Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league

Rugby league articles		Importance
Rugby league articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA		1	1	1	1	4
	GA		5	1		3	9
	B	10	16	27	7		60
	Start	10	79	388	491	65	1033
	Stub	3	5	195	1323	702	2228
	Assessed	23	106	612	1822	771	3334
	Unassessed			1		8	9
	Total	23	106	613	1822	779	3343

1 Steve Mortimer
2 specialwindler
3 Rugby League Quotes
4 Rugby League Week
5 That drive for consensus on infoboxes
6 Bulldogs renaming
7 jersey
8 team of centerry
9 League icons
10 Players/Coaches who go to a club, leave, and come back
11 Infobox Issues
- 11.1 Recount

[edit] Steve Mortimer

Just added a photo and infobox on the Steve Mortimer article. I've added brief information into the infobox so it still needs to be completed. Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added some info for you. Good work. The Windler talk 12:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Added some more photos (Tommy Raudonikis, David Barnhill, Laurie Daley, Mario Fenech and Arthur Summons) but have more (Just got to find who is who). Bidgee (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you want to post the extra photos to your user page and I'll look at them before they get deleted to see if anyone's recognisable.-Sticks66 14:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded two for now Image:IGP7671.jpg and ~~Image:IGP7676.jpg~~. Bidgee (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I'll be requesting the images I've temp uploaded to be deleted in the next few days. Bidgee (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say, I've got no idea who these are. -Sticks66 02:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask my old man to have a look this afternoon. •Florrie•leave a note• 05:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no idea. Sorry. •Florrie•leave a note• 05:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Two possible Peter Mortimer or Greg Brentnall for ~~Image:IGP7676.jpg~~. Bidgee (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If he was really tall, Greg Brentnall, but G reckons the facial features are more like Peter Mortimer, if that helps at all! •Florrie•leave a note• 06:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

PS - what event were the photos taken at and what is the jersey they are all wearing? Are they part of the 100 Greatest? There's a 2004 pic of Greg Brentnall on this page and Peter Mortimer on this page. •Florrie•leave a note• 06:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Daily Advertiser really stuffed that up! They've got Chris Mortimer as Greg Brentball (when it's Brentnall) as a caption for there own photo. I'm going for Peter Mortimer. It was taken at the Centenary of Rugby League celebrations and jersey is also a Centenary of Rugby League and could be part of the 100 Greatest. David Gallop (NRL) and Terry Quinn (CRL) where meant to show up but didn't due to the funeral of Jack Gibson in Sydney. Bidgee (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

List of who was here (May help to find who is the other two are). Immortals ~~John Raper~~, Reg Gasnier, Graeme Langlands, Legends' ~~Arthur Summons~~, ~~Steve Mortimer~~, Chris Mortimer, Peter Mortimer, ~~Cliff Llyons~~, ~~David Barnhill~~, Doug Cameron, Greg Brentnall, Greg Hawick, John Kelly, ~~Laurie Daley~~, Len Bertoldo, Paul Field, Ray Beavan, Ron Crowe, ~~Tom Raudonikis~~, Phil Jackson, Bill Deacon. Striked is photos already added. I hope it helps. Bidgee (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] specialwindler

I just thought I'd let you know that I won't be on Wikipedia as much from now. I'll still edit, but sparingly and if I get time maybe a bit more. But I won't be as dedicated to this project any more as I used to be. I may return to help with my goal of a featured topic.

Thanks to my fellow editors, and I have a bot request somewhat made for the above template changes here. The Windler talk 08:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We're going to greatly miss your skills and persistence. All the best Joel. -Sticks66 13:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Really sorry to hear that, Joel. Many thanks for all your work on the WT history. Hope you get to come back soon. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Top editor, really moved the community forwards, glad to hear you will be contributing, albeit on a much smaller scale.Londo 06 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I may still work with this project after all, but still my editing will be restricted. The Windler talk 11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to get a reply in so late, but thanks for everything mate. The project wouldn't have come this far without your input. Hope to still see you around. MDM (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby League Quotes

Since your not meant to have lists of quotes on Wikipedia, i have started Rugby League quotes on Wikiquote. There is Jack Gibson with his various quotes (of which many are still unlisted) and Rugby League with various quotes from different sources. You may you wish to add more or anyone else who is known for their quotes. These are under Category:Rugby league, which can be found here: [1]. Boylo (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby League Week

I've just been doing a little work on the Rugby League Week article (primarily doing the infobox) and to get it a bit better I have a couple of requests:

It'd be good to have a more recent cover image, since the one currently in the article is 18 years old and doesn't depict RLW's current visual style. I don't have any copies on hand at the moment, so if anyone does and feels like scanning and uploading a cover image they would have my undying gratitude.
Also, we're missing the RLW Player of the Year for 2000, 2001 and 2005. Unfortunately RLW's website (or web page, more accurately) is not exactly comprehensive and doesn't have any details on this sort of thing, and I can't find anything on the open web. Does anyone have back copies or anything for these years?

Thanks guys! --Nasica (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I chose an old issue was to try and slip under the radar of the Copyright Nazis. And I just noticed they did indeed get at the image for Big League

[edit] That drive for consensus on infoboxes

What are we going to do with all that infobox discussion ? Is it time to archive it ? I know it wasn't just driven by Windler but now that he's backing away it's possibly gone as far as it will go. On the one hand it was a thorough and thoughtful debate but I also wonder if it mightn't scare new contributors off if they think we discuss all points of principle in such detail. Is there somewhere handy it can be archived ? -Sticks66 11:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The two sections not resolved were the youth club and the non first-grade clubs, weren't they? If youth club were restricted to one and one only, I wouldn't be too bothered but the first-grade issue is more complex. Could we maybe ask for third-party comment? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit over the discussion. It goes in circles. I say let's allow he or she who's prepared to knuckle down and actually do the infoboxes to get on with it. -Sticks66 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does go in circles a bit. I'm waiting for the new infobox to take place, so I, along with all of us are making edits for the number of games, and scorings. As I have said, it can all be changed later, may I propose you ask on Bot requests to do it for you. The Windler talk 04:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we take the vote again and if needed (no 2/3 majority either way) ask for some third party input as well. MDM (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bulldogs renaming

A discussion re the naming of the Bulldogs articles occurred here at an article for deletion review. Have left a message on the talk page of the person who made the redirects, Brewcrewer, as well as at the deletion discussion, but so far no response. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it all. If anyone has a minute to check through the Bulldogs pages/links, I'd appreciate it. Bulldogs (rugby club) I was able to revert to Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club and I put a speedy on the 'rugby club' redirect. I couldn't revert the Canterbury Bulldogs History page so I moved it to Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club history in line with the main article. I've been through and picked up all, I think, of the old old redirects that were pointing to yet another redirect page and I've updated the Bulldogs (rugby league team) template. Unfortunately the moving editor did not have the 'time or the brainpower' to assist promptly. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

'History of the (team name)' seems to be the convention.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] jersey

I have now completed all jerseys for all NSWRL/ARL/SL/NRL teams past and present (even the Wests Tigers and Warriors) as well as the NSW, QLD and Australia jerseys past and present. For the NZ national team I only have the present jersey, because of lack of info. Hope that helps and you are free to use them or look at them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Team jerseys. I will only make jerseys on request, with a picture of the jersey from now. The Windler talk 10:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty good for what started out as a small project doing 5 jerseys for the Broncos. The Windler talk 10:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Tremendous effort Joel. Thankyou. When I get around to completing the infoboxes for the dual-code internationals a Wallaby one would be handy to add next to a Kangaroo jumper. Don't suppose you could ...?-Sticks66 09:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats all right, if you want me to do one last deed for this project and follow through with a bot request for the template, I have time this week.

If you want other jerseys, just give me a link to a picture on the net of the jersey. And if its not complicated I can. The Windler talk 10:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you do the bot? I took a look but it was a bit scary. And yes, thanks again for the jerseys, they certainly add some colour to the pages! •Florrie•leave a note• 11:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the jersey images in the galleries for season articles need to be smaller.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also the stripes on the sides of the shorts are present for some uniforms but not for others.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't know how to make the images smaller on galleries. But they should only be four pictures wide, because people with 800x600 resolution, cant see a fifth.

If you tell me which jerseys are incorrect (and some are, I assure you like the current Canterbury Bulldogs jersey), I can research it later and change it. The Windler talk 21:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] team of centerry

Just though I'd let you know, there are 100 names on Australian Rugby League's 100 Greatest Players but doing research, I've found that Steve Menzies (who is on the list) is not part of that top 100. I think someone biased might have just slipped it in there. The Windler talk 11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

An anon decided to replace Dally Messenger with Steve Menzies. Fixed now. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] League icons

Such as these: . I understood they weren't for use on article pages except for season results, SoO teams etc? Recently I see them being added to info-boxes and other bits and pieces. See Steve Southern and Wayne Bennett (rugby league). Doesn't worry me either way, as long as I know which it is. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it either, and I'd rather them there than not. So as we are bringing it up, I'll may as well push for them. The Windler talk 09:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For Super league players/coaches, do you use the Blues, Australian etc colours? •Florrie•leave a note• 13:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have, but at least for Australia, I know they wern't green and gold for the super league (it was blue and green). But then, we have North Queensland players in mid 90s, with their current colours. Grey used to prominetly be in the Cowboys colours then ... so I wouldn't mind. Some examples at Brett Kimmorley and Scott Prince.

Also the images should be 16px. You can use {{leagueicon}}. The Windler talk 13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly against the use of these in infoboxes. Wayne Bennett's article is the best example of colours gone wrong; firstly there are too many of them and secondly some minor clubs (in this case, one) may not have colours. They are not even an official identity of the club - they are merely a creation of a few of our editors. I don't see how putting them in the infobox is going to improve it in any manner (I think they ruin it). Perhaps we need both a vote and an external opinion on this. MDM (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit, it is pretty ugly on Wayne Bennett, but in my opinion taht is because there are too many, and the old template. Personally, I like it better with the new template, it seems more fluent.

Compare 1 and 2.

The Windler talk 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Players/Coaches who go to a club, leave, and come back

Take Justin Hodges as example, he played for the Broncos, left for theRoosters and returns years later. I believe they should be merged, not seerated (as some are). Someone - like Wayne Bennett (rugby league) has coached Queensland on 3 seperate occasions, why should they be seperated. The Windler talk 09:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the stats separated for each occasion at the same team. It is much more precise. That's the statistician in me, can't bear to see them lumped in together. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Florrie and not just for absolute clarity but because otherwisee it makes such lines the longest in the infobox which will in turn make the infobox box wider. You can see it already occurring in the Justin Hodges Broncos line and the close date isn't even in there yet. -Sticks66 06:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be divided to show that there was a clear break between their times at the club. Alexsanderson83 06:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I believe some discretions should be made, for example: Darren Lockyer might miss this years State of Origin series all-together, but come back next year. I don't think that should be a case of seperation. But Scott Prince, who hasn't played for Queensland since 2004, should probably be seperated. The Windler talk 07:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with that, after all he is still playing for the same team.Londo 06 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand, do you want them merged or seperated. The Windler talk 08:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Merged, for representative teams.Londo 06 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Club issue, not a Representative issue. Many players over the years miss consecutive representative Tests, tours and state series; sometimes with years gaps in between. The convention in Whiticker & Hudson as well as the Malcolm Andrews reference (both of which we regularly cite) is to show the years they commenced and finished their representative appearance with that state or national side. See Billy Wilson to see how his staccatoed Sydney club career shows in the box, and enlightens the information on his career. He didn't represent in '61 or '62 but returned to his level in '63. However the convention is to show his rep years as 1959-1963 -Sticks66 09:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an easy one. If the games and points data is available separately for each playing spell, then separate them. If there is only one total available (which is usually the case), then lump them together. It'd be silly to have two spells at a club separated only by the years but with the matches and points of both spells next to one.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So (Sticks66) you believe that club should be seperated when a player goes with another club. But rep teams should be merged, no matter how much seperation there is. I don't mind that either. The Windler talk 09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't at all mind a continuous range for representative games (unless they went off and played for another country in between). •Florrie•leave a note• 12:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And Jeff do you propose to treat Arthur Beetson, Col Maxwell, Ron Bailey Bill Tyquin Brian Davies Brian Carlson Harry Wells (who all had two stints with NSW country or Qld clubs where the appearances and points aren't available) differently to Billy Wilson, Frank McMillan, Larry O'Malley, Brad Thorn who had stuttered stints in NSWRL/NRL ? In my view it enlightens the at-a-glance history of the player by showing this in the infobox (see the 1st seven) more than it could be suggested it detracts (see the last four) by having their club points on one line only of the two stints -Sticks66 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure. I guess we have to decide which is the lesser of two evils.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS for you proud* Qlders I would have thought it was a highlight that Beetson and Tyquin's careers both went full circle back to Qld clubs from where they still represented for their state in their career twilights. The separated club line makes this clearer. -Sticks66 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I find that with the Larry O'Malley example, it gives the distinct impression that the data is unavailable for the second spell, and that the article is in fact incomplete - something that detracts from it more than just having an elongated playing priod at one club (in my view). It's a tough one. But if we have just one line per club, the body text fixes everything for us anyway. Is the infobox meant to be a timeline of a player's progression through their career or just a list of data? My vote is for the latter. The body text is for following the path of player's career.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Club careers should be listed chronologically. If a player had two stints at the club, they should be shown separate. This not only clearly shows a player's movement over his/her career, but also prevents the infobox from getting out of whack with distorted column widths.

On the other hand, representative careers should be listed as one entry each, even if a player had 3 or 4 years break between being selected. This is because a player is not contracted to a state/country (they can't move between teams), but rather bound to it and it only. Just my thoughts. MDM (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Issues

To reduce the amount of text on this page, I have moved the long discussion and subsequent vote on the new infobox to Archive 8.

In summary, here were the issues voted on:

Issue	F	N	A	Result
"Club information" should only list First Grade teams	5	0	4	see below
"First Grade" is to be defined as the top competition in a given region	5	1	3	see below
The infobox should list the first junior/youth club for a player	4	2	3	see below
Representative teams should be notable enough to have own article	8	0	0	Y
Height and weight				see below
First Grade and Representative coaching sections should be merged	2	1	6	Y
The use of "since (year)" over "(year)-present" or "(year)-(blank)"	3	0	5	Y
The addition of a "commentator" section to the infobox	3	0	6	Y
The use of team nicknames in the infobox; e.g. Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks	5	1	3	see below
The Australian Flag icon instead of the word "Australia"	3	0	5	Y

I propose we have a recount right now, just to see whether opinions have changed. In particular we also need to address the use of colours in the infobox. What are everybody else's thoughts on a recount? MDM (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recount

Please read through the archives (latest ones) to see opinions, if you wish to base your opinion on that. This is a recount, which means the old votes mean nothing. This time however, you should give clear reasons on why you believe as such. Voters who don't give reasons, will be considered wasters. "Per (another voter)" is acceptable. The Windler talk 03:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Club information" should only list First Grade teams

Support: 1) The infobox can become too cluttered if too many teams are present. 2) First grade teams are much more notable comparered with other competitions teams. 3) To easily compare player to player. 4) Non- first-grade is insignificant to rugby league public (who attends Jim Beam Cup games for example). and 5) The non-first grade teams, should be mentioned in the article. An infobox is too give an overview of the person, not everything is needed. The Windler talk 03:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Support: Pretty straight forward. As above. MDM (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - "First Grade" is now an antiquated term. It comes from the days when NSWRL clubs had a "First Grade" and a "Reserve Grade" team. Now we have the NRL. The NRL has only one "grade". You either play in the NRL or you play in a different competition. I'm aware that people in rugby league (e.g. Wayne Bennett) still use "first grade" when speaking (old habits die hard), but it should no longer be used in writing when referring to the NRL in something that holds itself out as being an encyclopedia.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Valid comment, but I would still say that the meaning is still there. But it is true. But in some articles with players that play very much between say QLD cup and NRL cup, some sort of distinguishment should be made other than just saying NRL competition, and presuming readers know it is the top competition.

One of the things I learnt when I went through the whole Karmichael Hunt to FA status thing, is that the peer reviewers mostly had no idea of rugby league. It makes me presume that the reader has no idea of rugby league, so I try to imply that it is a sporting competition instead. The Windler talk 10:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, there are two competitions in the NRL - the Telstra Premiership and the Toyota Cup. First grade to me equates to the top level of competition or whatever other name you want to give it. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, you can say what you want when you're talking to your mates. But I just don't think something that's supposed to be an encyclopedia should be using "first grade" anymore when referring to the current situation in the sport.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid comment you make, but do you have any other reconmmendation on what to say? The Windler talk 03:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously if it's NRL, type "NRL", if it's Toyota Cup, type "Toyota Cup", if it's Queensland Cup, type "Queensland Cup", etc. --Jeff79 (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but to non rugby league persons' they aren't going to know which is higher is competition status when put next together. Perhaps, look at North Sydney Bears and the first sentence. Something like that? The Windler talk 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, yeah. That's why we wikilink them? You don't have to hold readers' hands for everything. Do you think in American footballers' articles they feel the need to specify that the NFL is the top competition whenever it's mentioned? Or basketballers' or soccer players' respective leagues?--Jeff79 (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - as per Windler. •Florrie•leave a note• 10:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "First Grade" is to be defined as the top competition in a given region at a given time

Support: This allows players who played in the non NSWRL and mainly in the BRL, a significant improvement. For example, Wally Lewis player for Queensland 1980-91 but played for the Broncos 1988-90 and gold coast 91-92. But where was he 80-87. He must have been a good enough player too mak the Queensland team?? He played in the BRL. I think that in the QLD region the top competition of the 1980 time was the Brisbane Rugby League. But once the Broncos and Gold Coast came in, the top competition would be the NSWRL, because it attracted the better players. The Windler talk 03:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Support. As above. MDM (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Yes, we all know the Australian situation is clear-cut. It's British clubs that've thrown a spanner in the works. The Australian method of looking at representation doesn't really work for them because World Cup teams have drawn players from non-top-flight clubs, plus the issue of relegation/promotion. I admit I'm at a loss when it comes to this. If we decide to include all British clubs, even those of National League Two, then we should perhaps include Queensland Cup teams, as they're probably around a similar level. It'd be wonderful if all teams could be divided into full professional and semi-professional. Then we could just include professional teams (which I think is the method some other sports use on Wikipedia). But then when you consider time, and that in the old days people could represent Australia without being fully professional, it all just becomes too complex. Maybe the easiest thing is to just include all teams. But this is gonna give us a lot of teams with no articles and alot of empty spaces in the matches and points columns, so I'm reluctant to agree to that. I guess we just need further discussion. Bounce more ideas around until we find a good one.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I judge a competition on the highness in rank of the competition (eg. NRL is the highest in Australia) and the popularity of that competition. In the 80s, the BRL was probably slightly less popular than the NSWRL, but still the most popular comp in the Queensland region at that time. But if National League Two competition is as popular as the Super League, fine. On the issue of relegation, maybe we should see what soccer/football does on this issue and with the players. Most second-grade, even thrid grade teams in Australia (I don't know about England) have articles. So ... The Windler talk 10:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But somehow you need to define it. Do you mean from 1996 the only clubs in the infobox should be Super League? And what about pre-1996? Only First Division clubs? I was thinking that because the infobox is more a list of data (appearances, points, etc.) than a list of clubs, maybe the criteria for inclusion should be if the data is available. If the infobox is simply saying that a player was at a club from this year to that year, that could be better said in the article. The infobox isn't needed to communicate that. Whereas listing appearances, tries and points in article text doesn't really work and that's what the infobox is needed for. The data is usually available for time spent in top level clubs, but not in lower levels. So rather than us being the judges of what to include, let the sources that provide the data be the judge (in-line with the general philosophy of Wikipedia anyway). So if you want a club to have its own line in the infobox, the onus is on you to find the data to fill it up properly, otherwise just put it in the body text. (this is just an idea I'm throwing up).--Jeff79 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. The top level of competition at the time. I know this is problematic with relegation issues, but, to me, if a player plays for a club which is in the top level of competition at the time he plays for them (part of the time, or all of the time), then they go in the info box. If the team is in second or third tier competitions during the whole time they are at the club, it doesn't appear in the info-box. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The infobox should list the first junior/youth club for a player (Note:Not senior club)

Oppose: As I stated above, this information can be easily said in the main article, and wastes space in the infobox. No-one really wants too know, from reading the infobox, that he played for "South Redfern" or something like that. But it may be interesting in the article. The Windler talk 03:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: The infobox is a summary of a player's professional career, as is every other infobox, whether it be for sport, politics or acting. If it is really important for a certain individual player, then it can be written in the text. MDM (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I think you'll find that they base Origin representation (I assume this is the club you're referring to here) on where a player first played senior football. So calling it "junior" or "youth" club would hardly be appropriate anyway.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment- You're right there. First senior club from age 16. So that could be a feeder club or anything that isn't age controlled, is that right? So why do we want youth or junior clubs at all except for curiosity? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure. I imagine maybe it's the first time they play in an open-age comp. But I don't really know.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: It isn't important to the player's career. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Height and weight (Choose from: All players, Current or none)

Current (but won't mind All): I think once a player has moved on from rugby league, the height and weight are insignificant. And this infobox dosen't have to follow other infoboxes. If All, it should state that it was their playing weight and not imply that it is there current weight. The Windler talk 03:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Current: The NFL infobox only uses this field for current players and I'm sure they decided this was to be the case in a similar discussion they probably had a year or two ago. A retired player, whether a recently-retired one or a long-retired one will have changed height and weight dramatically after they finish their careers. If this field is so important and unique for a certain player who has recently retired, it can be shown in the article proper. MDM (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutral--Jeff79 (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
All: providing there is a reference for ex-players. I don't see the harm in leaving the information there when a current player retires. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The use of team nicknames in the infobox; e.g. Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks

Conditional Support - only when it doesn't induce a line break. If we all come to this consensus, we can work on the coding of the infobox to make a particular team name appear the same for all infoboxes. MDM (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Support - as above.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Support - as above but also, we shouldn't use full names, using that as an example, the media and common public perception, is that it is the Cronulla Sharks, same with Manly. The Windler talk 09:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The use of league colour icons next to club names

Strong Support: I personally believe that, when used appropriately and not in excess, that they benifit, not ruin, the infobox attraction. I would like too see them become part of the infobox, but I do admit, they can look a bit ugly in some situations, but that may be perhaps of the white background mixes too much with a white section on the colour icon. Maybe if we put a border around colour it may be a bit better. The Windler talk 03:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: Too many colours can really make the infobox look messy and unprofessional and in some cases there aren't even colours for a club (which affect vertical text alignment). I say we leave them out altogether in all cases, just like every other infobox on Wikipedia has. MDM (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose As above. Plus colours can be common to so many clubs across all the different competitions. For example, if a pre-1987 footballer played for Widnes, Wests Magpies and Souths Magpies, he'd have three identical black and white boxes, so any percieved benefit for ease of recognition goes out the window.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)