Talk:Sydney Roosters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Sydney Roosters is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 30, 2007.
Flag
Portal
 Sydney Roosters 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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 Sydney Roosters 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Nanobite I'm worried about the copyright status of the logo. Are you sure we can use it ? Steven jones 01:54, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You could be right - where can I find the exact copyright information showing what we can and can't use. I don't think that there would be a problem if we continued to use it, but it would be good to check out.

Easts. Eeeeeasts. They're still Easts in my book :P --Paul 08:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I used to do official logo's. It's usually copyrighted the team, but you should credit the artist too.

Contents

[edit] Club history NPOV

It's not too bad, but a few recent additions in the history section seem to be a little bias to me. Does anyone else think the same? mdmanser 12:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


please read article below.

[edit] The Roosters club history

I take it the NPOV warning was placed due to the information about the roosters juniors article.

It is actaully a known fact that the roosters junior boundaries were realigned in the 50's so that south sydney could increase the number of junior teams.

This is not based on here say and inuendo, this is fact that happened that even the New south wales rugby league has even alknowlaged.

I believe the NPOV warning is due to the fact that the article is written in a way that makes it seem the person writing it belongs to the club. Stating more than once 'we' and 'our', this should be changed so it isn't as biased as it is against those who aren't the Roosters. In other words, if you want it included, it shouldn't sound like another whiny Roosters fan bitching about "souths stealing OUR boundaries! D:". 210.84.32.32 07:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

Some big changes boys and girls.

Show off our history and tradition that only others can dream of.

Also with the updates I edited some parts of the Roosters juniors history. While it is fact that Souths did steal our turf; the article seems to be focusing on it too much and loses its credibility. Sbryce858 05:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Things to Further Improve the Article

I like what the article looks like at the moment, however, I believe it can be improved through the following ways to make it reach the featured article status:

(1) Improve the prose of the article, especially by adding a little more sophistication to the wording of the history section.

(2) Trim down the history section - like a number of other articles it may be wiser to just quote the most important events in the history of the club and improve the quality of these facts, rather than including a larger, less detailed amount of text. A separate page could be used for history.

(3) Find some historical photos (check [http://www.pictureaustralia.org/index.html Picture Australia) about Roosters players, games and events and include them in the main body of the article - perhaps this would then warrant a removal of the logos scattered throughout the page and combine them into a new section.

(4) Talk about the changing ownership and management of the club - even I'm not too sure about this one, but maybe if I do a little bit of research myself I might learn something.

(5) Add as many references as possible, using the current style of citing sources - there can't be too many citations, and sources renowned for critical review may warrant WP:NPOV to be broken if primary sources are used. If just a few people do their bit this could really turn out to be a great article. It is a little hard to find information about historical events because they're just as readily available as they may be on other subjects, but if featured status is what we're aiming to achieve, then it's got to be done.

Cheers all, --mdmanser 10:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most things you're saying except for the history article. I think especially being a foundation club, we have a large emphasis of history in our club and it contributes largely to our club as a whole and for that reason should stay.

1. I like what you have done though with creating the other pages, it has definately tidied it up a bit as it was starting to get out of hand with its length.

2. In regards to pictures, there is a few that you may wish to upload from the new Roosters site; http://www.sydneyroosters.com.au/100years/

I'll put the centenary logo on soon.

3. With the amount of Roosters articles that are about I suggest we make a Roosters Project to link them altogether. Also for other articles we may want to put in a 'See Also' category linking the other pages together because apart from this page the other pages don't have a link to follow through to other Roosters articles.

We're not too far off featured article status, I think someone with a lot of experience with 'wikifying' articles was able to go over it it could get there. Its not so much the content that is the problem, I think its the presentation of it all.

Sbryce858 05:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant about the history was to move the whole lot to a new page, and just use the most important bits of information into this main article, then link the new History of the Sydney Roosters page from the main page. I like what you've done for it, but I'm sure the reviewers will have much to say about a section as large as that appearing on the page. Check the Arsenal FC page which is featured; our aim is to get their history section like theirs, with a separate page for everything on history.

Cheers, --mdmanser 13:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I like the look of their page. I can work on a broken down version of our history, also the timeline they have in the Arsenal history section, are you able to replicate that format? If so, we should publish and reference the timeline on the Roosters centenary site. While it may seem little sense to have an exact replica now, I think after 2007 when the centenary site probably will not exist it might come in use to have it archived on here.Sbryce858 06:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I can do a format on that timeline, but probably not within the next couple of weeks. I think the priority at the moment is to get this main page on track, then worry about the separate history page. I think that's a good idea about the centenary site, especially as a resource from which we could get a lot of good stuff from. --mdmanser 07:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History re-buff

The history section has its own article and I have done a quick summary of our history. I think its a bit below par with its standard, but its a great starting block to work on. Feel free to touch it up a bit to make it look a bit better.

Also, what do you think about re-doing our 'current squad' section. It looks too congested to me and I think we should cut it down to our 25 top grade players for a few reasons:

1. It looks a lot neater and is easier on the eye.

2. It caters for our first grade squad which is ideally what this article is all about. Too many reserve players just makes it look fluttered and takes away from the purpose of the article.

What are your thoughts?

p.s I'm also going to try and add a 2007 transfer section.

What else can we do to improve the page?Sbryce858 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article status

This nomination is on hold for 7 days: The image "Dally Messenger in action.jpg" has a deprecated tag, please update it. Also, most refs are in boxes or tables, see if you can find more for the body of the article. Dates are inconsitent format, should be August 08, 2006; and unlink any dates that aren't full. Rlevse 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GA status achieved. Rlevse 12:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute

I believe recently reverted lines have to much pPOV on them. "Nevertheless, despite poor performances, the club still managed ninth highest home average"... 9th/15 is not a good performances and suggesting as such is infactual and gives the impression the club was well supported in 2006, which unfortunately, was not the case. Having such wording won't help or encourage anybody more to attend their games so why "they still managed to have the ninth highest..." is there is beyond me. --Timmah86 07:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has been through a number of reviews, and is currently up for featured status. The fact that it hasn't been pointed out as yet sends a pretty clear signal to me that the statement is fine as it is. The fact that this statement is coming from a rival fan from Canterbury is one thing, but I also think you missed me intentions when I wrote the sentence. I was comparing our ladder position and crowd attendance position relative to each other to make a point about how our crowd figures are relatively strong compared to other NRL teams. It was meant to be a positive statement rather than a destructive one. --mdmanser 09:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The general consensus is that those figures are quite weak is the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps my particular wording when I made my edit was out of line and not in the spirit intended, but perhaps the sentence can be changed to reflect truth, rather than what most in-the-know would see as over-the-top optimism. Wording to the extent of.. "despite lower than average crowd figures in the 2006 season, placing ninth out of fifteen clubs, the Roosters are primed for an improvement in their centennial season in the competition" or something to that effect. Just a suggestion. Timmah86 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waratahs photo

Mdmanser call me old fashioned but I'm not too keen on the idea of a Waratahs match picture being show on a page promoting the Roosters. It is a good pictures of the SFS, however are there any we can find to replace that might be rugby league related. 124.186.243.153 12:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (sbryce)

I understand. I've got some photos of the SFS from the Broncos VS Newcastle finals match. They're not of great quality but if you like I could upload one of them if you'd like. --mdmanser 13:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What next?

The whole Roosters network is at a pretty good stage now. The question is, what features should be added next. Over the next few months I'll be devoting some time to the individual season articles for our club and also player profiles. Its important to make them all uniform so its more presentable. Tricolours went on a bit of a rampage with the season articles but has also managed to put in some good info, I'll be working on merging previous versions with the current especially to make it more presentable cause its a bit of a mess ATM. What features/improvements can we add?Sbryce858 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, everything's great. I think it would be good to start wikipedia pages for a couple of the younger players, eg. Josh Lewis, Mitchell Pearce, etc. and maybe improving a couple of the more experienced players pages as they are looking quite bland.Megan102 07:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
How about making Sydney Roosters a Wikipedia:Featured topic? If that was to be the case we'd need to have strong pages in things such as in the main page (FA), player list (almost complete and possible FL candidate) and history (just needs more information). Season articles are good, but in my opinion it'd be more important to work on the entire season page such as New South Wales Rugby League season 1908 rather than Eastern Suburbs 1908. That's just my opinion though. --mdmanser 11:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crest

The image found in the section Crest appears to be faulty... Bandwagonman 11:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Is it necessary to have a 'controversy' section on this page? It's not as if the club was involved in these controversies (such as with the Bulldogs 'scandal') just single players and the Minichiello one wasn't even when he was with the Roosters; I really think it should be removed.--Tiburon 04:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See related discussion at Talk:Brisbane Broncos#Controversy section.--Jeff79 05:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not too sure how this is directly related to the club at all. Speedy remove. --mdmanser 06:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stadium

At the base of the stadium section it says that the roosters are moving to bluetongue in 09. It is uncited and i have not heard anything about it before. Perhaps the editor meant to say they are moving one or two home games to Bluetongue? ronan.evans 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protect featured article

Can we semi-protect this page? The wolfs are out and howling loud. Mister Fax 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)p

Well, tomorrow this will be on the main page, and it is general policy not to protect articles featured on the main page. Unless it is practicaly under a armed assault by evil mutant robots, it will probably stay unprotected. And, being on the main page, it will be on thousands of watchlists. ffm ✎talk 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

While I acknowledge the 100 Years Logo should be in the main part it strikes me as a bit odd the teams 'normal' logo isn't ANYWHERE on the page. Any particular reason??! ronan.evans 14:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The normal logo appears on the history page. It has little relevance on the main page because of the use of the current logo.60.231.151.64 08:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] No Longer Bondi Based

The Roosters have moved into the old Waratahs building at the members carpark of the Sydney Football Stadium, Moore Park.

They still have very strong connections with EASTS at Bondi Junction (the parent leagues club where the football club was formally based), but it is no longer true to say they are "Bondi Junction based". 58.173.49.252 (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Roosters still hold after-game functions there and have a strong and historical tie to the area. While the club still has ties with the region, be it historical and present, I think the term Bondi-junction based is still fitting. 203.29.94.10 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)