Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 23

The rugby league infobox does not indicate when a loan ends according to your MOS as per discussion at ^[1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)