Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 22

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

File:NZ National Rugby league team shirt.GIF has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we get some third and forth opinions on this please. Myself and Gibson Flying V have been having a dispute over the appropriate headings on player articles. He has changed several articles from what I thought was a standard Early years, Playing career, Representative career structure to a more hierarchical structure that has Biography as a top level, with a second level as Professional playing career and then third level headings for each club the player has been at. In particular I find the heading of "biography" in a players biography to be redundant but I'm not too fussed either way about combining the club and rep sections. I have had a look at existing player biographies and our only current Good article is Sam Tomkins which has the "early life-club career-rep career" breakdown. Out of our B grade articles Puig Aubert, Sean Long, Shaun Ainscough and Andrew Johns also have this general format while Jamie Lyon and Anthony Minichiello use the "Biography" heading. Obviously in an ideal world all our biographies will follow a standard format, which is why I bought the discussion here. Anyone have any preferences? Mattlore (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The "biography" heading certainly seems redundant. Surely there's a better alternative. On the other hand, I find the separation between regular career and representative career very confusing, especially with players who play regular rep footy. It would be good to get a consensus and maybe change Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Players so we can have a standard format.Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Doctorhawkes. I've started using the heading "Background" (not a fan of "Early years") for the first few sentences that deal with someone's pre-professional football life. I also don't like to use any headings at all in articles whose text fits within your window without scrolling. This should be the test for whether to use headings at all. Once the text reaches down past the bottom of the screen, a case can be made for having a table of contents (as these and headings go hand-in-hand), so that upon arriving at an article a reader can immediately see an outline of the article. I'd argue that this is not necessary when readers, upon arriving at an article, can immediately see the entire article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/William "Billy" Smith#Incubator Greenhouse discussion regarding a 1940s rubgy player.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I looked at this, and what we have is credible WP:OR.  The article went to AfD, and they found one reference with the last name, then decided to send it to the incubator for a while.  This has now been sitting in the incubator for too long, and the article is scheduled to go to MfD on July 30 if it is not improved.  According to the WP:OR, the player was born in St. Helens in 1906, and played for six years for St. Helens. He then played for five years at Bradford Northern, and went on to coach there.  This should be straightforward to research for someone in St. Helens or Bradford.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There's renewed discussion about whether Soccer in Australia should be moved to Football in Australia at Talk:Soccer_in_Australia#Requested_move_again in case anyone cares.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Is

) 22:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear rugby experts: Here are two articles about the same rugby club. The first one is an Afc submission which will shortly be deleted unless someone edits it. The second one has very little information. Is this a notable organization, and is there material in the first that should be saved? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the info from the first article. The club are notable. It's difficult to understand notablity with British rugby league if you don't know the history. Essentially the sport can be a huge deal rivalling soccer in one town but be almost unknown and totally unplayed in a town just a dozen miles away. WBR are the only side bar the semi-pro North Wales Crusaders that has ever existed in Wrexham, a fairly large town. Their games would be covered by the local press. They are therefore notable.GordyB (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As a musician, I don't even try to understand competitive sports, so I appreciate that you took this on. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Came across a number of articles such as the one above. Technically they pass the NSPORTS guidelines, but is there really any value in keeping any of these permastubs? With so little information about these players (with even the first names being missing) surely

) 22:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think articles like this have great value and I often refer to them. A few have been nominated for deletion, but they've consistently been kept.Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears Special:Contributions/Max2002 was on a bit of mission to create articles for many Easts players, all of whom are article worthy by virtue of being a first grader.

Just trying to generate further comment at

) 09:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

So "National Youth Competition (rugby league)" has been retained as the single best

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Way to go team.--Gibson Flying V (talk

) 01:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent updates

Does anyone have an opinion on the recent changes to a few articles (Corey Parker (rugby league), David Mead (rugby league)) by Oki choki? Doesn't appear to meet the MOS [1], but I guess it is handy. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The season-by-season stats? I think it's ok. It's not repetition of infobox data as it's more detailed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to make sure, are players notable enough to make a page about if they have played in the Auckland 9s but not NRL? Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not covered by the current

WP:BIAS.Doctorhawkes (talk

) 23:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Auckland Nines data in biographies

Editors should hold their horses before adding

) 02:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right.Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The history is a little bit off , you are missing 1909 , 1912 , 1913 , 1914 , 1915 , 1917 , 1918 , 1919 , 1920 , 1921 and 1925 . Plus should really make note of the 4 seasons that South Sydney had the titles handed to them , 1909 the year Balmain Tigers protested the gf and several Souths players kicked off to an empty field picked up the ball put it over the try line and then walked straight off and were given the title due to a forfeit , as well as the 1910 4 all draw with Newtown , Souths were defending premiers so they retained the title , 1914 no finals were contested due to war , 1925 when the powers that be called the season off after round 13 as Souths were 10 points clear of the others , no finals contested , Souths gifted another title . That is 4 major premierships to Souths without winning , people should be able to learn this . Also the seasons where Melbourne were stripped for rorting the cap should be noted . I do have a book that documents all of these that i mentioned and with greater detail , but am note sure where it's at right now , you can email me if you want further info , [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NED DEAD (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

From 1912-1925 it was first past the post, the only finals required were tie-breakers. So you've barely got anything correct, but I agree Melbourne's dud wins should be noted.

Dear rugby experts: This old Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is there a reason that the page should be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If the rest of the USARL seasons are to be retained I don't see why this one also shouldn't be as well.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have postponed deletion. It doesn't seem to have much in the way of references. I don't know anything about rugby, so hopefully someone here will improve it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to

. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the

) 05:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rugby union biography

There's currently a discussion regarding this template going on here. Obviously it primarily affects rugby union articles, but the template is also used for a few rugby league players who've featured in both codes of the sport, so it might be of interest to a few people. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that all instances of the rugby union infobox(es) appearing in rugby league articles should be replaced with the rugby league infobox. It's simply a better one in my humble opinion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've made a community reassessment for the article above due to dead links, empty/unsourced sections and

11:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Flag usage on sports articles

A discussion has begun to outline usage of flags on sports articles and to review their usage. Sports articles have long diverged from what is stated in the manual of style. Please comment on the proposals and add suggestions by contributing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Thanks. SFB 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There are about 20 rugby league player article titles which include the word circa. As

21:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. Sounds fairly uncontroversial to me. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds uncontroversial to me too. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iffley_Road_rugby_football_ground#Iffley_Road_rugby_football_ground

Having trouble with someone who has had this article deleted once and is trying to do it again. The article is being deleted as "an eminently non-notable football ground". From a rugby league point of view, it is the home stadium of one of only five semi-pro rugby league teams in the South of England. (See Iffley_Road_rugby_football_ground. Please vote.GordyB (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I have nominated one of your articles for a GA reassessment, mostly because of dead links and original research last March 2014. I posted here a couple of months ago but nothing happened. It would be great if you post your opinion in the reassessment discussion so that we can reach a consensus if this is worth keeping. Also, I'm calling out the main editors who promoted this article so that they can adress the issues. Thanks! FairyTailRocks 11:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed some of the dead links, but it's up to someone with a bit more knowledge of Aussie rugby than myself to make the other improvements. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed non-free copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/GordyB.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. -- Shudde ^talk 08:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone has nominated Gateshead Thunder for deletion. I'm a bit out of touch with how wikipedia procedures/policies operate these days, hopefully someone more currently involved can join in. I would have thought the club is clearly "notable". If not then all C1 clubs will end up being deleted. Grinner (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't really a notable category is it? - Category:The Mortimers - Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Difficult to say. Is

the article notable? If not, they should both go. J Mo 101 (talk

) 12:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say not. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd merge the category into the article. Mattlore (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason that appearing in the

) 22:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Mkativerata (talk

) 00:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It's something that will need looking at anyway with the Super League being restructured for next year. Might be a good time to discuss it once the current season has finished. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Just trying to get the situation previously raised at Talk:Bradford_Bulls#Duplicated_navboxes.3F sorted out: {{Bradford Bulls Millenium Masters}} and {{Bradford Bulls Bull Masters}} were both created by User:DynamoDegsy and both are unsourced. Would their creator, or someone familiar enough with the subject, kindly assist us on making a decision as to whether we get rid of none, one or both of them?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bradford Bulls navboxes aren't duplicated, the name duplication was introduced here at 12:25, 20 September 2011 by 14.200.21.211, I've now remedied this. The 'Millenium Masters' is a team selection of players from before the year 2000, with one player selected for each position, plus four substitutes. The 'Bull Masters' is a just twenty-four players selected post 2003. References are now going to be difficult, as the pages on the Bradford Bulls website are no longer available, e.g. [2], and [3]. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wayback Machine should help with that problem. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, rugby experts. This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable player, and should the page be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The player is notable, for sure. I'll see if I can work on the article over the weekend. The sources it's using don't appear to be reliable and they're also closely paraphrased. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 19:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've played around with the article a bit and added a source from the club's official website, which at least is sufficient to verify he actually existed. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 12:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have access to the British Newspaper Archives, and I found many articles about rugby in Warrington, but no mention of "John Willie Chester". —Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Having played over 100 games for Warrington, including a Challenge Cup final, he clearly meets NSPORTS criteria of presumed notability. I'm sure the article could eventually be improved with sources which aren't readily available on the web. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've nominated

) 19:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review this to determine notability, ether accepting or declining it Fiddle Faddle 11:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that J Mo 101 had removed the 'Great Britain national rugby league team players' category, and infobox fields from the; Harry Archer, Billy Banks, and Jack Bartholomew articles. I believe for example, the corresponding 'New Zealand national rugby league team players' category includes both Test match and non-Test match players. I was wondering whether all players should actually be included in the category, or whether there should be a sub-category named, e.g. 'Great Britain national rugby league team test players'?

In the past for players that have played games for their national side but not tests, I have had an entry in the infobox but listed there stats as 0 games, 0 points, etc. I have included them in the team category, as they have played for the team. Mattlore (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have started a conversation on

) 22:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Rugby league experts: There is an old draft about this topic which appears to be more extensive than the mainspace article. Here is a link to the draft before it was redirected: [4]. Is there material here that should be moved from the draft to the mainspace article, or should the draft just be discarded?—Anne Delong (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The only additional content in the draft appears to be a few unsourced statistics. I would just delete it. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, done. Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Working on

) 11:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

OK I found List of dual-code rugby internationals which has a Cat too, but the concept exists at club level, too... --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not specifically rugby league/union, but there's also… List of players who have converted from one football code to another, and the Category:Footballers who switched code. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice. I'm going to make a couple of redirects from those redlinks. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a massive mess with the original L'pool City (

) 23:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The 1906 club should be kept separate but it does seem like Runcorn Highfield and Liverpool City are good candidates for a merge. Mattlore (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking rename that first Liverpool City just Liverpool City (rugby league) and the second one as Liverpool Stanley as they spent a larger portion of history being called that, as it'll distinguish the two and merge it with Runcorn Highfield. Then stick a {distinguish} at the top of both? Abcmaxx (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a much clearer way to deal with the two clubs. Mattlore (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, apologies if I have not adhered to standard naming conventions, but we have two players called 'Bill Schultz' - articles located at

18:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

New South Wales Residents rugby league team

There was a league game on the weekend between Qld residents and NSW (link). By the internet/news coverage I am confused if the NSW team were residents or not. Does New South Wales Residents rugby league team apply to this game? I want to know if I can post a photo from the 2015 game into the article--Commander Keane (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, same team.Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at

) 06:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

POV/PEACOCK/OR

Some really inappropriate blog-like writing in 2000_Rugby_League_World_Cup#Final. I wonder if one of you might like to have a bash at it? --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for your standard UK public domain rationale citation to attach to an Australian team photo obviously taken in the UK in 1911-12. Your PD right is 70 years after death of the author isn't it ? Can you direct me to a shot that has been uploaded that contains a UK pd citation I can copy please . -Sticks66 05:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to bring it to the attention of this project, season articles of

10:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Minor discrepancy on the France page

I just did some minor clean up of the France page France_national_rugby_league_team and noticed that it claimed that the 1955 test match at The_Gabba is the venue's top attendance whereas the Gabba's page claims that it was the 1954 match vs Great Britain. Anybody have any citations to clean this up?

Thanks

Rtande (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Rugby League Project says it's the 1954 test:

http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/competitions/ashes-series-1954/summary.html
http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/competitions/australia-vs-france-1955/summary.html

Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made the change to the France page France_national_rugby_league_team thanks Doctorhawkes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtande (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, just a quick post to let you know that I've updated the member table. If i've misjudged someone as not-active or semi-active when they are in fact active, please feel free to correct! Cheers RugbyXIII (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to see myself being dropped to semi-active! 10 March isn't that long ago compared to the activity this talk page gets! Mattlore (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! I'm still pretty new to all this, but at least the genuinely active members can quickly pop themselves back on the active list :) RugbyXIII (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for giving it some attention. Mattlore (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If someone would check the table for 2004 that I've built on my page user:blackjack4124 for errors, I'd be obliged. By all means, when someone has, push it live into that year's article if it's notable enough (and based off future seasons, it would want to be.)

Might want to have a look at this if you missed it....

I recall a section which I thought was on

Here is a link for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?namespace=&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+Rugby+league%2FArticles&tagfilter=&limit=500&title=Special%3ARecentChangesLinked

This page needs some cleanup and it could use some content improvement before being moved to the main page. I have marked it as "being reviewed" but please dive right in and improve it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 12 October 2013

An IP editor has created a group of stubs for clubs in

17:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Even where tehre are sources there's still scope for confusion! For

Cairns Brothers the References leads to http://www.brotherscairns.com.au/our-club/our-history.php giving a 1926 date, and the "Offical website" at http://www.cairnsbrothers.com.au/history is a bit vague but seems to assert 1919. PamD

17:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on obscure Australian RL clubs. UK clubs are more my area. However, I'm going to go ahead and restore the redirects as the IP edits are at best dubious. If an Aussie editor knows more about the subject, they can easily restore the pages to articles and expand them with accurate info. Thanks RugbyXIII (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As junior clubs, I doubt most of them would pass GNG. Redirection's the best outcome. Mattlore (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. PamD 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Any responses to Talk:2015 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award#Kevin Sinfield from members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league would be appreciated as it concerns rugby league. Thanks. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger of

May as well tag Northern Wonder's desire to merge

Crusaders RL & North Wales Crusaders ect) RugbyXIII (talk

) 20:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose the mergers. In both cases, these are clearly two separate clubs. In the case of Sheffield, the original Eagles ceased to exist when they merged with Huddersfield to form Huddersfield-Sheffield Giants, which later reverted simply to Huddersfield Giants. A new Sheffield club was formed by those disgruntled at the merger. While understandably supporters of the new Giants wish to see the club as a continuation of the original, this should not mean that we rewrite the (admittedly painful) history: the original Sheffield was closed down and merged into Huddersfield and a new Sheffield formed effectively in protest at the merger. The exact same process was mirrored with Gateshead and Hull, although there was a year's gap between the merger and formation of the new Gateshead. Mooretwin (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, the last of Bennett's clubs in his coaching infobox does not display. Is there a limit on how many clubs can be displayed? Or am I missing something obvious? Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

At first glance it should be able to handle a 9th [5], I will have a tinker and see if I can work it out. Mattlore (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had no luck, and we now have the same problem with his representative listings! Mattlore (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ta da! I've battled the source code and had the appropriate changes made, it now works correctly :) Mattlore (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You're a genius. What was the problem? Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It required changes to both

Template:Infobox_rugby_league_biography/RL COACH, including the calculations the main template uses to add the games together. Mattlore (talk

) 21:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Squad navboxes

While we are on the subject, have you seen this feature?

) 02:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This article was AfD'd for a nonsense reason and because no one here was informed, it actually got closed as a redirect to a non-rugby league article! I've restored the article for now, citing

) 16:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Turns out its another anti-rugby league conspiracy by pro rugby union editors. Since you can't beat the biased admins here, I'm just gonna leave this project. Until admins who abuse the tools are dealt with by the main people behind this website, theres just no point. RugbyXIII (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a conspiracy, and the deletion discussion gave room for the article to be recreated at

Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby league) or similar. Mattlore (talk

) 01:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There is now a second AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby league) about the topic. Mattlore (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think one thing we need to talk about is how we feel about templates like {{Parramatta Eels 2016 Auckland Nines Champions}}, {{Hull F.C. - 1959 Challenge Cup Final Runners-Up}} and {{Combined Brisbane - 1984 Panasonic Cup winners}}. Limiting ourselves to premiership wins alone can cause these navboxes stack up quite significantly, but this is just way too much in my opinion. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm cautiously for them, though I'm surprised they are used for runners-up. I like them for premierships, nines, Four Nations winners etc., but that's just my personal opinion. I just had a look at Peyton Manning & David Beckham and they both have heaps, but they are clustered to limit how much screen it takes up. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm less surprised that they are used for runners-up… as I created {{

1959 Challenge Cup, or 1959 Challenge Cup Final were eventually created, where the players for both winning and runners-up teams in the final would be named. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk

) 17:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of them - if a template was created for every League, Challenge Cup and World Club Challenge win, lots of pages would become far too cluttered very quickly. Templates such as {{North Wales Crusaders 2012 Squad}}, for example are far too much. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the winning team templates but I don't think that runner up templates are notable. The North Wales season squads should be changed to a current squad template so this type of situation doesn't occur. In saying that, I am generally supportive of clustering. Mattlore (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Crusaders navboxes now at TfD here. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

A discussion has started at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_7#Raymond Terrace Roosters, because currently there s no information at the target, Newcastle Rugby League#Former Clubs, about this team. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Si Trew (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I see Fox Sports has now become subscription-based. It's getting harder and harder to find decent sources. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not directly relevant to us, but fyi there is

) 20:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sydney Roosters list articles

Would someone mind taking a look at List of Sydney Roosters players, List of Sydney Roosters records, List of Sydney Roosters honours and List of Sydney Roosters representatives?

The list of players in particular is one long scroll of 1151 names which is probably only going to continue to grow if left as is. Players with stand-alone articles are OK, but there are quite few redlinks so

) 08:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

All NRL or equivalent players are inherently notable. I would imagine that eventually all of those players will eventually have their own article. I don't see a problem, though some of them could be presented a little better. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the article

) 12:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone active here? 2.218.253.200 (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems not... thankfully a helpful sysop from WP:RM has moved the article for me!. 2.218.253.200 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be more professional to follow the naming policy of WP:Football and rename the club articles to include the R.L.F.C. / R.F.C. in the article titles. (Example: It's Hull City A.F.C. not just Hull City) Full proposal below:

• Castleford Tigers --> Castleford Tigers R.L.F.C.
• Huddersfield Giants --> Huddersfield Giants R.L.F.C.
• Hull Kingston Rovers --> Hull Kingston Rovers R.F.C.
• Leeds Rhinos --> Leeds Rhinos R.L.F.C.
• Salford Red Devils --> Salford Red Devils R.L.F.C.
• St Helens RFC
  --> St. Helens R.F.C. (as on their crest)
• Wakefield Trinity Wildcats
  --> Wakefield Trinity R.L.F.C.
• Warrington Wolves --> Warrington Wolves R.L.F.C.
• Widnes Vikings --> Widnes Vikings R.L.F.C.
• Wigan Warriors --> Wigan Warriors R.L.F.C.

• Batley Bulldogs --> Batley Bulldogs R.L.F.C.
• Bradford Bulls --> Bradford Bulls R.L.F.C.
• Dewsbury Rams --> Dewsbury Rams R.L.F.C.
• Featherstone Rovers --> Featherstone Rovers R.L.F.C.
• Halifax RLFC
  --> Halifax R.L.F.C.
• Leigh Centurions
  --> Leigh Centurions R.L.F.C.
• London Broncos --> London Broncos R.L.F.C.
• Oldham Roughyeds
  --> Oldham R.L.F.C. (Roughyeds appears to have been dropped as a suffix and retained as a nickname only)
• Sheffield Eagles --> Sheffield Eagles R.L.F.C.
• Swinton Lions --> Swinton Lions R.L.F.C.
• Whitehaven RLFC
  --> Whitehaven R.L.F.C.
• Workington Town --> Workington Town R.L.F.C.

-- 2.218.253.200 (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, it's been a while. A minor one, but I got a notification about discussions on whether

) 13:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It's on again, it seems it personally offends some people Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_2#The_Greatest_Game_of_All — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.145.145 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There's currently a SPI for a user that has disrupted/introduced hoaxes onto numerous rugby league-related pages with over hundreds of combined edits since March 2015 here. Feel free to provide any additional evidence and I'd recommend keeping an eye out for him in the future.

Just a heads-up, Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Adelaide Rams, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, in addition to the conversation at the infobox page, I thought it best to ask you to visit the talk page in question in order to sort out the issue with the width of the Rugby League infobox and displaying names over two lines.Theanonymousentry (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely something that's bothered me for a while, but I'm just not good enough with the template coding to do anything about it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Especially for teams like St. George Illawarra, it would preferably to have the full team name listed. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone on this project have the necessary skills or would it best to ask an admin to help out?Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you link me to the conversation, I can't find the relevant one. Mattlore (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

as per req Not much of a conversation and even then it's a continuation of a conversation that I found and added to, rather than starting afresh. Sorry for any potential confusion there.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the link, how big of a problem is this and how wide does the infobox need to be to fit in most teams? I will see what I can do with the code. Mattlore (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

My position would be to find a nice happy medium of a descriptive name fitting on, but a full name such as Manly Warringah Sea Eagles being too long. NQ Cowboys or Nth Qld Cowboys is prob too short. Naming conventions aren't my thing, but perhaps long enough to be accurately descriptive and consistent, without being the whole name every time for long club names. Sorry if that was a bit of a woolly answer.Theanonymousentry (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested edit rights for this as it looks very silly having a relatively short club or rep team name displaying over two lines on a big monitor.Theanonymousentry (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Brett Stewart (rugby league) is an example of what the no wrap function can do. Good, bad or ugly it would potentially do a job.Theanonymousentry (talk

) 14:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Does the job and doesn't effect the infoboxes that don't need to be wider. I'm for it. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Looked into editing the template but was beyond my limited skills. Could not find a MOS for club or team names and Brett Stewart was an example of a long club name and Greg Inlgis and example or a rep team that went onto two lines. No changes to the infobox, just forces the team name to the one line. Not that we would necessarily want the full name on there, but that is another question.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel like we have gone a bit OTT with the use of nowrap, for instance is there really a need for Canterbury-Bankstown's fullname at James Graham (rugby league)? Mattlore (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, but it IS very large. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say we should aim for common media usage, ie TV, radio, newspaper, website referral. So to me the full name of Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs, whilst often referred to just as the Bulldogs and their full name, they are most often seen as they Canterbury Bulldogs.Theanonymousentry (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

We aren't going to start introducing mascots to clubs' pre-1970s names in infoboxes (making them unnecessarily wide to boot) so please stop.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Gibson has advised me not to use the history of the South Sydney Rabbitohs as gospel and have since only moved to 70's and later Rabbitohs.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

) 11:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was doing the right thing in raising this here as a discussion. I can't speak for the countless editors who have not made changes though.Theanonymousentry (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In general, I'm for it. It would be best to try to reach consensus on each club, but it's hard to get more than a handful of people to comment here. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. A club-by-club approach would be best. Perhaps on each team article's talk page. But I think it's important that we don't forget what's happened in the past when we've let more and more width creep into {{Infobox rugby league biography}}: editors from over-arching Wikiprojects like Wikiproject:Infoboxes or Wikiproject:Biography come along and bring it back into line with the rest, forcing all sorts of things onto two lines in the process, and leaving some unfortunate Wikiproject:Rugby league editor(s) with the laborious task of finding and correcting all the mess. So, a bit of perspective before rushing around introducing ill-thought-out widespread changes. For me, I was only ever bothered by the instances I'd see where things like "New South Wales" or "Canterbury-Bankstown", (names already as short as they really can be) were forced onto two lines.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

UK clubs should not have RLFC on them would be an English angle that I would like to promote.Fleets (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I also don't view rugby union clubs (RUFC) any differently in this regard.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't know much about that sport to be fair, but I would agree on principle.Fleets (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

My angle on this as there seems to be both positive and negative feedback here, is to give an analogy of a relatively recent event and that was a Penrith Panthers game where Jamie Soward gave the ball to Te Maari Martin to take a field goal. Where am I going with this, well before Soward was seen as a real good option for the Panthers, he had his detractors but he did a job. He has since moved on and been replaced by a younger, and possibly much better option. That is until he got injured and that is where this rugby league analogy ends. Basically it might seem odd to some, but it can lead to a brighter future. Or we could always bring back Jamie Soward.Theanonymousentry (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is probably best as I am at a stage where it is down tools, as I'm getting hammered by one individual and the discussion isn't exactly moving forwards in a forwardly manner.Theanonymousentry (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering if we have made any progress on this matter?Theanonymousentry (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been looking into this and can't seem to find a style guide or MOS within WPRL that says whether navboxes are meant to flow in an ascending or descending chronological order. There appears to be inconsistencies throughout rugby league players with some going newest to oldest, others oldest to newest. Some even have different flows for different comps, internationals, special recognition navboxes, etc. Any assistance, input or discussion would be very welcome.Fleets (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

No there isn't a MOS - so each page has to find a way that works for it. Mattlore (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:New Zealand at the 2008 Rugby League World Cup#Not a tour over whether New Zealand at the 2008 Rugby League World Cup should be categorised in Category:New Zealand national rugby league team tours and Category:Rugby league tours of Australia. Me and @Gibson Flying V: have reached an impasse, so can we have some more views on the subject please? Mattlore (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, tours have always referred to when a team has travelled to play a Test series against the host nation. Squads for international tournaments such as the World Cup, Four Nations aren't really tours, and are never described as such in news reports. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi J Mo, the NZRL officially considers these as tours, and I have provided some links on the talk page, but I am happy to rename them to something else if that is what the consensus is. Mattlore (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Are there any

independent sources which consider them as tours though? J Mo 101 (talk

) 21:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even sure creating all of these "[Nation] at the [Year] Rugby League World Cup" articles is a road worth going down. Isn't it just going to be identical information cut & pasted from other articles anyway?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Most of the content could be replicated in the main World Cup article anyway. I could see there being value in a more general article such as New Zealand at the Rugby League World Cup, but a seperate one for each tournament seems excessive. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I started them because I felt the detail wouldn't fit comfortably in the main article - but if the consensus is to move it there, then I will merge the pages. The next one I was planning to do was 1954, so perhaps I try there instead of creating the article and then if that feels right to people I merge the others? Mattlore (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent World Cups appear to have detailed content divided up amongst articles like 2008 Rugby League World Cup Group B and 2008 Rugby League World Cup knockout stage.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears that we have have had two different notability guidelines running concurrently with one at Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Rugby_league and the one that was in place at the project page, which has been archived and can be found on the history page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability or here at User:Fleets/sandboxWPRL notability. I'm more than happy to work with anyone who would like to tighten up our wording, work on a revision, make additions, ammendments, alterations, have pre-conditions, etc. Speaking to an admin on this the two should be one and the same, and the reversion has to take place but we as a community should be the ones that enter into a discussion on this. Cheers guys.Fleets (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

My view is that

WP:RLN is the current version and we all simply forgot to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability each time we updated the main one. I believe this is the last discussion we had on notability: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 19. Mattlore (talk

) 18:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Potentially so, and they are one and the same now. One question that was raised in 2015 was a UK competition centric one with the 8s question raised. This has since seen two middle 8s in action, with one Championship team promoted, bigger prize money than SL, bigger gates than SL, potentially higher championship salary cap than SL due to 50% income rules, tv coverage, press coverage, etc. All of these have seen a shift that sees a change to the rugby league landscape that is vastly different to a pre-season 2015 UK rugby league landscape. I will not bring Toronto or Toulouse into the mix because I do believe that there is a difference between Championship and Championship One, and am happy to have that line in the sand that was the pre 2015 marker. I will say that this may be a UK thing, but these Championship clubs are professional setups that operate as a full time operation, and sometimes as seen with Sheffield and Bradford in 2016 they can be usurped by the not wholly full-time players of Featherstone and Batley.Fleets (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that we need to make a blanket assumption that playing in the Super 8's means a player meets notability requirements? Or should each article for non-SL players make a case via the GNG path? Remember, RLN is only an assumption that they are notable, not a statement saying that failing these means they are not notable (if that makes sense). Mattlore (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

My position would be one that says that all of the 8s meet the previously notability requirements, and I believe that they were robust enough to keep out players who are not inherently notable. I believe that each and every championship player who has featured in a championship game could conceivably fit in a CNG. My reasoning is that whilst in the UK we have poor national traditional print press coverage, and I won't bore you with the details of why that has been dwindling for a number of years, we do have a vibrant and hardcore rugby league press. What does remain strong is the interest in the game at a level below SL, and that is shown the number of rugby league magazines that offer equal weighting to the SL, lower tier, international game, and other competitions around the world. I believe a player from the Championship should not have to make a CNG path case, as we are holding ourselves to the weighting of other larger sports, ie association football, rugby union, etc which has a far greater number of player articles. I believe that we, in 2015 reset the bar, and that goalpost has since moved, with the game in the UK moving forwards, and moving forwards in the Championship. The modern method of promotion and relegation to and from the SL has seen a truly two-tier competition, one that sees results hard to predict when the middle 8s come around. I believe that articles about higher than Championship One players are valuable, offering insight to both the interested and the uninitiated, offering the likes of a fan of Championship club Featherstone Rovers, who may have 10,000 fans through their gates a chance to read about their players history. Huddersfield Giants of the SL may have a quarter of those fans turn up at their home games, but their initial SL standing at the start of the year makes them rationalised and their 2016 opponent Featherstone, not. It certainly is something that warrants discussion if nothing else.Fleets (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As pointed out, there's no reason why Championship players who've made a long and successful career at that level can't meet the wider requirements of

) 16:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe with the goalposts moving post RLN change in 2015 and the blurring of SL and Championship with Super 8s and Middle 8s that no-doubt GNG would be applicable, but would you really want to take on the responsibility of enforce GNG over a non-stated notability that was in place up until the 2015 shift. I do not blame media interest, it is a fact, and more applicable an argument to SL and national media, as local media and professional rugby league in the 2nd tier seem to do quite well together. I believe the shift was far too overreaching and reset the bar too high, and also failed to address issues that I plan to address, such as the French Elite League, historical domestic New Zealand competitions, BRL, QRL, etc which could be deemed to be first grade competitions by interpretation, but need to be nailed down as either notable or not, and if not potential for GNG.Fleets (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A blanket assumption that players who played in any first grade match are notable wouldn't hold up, the majority of the articles would still be deleted as having only one or two sources and therefore failing GNG. Speaking from my interest in the historical domestic New Zealand competitions, I feel the balance is about right as it is; articles can be created if the player goes on and plays for the Kiwis or one of the NSWRL/RFL clubs and for a few others who meet GNG, but not for every player who played 1 or 2 matches.

Like J Mo, I agree a case could be made for middle 8 players, or maybe just million pound game players, but most of these players would already be eligible for an article anyway - which shows the guidelines are working. Mattlore (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That's cool and I was just getting a handle on a few domestic competitions as the last thing I would want to do is annoy people by equating one league with another, inferring inferiority or superiority of different systems and over varying time periods. This is especially true as the subject area of NZ domestic, French leagues and non-ARL/NRL Australia is not an area that I'm not overly familiar with. I'm currently working on a revised proposal, and reading into different sports guidelines. I hope to put together an inclusive, yet exclusive proposal, but it is very much a work in progress.Fleets (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Challenge Cup

Just revisiting this as the wording regarding Challenge Cup appearances seems to be causing a lot of confusion in deletion discussions, especially for those less familiar with the sport. I was considering how we could re-word RLN, but maybe it's just more straight forward to remove the below altogether?

1. Have appeared in at least one match at a
   Rugby League European Cup
   , or
2. Have appeared in at least one match between Great Britain, England, Wales, France, New Zealand or Australia prior to 1995, or
3. Have appeared in at least one match of a fully professional club Rugby league competition:
   • National Rugby League ^{(see Note 1)}, or
   • Super League ^{(see Note 1)} including Challenge Cup appearances.

My thinking is that this would hopefully prevent any misinterpretation that a local amateur player who appeared in the early rounds of the cup is automatically notable. Although this change might technically exclude a handful of existing players from RLN, I imagine virtually anyone who would pass due to a Challenge Cup appearance would either meet the criteria for playing a Super League game anyway or would pass the GNG. If anyone has any better suggestions though, I'd be happy to hear them. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy to support that removal. I think the next step would be a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) before making the change on the page. Mattlore (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Add page for Leeds rhinos chairman Paul caddick who also works with CF&A Co Ltd

109.155.85.109 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

---

{{help me}} 109.155.85.109 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Hi there anon, you can start the article yourself at the Wikipedia:Article_wizard. Mattlore (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

---

please could this be done for me

109.155.84.236 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

---

You can request that an article be created at WP:Requested articles. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 21:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

---

No, I can't it's a protected page and I don't have permission

109.155.84.236 (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Add to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports. It's not protected. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Done

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports#Rugby_League 109.155.84.236 (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Greetings WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 22 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards,

— Delivered: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

) 19:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Bradford Bulls

It's been PROD'd, but I think

) 18:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say that a 2017 professional club in Bradford is far from certain and as such should not be in existence now. Were it to have some foundation in fact, say next week then it certainly would warrant a page. At the minute it falls under threat from the chrystal angle. I'm not against it, but I would look to start something in your sandbox, and then merge it into any article in the future when it is warranted.Fleets (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

For now, yes, let's redirect it. Redirects are almost always better than red links. When the new club does launch, we can assess then whether it warrants a new article or whether it should be treated as the same club. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 19:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think redirect is the wrong option now. The RFL press release about the new consortium makes it clear this is a new club even if they retain the Bulls name. As such the

Bradford RLFC article should become the article on the new club from here on, even if it does have to be moved or even disambiguated when the title of the new club is known. As such I have removed the PROD. Nthep (talk

) 19:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Requesting comments

Hi, if possible, I'm requesting comments here please: Talk:British rugby league system#Proposed rename - Thank you! – skemcraig⊗ 19:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Also here:

Talk:Wakefield Trinity R.L.F.C.#Proposed rename please! Many thanks again – skemcraig⊗

21:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Salford league icon

{{leagueicon|Salford city}} () is the wrong colours. Salford wear red with a black and/or white trim. Is it possible to update the leagueicon? – skemcraig⊗ 17:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The London Broncos leagueicon () could use updating too actually. They play in Black with a white and red trim nowadays. – skemcraig⊗ 19:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Are these meant to be a reflection of this years home kit or a historical representation of the clubs traditional colours?Fleets (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure tbh, Salford have been mainly red with a white and/or black trim for a while now anyway. – skemcraig⊗ 19:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed the infoboxes in most RL articles – Super League, Challenge Cup etc – use soccer balls rather than rugby balls as icons for current season links. Why is this and can it be fixed? – skemcraig⊗ 22:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Its because Template:Infobox football tournament is being used instead of Template:Infobox rugby league football competition (which is used on the National Rugby League article). I am not sure if there is a UK specific reason that template has been chosen? Mattlore (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If the wrong template is being used, then it's about time it was fixed IMHO. If a more experienced editor doesn't fix it soon and no one comments here with an objection to the change, I'll have a go at fixing it myself at a later date. – skemcraig⊗ 23:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree with fixing it - and thanks for noticing this disgraceful state of affairs! --

) 23:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixing in progress, no need to wait to fix obvious issues. Thanks for the support/advice here people! – skemcraig⊗ 23:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, User:Northern_Wonder is trying to revert me. Why, I do not know as he doesn't appear to be a vandal... I'll direct him here and assume good faith for now. – skemcraig⊗ 00:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Northern Wonder is now ignoring talk page, so assume good faith is over. I've level 1 warned him for disruption. – skemcraig⊗ 01:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's now Level 2. I'm going offline now as quite annoyed actually. I'd appreciate if someone else here could watch the articles

League 1 (rugby league), Challenge Cup and World Club Challenge and tackle anymore issues that arise from Northern Wonder. Thanks again – skemcraig⊗

01:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Northern has now made a comment at my talk page, I've directed him to this discussion here. – skemcraig⊗ 01:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Football league info box templates were used for Super League, Championship and League 1 as football templates show relegation, promotion and cups on them. I'd propose to edit rugby league info box to have relegation, promotion and domestic/ international cups in them as it shows how competitions are linked to each other. Northern Wonder (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

{{Infobox rugby league football competition}} already has parameters to support competitions {{{related_comps}}} and I've added parameters to support "Promotion to" and "Relegation to" which you can see at Template:Infobox rugby league football competition/testcases. The wording can be changed if these phrases aren't the wording wanted. Nthep (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to have a info box for domestic rugby league competitions like Super League, Championship, League 1, and have a separate info box for international rugby league competitions such as World Cup, European cup possibly challenge cup ect. _{Unsigned comment by User:Northern Wonder}

Glad to see you at the discussion Northern, I'll remove the warning templates from your talk page as they are clearly now unnecessary. (PS: Try to remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~ so people on here know which comments belongs to who.) Cheers – skemcraig⊗ 19:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the push from others (outside this project) would be to streamline the number of infobox templates, not increase them. If there are parameters needed for some competitions which aren't needed for all then let's hear them and look to expand the existing infobox, not create new ones. Incidentally there is already a separate infobox for the Challenge Cup. Nthep (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Could add domestic cup and international cup to Template:Infobox rugby league football competition/testcases so challenge cup, World Club Series and League 1 cup ect can be added to the info box along with promotion and relegation. Northern Wonder (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Great idea with your last edit to Super League infobox @Northern Wonder:. It looks good to me and removes need to mess with the template which could cause unforeseen problems later. In fact, I'm going to follow up your edit at Super League with a similar one for Championship and League 1 articles! *Thumbs Up* – skemcraig⊗ 00:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I've just seen Nthep's Template:Infobox rugby league football competition/testcases, that looks good too! Probably be better to use that actually as it's more official looking. I'll request you or someone else updates the articles with the new template though @Nthep: as I'm not confident I wouldn't muck it up! lol – skemcraig⊗ 00:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Skemcraig: If everyone is happy with the wordings then it's easy to make the changes to the template.

@Northern Wonder: the info box already supports up to 5 separate uses of related_comps so the WCC, Challenge Cup etc can be separated out if you wish. Personally I'm not convinced of the need to differentiate between domestic and international competitions in the infobox. Infoboxes are there to summarise not to be comprehensive coverage of the topic. Differentiation can be made, and sourced, in the text. Nthep (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: I would create a domestic and international cup as the CC and WCC directlely link to Super League. Related comps seems abit vague as to what they are, I would put for example NRL in related comps. Northern Wonder (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree. Related comps can be whatever you want them to be without tying an editor to something specific and possibly unsuitable. The NRL is a related competition to SL, whether that is information to be included relevant enough to include in the infobox is a separate discussion specific to the articles on SL & the NRL. The template needs to be flexible enough to cover all needs but not so unwieldy as to include a myriad of parameters that are virtually never used. This gets particularly relevant when you step away from SL and the NRL and are dealing with competitions at country or state level where they may be several domestic trophies that are related but international cups do not exist. Nthep (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: I suppose that would create the debate for having a rugby league domestic comp info box and a rugby league international comp info box but yeah I agree it would not be used in for example both SL and World Cup info boxes. Northern Wonder (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Since there didn't appear to be any objections I have added the promotion and relegation parameters to {{Infobox rugby league football competition}} and updated the documentation. Nthep (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! – skemcraig⊗ 12:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: Just had another idea, would it be wise to add a Domestic Cup(s) section to the infobox as well? (to save putting things like Challenge Cup/League 1 Cup in "related competitions" section) – skemcraig⊗ 19:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't think that adding a domestic_cups parameter is a good idea. It starts making the infobox too specific, if the Challenge Cup isn't a textbook definition of a related competition for the UK professional leagues then I don't know what is. Nthep (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Just been reading the talk page of Wigan Warriors and came across a link to this userspace article from a user who's been inactive since 2011. St Helens R.F.C.–Wigan Warriors rivalry could use more attention and I was wondering if they could/should be merged? – skemcraig⊗ 17:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Also,

Wath Brow Hornets ARLFC / Wath Brow Hornets need merging ASAP as one team shouldn't have two articles... – skemcraig⊗

20:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed the dupe Wath Brow page. Regarding the Saints-Wigan article, maybe not a merger, but provided it's properly sourced I don't see why some of the content can't be pasted from the userspace. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool, might take a look at doing that next time I get some free time. – skemcraig⊗ 21:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)