Template talk:Infobox rugby league club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Syntax
2 Additional Fields
3 Tries vs. Points
4 Nickname
5 Current Season

[edit] Syntax

{{Infobox rugby league club
  | clubname   = Sydney Roosters
  | image      = [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|150px]] <!-- an image is optional -->
  | fullname   = Eastern Suburbs District<br/>Rugby League Football Club
  | nickname   = 
  | short name = Roosters
  | founded    = 1908 as ''Eastern Suburbs''
  | ground     = [[Aussie Stadium]]<br/>[[Moore Park, New South Wales|Moore Park]], [[Sydney]]
  | capacity   = 41,159
  | ceo   = {{flagicon|Australia}} [[Brian Canavan]]
  | mgrtitle   = Coach
  | manager    = {{flagicon|Australia}} [[Chris Anderson]]
  | URL        = [http://www.roosters.com.au roosters.com.au] 
  | league     = [[National Rugby League]]
  | season     = [[National Rugby League season 2006|2006]]
  | position   = National Rugby League, 14th
}}

**Sydney Roosters**
Club Information

Full name	Eastern Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club
Short name	Roosters
Founded	1908 as Eastern Suburbs
Current Details
Ground(s)	Aussie Stadium Moore Park, Sydney (41,159)
CEO(s)	Brian Canavan
Coach	Chris Anderson
Competition	National Rugby League
2006	National Rugby League, 14th

[edit] Additional Fields

I added an additional field for 'Official Website' and updated the syntax above.--Jeff79 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this new field absolutely necessary? With the infobox we're trying to summarise particular historical details about the club, not give external links and other miscellaneous information. We need to keep the infobox as short and to-the-point as possible (it is a summary, after all). But that said, I see it featured on many other infoboxes across other Wikiprojects. I'll sit on it for a few days - I may revert it. --mdmanser 07:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely it's not so bad. I even think a field for captain wouldn't go astray either. At least they're relevant enough to link to something (unlike most entries in the CEO field). I don't know if it's intended to show a summary of historical details, so much as the club 'at a glance'. The captain and a link to the official website are informative in themselves and link to further information. I'm not planning to go overboard with adding fields.--Jeff79 07:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I did change it back to the original one. I just wholeheartedly believe that such a field is unnecessary. People come to Wikipedia to get information on a particular topic, not to get a link to another website (and if they do, they are a small minority). It just doesn't add anything notable or productive to the article to have such a field. I strongly believe that infoboxes should be kept clear and concise. We only want blue links stuck in there preferrably, and certainly not external links coming at your face when you open up an article. As for the captain - I'm not to sure either. The captain is not something set in stone. Some teams go through a season changing their captain back and forth many times. I encourage further discussion here though. --mdmanser 09:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think people from North America or other countries unfamiliar with rugby league would learn something very quickly by seeing that the Roosters NRL team (and all others) has its own domain: rooster.com.au. This communicates instantly to people unfamiliar with the club or the game that it's a significant enough organisation to have its own domain name (as opposed to, say, the West Indies national side which doesn't). I think having the URL there is an important piece of information in itself about the club's general standing in the world and that's why I'm willing to continue debating it.--?

Any further links outside Wikipedia are almost always shown in "external links". I would be very, very surprised if anybody who wants further information about the club wouldn't go down to the bottom to see if they have a website. No other WikiProject uses the website field in their infoboxes (see Chicago Bulls, Chicago Bears, Arsenal FC and Sydney Swans. The section "external links" has a purpose - and that's where it should stay. --mdmanser 02:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's all true. I guess I just liked that it made it clear to all that they're serious enough entities to have their own web domain names.--Jeff79 02:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough. But that said even minor league English football teams have their own website. Even school and university teams do too these days. I don't think it's a major priority to have external links in the infobox. Keeping it as short as possible is of the utmost importance. We once had premiership wins listed out here too, but it took up too much room. The only information listed up here must be a general summary of the club's nature, not the club's performance over its entire history. That's what the rest of the article is for. --mdmanser 02:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tries vs. Points

I've stressed repeatedly on several rugby league-related articles on wikipedia that in this sport tries are equally, if not more important than points. Everyone editing rugby league-related articles already knows this, I'm sure. When will people introducing all these infoboxes realise that they've just been copied from some other sport like basketball or soccer and actually make them real rugby league-specific infoboxes? A field for tries must be entered. This isn't union. Goal-kicking is secondary in importance to try-scoring.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname

The existence of a "nickname" field does not result in a requirement for it to be filled without regard for whether a nickname actually exists. Please only use this field if there is a well-known nickname for the club (which means a name other than the team's official name).--Jeff79 (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be more constructive to fix the syntax in the template so that short name actually shows properly (fixed now) and edit infoboxes to move Broncos, Cowboys etc from nickname to the appropriate slot. I know on the Wests Tigers page, nickname was shown as 'The Tigers' but I was uncertain (until I had a play just now) how to force the shortname to make it display. Others may be in the same position. It helps to offer an alternative rather than tell editors off with a grrrr or oh please. ~ Florrie • talk • 12:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that some editors just want to include more fields in the infoboxes purely for the sake of making it longer? Perhaps they feel it improves an article to have more fields in the infobox. I'm all for the nickname box appearing where it needs to (e.g. in the case of 'Easts' and 'Canterbury'). But I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that the Broncos and Cowboys don't have nicknames (they are the official names and appear in the article titles and at the top of the infobox already). That's what I have a problem with. changing it to short name is not the solution, as Canterbury is not the 'short name' of the Bulldogs. Please leave it as it was and only include a nickname where one exists.--Jeff79 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add a field, it already existed in the infobox but didn't show, so don't assume I am editor that wants to make the infobox longer. Why have it if it doesn't show? If concensus is that 'short name' not be used at all, then it should be removed from the template! No skin off my nose whether it's there or not but don't get uppity with me for trying to compromise. ~ Florrie • talk • 03:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mate, seriously, what's the problem? diff The two previous subjects on this talk page are about you wanting to add fields to info boxes (url and tries) but when someone uses an existing field to placate your seeming issue with nicknames, you do your 'nana. Take a break. I know I'm going to. ~ Florrie • talk • 11:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to this again. Whatever your personal opinion may be, Jeff, the 'short name' field is there to be used if an editor requires and I'll certainly use it for Wests Tigers. You are reverting valid content and I'm struggling to see the good faith. diff 1, diff 2 •Florrie•leave a note• 13:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Season

Could current season be added to this infobox just like the is one on the NRL page and soccer clubs like Liverpool F.C so that on club pages such as the Canberrra Raiders there would be a link in the infobox to Canberra Raiders 2008 --sss333 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. See Sydney Roosters if you're having trouble with making it work. mdmanser (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I have a go at making a graphic with a different shaped ball? •Florrie•leave a note• 04:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I did up this ->