Talk:2010 Penrith Panthers season

2010 Squad
Having players such as McFadgen and Walker in the table, players who have yet to play a 1st grade match in 2010 and quite possibly won't over the course of the entire season, counts as extraneous material and serves little-to-no purpose in the article. To prevent any accusations of bias I've limited the table to display only players who have played a 2010 game. The hidden players (Walker and McFadgen included) can still be found within the table and easily revealed if/when they make their 2010 debut(s). Alrin (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The section 2010 Statistics, previously 2010 Squad, currently serves as an indication of which players are/were active this season. Thus, the addition of a "Run on Team" section serves only to reproduce existing information (and the make up of the squad for any given week has no bearing on the overall season, which is the scope of the article). As such, failing any opposition, I will remove the section in question (ie. run on team) in 24 hours. Alrin (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Alrin,

I was never thinking about keeping the run on team on the page all season, for every week but can't it serve as a source to see the team.

I get what you mean by hiding the guys that haven't played.

I know that Ben McFadgean and Ryan Walker are not in the main first grade squad but Ben played one game last year and I noticed that Ryan scored a try in the trial.

They are probably just Windsor Wolves players but I guess you can take them out of the whole squad.

mgt98


 * I've no problem with McFadgean and Walker being included in the table, so long as they remain hidden until they play first grade this season (which I find doubtful with the depth of our roster). If you're open to removing them from the table then I'm fine with that, too. I don't agree with a Run On Team section being added each week. It doesn't really fall within the scope of the article. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopaedia, not a news service. We should keep all additions relevant to the article in question, and I don't feel that information which will ultimately be removed at season's end warrants inclusion. However, with only two of us serving as the major editors on the article I'd rather avoid the issue degenerating into a dispute, nor do I want to be accused of claiming a vested ownership of the article, so perhaps in the absence of further editors this is a topic we might want to address at the Project's HQ. The opinions of fellow editors passionate about improving Rugby League articles as a whole might help us reach consensus on this issue. -Alrin (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)