Talk:2009 NRL season results

The Titans' WIN Stadium hoodoo
This part in Round 2:
 * The St George Illawarra Dragons maintained their unbeaten record against the Gold Coast Titans, winning 16-10. The Titans' WIN Stadium hoodoo has now lasted 20 years with this loss.

needs to be re-worded. I don't really know what the writer intended, but the Titans haven't been around for 20 years.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do a random blitz on these entries every few months and cull some of the more "tabloid" statements. If the above claim isn't sourced, delete it.  florrie  00:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Colour icons
How much does having colour icons on a huge list like this really add to it? I know I pay no attention to them when i look at this article and am annoyed at how slowly this page loads because of them.--Jeff79 (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Beyond the pretty, they mean nothing to me. I look at the text before I look at the colours to find a team. Not that the graphics have any effect on the page loading time for me, they are there straight away. I suppose I'm ambivalent - looks nice, means nothing.  florrie  00:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I use them to identify individual teams. I find colours are easier in quick identification, where text takes longer to read through. There are sixteen images, of 2kb each. I can't see 32kb of data slowing down this page all that much. Davo499 (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. Except there are twenty-something regular season rounds plus finals (plus representative matches which should be removed altogether). So that's 32kb times approx 30? All I know is that at home where my internet's fast there's no problem, but at work I do sit here waiting for that little bar to make its way accross (not making this up).--Jeff79 (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But once an image loads once and is used multiple times, it just calls the original load, so in essence they only load once. Look closely and all the Broncos colour images load at the same time. Or I believe so, I may be wrong. Whether the colours should be there in the first place, is another questions, but I don't really mind.    The Windler      talk   23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Where are the references for this article? Not one result, not one round "fact" is verified. This page isn't any different to any other article in Wikipedia. Please, provide sources for material added and avoid original research.  florrie  15:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And on this, why do we need all this trivia anyway? Can't it go on the team season pages? Big stuff, like Hazems' record, Steve Prices 300 games etc I get, but does it really matter that The South Sydney Rabbitohs recorded their first win at Gosford since 2005? Really? And finding a source for it...  florrie  16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a plan for these type of articles:


 * Add a column for the source, even if the source for every single game is from the same site, so be it, at least its a source.
 * Don't use daily telegraph sources as they will be dead links in a couple of years.
 * Remove all the info from the intro to each round, as it is nothing more than trivia (WP:TRIVIA), and seems useless to source
 * Remove City Country, State of Origin, Tests as they are not part of the NRL season (why doesn't the 2008 season have the World Cup then???)
 * Put the byes of each team on seperate lines. When I first read it, I believed they were playing each other, but they're was a bye in between.
 * Make sure the date and time column is the exact time. It is inconsistent in that some of the times are NSW based, instead of where the ground is based.
 * Make a decent Lead, explaining context, etc...
 * Nominate it for Featured Article list, because it has the potential!!


 * I'll help while it is only 7 rounds in and not 26, but I'd like to sort out what sources to use and comments of others,    The Windler      talk   23:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally support all of the above. I used the DT source as I didn't have the time to dig around more but yes, there must be better. I put the cite next to Match Details in the header for each round as a convenience but it could as well go elsewhere but it definitely only needs the one source - or should only need the one source. I'm more than happy to see all the trivia go! If it's an important milestone it can go on the club season page. We can eventually do the same for previous seasons - delete the trivia and source the game details.  florrie  03:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll retract a bit - I'm not averse to having the more notable, verifiable highlights of the round added as long as they are well referenced. Otherwise this page will not really be more than a duplication of the articles we are referencing.


 * Had a fiddle with the bye rounds - I don't like all the space chewed up with the teams one under the other so I tried them all on one line. See here.  florrie  03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been looking through various refs and the way the can be linked. Both Fox Sports and League HQ give a long list of results and these only appear to be available for the current season. I couldn't find any archived lists. The data at Rugby League Tables, RLP and NRL Stats is good, but not available immediately. I like RLP best because you can link directly to each complete round rather than a list. rleague.com has some great stats which are available fairly quickly but the linking is crap unless you link to each game individually! I'd be inclined to stick with the Telegraph initially as the results are available quickly and one whole round can be verified in one link and then back it up/replace it with the RLP (or similar) as they become available.  florrie  05:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I appreciate your enthusiasm to clean things up and raise the standard of this article, but let's be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'd be especially disappointed if info about indivduals or clubs is deleted altogether rather than cut & pasted onto the indivudual's or club season's articles, most of which are desparately in need of just such expansion.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First on the byes. I like the idea of the bye teams on one line, but could we have the background colour the same as above and perhaps remove the colours from the teams. In response to the trivia bits, remember the title of this article is 09 results, so anything has to be about the results I believe. So anything individual, should be cut regardless of notability, because it is trivia in the context of the article. Also anything that is obvious from the results tables eg "For the second week in a row, the Parramatta Eels lost by at least 30 points." While I believe they should go, if necessary, it must be "notable" and relevant to the results. On sources, I have no problem with the interim having The Daily Telegraph facts, but I agree that when available it should be a more stable link. In response to Jeff, yes what is trivia here, is much more relevant to individuals/season articles, eg. Steve Price's 300th game.    The Windler      talk   09:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Anything deleted can easily be retrieved from the history. Much of it is club related but anything player related should definitely be on their own article page (with refs). How about I trim it back over the next week or two and see how it looks? Joel, yes, can do the Bye line without the background and no icons. I tried it that way when I was fiddling and it looked a little bland but it definitely highlighted the playing teams rather than the bye teams. florrie  12:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just on the RLP link and linking to a round, I thought it might be worth mentioning that there are two ways you can link to a round of results. The first, which florrie used, shows the dates, results and scorers.  There is an alternative to that page which shows more detail and is loosely based on what you might see in the RL annuals.Azkatro (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's surely easier still to just cut & paste the info to the relevant article than to delete it and later retrieve it from the history. That's all I'm saying.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I dunno guys, this article is a lot less interesting than it used to be. I guess you're trying to improve things but in doing so you truly have created a meaningless list of data. I liked reading about all the things that happened each round and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Looking at the list of numbers that it is now though? I don't think I'll be coming back. Good job getting rid of the representative matches though, I've been pushing for that for ages.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well my problem is, what constitutes notability to be placed there. I agree its a little dull, but maybe, alot of the material that goes above there, is extremely trivial. The rest is trivia. I do accept that maybe they can come back, with sources, but there needs to be a limit. Something like Steve Prices 300th game is better than Parramatta haven't beat Manly (or whatever) since 2007. And finally, links go crazy, every team is linked in the tables, so linking teams in these sections is a blur on the eyes, just going through the history. I like material concerning anything other than noting teams and there record against that team.    The Windler      talk   08:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of the first two rounds, I have place what I believe to be worthy of inclusion to the info, but nothing from the history, should be there.    The Windler      talk   08:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like rep footy's crept back into this article. Seems perfect for cutting & pasting to expand 2009 in rugby league.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we just have to put up with it, and until they give us a valid reason why rep games should be there, we will remove it. I have put it in the article you suggested, I have also noted on Round 8 on this article, that 2 rep games were played. That should be enough.    The Windler      talk   03:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Trivia
Not wanting to restart the debate above, but do you think it is worth noting the rounds where players were unavailable due to SOO? Something like: "State players were unavailable for club selection on this weekend due to State of Origin." Mattlore (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree. Should be mentioned in the three rounds where Origin players were unavailable only. Personally I'm against all this removal of "trivia" as outlined above. This article is now about as uninteresting as it could possibly get.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What's more interesting?
Ask yourself what aspect of a football game is more interesting: who the man-of-the-match was or the names of the referees who oversaw it? I think the answer's pretty obvious, and so propose replacing the referees field on these articles' tables with man-of-the-match fields. I'm not sure if going back and doing them all retrospectively is possible, so I guess I'm proposing it for next season.--Jeff79 (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)