Template talk:National Rugby League seasons

I like this template. The only thing is, I don't know why the years 1908 and 1909 are all alone at the top there. Whey doesn't the list of years start with 1908 in the spot where 1910 is? That'd be neater. Also I think it looks wierd with Super League's 1997 season out on its own there. I think slotting it into the main list alongside the other 1997 with '(SL)' next to it would be better.--Jeff79 02:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Made the changes. Looks better right?--Jeff79 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put some grey years in to get your opinion. It may look bad now, but once all the seasons are finished and are bluelinked it will look much better. The Olympics WikiProject has implemented this on country Olympic pages, such as Australia at the Summer Olympics. I really believe we should stick with decades beginning in -0 years per normal procedure. The Super League season would be a pain if it was stuck in with the others. It is given a mention here so there's no harm done if you feel it is being excluded. --mdmanser 10:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverted. See discussion at Template Talk:National Rugby League.--Jeff79 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the look of the mdmanser's new version with the greyed out years. Bongomanrae 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

NSWRFL = NSWRL
Just with the heading at the top having NSWRFL/NSWRL. I appreciate that you want to be thorough and consistent, but I'm not sure this is necessary. I imagine it was just a name change and not a significant organisational change like ARL/NRL. The NSWRFL and NSWRL are the same thing I think. The idea for the list of organisations at the top was to show all the different governing bodies, not minor name changes. Just having NSWRL is sufficient in my opinion. I don't think it is less informative. The way it is now with "NSWRFL/NSWRL" gives the false impression that there was a change of governing body just as with the rest: "NSWRL/ARL/SL/NRL".--Jeff79 19:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah good point. At the end of the day its the same organisation so we probably don't need both. --mdmanser 06:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Same link anyway too. Refreshing that we agree for a change.--Jeff79 07:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The planets must be lined up at the moment. :) --mdmanser 07:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles that templates appear in
I'm not sure if this is officially written anywhere in Wikipedia policy, but it's my belief that templates should only appear in articles that they contain links to. The idea being that the template contains links to other similarly themed articles for easy navigation from one to the next. If two articles don't appear in the same template, they're not closely related enough. I notice that the season template, NRL teams template and defunct rugby league teams template are all connected to eachother. I think it's Ok for the two team templates to stay together as it's an easy way for people to find any RL team. So perhaps it should really just be one template with two sections: Current and Defunct. But as for the seasons template, I think maybe the time has come for it to be taken off all the teams' articles or any other articles that it doesn't contain links to.--Jeff79 23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you give a few examples where this is the case? mdmanser 02:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The seasons template appears on all club pages.