Talk:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: July 30, 2007
Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: July 6, 2007
Flag
Portal
 Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney.
This article is supported by WikiProject Rugby league.
Assessment comments
NEW! Task force on State of Origin NEW!
Want to help improve Rugby league articles? Join WikiProject Rugby league
WikiProject Rugby league The article on Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club is supported by the WikiProject on Rugby League, which is to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league related articles on Wikipedia.
If you wish this article to be re-assessed, go to our Assessment Department and add it to the list.
If you wish this article to be peer-reviewed, go to our Peer Review Department and add it to the list.
If you rated this article you may want to leave some comments here on how the article can be improved.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

I removed the following text from the Bulldogs history: "Eventually all this settled down and the title officially became what most of the fans called the team, the Canterbury Bulldogs." I have checked nrl.com.au, the Bulldogs official web site (where they are officially call Bulldogs Rugby League Club Limited) and even the "Big League" magazine (NRL official mag') still calls them just Bulldogs. -- Timothy Hitchcock

While I'm sure that it was correct, they may have changed it back. Oh well as I can't find anything to confirm what I'm saying, I guess we leave it out Steven jones 03:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Scandals

An anonymous user included a section that was at a minimum very POV and posibbly just plain vadalism. I have removed the section. If someone wants to add a reasonable section on the scandals the bulldogs have been involved in in the last few years it will probably help stop people adding garbage. If no-one else does, I may do it myself soon. Steven jones 03:09, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That would be a good idea; someone should add NPOV info about the rape scandals by the Bulldogs. --realwingus 11:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old logo

Despite my best efforts on Google I have not been able to source a good quality picture of the old Bulldogs logo, last used in 1996. I personally think it is still better than the current logo. If anyone knows where to find, please leave a message on my page. Dankru 00:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found one. Am I the only person to reckon the "new" logo looks stupid?Dankru 22:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulldogs Song

Added our current bulldogs theme song
Added our famous supporters, thats all i could come up with
Added major sponsors
Will add more later

Moved the song to it's own page, thought maybe other team songs could go there too. Tiburon 10:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noted former players

Created the table of past players as thought it looked better than just a plain list. I just included all former interntionals and players to have represented NSW/QLD and some rather famous ex-bulldogs.

Anyone i've missed or debate on who should be added is welcome.Tiburon 10:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

An excellent table - hopefully you plan to use this as a template for other clubs.--Alexio 11:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up: In fact I'm going to steal this table and use it on the Gold Coast Giants/Seagulls/Chargers page!--Alexio 12:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead, that would be great and yes I plan on doing the same for all the other clubs.Tiburon 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
All credit goes to The Man Tiburon! :-) --Alexio 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Should we move the page from 'Canterbury Bulldogs' to 'Bulldogs rugby league team'? 'Canterbury' no longer applies in an official sense... what do we think?

Done.Timmah86 10:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on introduction entry

Dear all - I have the following quote in the intro as at least 30% of the time the club is called 'Canterbury' by people in the press. Another editor 'Timmah86' does not agree. RAther than entering an edit war I am proposing a vote:

"Ironically, though the club is now officially known as the Bulldogs, having dropped 'Canterbury-Bankstown' from its name, it is still often called Canterbury by players, commentators and fans alike"

Support remaining in the introduction

  1. Cas Liber 06:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (introduction is summary of important points which are later expanded upon)

Remove

  1. Timmah86
  • Comment Personally I'd like to see a comprimise on both parts of the argument. For me, that one paragraph should be removed from the start into the main section of the body, because I can't see anywhere else in the article where it refers to the name drop. I reckon the opening line should read:
The Bulldogs (also known as Canterbury, Canterbury-Bankstown) are a team in the National Rugby League (NRL), the premier rugby league football competition in Australia.

Perhaps then include a footnote next to the them Canterbury name and include a note about how people still refer to them as "Canterbury." --mdmanser 09:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK OK, so I'm outvoted. The note is in the 'emblem and name' section nowCas Liber 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree with Mdmanser and Daniel Bryant. It is the logical solution. GizzaChat © 11:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving History onto a separate History page yet?

I've noticed that many articles, once the history section starts to get detailed, the History gets summarised and the full one goes on a separate page (and can really go to town with loads of detail :) . Do we think this page is long enough to do this here? cheers Cas Liber 19:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Are they known as Canterbury Bulldogs, as this page just links them as the Bulldogs. Londo06 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bulldogs Rugby League Club Ltd, Canterbury Bulldogs is better. Londo06 23:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that what is in the article is correct and that the club's official name is just 'Bulldogs' with no geographical identifier. It's quite confusing as television and radio commentators continually refer to the team as 'Canterbury' (as do many RL fans in general). You can get to this page through 'Canterbury Bulldogs' as well so no worries there. CumberlandsAshes81 01:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as i know, they have been officially known as the 'Bulldogs' since the start of the 2000 NRL season.

I believe the official names that Canterbury have had over the years are as follows:

  • Canterbury-Bankstown {1935-1994, 1996 & 1998-1999]
  • Sydney Bulldogs {1995}
  • Canterbury or Canterbury Bulldogs {1997-Super League}
  • Bulldogs {2000-present}

CEP78 05:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an ongoing Wikiwar I've had to progress with, and many people need to understand - the club name is Bulldogs. Not to worry, Canterbury Bulldogs will still link to the page, but the name has changed and I request all Wikipedia editors respect that and update their pages accordingly. Timmah86 10:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I still call them the Canterbury Bulldogs, I've got no problem with the Bulldogs alone. For the last eight or nine years I have known them as Canterbury Bulldogs. Thought they were phasing in the Bulldogs title. Londo06 16:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Please see explanation from Bulldogs Official Website : When the NRL was formed in 1998, the club opted for a change of logos to present a new modern image moving forward. There were two issues that forced this decision; 1) The Bulldog logo was claimed to be the intellectual property of the ARL. 2) The demands of meeting the NRL Rationalisation Criteria before the year 2000 meant that the club needed to be pro-active in making sure that all marketing opportunities were realised. The change in jersey and new logo presented a modernised image which proved to be successful. In 2000, the club changed the name to the Bulldogs in an attempt to broaden the supporter base. Today, the Bulldogs enjoy the success of maintaining the traditional supporter base from within the Canterbury-Bankstown district while building an expansive supporter base by playing in Sydney's leading sporting arena, the Telstra Stadium at Homebush. Cheers bradgraham 18:00, 24 April 2007

[edit] Off-field Incidents section - removed

Can we please get rid of this section - permanently - from the article? Such a section is certainly not part of the NRL Club template and also contains allegations masquerading as facts (including a reference to an article that contains the allegation only makes the allegation verifiable not the truth of the allegation). The fact that the club's players and supporters have a negative image in the media and have been involved in contraversial incidents is adequately covered in a section under 'Culture' - any more coverage to any alleged incidents is simply going to ruin the balance of the article and turn it into a minefield of libel, innuendo and related vandalism. Anyone care to defend the material? CumberlandsAshes81 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I agree 100% (as per similar discussion at Talk:Brisbane Broncos#Controversy section).--Jeff79 07:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Consider it gone. There's enough negative light on the game and does NOT form a encycolpedic section under this particular entry. If someone would like to catalogue it in a new article then certainly by all means, but it won't stand in this article. Section removed. Timmah86 10:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
For those interested, I've wikilinked the Media Profile section to a new article titled Bulldogs off-field indiscretions. Cheers. Timmah86 10:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this section is not required and is found in no other sporting pages. I hope we can all agree for it to remain ommitted. Cheers bradgraham 17:43, 24 April 2007

[edit] Collaboration

Since this article is the collaboration of the fortnight I thought I'd mention some things here that I feel need attention.

  • The Category for Bulldogs players (currently Category:Canterbury Bulldogs players). It's a tough one. Most categories are "(Team name, i.e. location + mascot) rugby league players". This naming convention of including the team name as well as the sport is one I believe in, as it eliminates any possibility of overlapping categories (i.e. should a team of a different sport with the same location or mascot have a category for its players). This convention dictates that the Bulldogs Category would be Category:Bulldogs rugby league players. The thing is though, there's no geographical context in the Bulldogs' team name. So should another rugby league team called the Bulldogs in another place have a category for its players, it would overlap with this one. Perhaps it should be Category:Canterbury Bulldogs rugby league players just for this case, even though the convention for the rest of Wikipedia appears to be to use the official name: Bulldogs.
  • There is a separate article for the Bulldogs' 2004 rape allegation which I really feel just constitutes nothing more than a section of the history article or even the Bulldogs off-field indiscretions article. I don't see why this issue has to be spread across so many separate articles. There needs to be a merger there.

--Jeff79 02:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination Failed

I have failed this article in its GA Nomination due to "Quick Fail Criteria" #5 - "The article uses copyrighted images which do not meet Wikipedia's fair use policy." In my opinion, this article contains an excessive amount of non-free content, much of which does not have adequate information regarding the source of the material and/or does not contain the proper fair use tag. Many are uploaded as a "historic event," which is incorrect. Please renominate the article once these issues have been addressed. Thank you. Hersfold (talk/work) 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Article renominated. The above issues have been addressed and further work has been done. mdmanser 10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
History section lacking inline citations. Michellecrisp 11:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom, once again failed

Hey, not wishing to upset anyone, there are too many issues with the article right now for it to be considered as a good article as per WP:GA. I'll highlight as many as I can to make it possible for editors to improve the article for re-nomination.

  • [Citation needed] all over the article.
  • PoV issues e.g. "...the great St.George..." - remember this is supposed to be encyclopaedic.
  • It's fine to have lots of books for references but you really need to use the references in-line (as Michellecrisp said above).
  • "80's", "1990s'" - be consistent on how you discuss decades.
  • "young, enthusiastic and free-running side dubbed "The Entertainers"" - POV? No citation.
  • Too much proseline (i.e. single sentence paragraphs) - makes the prose poor.
  • Use WP:DASH to help understand en-dash usage.
  • "...well-documented..." - not to me. Especially without citation.
  • Crest section has zero citation.
  • "...semi-official nickname..." what does that mean?
  • Not a single wikilink in the Crest section - not essential but would probably improve, where applicable, the section.
  • List in the "Colours" section - make it prose.
  • Culture section needs serious overhaul - don't put external links in the prose, the section headings need to be headings, not just bold text, what does the image bring to this section?
  • Place references per WP:CITE e.g. [10] needs to be other side of the colon.

So, I'm failing it, but would be glad to assist in pushing it to GA, give me a shout if you need me. The Rambling Man 17:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulldogs (NRL team)

Insted of Bulldogs rugby league team, I think that we should define the article name down to the league that the Bulldogs participate in. Because the Bulldogs 'rugby league team' could simply define the local team named the Bulldogs.

I know that people will know its NRL but if we put NRL within its name, it makes things more simple. Please leave any coments on my talk page as well on here. Aflumpire 05:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested renaming

Perhaps instead of naming the article Bulldogs (rugby league) or Buldogs (NRL team) we simply use the clubs official name, the Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club. It's the official club name, surely we should be using that as the article's title? Bongomanrae (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)