Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 11

New South Wales Rugby League premiership seasons
A few issues requiring attention regarding the improvement of past Australian domestic competition seasons: --Jeff79 (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both the 1981 and 1982 seasons state that they were the seasons in which the sin bin rule was first introduced. Anyone know which is correct?
 * I think it'd be really good if we could verify when clubs officially adopted their mascots/nicknames (i.e. Sharks, Sea Eagles, Panthers, etc.). I think some have been verified, but not all. I wouldn't like to see clubs referred to by these mascots in times before they existed.
 * The Clive Churchill Medal was introduced in 1986. An equivalent award existed before then called the Dave Brown Medal. It's mentioned at the end of the 1979 grand final writeup. Does anyone know when this first started? And should we just add them to the list of Clive Churchill Medallists as per the Rothmans/Dally M Medal artice's list?


 * According to the "100 Years of Rugby League", the sin-bin and differential penalty were introduced in 1981. Also according to Sean Fagan. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 08:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. Fixed.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Rugby league/Australian teams for a listing of Australian club listings. When that page is completed and everyone here happy with it, I will be more than happy to support full club name listings on season pages.
 * Jeff, I do have one thing we need to address. In the introduction, the paragraph currently begins with, "1965's New South Wales...". This is a problem, as sentences, let alone pages, are strongly discouraged to start with a number. The easy solution, as I have done in a couple of instances, is to change it to "The 1965 New South Wales...". MDM (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've been adjusting my edits accordingly.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Our Season summaries seem to be real short, any chance we can attack this by spicing up it a little, you know, adding pointless and meaningful events in the regular seasons. Mostly the seasons between 1988 and Present. The rest seem to be hard to describe due to the hard-to-find references. Power 10:39, 22 August 2008 (AEST)

Bot underway
The bot is still in test mode, but has started transfeered some articles.

Some of the articles transferred:
 * Luke Covell
 * Nick Kenny (rugby league)
 * Luke Harlen
 * Vinnie Anderson
 * Alex Chan
 * Shannon Gallant

Now that thats happened, I think we need to make the parameters that haven't been entered optional, for now.   The Windler      talk   21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do it later today, but have stuff to do now.   The Windler      talk   21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Any suggestions or complaints about the conversion could go at Bots/Requests for approval/MelonBot 10, where the bot is currently undergoing approval. – Quadell (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * reading above there seems to be a number of fields that will come later. The real issue that I can see at this point is the dash as at the minute it looks like we have a number of players who can't get a gig. Londo  06  09:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just had to manually add back in a line with the squad number for the Leeds Rhinos back-rower Simon Worrall. I think I've alerted the bot operator as this would obviously be a major flaw in the implementation. Londo 06  22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is alot of manual work now to do with the infobox, for example the addition of squad numbers for European Super League players. Londo  06  07:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Must do
Unfortenutly, the infobox bot was unable to put players currently players automatically into the infobox. Per consensus in the WP:RL we present the data as "YEAR-" not "YEAR-CURRENTYEAR" or "YEAR-present" or "since YEAR".

To make this possible, put the word "present" in the "yearXend" parameter, and it will set it up for you correctly. Thanks   The Windler      talk   08:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rugby players
I was just about to add Wendell Sailor's new stats when there was a problem. Players who have played both codes, don't use our infobox. They use the "rugby" version. Infobox Rugby biography.

It got me thinking. I would like to see a consistency along all of our article (I'm a bit close-minded on the whether rugby wants consitency or not), so any thoughts on the following:


 * 1) Should we just allow those players to have the rugby template, as it is now.
 * 2) Should we attempt to configure the rugby template, so the rugby league part of that template is our (I strongly disagree with this)
 * 3) Should we add a rugby union part to our template.

I like #3, and if the player is rugby league FIRST, then it should use our one, wheras the other way round would use the rugby one. Because the point system is similar for rugby, we only have to add a new section. And perhaps make a darker blue header thingo above for rugby league, and rugby union to sepearate.

We should also perhaps talk to WikiProject Rugby union if we are going to do anything.

Thanks.   The Windler      talk   09:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

References needed
Hi, I am Poiuytre who is currently working on the Scotland national rugby league team page. This is not yet completed and still has a lot of work to do on it. My aim when I started working on this page was that I wanted Scottish people to easily get information about the team if they were watching Rugby League for the first time in the World Cup later this year. But I also want it to be very detailed so that it could be used for study and further articles. For this I need references and it's something I'm struggling with. At the moment I have around 110 seperate references, but ideally I need at least 200 to make the article decent and verifyable. I'm hoping you guys can help me because there are many areas that I have not looked into.


 * Rugby League Yearbooks - I am new to RL, having first watched it in late 2007. I have no rugby league annuals. British or Australian.
 * Australian Newspapers Online - I have very few (less than 5 I think) references to Aussie news sites. Mainly because I don't know what the best ones are, I don't know where to look. I don't know which ones use a good search engine. For instance in Britain the BBC archives it's articles well, Sky Sports doesn't.
 * Magazines - I have all issues of Rugby League World since October 2007 and all issues of Code 13 magazine since it started in February 2008. Think of the many, many issues of British and Aussie magazines that will have detailed articles that I simply don't have.
 * Scottish media - Quite simply I don't read The Scotsman!
 * Competition information - Info about the Clash Of The Nations 1998 and Triangular Challenge 1999 tournaments will be appreciated.
 * Welsh/Irish books - Scotland have played these teams alot. I've been wondering for a while whether there is any information in "Tries In The Valleys", a book on Welsh RL. Or any International RL books for that matter.

That is about it. If you have access to any of these materials please help! If you see ANYTHING related to the Scotland national team then you type out the article and send it to me, or you could photocopy it and send it to me. Or if it's an online source simply give me a link. Even if you think the article is small or insignificant please still send it. Just remember if it's a book remember to give me main details (author, ISBN, publisher, page number etc), and the same with a magazine (issue number etc). Thank you. Poiuytre (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is my rugby league library. I have a heap of old RLW's and other odds and ends as well. I don't have time to search randomly for any Scottish RL references, but if you are looking for something specifically, let me know. As a newspaper resource there is Highbeam, but you need to subscribe and Wikipedia doesn't encourage the use of subscribed references - but as a last resort, it's good back to the late 1990s. There's a list of resources on the project page. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 23:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What Rugby League World issues do you have? All since 2003, all since 1997, some since 2005 etc etc. Thanks for the reply. Poiuytre (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about ignoring of naming conventions raised at WT:NCP
See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). Numerous WP:SPORTS child-projects are pretending that the Naming conventions (people) guidelines don't exist. Needs to be resolved one way or the other. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me it's brave man who enters this massive can of worms. Go Jeff ! I'm sure you'll fight the good fight. - Sticks  66  07:48, 29 Aug 2008

Redlinks
I'd just like to say that I think it's very important that we let redlinks to individuals' (yet to be created) articles stay. Some people don't like them and remove them, I guess because they feel they don't look good. I can understand that, but they are extremely helpful when creating a new article for an individual. I've been busy creating a lot of players/coaches articles that I felt needed creating, and the way I usually do it is clicking their redlink and seeing what links to them. To illustrate, click on Ken Maddison and then click "What links here". From the multitude of articles linking to him, you can see that an article for him needs creating. You can see from the list that he was a Rothmans Medallist and a premiership winner. That's definitely grounds for creation. And by clicking on the articles in the list and reading what they say about him you can get a good base of information for his article's creation (which I just haven't gotten around to yet). If we go about eliminating redlinks, articles like Maddison's might never be created. Surely putting up with redlinks is the lesser of two evils.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a visitor from the world of RU (with a good interest in RL too!), can I add my support? I find redlinks are useful too - in an article about the 1966 Lions tour I've redlinked all the players to work through and create articles about, and this will also show if articles for those players (or their namesakes) are created in the interim. I'm all for redlinks myself, in a controlled sort of way!--Bcp67 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've been a redlink remover in the past but I see your point Jeff and agree. And you're right that it's high time the great Ken Maddison deserves an article, I'll get onto it ! - Sticks  66  07:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Position in infobox
Check out Rlp.

  The Windler      talk   14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice work. I'll use it. MDM (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox finished
Thanks to Happy-melon, the infobox bot has changed. Now we have the task of adding all the stats.

If I could make a request:

When you add the tries, goals, field goals, of each team for a player (thus finishing the empty parameters on the infobox), can you REMOVE the nrl=yes.

Thus taking it out of the category Category:Infobox rugby league biography templates needing updating.

The template will no longer revert to the old one without the new=yes. Meaning that there are no remnents of the old infobox.

And finally, please thank Happy-melon on his/her talk page. He/She did do a lot of work for this, and it would be wrong for us to neglect his/her effort.

  The Windler      talk   22:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, some sources that may help you find info on the T/G/FG on a player (FOR THE NRL) Any from the SL would be appreciated.


 * http://www.nrl.com/


 * http://www.nrlstats.com/


 * http://rugbyleagueproject.com/


 *   The Windler      talk   22:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A warning on these stats pages. I find discrepencies amongst them all the time. I think when choosing which figures to use, maybe we should use the biggest? It's more likey that data's been left out that accidentally added. I dunno. But for rep figures I'm not sure if we should choose the larger figure, as it may include tour matches that aren't full internationals. Just something to be wary of, I've seen alot of cases where those sites' figures don't match eachother, or one won't have a player at all and others will, etc.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.yesterdayshero.com.au/Index.aspx
 * http://www.stateoforigin.com.au/soogame/originteamhistory.aspx
 * http://stats.rleague.com/rl/scorers/scorers_idx.html


 * Jeff, I'm using the official Sportsdata one for club details, see this for example. It seems that players who played in 2002 are represented by HTML numbers 1-410 (ranked by club, then alphabetically), with older players listed alphabetically from number 500 onwards. For newer (current) players, you will need to go through the database listed here. This is the official source of the NRL and so I can't see why we shouldn't use it.
 * I did come here though to say that the category of "infoboxes needing updating" is exactly the opposite of what we want and I can't seem to fix it. If anyone knows how to make it work properly, that would be excellent. MDM (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, don't worry about fixing that category for now - leave it as is. Whenever someone removes the "new" field from the infobox the template will appear in that category. I'll go through it once a day or so and make sure every infobox has a "source" listed under it. MDM (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh nice. I didn't know about that site. How did you hear about it?--Jeff79 (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you go to http://www.nrlstats.com (the old statistics site) you will see a link saying "detailed stats and reports". Come to think of it, all you need to do is go to that player database link I gave above and on the left hand panel click the button at the bottom (it is partially obscured on my screen so I just noticed it then). MDM (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip on the stats location, M. I have found an error in one player's stats so far (Rhys Hanbury), so I guess these aren't infallible either. One cross check I make (for 2008 figures only) is with the Fox Sports Fantasy Team stats - not really something you can reference, but it's a good check. You know they are right, otherwise there would be 60,000 participants screaming for a re-count. Me included. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 07:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have a good source for internationals, for Australians in particular.   The Windler      talk   07:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I usually use books for Internationals but Whiticker doesn't give a breakdown of World Cup games. The Rugby League Project gives World Cup as well as "Tests" but you would already know that. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 07:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

MDM, if you would like me to make the category only show articles WITHOUT "new=yes" AND WITHOUT "source=x" then I can. That will save you having to possibly go through an article twice. And thanks for doing what you are doing.   The Windler      talk   07:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister's XIII - unless someone has an easy to access source for games played, points scored etc over the years, I'm removing mention from the infobox. It can go in the article. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 07:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: whatever happens with the 'current club' field with the infobox, can we all just use common sense and keep "retired" and "deceased" OUT of it? Thank you.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Relatives
I thought I remembered there being a field under personal information for notable relatives in the old infobox. I don't feel strongly about it, but I didn't think it was a bad idea. Does anyone else reckon it should be retained?--Jeff79 (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its something that can be included in the body of the article.   The Windler      talk   09:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's something I always thought was worthy, now that we've cut things like schools it wouldn't seem to much to have relatives back there. Londo  06  06:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the thinning out of the personal information section lends weight to its re-inclusion. I know that for me personally, when the notable relatives were listed in the infobox I discovered a lot of related footy people that I might never have found otherwise. It was informative to me and might well be for others.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm loosely in favour of them at this point. CorleoneSerpicoMontana  07:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really bothered either way. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with new infobox
The new infobox has a problem on Jack Gibson (rugby league) as its taken over half the screen, on my settings anyway. Not sure how to fix it, so can someone have a look. Thx Boylo (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears you need to put in a number of fields in order to make them not appear in their raw format on the page. See this edit as an example.
 * One other thing that needs to be taken care of is the new break between the bottom of the infobox text and the body text. If everyone can remove it when they go through editing any player page, that would be excellent. MDM (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

One small issue I have is the loss of visible data when looking through a page's history. You can still check the history but you need to make sure you find the right edit page. Just makes it a little more difficult. See here and here - the playing info section of the infobox is no longer visible. I use this a bit to balance season-to-date figures by comparing end of season etc. I'll get over it by tomorrow, though. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 03:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Harry Bath's needs attention too.--Jeff79 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Major issue with the new infobox as the weights and heights have moved for all players, not just retired players. I'm not clued up on all the coding because I've been away, otherwise I'd fix it myself. Alexsanderson 83  07:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

if you look at Jack Gibson and Wayne Bennett's infoboxes, for some reason it displays their most recent club coached as the first representative side listed (despite all seeming correct in the edit window). Dunno how to fix it.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. MDM (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For players who have died, like Dally Messenger the "countryofdeath" parameter is forced, when it shouldn't.   The Windler      talk   05:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Image
Should we or shouldn't we use Image:Replace this image male.svg on infoboxes? If we do choose to use them, we'd might as well apply it as a standard on the infobox coding if a proper image isn't available. Doing this would save us a lot of time applying it to every page and would save us ever more time should we ever choose to take it off. MDM (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind it, but there should be an option to remove it if it isn't wanted.   The Windler      talk   10:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is on every article that has a infobox then it gives us a better chance of someone giving us a image to use. That's why i always add them if there isn't a photo. Boylo (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't stand them personally. Reminds me of advertising blanks. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 12:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Same. Makes the article look bad IMO best without it. Bidgee (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I like them as they make the infobox format fit properly, and they can be easily replaced if people take pictures at the games, but not me, I'm not a neek. Fronsdorf (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Loosely in favour of it at the minute. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 07:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they do have a place, until replaced by an actual picture. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I add them as standard on any I create, although it's not something that I will go around and add to every article without one. Londo 06  19:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposition for infobox
I know it probably should have went in the vote, but ...

I have created in my sandbox an exact replica of the Infobox except it can also function for rugby union players.

If the template is used by any article currently uses it, no difference is made.

But for someone like Wendell Sailor, I have adapted our infobox to cater. It uses the same format as ours excepts with a "ru_" before each parameter.

The code for the template is here: User:SpecialWindler/Sandbox3

And an example (using Wendell Sailor and a ficticious coaching career) here: User talk:SpecialWindler/Sandbox3. Compare with Wendell Sailors current infobox.

I think we should be in unanimous decision to allow this through, though I won't push it any further if you all think its a bad idea.

  The Windler      talk   09:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Formatting looks great, might just be me, but I find the blue a little harsh. Had a double take when I saw Dell with so many coaching jobs down the line. Fronsdorf (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was trying to show the format of the infobox, not the future of Wendell Sailor. If you can find a better a shade of blue, be my guest, but that was the one I choose. Check out Sonny Bill Williams for an example used in an article.   The Windler      talk   21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks excellent mate. I'll give that a pass straight away. The rugby union project may want to look at it first - maybe post a new topic on their discussion page. Perhaps we should make this template under a separate name such as Template:Infobox rugby dual code biography, or something similar. To merge it into the current rugby league infobox may not be the best of ideas given the file size will be unnecessarily large to suit just a few dozen players, not to mention it does serve a different purpose to the normal infobox. MDM (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the file size will really increase. But it shouldn't be a worry anyway. Other infoboxs like AFL and the old Rugby ones were/are bigger than ours. And it shouldn't make any difference to current articles. So I would like to have it on ours, rather than make a new template.   The Windler      talk   06:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good, is there a line for the current rugby union side. Also I guess SBW has retired from league but his height & weight has moved to the playing information. Is that going to be a standard for union players. CorleoneSerpicoMontana  07:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt, if the WP:RU would adopt the template I have sandboxed. The playing career is supposed to encompass both RL and RU.   The Windler      talk   08:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job Joel it looks good. I've been quite a user of the current dual-code box as per Dell's infobox and have had dialogue on the RU project about it. One thing though is that the club, province, Super 14 and national rep levels can in some countries (ie NZ see Brad Thorn) represent distinct levels so just having Super 12/14 and national won't cut it. I've found that a higher proportion of WP:RU contributors are English and Kiwis (hence there's a poor number of Austn RU player articles) and in those countries the playing levels are more layered than the simple two tiers that Wendell experienced in his RU career. A user who gets involved in the RU boxes is User:Shudde.  You may want to ask his view. -  Sticks  66  12:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah there would be the whole can of worms situation, mainly with Currie Cup and NPC rugby being a decent level of rugby union, and obviously worthy of inclusion in the infobox with the same amount of detail. I would imagine it may take some time to get it up and running from that side, the formatting and coding more than anything else. Londo 06  10:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Best that we finish off our infobox and give union a finished product to decide where they want to go. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 07:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dell's infobox looks lightyears ahead of the rugby union/rugby league one, largely because the union one was pretty bad looking, but it honestly is a big improvement, well done. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed
I have changed the infobox to include the new additions of the past few days and the rugby union section. The main reason is now, becasue the it would save me many changes later on, that I predict might happen.

Just, when you alter the infobox, remember that the rugby union section is almost identical but have "ru_" in front of the parameter name. You should change for both.

It should all work currently. It is currently in use on Wendell Sailor and Sonny Bill Williams.   The Windler      talk   11:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions for City and Country
What are the naming conventions for the City and Country Origins team.

I use "City Origin" and "Country Origin", but have noticed other versions like "NSW City", "NSW Country", "Country", "City".

Which should we use?   The Windler      talk   05:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I use "City Origin". That said, this is not technically correct for players before origin was introduced, so perhaps "City" would be a better option. MDM (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

City Origin and Country Origin work the best, for both those familiar with the subject, and the uninitiated who may wonder what City and Country are. Londo 06  19:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge Super League and Normal represetatives.
With a lot of big time players who played in the Super League in 1997, they played for QLD, NSW, australia and NZ under Super League. I personally hate seeing the (SL) bit behind the country/state. Its really annoying. With Mat Rogers I merged the SL appearences with his regular appearances, and it seems all right.

Why should they be different. With clubs we accept them being merged as OK. I would like to see them merge as they are the same team, its just a different governing body.   The Windler      talk   03:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Super League was much the same as World Series Cricket. It was, and still is considered to be a rebel competition, with players being mutually excluded from either one or the other. The Queensland State of Origin Team and the Australian national team were not represented in these Super League competitions and thus we definitely should not merge the two together. You don't see Ian Chappell's WSC appearances for Australia included in his infobox. You certainly don't see Mat Rogers' appearances in 1997 included in his State of Origin statistics on any other website either. I do think, however, that we should merge pre-Origin and Origin appearances such as was done with Tommy Raudonikis. MDM (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Club appearances are different - clubs such as the Brisbane Broncos existed in this time as playing in a separate competition, not both. MDM (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have always seen those SL teams as being part of New South Wales and Queensland regular year stats, a merge seems a very reasonable proposal. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with MDM and think Super League and ARL should be separated as far as representative footy goes. There were two Queensland teams in 1997, not one. And each played in an inherently different competition, Super League's being an unprecedented tri-series including New Zealand. Not the same as Origin at all. That being said though, I think this only goes for rep footy. I worry that MDM's branding of Super League as a "rebel" competition is a little bit short-sighted. Let's not forget that the ARL was the only major governing body not aligned with Super League and thus the "real" Australian team had no country to play against during the Super League war. In a global perspective this makes the ARL much more rebel-like, since New Zealand and Great Britain count matches played against the Super League Australian side as full tests. I'm sure players like Laurie Daley and Glenn Lazarus don't consider themselves to have played in some second-rate "rebel" matches either. They count. I think we have to be careful not to let the ARL-SL politics affect our content here on wikipedia. The ARL certainly didn't "win" the Super League war. Nobody did. But anyway, I agree with MDM, the status quo is fine with rep sides being separated rather than merged. But the two should be treated equally. The players trained and played just as hard. The British and New Zealand Leagues don't consider Super League to be any less relevant and nor should we. Wikipedia is international and free of bias. The ARL's and Super League's views hold no sway here. Sorry for the rant! :P --Jeff79 (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I just thought that seeing the player is still representing that one state/country. I don't consider the Super League a rebel competition but an attempt for a rival competition. I just don't like the (SL) bit after the bit at all.


 * Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the Rugby template and create a new header like "Super League representative". See an example here   The Windler      talk   10:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a bit much. I can understand merging them as a way of simplifying and streamlining things, but having separate sections like that is surely far more disruptive than a simple "(SL)". As far as I'm concerned the status quo is the way to go.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I meant "rebel" to refer more to WSC than SL. I'm not suggesting that the SL competition was illegitimate, just that the Australian and state teams have always been under the jurisdiction of ARL-aligned entities in the NSWRL and QRL. It would be factually incorrect to forget the distinction between the two Queensland teams, for example. One has been around for 100 years under the QRL and one was made for a single year under Super League. There is no continuity between the two and therefore the two teams are in fact very different from one another. Bottom line - "(SL)" may look annoying, but we're writing an encylcopaedia here, not a fan site. Let's keep our facts on player pages correct and professional. MDM (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand the continuity bit. But I still don't like the SL bit. Its not "professional", while it may be flawed my example here is more professional as such. Do you have an opinion.   The Windler      talk   11:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand calls for merge and individual teams in terms of SL origin and ordinary origin. Definitely opposed to a separate section for them though. Alexsanderson 83  17:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

NRL finals series
I'm not sure this should be happenning. See discussion here.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest putting it up for a speedy based on recreation of deleted articles (as in similar articles from previous seasons have been deleted) but I see that 2006 NRL Finals Series and 2007 NRL Finals Series are still there! I thought they were to be merged and deleted? Anyway, no, I agree the new article for 2008 should not be happening. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Final Infobox Votes
Well, I think we should finally get this over and done with. If you would like to add a new poll, please do so. Comments and neutrals are not required but are encouraged if there is opposition. If a new poll is not opened, it will be assumed that everyone is happy with the infobox as is.
 * Each new poll that someone creates will remain open for sevens days.
 * New polls will be ignored if created after this Sunday, 24 August 2008.
 * This section will therefore be open for a maximum of two weeks.
 * If a 2/3 majority is achieved, the vote is final for a period of 12 months when the issue will be allowed to be reconsidered.
 * MDM (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Results

 * AMAZED the centimetres didn't go through.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll be having another vote in a month or so probably to finalise everything and get everything settled. But we've made progress. MDM (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I only voted "neutral" for some to state I didn't care what happened with it, and I think thats what most people do with Nuetral in these sort of situations. At least I wouln't count my neutral votes.   The Windler      talk   10:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as something I just saw (even though its been on Karmichael Hunt for ages) and I'm happy to let go if necessary. Should Junior representative teams (such as Aus. Schoolboys, Junior Kiwis) be on the representative section. Just really noticed it and sorry I didn't put it in the vote earlier. But if it's necessarry to not go to a vote, I don't mind. I just personally don't like them there.   The Windler      talk   10:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know about anyone else, but I'm removing them from the infobox. Same with City/Country Seconds, Prime Minister's XIII and others lower representative teams that it is almost impossible to find figures for. At any rate, they aren't the highest level. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So almost 2/3 of the vote isn't good enough? :( 62.5% sounds good to me! &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 12:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC) ETA: And the vote on colours over-rides WP policy? How does that work? &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 12:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:IAR. If users believe that these colours improve the artice then that Wikipedia policy overides WP:MOS.   The Windler      talk   21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case we may as well all pack up and go home. Pointless voting on anything at all because anyone can over-ride anything and spout WP:IAR. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there has been a major error in the infobox. The vote was moving height and weight was for retired players, and it looks like it has happened across the board. As I've been away for so long I'm not clued up on the coding, otherwise I'd fix the problems myself. Alexsanderson 83  07:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it was meant for all players.   The Windler      talk   07:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what it said in the vote, it was quite specific with the issue of retired players. Unless there is a long talk that I wasn't around for I would recommend shifting it back to the status quo until we can work out the coding or word it better so people aren't voting for two different aims within the same vote. Alexsanderson  83  07:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason for it to apply for all players is if it's too fiddly to make it for retired players only. If it's not a hassle to do the coding or whatever for the infobox to make it differentiate between the two then there's no dramas.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah totally, like I said I thought I was voting for retired players only. If I knew the code I would shift it back myself and fix it for retired players and then for current players. Alexsanderson  83  07:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was meant for all players but the original discussion was archived and the new 'vote' only referred to retired players as an example. That's what I thought at least. Anyway, what's the hassle with it being there for all players? Looks fine. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree totally if it is a hassle to differentiate between retired and current. I think if they're current, it's better to have height and weight under 'Personal Information' as that's generally where it's listed in other infoboxes on wikipedia. A player being retired is the only really good reason to change that.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that we were voting for retired players only as well. Londo  06  18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I get a message on a vote on my talk-page and it's already gone. How long was this vote around for because we have done away with squad numbers and moved height and weight into playing information, two bizarre moves in my opinion. From a European perspective numbers are essential and I'm not sure it will look good at all with five bits of information in the section where we used to have three at most. That's without even entertaining whether weight is a playing feature or a personal detail. Fronsdorf (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just seen it on Sonny Bill Williams page and guessed it was just that he switched codes, but now seen it with current players, not what it said in the polling question. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 07:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just had to add the squad number back in for Matt Gidley as it wasn't on there. It looks shockingly awful to have the five bits of information in there, if I had the knowledge and the skills I would sort it out, but the height and weight should go back to where it was, especially given what has happened, is not what the proposition was. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 07:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Will be looking to remedy this situation. What I will do is look to return it to where it was in relation to the height and weight positioning as evidenced people thought they were voting for retirees, and after fixing a few Super League players it does look pretty shoddy with five bits of information in that area. That seems to be the best point to go forwards from there with specific retiree formatting if anyone knows how to achieve that. Londo 06  12:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call from SpecialWindler at the page, I will look to fix it within my sandbox and the implement the remedy. Londo  06  14:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

5 bits of information in that field does not look great at all. We should probably return to the three that were there for SL players, and the two for NRL players. Not sure how weight and height are playing information, unless it is billed weight like wrestlers and a player like Willie Mason is actually 1.84m and 99kg. Fronsdorf (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Looks are subjective. Height/weight are playing information as far as the data being correct for while the footballer was playing, not ten years after retirement or worse, death. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 03:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never really understood that argument, especially considering the stance on article leads telling the reader what the player is. Surely they would be aware that they are no longer a competitive rugby league footballer. 08:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)