Talk:Melbourne Rising

Untitled 2010 comment
It's a pretty minor issue - but this page should be moved to "Melbourne Rebels (ARC)" from "Melbourne Rebels(ARC)". Thanks. 121.217.240.119 (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment
Lightly cited, needs more for improved class rating. SauliH (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne Rebels (ARC)
Why does the Melbourne Rebels (ARC) redirect to this page? The Melbourne Rising and the Melbourne Rebels (ARC) are two completely different teams. The wiki page of the Melbourne Rebels (ARC) is an important stepping stone in the Melbourne Rebels narrative which shouldn't be completely lost. Can someone who knows what they're doing please reinstate the ARC page? Comes.amanuensis (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Look anew at Melbourne Rebels (ARC) redirection. The narrative has been kept and the information has not been lost. It directs to this page because this was the Melbourne ARC page. The page history remains intact. The NRC was widely reported as a relaunch, or reinstatement, of the ARC. Refer to Australia relaunches National Rugby Championship, or ARU to relaunch domestic rugby competition, and Australian rugby championship set to be revived next year. In the words of the Melbourne Rebels CEO himself:


 * This is still the Melbourne Rebels' team in the national competition despite the differences of ownership and new name and players. The fact that the Rebels organisiation has chosen the name Rising for the revived NRC allows a clear distinction to be made from the Rebels Super Rugby team. Australian rugby is littered with examples of disbanded, re-branded, merged, and revived or renewed identities—see the histories of teams in the national competition including the Vikings, Rams and Rays. Despite differences including name changes and new management, the teams' identities are descended from their earlier incarnations. Separating the ARC antecedents will, rather than reinstate the history, split the narrative across dead end pages. -- Kiap (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Melbourne Rising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140324190150/http://www.rugbyweek.com/news/article.asp?id=41943 to http://www.rugbyweek.com/news/article.asp?id=41943
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502170852/http://www.rugby.com.au/Portals/1/PDFs/Annual%20Reports/2006/ARU_AR_Rugby-Services.pdf to http://www.rugby.com.au/Portals/1/PDFs/Annual%20Reports/2006/ARU_AR_Rugby-Services.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6R4dhTfXV?url=http://www.sportal.com.au/rugby/news/aru-unveils-new-national-rugby-championship-for-2014/14hr8zgu5tp1816gw0b4ko9pyy to http://www.sportal.com.au/rugby/news/aru-unveils-new-national-rugby-championship-for-2014/14hr8zgu5tp1816gw0b4ko9pyy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Current squad
Two columns in the squad table is for better viewability on smaller screens. -- Ham105 (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

All other rugby tournaments that use wikitables (Super Rugby, Currie Cup, Pro14, Mitre 10 Cup) use three columns to better space out the squads so I don't see why this should be changed. Viewability is still good with three columns on mobile. Maybe this should be discussed on a larger talk page to see where the consensus is at. -- Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Names are often wrapped when using three columns even in landscape.
 * I note you changed the format only 3 months ago for teams in Pro14: e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.
 * The original way, shown here, lists players two per line as forwards and backs.
 * While also a little wasteful by width, it is the logical basis used for the Premiership, Top14, Top12, MLR and more.
 * Forwards and backs are also the natural logical groupings in short-form squads: e.g. 5,, |7.
 * There is no requirement to cram three wide. A two-byte edit resolves it. -- Ham105 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I edited the Pro14 formats as I personally find the Rugby squad start template difficult to read on both PC and mobile. However I'm happy to change the majority of squads that use the 3 column template to a 2 column template if you feel it would be appropriate. I can't find any reason why they were changed to wikitables in the first place, although I think they look neater like this. -- Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * And thanks back in return, it's good to chat to weigh things up to try to improve things moving forward. I do also prefer the single wikitable (just with 2 columns for small screens instead of 3).
 * For me, the forwards/backs split on the Rugby squad method makes sense (and it's OK for me on PC). But I agree, on a hand-held it can mean horizontal scrolling (a bit wasteful on width).
 * With making the 3s into 2s, I'm supportive but think one NRC season of 8 teams as a trial first is the way to go.
 * I'm looking at making it simpler to convert squads into archive versions to put on season pages (like Super Rugby). A test run to fine tune - plus let editors see how it can work.
 * It's OK to have small local variations between comps. NRC is also a low-profile comp (especially in a RWC year).
 * Thoughts? -- Ham105 (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from with the wikitables. I only use on a PC and so the 3 columns just look better on there but then there's the weird split of Backrowers being in a column with half backs. I agree with a trial like you've suggested but i'd be interested to hear what other editors think. Teams like the Sunwolves and South African franchises named large squads this year (potentially due to it being a RWC year) and so with two columns there'd be lots of scrolling involved or a significant difference in column lengths (likely more forwards than backs named). I see that edits the South African Super Rugby and Currie Cup sides so would be interested in knowing his views. -- Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know him and have chatted often. A couple of points:
 * The 3 columns don't always look good on a PC screen. Text wrapping is not uncommon – even on a wide screen. Compare the uncluttered smoothness of 2-Col versus the 3-Col example below:


 * Second, vertical scrolling is not a problem. It will naturally happen on any page of more than stub length. That's not the case for horizontal scrolling, which should be avoided if possible.
 * Now, you mentioned the Sunwolves, and 70 players is indeed a big squad. Makes it messier but there are always options; plenty of ways to skin a cat, so to speak.
 * Compare the versions below. Vertical height is around the same in each case. One version wraps text more than the other, though. And on a PC-size sceen, one version doesn't wrap at all.

The squad for the 2019 Super Rugby season:

I think the 2-col generally works better. But just to reiterate, the intention is not edit every rugby team page on this encyclopdia. My plan is to use this for the upcoming NRC season, and tweak, test and fine-tune. -- Ham105 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The last time a similar discussion was held — here — there was more support for a three-column format. I don't see the point in creating a different non-standardised format, when there was already a minor consensus as to what the format should be. I agree that a 2-column version would look better for viewability on smaller screens, but it looks worse on bigger screens, because there is a lot of empty horizontal space. On the bigger screen I'm currently viewing it on, everything seems crammed into the leftmost third of the screen for no apparent reason. If it's readable on a small screen (even if it wraps), I would personally still prefer the three-column format. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know the size of your screen - would you please upload a screenshot of your view of the Melb Rising page to an image host (such as imgur.com) and link it? I was also part of the earlier discussion and it didn't consider the small screen aspect. -- Ham105 (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * See here. My resolution is 1920x1080. If there are things that were not previously considered, then it would be worth reinitiating a conversation about it, rather than going against the consensus re the format. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * My screen view is much the same as TheMightyPeanut's with there being lots of horizontal space. I wondered if there was a way on centralising tables to that they're more central on the screen for a 2 column format. I'd still be more in favour of a three-column format though. -- Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)