Talk:National Rugby League/Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:Newcastle Knights.jpg
Image:Newcastle Knights.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Westsmagpies.jpg
Image:Westsmagpies.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Locations of teams in team listing table
I think we should be using the City or LGA where the team is based, not the suburb. ie: City of Newcastle instead of New Lambton, New South Wales for the Knights and Sydney instead of Concord, New South Wales or City of Canada Bay for Wests. Bongomanrae (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. More precise information can be found on/added to the team articles, can't it? &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 05:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah exactly. I'll just go ahead and change them. Bongomanrae (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

National Rugby League (only) records
Please read/add to discussion here.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Games on the road
Shouldn't be its own section, on a par with 'History' and 'Players'. Needs to be a sub-section of something. Nore sure what. Maybe it doesn't need its own section at all and should be absorbed into another section's text.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It used to be part of "the Future" section but it grew a bit unwieldy. I was originally hoping it was going to become a comprehensive list of all games on the road since 1998 (with a solid paragraph or two, a table, etc) but I haven't been able to find the time. I'd have no problems if you merged it back. Bongomanrae (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: Television Dominance
Based on the reference provided. The following statement is conjecture as there is no reference to season ratings: In terms of national television ratings it is the dominant sports league on Australian television

I have changed it to: In terms of national television ratings it has the highest Australian audiences for its Grand Final Any dispute of the neutrality of the comment should be posted here for discussion, not just undone. Schem (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have work to do at the AFL_Grand_Final page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.215.205 (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

List of foreign players
I was thinking of doing something similar to this for the NRL A-League. Is there an easier way to find out where each player is from other than going to every club player profile? Bongomanrae (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How will you define 'foreign' for players in the NRL? &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 12:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure whether to go by birthplace or what national team they play for. If you've got a preference or alternative I wouldn't mind hearing it. Bongomanrae (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't be able to class New Zealanders as 'foreign' as the Warriors are part of the NRL - so, to me at least, it would be odd to classify other New Zealanders playing for other NRL clubs as 'foreign'. Nor do I see any real weight to classifying Australians who may play for other countries at an international World Cup level on the basis of a parent or grandparent as 'foreign'. Is Clint Newton 'foreign' because he happened to be born in the US? Gareth Ellis for the Tigers next year, yes, I'd say he is 'foreign'. Unless you come up with a different name for the list you propose - Current NRL players who have played for countries other than Australia or New Zealand? &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 05:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I might put this on the back-burner as it seems like it'll cause me too many headaches to be worthwhile. :) Cheers. Bongomanrae (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It could be done. There is an article called List of overseas-born AFL players.  You could call it "List of NRL players born outside of Australia" or something like that.  --Spewmaster (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NRL Finals
Ok, I think it's time to start thinking about what's to be done with articles which detail NRL finals matches. As it is now, the NRL season 2008 results article has a separate heading and table for each regular season round, but all the finals matches (arguably of at least equivalent importance to a single regular season round) are lumped together in one table under one sub-heading. I say we break that table up, and treat each week of finals as a separate round, with their own tables and sub-headings (corresponding to the sub-headings currently in the finals table, i.e. semi-finals, preliminary finals, etc.).

Some NRL seasons however have separate articles for finals series. This could be one way to go, with the NRL season results articles being re-named "regular season" results. I'm not for that though. I think the finals can stay in the season results articles. The finals table as it is now also appears in NRL seasons' main articles, right above the Grand Final sections. That could stay as it is I suppose. I wouldn't like to see duplicate information on the seasons' main articles and season results articles.

And finally we have the Grand Final to consider. I'm against them having their own articles. The 2007 NRL season article for example is not too long at all, and if we go giving the Grand Finals their own articles we're going to be splitting past seasons' articles when what they really need is to be getting longer. As it is now, the Grand Final is detailed thoroughly in the seasons' main articles, and I think that's fine. On the season results articles no more than a sentence should be written, with a "Main article" link back to the detailed write-up on the season's main article.

So what I'm saying is, in my opinion, entire NRL seasons can be sufficiently covered in only two articles: seasons' main articles and season results articles. I don't see the need for any more. I just think we need a standard for how we divide and present the information between those two articles (that avoids duplication of information).--Jeff79 (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm with you on just the two articles. The season main article seems to work well. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 08:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Until such time where articles start to get too long, everything should be kept in one place (apart from the results page). On the results page, I don't mind the finals box being split up, but on the main season pages, I'd like to see them all stuck together. MDM (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok great. That's exactly how I like it too and how it is now. But someone's gone and created 2008 NRL Finals series. I say it's gotta go.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think on the results page we shoud use this type of style for finals matches

Finals Week One

-- sss333 (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * With the writeup below like Origin articles? I don't mind that. I'm assuming we have consensus for the finals only articles to be gone.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Resolved at Articles for deletion/2008 NRL Finals series.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * i suppose the same should be done for this 2008 NRL Toyota Cup Finals Series -- sss333 (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed text
I've removed the following text from 'the future' section but I'm copying it here in case someone still needs the info in another article.

"The club plans to progress through the competitions below the NRL with a planned promotion to the Queensland Cup in 2010 and final promotion to the NRL currently planned for 2011 - 2012. " Bongomanrae (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

most premierships listing in Infobox
I've removed the listing of South Sydney as the team that has won the most premierships in the info box. This is because it is inconsistent with this article as a whole, which is about the NRL, not top-teir Rugby League in the Sydney region since 1908. Obviously on that list Souths have won the most, but in the NRL the record belongs to both Melbourne and Brisbane (3 each). We could put that in there but is it really appropriate to have it at all in the infobox?--Amaher (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem you are fighting against is that in reality, there is no distinction between any of the premierships or other statistics. No one ever says "Melbourne have won the most premierships", not even "asterisking" it. Wikipedia is the only place that tries to split the stats in this way, it has no currency elsewhere. For example, who has played the most games? It isn't Beaver or Baa, you'd have to go through the records and manually subtract pre-98 appearances to find an answer.
 * Actually I'm only referring to this article's internal consistency. It is about the NRL. The infobox states that this was "Instituted 1997", with the "Inaugural season 1998", the List of premiers section lists the 12 winners of the NRL since 1998 and the Statistics section deals exclusively with records that post-date 1998, including the statement that Melbourne and Brisbane have won the most premierships. To list the team with the most premierships as "South Sydney, 20" in the Infobox is therefore confusing for the reader unless the rest of the article was changed to reflect this--Amaher (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The NRL isn't and hasn't been a statistically separate entity. This concept was invented was by a Wikipedia editor. So trying to maintain that in the face of reality will and has lead to problems of consistency. Previous versions of the article properly explained this, but were excised.

Teams
The map comprised two teams with the name "Wests Tigers". 77.20.107.74 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussed above, "Because they are a joint venture representing both Balmain and Western Suburbs"-- sss333  (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Throughout 2010, many Wikipedia editors have worked hard to halve the number of unreferenced biographical articles (UBLPs) from more than 52,000 in January to about 25,000 now. The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons has assisted in many ways, including helping to setup a bot, which runs daily, compiling lists of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

There are currently about 34 Australian rugby league players on the unreferenced BLP list and another 60 or so RL players from other countries listed at WikiProject Rugby league/Unreferenced BLPs. Other project lists can be found at WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. We've done a lot, but we still have a long way to go. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection
I'm kinda new to Wikipedia, but after see the Vandalism on this page from fans that don't have an account, would it be possible to get a protection, to stop edits by fans who don't have an account and only want to what write unrelated stuff on the article.Thomas-gough (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in all time top point scorers
The table is inaccurate. It omits Ryan Girdler (who I understand should be at number 5, having scored 1690 points in his NRL career (more than Fitzgibbon). I attempted to make this edit but it was reversed (for no apparent reason).  Can anyone help me out in amending the table to correct this error  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.83.33 (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole stats section is fictional. But as you've learnt, there's little point going to the trouble of fixing it when someone will just revert it.

Europeans in the NRL
This section has a mixed up definition of European. When it lists current European-born players, it includes British and Irish players. When it comes to players with "European backgrounds" it seems to be restricted to continental Europe only, and excludes the UK and Ireland. I would argue that almost all players except Aboriginal, Maori and Islander players are of European background. A clearer definition of European is needed for this section to make sense. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What's an Asian?
Must we really have a section called Asians in the NRL? Asian is such an ill-defined term. My impression is that to most people who would want such a section it means people with slanty eyes. If someone can come up with a more meaningful definition, please share it. And if you suggest something like "people from China, Vietnam, Japan,.... etc" please ask yourself, do people who use the term really check for such ancestry? So, what does Asian mean to an NRL fan? And why bother with this section? HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's absurd. Some fan is trying to say, "Oh, look, the NRL's just as international as the Premier League!" Going around adding flagicons and categories like 'Filipino rugby league players' and shit. I think all that was ever needed was a section for something like 'overseas' players, but the inclusion of a New Zealand team in the League means that such a title isn't really appropriate. Foreign players in the NRL? This would have to encompass Australians playing for the Warriors as well as Kiwis playing in Australia. Non-Australasians in the NRL? It doesn't appear to have an easy solution. I'm not fussed because I'm a realist and frankly, it's just not that important a feature of the NRL.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone look here? Care to tackle the definition problems in this and the previous section? HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Premierships
It would be good for historical purposes to combine the lists of First grade premiers ie NRL, ARL, NSWRL and SL onto one separate page and then have a link from each of these four pages to this central list. It seems absurd to have four separate lists on four pages just because the competition changed names, especially if it is going to happen again in the next couple of years. The new list could have an extra column added to define which comp it was achieved in.

Any objections?Anderch (talk)

Actually all scrat my above comment just realised there is a complete page and have linked it to the NRL page. It still begs the question, Why are there now multiple premiers lists on different pages with exactly the same information? Anderch (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the statistics section in this article, a mishmash of NRL only, all first grade, and just plain incorrect records. Expand that across the general Wikipedia RL landscape for your answer.
 * Fixed! Until some clueless reverts that is.

What on earth does this mean?
"In 2003 the Grand Final was broadcast live in the United States by Fox Sports World as it had been since 2001."

It's in the Media coverage section at the end of the Coverage history sub-section.

The claim about the 2003 coverage seems well sourced, but I've no idea what the 2001 reference is about. The bit of the source that's freely available doesn't mention it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For a discussion page this one attracts very little discussion. In the absence of a response, I will boldly remove the tail end of that sentence. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It means that the grand final was broadcast live in the United States by Fox Sports World in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing mention of foreigners in the NRL
There's a couple of discussion items above pointing out the problems with counting both Europeans and Asians in the NRL. No defence has been offered for the state of these items. I realise that this page is rarely looked at, so I will now boldly delete all the sections on non-Australians and non-New Zealanders. If anyone feels strongly otherwise and can produce good reasons, I won't be offended. Just trying to improve the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)