would it only be for southern-hemisphere players? Don't northern-hemisphere players ever play for non-first-grade clubs? It seems to me to be a rather presumptive addition to the infobox considering there is no consensus. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an optional field, not one that appears automatically. I've worded that way as a UK player would be professional in National League one, whereas a Queensland Cup player would not necessarily be considered a professional team. I haven't run across any issues with the British system with their relegation and promotion and so all professional outfits would be lumped into the same section, with amateur clubs being in the youth section. Australian and New Zealand clubs are either NRL or considered non-first grade games. Yes, Northern hemisphere players do come down and play in the Queensland Cup, the wording was to attempt to show the application of the new field. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why I wanna use the 'selection for representation' rule outlined above. It eliminates all these hassles.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Template colours

Having all non-squad templates (Hall of Fame, Immortals, Golden Boot, etc.) the same colour looks worse, not better. What do others think?--Jeff79 (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I should have asked first before changing them all, but I've found that too much colour looks a bit too daunting. In my opinion only teams should have their own specific colours to distinguish themselves from others, but with awards and the like I don't think it'll hurt to rationalise them into one colour. Keep in mind that the Clive Churchill Medal has no official colours and that Wikipedia needs to remain "neutral" according to a few people who wrote the rules. Just my opinion. Alos I think we need to decide an order into how boxes get sorted, but we'll leave that for another time. MDM (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just had a read about it at wikipedia's page about templates. They also say that templates should be 100% width, and we're not following that. True, the Clive Churchill Medal has no official colours, and top try/point scorers can be the standard blue too. But I think The Australian Rugby League Hall of Fame could surely stay green & gold. I also thought the Golden Boot Award should have some gold incorporated into it. I'm not feeling the dauntingness of the colours at all. I like what they add personally. But that's just me.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jason Williams (rugby league player born 1966)

The former Kiwi international has been nominated for deletion. Please chime in to keep this former Bulldogs, Penrith, South Sydney, Roosters and Western Suburbs player.Londo06 15:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

speedily closed, bizarre nomination for deletion.Londo06 18:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

History articles vs Season summary - for Brisbane Broncos (and other clubs)

Here follows a discussion started on the Brisbane Broncos talk page on 21 arch 2008.

I find the duplication of content in the Brisbane Broncos History article in the form of 'Season Summary' sections in Broncos' season articles really absurd. We can approach this two ways: Do away with the History article altogether and just copy and paste the sections of text in it for each year onto their respective season articles, or, put descriptive text in the history article only, and just have tables and lists in the season articles. I don't mind which of these two approaches we use, but having a section of text describing each season on the history article and again on each season article is wrong. Readers should be able to do all their reading about a Broncos season in one place.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer to keep it the same. But I understand your point of not having duplicate information. So if I must have a choice, I'd prefer the History article stay, therefore the history section loss of every article but a link to the History article. But as I've said, I don't think it should change at all.  The Windler talk  08:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given a good reason for it to change. You've given no reason, good or bad, for it to stay the same.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone who wants read an entire history of the Broncos would go to the History page, and read up. Whereas someone who wants to look at the 2006 season, they want to know what happened. It wouldn't be a great 2006 article season if it didn't mention anything about how they got to the grand final. Someone who wants to read a comprehensive history of the Broncos dosen't want to go page by page through each season. They do overlap, and none really are detailed comprehensiveness but with work they can be the same. Is that a reason? I think so.  The Windler talk  08:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what "the history section loss of every article but a link to the History article" or "none really are detailed comprehensiveness but with work they can be the same" means. So you agree that duplicating is a mistake and your vote is for the history article to stay. In that case I shall go about amalgamating the paragraphs of text on the season articles back into the history article (remember, each year in the history article has a 'see also' link to the season article if anyone wants further details of match results, points totals, signings/transfers, etc.). --Jeff79 (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"the history section loss of every article but a link to the History article" means If we decide to remove the history from the season articles we should link to the history page.

"none really are detailed comprehensiveness but with work they can be the same" the word same should be "better" meaning none of the history sections are comprehensive, but could be better.  The Windler talk  09:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

While I understand Jeff79's point, but I think it's silly that they should be removed from either articles as someone looking at the 2006 articles would expect details on the season ... But when you looked at the history article, the same info is there (which is Jeff79's point). If every season article and History article were perfect, then the season article would have much more detail on that season, while the History article would be a summary of that.

Currently, it is the way it is, because whoever wrote on the season article or history article has copied over to the other. But both articles are worthy of this information and should not be removed.

Jeff's point is that they are duplicate writings. Even so, they are both worthy on each article.  The Windler talk  03:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Any other members opinions,  The Windler talk  03:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see both points of view on this one and so I'm really not sure what to say. One thing is for sure - at this stage there is not a lot of text per season article, but when put together, a decent-sized article is formed. Both sides of the argument are right and I don't really want to side either way, if you both understand.

So here is my suggestion. One thing that I believe should be looked at is that there are way too many section headers in the history article - perhaps the years should first be merged into separate subsections (try and possible form 4 or 5) and then do a solid rewrite/edit of the article altogether and mix everything together. Each year should not make up more than 3 or 4 sentences each. I think the fact that the sections are already subdivided into years with a "see also" link above each one is the root of this problem. Perhaps if this is rectified then you both may be happy. As for the existing text on the page, well, move it into each article separately and let it grow out on its own regard over the years.

I hope what I wrote makes sense - I'm pretty tired at the moment so I'm not sure if you'll understand all of it. Forgive me if I've missed reading a couple of your points too. MDM (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in this discussion as I am currently trying to work out a solution to the Wests Tigers pages. I think I am leaning towards a more detailed season summary on the individual season page - such as highlights of matches (not necessarily all) - major injuries etc and then more of an overview in the history section of the main article. At the moment WT has a sub-header for each year - fine when the club was only five years old but likely to become unweildy. Blocks of years sounds good or divided as 'eras' like the Lamb era or the Sheens era. •Florrie•leave a note• 06:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Right you are MD. When I started fleshing out the Broncos' history article I divided it up by era (NSWRL, ARL, SL and NRL), then by year within each of them because it seemed like the logical thing to do at the time. At the same time I was creating individual season articles for tables of match results, because it would have been a bit much to put them all onto the history article. I'd originally intended to go through and put more text into the history article under each year but got distracted by numerous other little projects, so as it is now alot of them are mere slivers, so merging them would be best. So now I'm thinking of dividing it up into decades (1980s, 1990s and 2000s). The thing that prompted me into acting on this in the first place was that the paragraphs of text on the season articles and under each year in the history article were telling the exact same story differently, with levels of detail differing erratically between the two. This is what happens when the exact same topic is being added to gradually on two different articles. A reader would have to read both to get everything. I think everyone can agree that that is unacceptable. It would actually bother me less to have identical text for each year on the history and season articles. So perhaps I should go and copy each year from the history article as they are now onto each season's article, then go and divide the history into decade sub-sections. The problem with that though, is that if someone does want to come back some day and flesh out the 1992 season for example, where should they do it? The Broncos article itself already has a summarised version of the club's history. Having an additional, less-summarised version on the history page, then yet another version split amongst the season articles is certainly overkill. So I'm leaning towards removing the middleman and doing away with the history article altogether and, as Florrie says, detailing each season fully in its own article and having one summarised version of the history on the team's main page. Looking at other sports' team articles on wikipedia, alot of them don't have history articles at all and are happy just having it all on the team article (e.g. Chicago Bulls, Sydney Swans, Vancouver Canucks, Wigan Warriors), therefore I don't think not having a history article is a cardinal sin. So for teams like the Broncos or the Tigers, who have relatively short histories, this solves the problem quite neatly. But not all clubs have short histories, and I'm not recommending this approach for the Roosters' or Rabbitohs' articles. So now we're looking at having different approaches for different teams, when ideally it would be nice to have everything standardised. Most clubs' articles have already been going about things their own way, and while I'm usually all about standardising rugby league articles, on this matter I think a case-by-case approach is acceptable. When it comes to the history of the Roosters and the history of the Titans, the two cases are very different.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind Jeff, could you simplify that into a few sentences, its hard to read and I am extremly tired. It look like a big slab of never ending writing.  The Windler talk  04:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Help request: GA backlog

Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject Rugby league is to try to find time to review 1995 Japanese Grand Prix and No Way Out (2007). If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

There is light at the end of the tunnel now.

Only 297 260 ONLY 160 unassessed articles left.

Hope I get some help.  The Windler talk  11:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, but it's boring. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And I thought my never ending list of Player-articles-needing-infoboxes was an Opus Taediosus. It's postively exciting compared to your assessment drive. -Sticks66 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the last few for whoever would like the honour of finishing them. Home and Away is about to start... •Florrie•leave a note• 10:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

All Done. Thanks to all who assessed (over the years), even if it was just one article.  The Windler talk  10:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rugby league articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA		1	1	1		3
	GA		5	1		2	8
	B	10	16	27	7	1	61
	Start	10	75	377	477	68	1007
	Stub	3	5	168	1022	734	1932
	Assessed	23	102	574	1507	805	3011
	Total	23	102	574	1507	805	3011