Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 23

We need to talk Bull

Right, cards on the table. I believe the "new" Bradford Bulls (2017) is able to count as a continuation of the real Bradford Bulls. All that has happened is it's ownership has changed hands in a dodgy fashion ala Rangers F.C. in Scottish football (note they kept same Wikipedia article). For the Bulls, it's same club name, same colours, same stadium, same fans, just new owners. Let's be real here, the entity and history of Bradford Bulls/Bradford Northern remains unchanged. Of course, the media approach is "new club" as they're being fed that from the RFL. The RFL of course HAVE to claim it's a new club (even though it's not really) because of the way the ownership change has happened (effectively it's a debt right off), I really doubt we can use them a reliable neutral point of view source on here. I would really like to see the Bradford Bulls article continue as the article for Bulls new era. Actually, I'd also like to see a move towards re-uniting the Sheffield Eagles, Hunslet R.L.F.C. etc articles too. Perhaps that's a different debate for another day though.

IF consensus on here out votes me, my next argument is this: Bradford Bulls (2017) is a terrible name for an article. It'll need to be moved to Bradford Bulls with the current Bradford Bulls moving to a new title to make way. As I said though, I would like the two merged in an ideal world. Many thanks for reading and considering my post. – skemcraig⊗ 18:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral on the question of whether it should be one article or two. Legally the new club is a separate and entity as the old company has been wound up which is very different from going into adminstration and being being purchased by someone else but to all intents it is a re-franchising effort by the RFL as it invited bids for a "club in Bradford" to take the place of the defunct company's team in the Championship for this season. The Rangers analogy aside it has been pointed out that this is the second time the Bradford club has folded - Northern folded in 1963 to reform the following year - and we don't have two separate articles Bradford Northern (1907–1963) and Bradford Northern (1964–2017). If the consensus is to remain split then I would suggest renaming Bradford Bulls -> Bradford Northern and Bradford Bulls (2017) -> Bradford Bulls. Nthep (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Support merge. I'm in favour of putting the histories of multiple iterations of a team within the one article. I'm aware this isn't always how it has been done for soccer, but we should deal with substance rather than form. If you have a new club with a new legal personality, but it inherits the history, colours, name, etc, of the old club, it is in substance the same team. Readers would also expect to read the whole of the history on the one page. The history would of course explain the death and reincarnation of the team over time. And if Nthep is correct that Bradford has folded and reformed in the past, that is a doubly good reason not to create separate articles now. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Support the merge. It seems absurd that we have a new page for the current 'new' club. We are still the Bradford Bulls, regardless of liquidation. Rangers FC were liquidated and still have the Wiki page. In addition to this, if we are making new pages when Bradford are liquidated, then why isn't there a Bradford FC page (1863–1907), a Bradford Northern page (1907–1963), a Northern/Bulls page (1963–2017) and now the new Bulls (2017–present)? Especially when Northern were liquidated in 1963? Seems stupid in my eyes if it's not merged. Migitgem2009 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Let's not rewrite history. The old club was liquidated and a new one has been created. The sources support this. Mooretwin (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said though Mooretwin, the current sources have agendas and therefore have questionable neutrality. (Not having a go at you for opposing btw, you have an opinion/preference and I respect that, just pointing out a potential flaw in the argument.) – skemcraig⊗ 23:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Weak support merge. I was initially reluctant to comment, but I feel they should be merged if they are playing under the same name, colours etc. If the consensus is to have separate articles, the new club should have the proper name, and the old club given a new title. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: It appears from the wonderful world of social media (not a RS I know), that Bradford are retaining the kits from 2016 (Therefore, the club badge too). Another two quick points while I'm here, most articles are now are talking of players as "retained" rather than transferred and Bradford will start 2017 on –12 points (can't really punish a new entity for an old entities misdemeaners). Thanks again – skemcraig⊗ 22:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - this is a similar debate with what happened with Glasgow Rangers - the consensus there was that the club itself was the same, and therefore there was no need to create a new article. It was only the company behind the club that had changed. If (as seems likely) the Bradford club will claim the history stretching all the way back to Bradford Northern as one long continuous period, then it would be appropriate to have it on the original article. Hammersfan (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Support merge. Seems to be an identical situation to the Auckland Warriors/New Zealand Warriors, and we have one article for them. We even have one for the Gold Coast Chargers. As they retain the same name, colours, etc I don't think you can talk about one "club" without talking about the other. Therefore one article is appropriate. Mattlore (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

So, are we merging or is it still too soon to judge consensus? Cheers – skemcraig⊗ 19:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also support a merge or re-direct to the main Bradford Bulls article. The new club is a natural continuation of the old one, and per others comments has retained the same name and crest. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, unless someone objects here, I'll merge Bradford Bulls and Bradford Bulls (2017) in a few days. If someone does want object to this, we'll have to discuss how we can finalise the general consensus here for either merge or no merge. Obviously, the thing we ultimately don't want is people constantly un-merging/re-merging again against consensus here once we've decided one way or t'other. – skemcraig⊗ 14:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge complete

I've merged the two articles as promised. I'd appreciate that if anyone has any objections from this point on wards, they come here to get a new consensus for change rather than going straight to a de-merge, as that way there is as little disruption to Wikipedia's RL articles as possible. Cheers – skemcraig⊗ 14:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rugby league club

Following the merger discussion listed above, I have started looking at the merger of {{Infobox rugby league team}} into this template and I have had to do some expansion. You can see what changes by comparing the outputs at Template:Infobox rugby league club/testcases. I have also drafted a new version of the template documentation at Template:Infobox rugby league club/sandboxdoc. Can people review and comment on both the template and the documentation. There are a couple of parameters from {{Infobox rugby league team}} that I haven't included yet because I would like comment on whether they are needed or not. These are |location which I assume is town/city for clubs like South Wales Ironmen or New Zealand Warriors which could be dealt with by including the town in the name of the ground field, and |president in the officials. Nthep (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Regal Trophy in the honours section should be changed to League Cup as that's the non-sponsorship name. See League Cup (rugby league). – skemcraig⊗ 17:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Got that. Nthep (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Now merged and linked articles amended as necessary. Nthep (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Fork of Template:Infobox rugby league biography

not sure why, but we have User:Stemoc/Infobox rugby being used in articles as a fork of {{Infobox rugby league biography}}. Frietjes (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

have you asked Stemoc what the intention of the template is? Nthep (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Nthep, it looks like User:Stemoc wanted to add |school=, |ru_con1=, |ru_pen1=, and |ru_drop1= parameters. unfortunately, the infobox was entirely broken after updates to {{Infobox rugby league biography}}, so I replaced the uses with the standard. if we want to add more stats to the main infobox, we should discuss that on the talk page for the main infobox. Frietjes (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I created that nearly 4 years ago because rugby union people refuse to use a "rugby union" related infobox but instead used a "forked" football/soccer infobox and as you know, soccer only has 2 options, caps/goals so using it as a rugby union infobox in 99.9% of rugby union articles is utterly stupid as points scoring in Rugby includes tries, penalties, drop goals and conversions and a random soccer option of 5 caps/43 points will not make any sense to the reader. The fork i added also has options for people who played 3 sports (union/league/afl) and adds an option for sevens rugby within but a change by @Frietjes: to the {{Infobox rugby league biography}} broke my infobox so instead of removing the one i explicitly created for 'rugby union, could you try and fix my infobox isntead so that it doesn't break. You changed has completely removed the conversion option for my infobox and I do intend to get that to be used as a the main infobox for rugby union players in the future, it has more options than the current soccer one we are using.--Stemoc 00:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

sorry, but I don't maintain user-space templates. I look forward to your suggested changes at template talk:Infobox rugby league biography. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Manchester Rangers

The article on the historic Broughton/Belle Vue Rangers club (folded 1955) has recently been redirected to Manchester Rangers, a new club formed in 2012. While the new club clearly wishes to capitalise on the history of the historic club, this is somewhat of a travesty as it cannot reasonably be argued that this is a single club with a continuous history. Can anyone help restore the original article on the historic club so that we can leave the Manchester Rangers article as one about the current amateur club? Mooretwin (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, while we have separate articles for old and new Bradford and old and new Sheffield etc, we certainly should have separate articles for the old Broughton Rangers and modern day Manchester Rangers. – skemcraig⊗ 15:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A word before any does anything bold.

• Advertise this discussion as per WP:PROSPLIT - using this page as the forum for the discussion is ok as long as it is prominently linked from Talk:Manchester Rangers.
• DON'T undo the move or just copy and paste content from the existing article to Broughton Rangers - if the consensus is to split. There have been a lot of edits made to the page since it was moved therefore it will need a bit more care to ensure that the correct attribution is applied to the two resulting articles. So have the discussion, if you decide to split - establish which revision to split at/restore Broughton Rangers at and then follow the procedure at WP:CORRECTSPLIT

For what it is worth I agree they should be split, a 50 year gap since the folding of Broughton is a bit of a leap to include in the history of M'Cr Rangers. Nthep (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made a request at WP:RM, should I withdraw it? – skemcraig⊗ 15:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say yes, withdraw it. This isn't non-controversial. Nthep (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok done that now. Cheers – skemcraig⊗ 19:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I've filed a technical requested move here. Mooretwin (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I filed a request there previously and withdrew it as above per Nthep. – skemcraig⊗ 12:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's been moved to contested requested moves, even though nobody is contesting it! Mooretwin (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am. I contest a straightforward move which is what you proposed by the listing at WP:RM. I am wholly in favour of splitting it into two articles. One on the historial club and one on the current club. The move you proposed would not achieve this. Nthep (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I was only following the advice on the article Talk page. How do we split it without moving? We can't overwrite the existing Broughton Rangers page - can we not move the article back there and then use the Manchester Rovers page as an article on the new club? Mooretwin (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll happily move Manchester Rangers -> Broughton Rangers as long as someone is then prepared, pretty much straight away, to split a new Manchester Rangers article off following WP:CORRECTSPLIT properly so that the content on both pages is correctly attributed - don't and it'll all get undone as a copyvio cut and paste. Nthep (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the Manchester Rangers are notable enough for their own article. Therefore the page should be moved back to Broughton Rangers and there should be a small mention on that page of the new club. Mattlore (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Manchester Rangers are getting a lot of mentions in RL press lately. Not sure if that makes them notable or not. I would have no issues with Mattlore's suggestion of moving the page back to Broughton (or even Belle Vue Rangers as that was their last name) and having a mention of the new amateur club claiming to be it's spiritual successor. – skemcraig⊗ 23:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Are there notability guidelines for rugby league clubs as there are for other sports? Mooretwin (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No we don't, which means we fall back on WP:ORG. Mattlore (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like there is something else to add to a newly revised RLN.Fleets (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

MOS for club's season pages

Recently, a conflict of interest between another editor and I came about after I made major aesthetic changes to 2017 Toronto Wolfpack season. A conversation was started on the talk page but nothing seems to have come from it. So in the interest of creating a MOS for season pages, perhaps the regular RL editors could comment/suggest changes to the layout of such pages.

• Page before my edit
• Page after my edit

Narkova (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Toronto Wolfpack discussion

Anyone who wishes to contribute please see here. Cheers! Skemcraig (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Repairing WP:NOTBROKEN wiki-links…

I have received some external criticism for repairing WP:NOTBROKEN wiki-links. Yesterday I spent 6-hours checking 850 articles, and made 250+ manual edits to ensure that [[Hunslet R.L.F.C.]] was the appropriate wiki-link for each article, and that if the article referred to the pre-1973 incarnation of Hunslet RLFC, then I changed that wiki-link to [[Hunslet F.C. (1883)]]. In advance of this I had used the semi-automatic Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to repair any article that contained any of 10-redirects of [[Hunslet R.L.F.C.]]. Now, imagine how long it would have taken had I had to manually check all 850 articles for all 10-redirects of [[Hunslet R.L.F.C.]], I would estimate 10-times as long, i.e. 60-hours. I'm not looking for a pat-on-the-back, I'm just pointing out that sometimes you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And just to prove it's not a one-off… I've spent 3-hours checking 775 articles, and made 125+ manual edits to ensure that [[York City Knights]] was the appropriate wiki-link for each article, and that if the article referred to the pre-2003 incarnation of York RLFC, then I changed that wiki-link to [[York Wasps]], only 6-redirects this time though. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A little appreciation goes a long way I find and @DynamoDegsy:, I think you've been doing a great job on this project. I know just below I've made a suggestion that would render your recent work effectively wasted, but we have to have Wikipedia as right as possible as it stands now and right now the articles are separate, so your work is certainly appreciated by me and I'm sure most others on this project! *thumbs up* Skemcraig (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge the two Sheffield articles?

Now that we've sorted the Bradford Bulls article... Many people including myself also consider Sheffield Eagles (1984) & Sheffield Eagles to be the same entity. For instance, when I see a modern day Sheffield Eagles result, I automatically think of them as the 1998 Challenge Cup winners. I know there was technically a merge between Eagles'84 & Huddersfield, but we don't split the Huddersfield Giants article into pre-merge/post-merge articles, so I don't see why we need to split the Sheffield Eagles articles. It would be simple to include info about the "merge"/"unmerge" of the two clubs in the Huddersfield Giants and Sheffield Eagles articles after we've merged the two Sheffield articles together here. While we're at it, Newcastle Thunder and Gateshead Thunder (1999) could do with merging for very much the same rationale. Just replace Sheff/Hudds with Gateshead/Hull. Thoughts? – skemcraig⊗ 22:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Merge. Bradford and Oldham articles are merged and both clubs are consider erred the same club. Northern Wonder (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sheffield Eagles' page mergers. Skemcraig (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - We shouldn't rewrite history. The original Eagles was merged into Huddersfield, and a new club was formed after a gap. Similarly the original Gateshead was merged into Hull, and then a new club formed after a gap. I see the Sheffield merger is a fait accompli, based on a dubious consensus of one, but Newcastle hasn't been touched yet. Mooretwin (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"Dubious consensus of one"... well, since me and Northern Wonder are different people, that'd be a consensus of two. I waited a long time between suggesting the merge and actually carrying it out, so if you oppose so strongly, I suggest in future piping up sooner so a discussion can take place before the merger. As for re-writing history, the RFL themselves via their official Challenge Cup Twitter handle directly referred to the "new" Eagles as the old 1998 Challenge Cup winners here, if the actual governing body considers the current Eagles to be the originals, why shouldn't we? Skemcraig (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Bradford Northern (1907-1963), Bradford Northern/Bradford Bulls (1964-2017), Bradford Bulls (2017-)

At some point a decision was taken to split, e.g. Bramley, Hunslet, and York into; Bramley RLFC/Bramley Buffaloes, Hunslet F.C. (1883)/Hunslet R.L.F.C., and York Wasps/York City Knights, but the approach adopted for Bradford Northern/Bradford Bulls appears inconsistent with this pattern. However, my real issue is with the [[Category:Bradford Bulls players]], as it includes every player of Bradford Northern/Bradford Bulls, irrespective of the era they played in, should we split them? And if so, at which point(s)?, As an Aside, I believe there's a similar issue (if the following clubs did not exist contiguously), i.e. Fulham RLFC/London Crusaders/London Broncos/Harlequins RL/London Broncos players, and [[Category:London Broncos players]. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

My preference would be mass merges on the Bramley/Hunslet/York articles you mentioned. The reason I did with Sheffield Eagles is because we (wikipedia) were calling the '84 / '99 clubs separate yet official sources like the RFL themselves are calling the current Championship club the 1998 Challenge Cup winners, suggesting that official bodies consider successor/phoenix clubs to be direct continuations of the originals. A recent Twitter post for example by the official Challenge Cup account just this week directly referenced the "newer" Sheffield Eagles and Hunslet RLFC's playing this weekend as the previous Cup winners, Official CC Tweet - Heck for Hunslet, they themselves still call themselves the 1883 club and all the history/honours that goes with that. Rather than getting bogged down in technicalities, I think Wikipedia articles should reflect the situation as it is taken by the masses and the clubs themselves and for me that seems to be that Hunslet is Hunslet, Bramley is Bramley, York is York and Bradford is Bradford etc... Just my 2p anyway :-) Skemcraig (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick question… whether the actual club articles are separated, or re-merged, should we have separate player (and coach) categories for each instance of the club? Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

For me it depends on the articles. If we have them all merged, then have single categories for each club. If it's decided that each incarnation of the clubs should have their own article, then we'd have to follow suit with the categories IMHO. Skemcraig (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

For me, in the Bradford situation, it should all be in one article. If the page then got too long, you could have a split in the History of the Bradford Bulls page. For example "History of Bradford Northern (1907-1963)", "History of Bradford Bulls (1963-2017)" etc. Mattlore (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes

The rugby league infobox does not indicate when a loan ends according to your MOS as per discussion at this information would be easier to understand in other ways For example: 2015-2016(loan) Instead of 2015(loan) 109.155.84.76 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

With all the current professional rugby league seasons starting and ending within the calendar year we do not seem to follow the same MOS as say association football, that for the big European Leagues at least, starts in one year and ends the next. A loan deal spanning two seasons would be highly irregular, and as such the current MOS, as appears to have been decided way back seems to be fit for purpose, not perfect, but fit for purpose. With regards to Wayne Godwin, there could be extra attention given to the intro and also his retirement to further drive home that he is no longer a Salford player.Fleets (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Fleets here. The RL season takes place within the calendar year and loans over a year are very rare so the infobox will say 2016(loan) for example. As it starts and ends in that calendar year. However if the loan was over the period of two season then it would read 2016-17(loan) or 2016-2017(loan).Migitgem2009 (talk)

References

Three discussions need participants

The discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myton Warriors and Talk:Oldham Roughyeds#Requested move 22 March 2017 need more participants to establish a better more knowledgeable consensus one way or t'other. Cheers Skemcraig (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Rangers! Cheers again Skemcraig (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The Roughyeds RM has been relisted. Contributions from this project's members would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Now urgent

The person behind the nomination for deletion of Myton Warriors is now rallying his pals to get our projects article deleted. The members of this project now need to urgently look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myton Warriors and give opinions ASAP. Thanks Skemcraig (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Team navboxes in Challenge Cup articles

DynamoDegsy and I are in a BR(D) over squad navboxes on Challenge Cup articles e.g. this diff. I do not feel they should be there for two reasons

1. They are adding emphasis on the final over the rest of the competition,
2. They are failing to add anything to the article. Per Wikipedia:Navigation template#Properties, navboxes are there to provide navigation between articles on Wikipedia. As we already list all the players and coaches of both squads in the article text in the section on the final then the navboxes are just duplicating that information. We either list the players in the way we already do or we display them as a navbox but not both. If the players names were dotted around the article I'd have less or even no opposition to the navbox but as the names tend to be displayed altogether - indeed as a navbox less the border - adding a navbox is duplication for cosmetic reasons only and should be avoided.

If the consensus is against me then my other comment would be that they should be placed below the navboxes on the Challenge Cup and xxxx in rugby league. Nthep (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's okay to add some emphasis to the final, as it is The Final, and the team navigation templates do come towards the very end of the article. However, as Nthep points out in the specific case of 2015 Challenge Cup, the teams are already specified within the article, though this is not always the case, particularly when there's no specific Challenge Cup article for that season, and the Challenge Cup is just a sub-section of a season, e.g. 1897–98 Northern Rugby Football Union season#Challenge Cup. Also, in regard of, e.g. the 1898 Challenge Cup article, should the team navigation templates be at the very end of this (albeit short) article, above, or below the 'Challenge Cup' navigation template?. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I would include the navboxes where there isn't a team list already in the article, but I would not include them otherwise. I would also want to work towards including the team lists in the articles and removing the navboxes. I would put them below the navboxes on the Challenge Cup and xxxx in rugby league. Mattlore (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Are we still okay having navigation templates in the player articles? Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no concerns there, that is the prime objective of the navbox and indeed Wikipedia:Navigation template#Properties says they should appear on all articles listed in the navbox. That said there does have to be care that there aren't too many with no thought given to order or the use of {{navboxes}} resulting in a mish-mash like this

I would imagine that the team list option may take a great deal of time to transclude, against the pre-existing navbox. Someone would be volunteering themselves for a decent amount of work, for a quite minor issue IMO. Certainly agree with the duplication of information argument though.Fleets (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

What navboxes are we referring to? Are navboxes not boxes where readers can click to move on to the next season or move back to the previous season? The boxes we're discussing here are just information boxes about the teams, no? Mooretwin (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about templates like this {{Hull F.C. - 2013 Challenge Cup Final runners-up}} and whether there use is appropriate anywhere except on the articles of the players/officials listed in them. Nthep (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, these are not for navigation, so the guidance quoted above is not relevant. I think that these templates should remain. Mooretwin (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you think their use is then? Nthep (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Presumably they are just a different way of presenting or drawing attention to information. Clearly not for navigation as you can't use them to navigate! Mooretwin (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You must have a different definition of navigation to me then because I see them as allowing rapid navigation between a set of articles on players with a commonality between them. Nthep (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

How does one do that? My understanding of a navigation box is something like this:

Mooretwin (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd call those succession boxes, which are a form of navigation but not created using the navbox template like {{2017 in rugby league}}

According to Wikipedia:Navigation template#Types, what we are discussing are definitely navboxes. Mattlore (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Player transfers and years in the infobox

As seen with Jack Bird, Mitchell Moses, Ben Hunt, Semi and numerous others with moves and potential moves to other clubs, we have players having their current clubs ended regardless as to whether they have left now or at the end of the season. Is it a case that everyone here at WPRL knows what is going on, and those outside can be corrected or are we falling foul of accessibility guidelines in not being easy to edit in these situations. I'm not saying we should follow soccer or rugby on this, but do we want, or need to do anything about this?Fleets (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

How does the football and rugby union projects handle this in their infoboxes? Mattlore (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

They have a current club section, and whilst not pushing for that, I do think we should do something. Whether that is a note, reference, current club section, lose a future transfer altogether as it's the future I don't know. I would say that it is something that wants attention here as alot of IPs see very differently to what the accepted norm at this project is.Fleets (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I recall the editors at WP:FOOTY tended to remove future moves from infoboxes until the player officially joined the new club (there are legitimate reasons for doing so - moves like this do fall through before they happen from time to time). As long as it's clear in the lead who the player's current club is, and there is an official source in the article confirming the move, I think it's a fairly harmless edit which is more trouble than it's worth to revert. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with the first bit, but surely we have to aim to be accurate in all places, and certainly to those who read the infobox first and not the body text, as those often come into conflict. If I were a non-hardcore league fan, I would genuinely have no idea who half of these players played for, if edits weren't 'fixed'. I'm thinking of the wider audience, along with trying to be factually accurate.Fleets (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The infobox should only be a summary of information in the article, so any confusion should be clear once they have read the article (and probably even the introduction). If the article does not make it clear, then that is a different problem. Mattlore (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't fill me with confidence, and doesn't really address the issues related to the players above. Yes the infobox should match the body text, but if it doesn't that is where we are coming unstuck. We have IPs ending a players stay at the infobox, regardless of whether they have left. This is an issue I have seen for a few years now, and it's one that is largely an IP one. Infoboxes are being changed to show the player has left, when they haven't and yes it may only affect a few players, but they are normally the players under the microscope. It's not a major issue, but with accessibility and a general drive for accuracy it should concern all and not just those who revert or fix those best intention edits of IPs or new users.Fleets (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The way we have generally approached this is not to include them in the infobox, as per WP:CRYSTAL, but we do include text in the article describing the signing. Like always though, consider each article/situation on its own merits rather than a strict application of a 'rule'. As J Mo said above, sometimes its a clear case and it's more trouble than it's worth to revert Mattlore (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to go with the soccer approach as my position, and as you say as per WP:CRYSTAL. I think that would inflame things without some form of note in the infobox. It does seem to be that these type of things have very heavy traffic for a few days, and then little else for weeks. Ye it is hard to sit by and let it be inaccurate, but I guess it is not a major bump in the road, just an annoying pothole that can be seen, noted and avoided.Fleets (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

More on navboxes

Following some interactions at Cameron King, I think we need to discuss if we need a MOS for navbox orders at the bottom of pages. A while ago, I recall we had a consensus that a rough order was current club, then international navboxes (if any), then club ones. But this fell by the wayside and now we have just used whatever order fits the article best - some keep this, some are oldest to newest and some are newest to oldest. Recently, @Fleets: has expressed a strong preference for a strict chronological order (while still keeping the current club at the top as an exception).

In the Cameron King article I have a concern that the status quo may put us foul of the accessibility guidelines and could be used against us to remove colour from the navboxes - and we don't want to end up looking like the rugby union examples! Grouping them by colour would help reduce this.

So, opinions on

1. Do we need a consistent MoS, or is article by article ok?
2. If we do, what should this MoS be?

Mattlore (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a mischaracterisation based on our recent interaction. I can safely say that I have not indicated any strict preference for a strict chronological order. I merely indicated that most rugby league articles have current club and then the "first grade" club team navboxes flow oldest to newest. That would be for significant games such as being in a CCF, GF or Auckland Nines. This can be seen at almost every rugby league article, but take Antonio Winterstein as evidence and I'm sure that would be the uniform standard across most rugby league articles.Fleets (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If anything the vibes coming from in and around WPRU is that the colour is wanted, to group by colour would seem a highly obtuse way to choose to group navboxes, especially given that navboxes can change colour based on their current kit or historical kit colours.Fleets (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I mis-characterised your view, but that is how I interpreted what you were saying. For every Winterstein there is currently an article set up in a different way, see Dylan Napa for example - I don't agree that there is any uniform standard at the moment (apart from the ones where you have recently re-ordered them). And to be clear, I am not opposed to the colours, I am just saying we need to keep the accessibility guidelines in mind so we don't give others an opportunity to use that argument against them. Mattlore (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries and the Napa one is as per below. Please provide an example that varies from the current uniform standard, as I also believe that they are out there, just in the minority. It certainly is something to consider, but given that we vary from other sports with partial years in the infoboxes and team names such as Canterbury-Bankstown and Manly-Warringah in infoboxes for current teams, are we not already falling foul of wider guidelines, and on a more-grievous scale there.Fleets (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:DATERANGE specifically states two-digit date ranges are fine in infoboxes, so no issue there. Mattlore (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe the consistent, albeit not enshrined MOS for navboxes of rugby league players would be as per the below.

1. Current Club
2. "First-grade" trophy team (oldest)
3. "First-grade" trophy team (newest)
4. Int'l squad (oldest)
5. Int'l squad (newest)
6. "Lower-grade team - ie NYC Cup (oldest)
7. "Lower-grade team - ie NSW Cup(newest)
8. Team of the century type
9. List of coaches

I suspect that in a lot of cases, {{navbox}} templates are added with little or no thought to order. Despite what some might think I am not against navboxes per se, just the proliferation and/or appropriateness for a particular page. As an example the article on cricketer A. B. deVilliers has over 20 navbox templates which although probably all valid is visibly WP:UNDUE. The article on Wintestein is for me at the stage where the navboxes are getting too prolific and consideration should be given to the use of {{navboxes}} to wrap the individual {{navbox}} in. I would place all the templates relating to North Queensland in one wrapper and the Samoan national squads in another to produce this:

just three lines rather than seven.

As to order personal preference would be

1. Current club (most recent to oldest)
2. Previous clubs (most recent to oldest)
3. International teams (most recent to oldest}
4. Coaching career - unless it is included in current club
5. Man of steel etc

As for colours, I appreciate the accessibility points and we should be mindful of it even if it means not using colours as we might like. Nthep (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not opposed to your groupings Nthep, I think we should use them more than we do. However, personally I would leave the current club template separate, rather than grouped with the other Cowboys articles - so four lines rather than seven. I don't think we need a strict MoS, as long as each article follows its own internal logic that works for the article. Mattlore (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

dont make things more complicated, leave it like it is bruv as thats how I read it and that is how I jump from page 2 page and find out new things bout this sport — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.116 (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

So, to wrap up this conversation - "Do we need a consistent MoS, or is article by article ok?" If so, then we would need to reach a consensus on what kind of MoS we want. Mattlore (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It may well be warranted, but unfortunately the discussion has only made it's way to three people. I'm happy to formally write one up, but unfortunately it would not likely be entirely to your liking.Fleets (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Template merger discussion

There is a merger discussion regarding {{infobox rugby biography}} and {{infobox rugby league biography}}. Your input is requested at the TFD page. Primefac (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 23/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Rugby league, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Player Position Template…

Is there any possibility modifying the player position template(s) such that uppercase letters produce the capitalized word, e.g. {{rlp|FB}} produces Fullback , and that lowercase letters produce the uncapitalized word, e.g. {{rlp|fb}} produces fullback? Best regards. Dynamo "Loose Cannon" Degsy (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

DynamoDegsy, yes, this is possible, though most of the uses I'm seeing should be lowercase anyway. Not sure if it would be better for upper/lowercase input to determine output, or to have a separate |lowercase= parameter. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm unfamiliar with template parameters, so I can't be of much help. Dynamo "Loose Cannon" Degsy (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's not worry so much about params. I guess my main question is: is this template meant to be used in Infoboxes, or in-line as text? Because if it's only really supposed to be used in an IB, then there is no need for a LC version. If it's perfectly fine to use it in a sentence (i.e. Watkins played {{rlp|CE}}, i.e. number 3, , which I personally feel isn't the best way to do it) then I think having a lowercase set of parameters would work. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Last year the template was changed to a lowercase (not sure who by) but then Gibson Flying V changed it back if I recall. In terms of purpose, I think it is designed primarily for use in an IB, but there may be some discussions from that period that shed more light on the issues. Mattlore (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I cannot find an obvious discussion about it, but the edit summary of the reverts was essentially "this should be in an infobox, so it should be in caps". Now, in fairness to that post, infobox lists are generally in Sentence case, so a list of Dog, sheep, cat should be as such, and not Dog, Sheep, Cat. However, that would be an internal switch for the template itself, not an input parameter. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why use should be limited to infoboxes and it not be used in text. It's silly to allow {{rlp|fb}} in the infobox and then insist on [[Rugby league positions#Fullback|Fullback]] in the article text so I would support a |lowercase= parameter, I'd also support a |side= parameter so that left or right can be specified and included in the linked output {{rlp|wg|side=left}} gives left-Wing rather than left-Wing. Nthep (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering about that. Why are we linking to Rugby league positions#Fullback instead of Fullback (rugby league)? Primefac (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess because not every position is the subject of a separate article, or whether those positions that do have articles existed when the rlp template was devised. Nthep (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel like a lowercase option would be a pretty useful tool. On top of the existing Upper case. Also adding a right and left wing option would be good (I'm more really a union fan and this isn't used as such but but I feel it would be unique). Sirpottingmix (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

New functionality

Okay, so the conversation above can keep going, but I'd like to get a list of things that people want to see a "new" version of the template so I'm not updating it every third day with some new idea. I figure I'll leave this here for a week or two and then implement the desired changes. Feel free to add to the bulleted list. We'll strike ideas that no one likes. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Upper and lowercase
   1. Parameter, matching the input, or automatic (IB only)?

       Done - lowercase input will now result in a lowercase output.

2. More output options
   1. Left wing/wing/right wing

      these should be hyphenated?

       Done - inputs of LW and RW (and their lowercase variants) will output Left wing and Right wing, respectively.

   2. Utility forward/back - appearing more commonly in the British press to describe players happy anywhere in their division.

      Where would this link to?

      For the time being Rugby league positions#Utility is the only link I've found. I'll give some thought to expanding the topic.

Keith Mason

• Keith Mason (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone please review recent edits at the above article. I cannot tell if they are accurate content with broken wikitext, or if they are just playing around. The problem I am trying to address concerns the two error messages shown for height and weight in the infobox. I would be happy to fix the templates if I had some confidence that the edits were reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Some of it looks correct so I've added references and fixed the infobox errors. Nthep (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Salford City Reds coaches

The 'Salford City Reds coaches' template appears to be out-of-date, unused, and superseded by 'Salford Red Devils Coaches', does anyone have the authority to delete it? Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

{{Salford City Reds coaches}} {{Salford Red Devils Coaches}}

Done. If you find any more you can tag them with {{Db-t3|~~~~~|Other template}} to add them to the CSD queues. Nthep (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Nthep

Template:London Broncos current squad, and Template:London Broncos squad

@Fleets… the 'London Broncos current squad', and 'London Broncos squad' templates have similar, though not identical content, are they both valid templates? Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. They would both be valid in their own area. One for the club page or seasonal page and the other template as a player navbox. Potentially a name change could see them differentiated a bit.Fleets (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at WP:RSN

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#rugbyleagueproject.org that may interest some members of this project. Nthep (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I should have notified here. It was a busy day and I forgot. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ron Bailey sources for Tom Askin

Has anyone got access to the books about Featherstone Rovers by Ron Bailey that are cited in the Tom Askin article? The infobox gives details for his scoring but the stats are mangled because Askin played for Featherstone twice - he started and finished his career there, with spells at Leeds, Castleford and Newcastle in between.

The relevant stats are not cited but I'm thinking that the source must be Bailey and, just possibly, the guy gave a breakdown of the two stints. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Structuring of UK season articles

We end up with a number of articles for each season, some of which make sense, others (to me) don't. At the start of the season all is straightforward with articles on the Super League season, the Championship and League 1. But then we get to the Super 8s and we lump all four Super 8 competitions into one which makes for a long unwieldy article and leaves the others in some limbo with an abrupt end after the regular season. To me the Super 8s are, with the exception of the Qualifiers, continuations of the season for the relevant divisions and we should treat them as such rather than make a separate article for them. The Qualifiers is obviously different and there needs to be a stand alone article - with adequate links to the SL & Championship articles. So for 2018 I would propose Super League XXIII to include the SL Super 8s, playoffs and grand final; 2018 RFL Championship to include the Championship Shield; 2018 RFL League 1 to include both the Super 8s, playoffs and promotion final and the L1 Shield and final; and 2018 RFL Qualifiers. Nthep (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It is a bit of a minefield if I'm honest, but that separation of the Qualifiers out to there own distinct article would make sense. If nothing else but to avoid confusion for the uninformed, or lets be honest, even some of the reasonably well informed.Fleets (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree - but why wait for the 2018 articles! :) Mattlore (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Tempting as it is to unpick 2017 Super 8s I would leave it until the end of the season. Nthep (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)