Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Squad tables - redux

I thought we'd got somewhere on this last year (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 27#Squad tables) but we're back to square one with 2024 Rugby League Pacific Championships squads. I think we need to formalise a project style guide for these. Nthep (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, still way too much going on compared to the old style RLWC squad lists or even an NRL team article squad list. Definitely think the "Other Reps" column needs to be the first to go, not exactly relevant enough to be shown in full per player in my opinion and the league icon format is useless at identifying, say, Mitchell Moses's teams. If it remains I think as this is a squad list for an international tournament it should only list other countries they've represented, not PM's 13 or all-stars games, and a simple country name would suffice.

I would also trim club games, not sure how its relevant. Ambivalent on player age and total games for country, could be useful but also somewhat unnecessary extra detail. I don't mind the debut year though. Jersey number column could also cause issues if players are chopped and changed, that seems better suited to smaller lists for the actual games on the main article. I feel like this style isn't terrible or anything but it could benefit from a bit more brevity. I think we should go something like:

CAP NUMBER (including * for debutantes) | NAME | POSITION (maybe use shorthand ie SR) | NRL/SL CLUB | TOURNAMENT STATS

e.g.

1. 123* | Mitchell Barnett | SR, LK | New Zealand Warriors | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4

Age and total national stats (including debut year) could be optional inclusions.

Thoughts? PhinsUp23 (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Jersey number is pointless unless squad numbers have been allocated, but having the column but leaving it empty is fine. Cap number? Do you mean heritage number? Age and total stats, I'd leave out - that's what individual articles are for. There might be reason to mention age outside the table and in the text e.g. someone is the youngest or oldest selected but that's about it. Everything else I agree with you. The only thing I'd add is to keep the colour scheme basic and not go for using national colours in the tables. Partly aesthetic, partly accessibility. Nthep (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure 100% what heritage number means, but it probably means the same as cap. James Roby's number was #678, does that mean he was the 678th person to play for England? If so that's the same as a cap number. Again optional things, player name is probably enough, but I think cap number would be better than jersey number if either are to be included. Jersey numbers seems like they could cause a real headache if we get outside backs/forwards swapping sides and thus numbers, or if players are shuffled around due to injury. Good for a game team list but not for a tournament squad list. PhinsUp23 (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Cap number/heritage number, we're talking the same thing:-) Another Aussie/UK terminological difference, I just wasn't sure if you meant 678th to appear for their country or in this game xx won their 678th cap. Not sure where I stand on including these, as previous discussions regarding cap/heritage numbers have been to omit them from player articles, certainly at club level and I don't recall seeing much mention of them at international level. If we have list articles on List of players who have represented XXX then do we need them in these tables?

Debutante, I think can be dealt with in text, not table.

Having shirt numbers make sense to me, because I'm in the UK where squad numbering is universal in the sport, at least at professional level, but in the Pacific I guess it's still positional numbering that is predominant. I know it was quite an issue for Australia at the last World Cup, having to have squad numbers. All I'm suggesting is that, for consistency, we include the column in tables where squad numbering is the case for some or all of the teams. If one or more teams are using positional numbers then it can just be left blank for those teams (and not the, imo, ludicrously footnoted, "these are the numbers worn in the last game of the series" I've seen previously). Obviously if no team is using squad numbers then omit the column. Nthep (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I have seen cap numbers in, say, List of North Queensland Cowboys players, but not something like this, I just thought it could be an alternative since I'm not familiar with British squad numbering. Not having numbers at all is probably the best option for stuff like the pacific championships, lest we end up with something like:

3, 4 | Tom Trbojevic

4, 3 | Bradman Best

7 | Mitchell Moses

7, 14, 18 | Ben Hunt

But yeah, if you blokes use consistent player numbering no harm in having it as a column in some kind of standard international template that we can just drop when not relevant down here, so long as we can make sure all the Aussie editors know not to put positional jersey numbers in it or something.

I don't think there's any harm in simply including an asterisk after a debutante's name, I see this from time to time as well. PhinsUp23 (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nthep (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I messaged @Nhoj1898: (pinging to invite to the conversation) who uploaded the tables and the reply can be viewed on his talk page.

In my opinion a national squad table for any competition should be Squad Number | Player | Appearances (for national team at time of selection) | Tries (for national team at time of selection) | Points (for national team at time of selection) | Club (at time of selection)

Also open to Age (at time of selection) and further addition information on points ie conversions, penalties, and drop goals. Mn1548 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me into this conversation.

Reading the comments from the four of you there is some variation in your opinions on what should or should not be included. This is understandable, as it is subjective.

Already for the 2024 squads page there have been over 200 views on the first two days. Of the independent views, how do we know whether they like what I have presented or share your option that less is better. As the innovator in this instance, I could make a sweeping but not unreasonable generalisation that other than those that comment here, or on the page's talk tab, there are over 150 readers who like the way and the amount of information that is presented.

Given the variation in opinion by the five of us, perhaps I should go through each field and explain my rationale for its inclusion.

1. J# - Jersey number - Flexible as to whether it is a tournament or game day jersey. I use two columns for this in my spreadsheet, one for the jersey and one for the order, displaying the former. If jerseys change during the tournament, the most recent jersey is used, with a note above the table. To me, its Optional.
2. Player - Obviously mandatory. Here I have used plain text where an individual Wiki page does not exist, because most of the women and wheelchair players have not yet had a page individual page created for them. To me, it looks better to use black rather than red text in such circumstances.
3. Age - I use a function to calculate current age where the date of birth is known. So the age is as at the last update. If a player has a birthday during the tournament, age will advance at the next update. I've used Age rather than DOB, or both, for brevity. To me, Worthy of inclusion as age alone.
4. Position(s) - Here I only use two positions where a player has played about 20% or more of their games in two positions. The full name appears because the rlp template is used. I would be okay with using only the abbreviations as @PhinsUp23 suggests, even though it requires longer text to link to the position than rlp. Mandatory but flexible on short (SR) or longhand (Second Row).
5. Tournament - M, T, G, F, P - Included as it has relevance during and after the competition. I'm divided as to the worthiness of including goals and field goals, as usually its only one or two players that kick them. I opted to include for completeness, and greying the zeros so that the positive numbers are more easily seen.
   1. Matches - Mandatory
   2. Tries - Mandatory
   3. Goals - Worthy but could be covered in the notes if there is consensus to do so
   4. Field Goals - Used F rather than FG in the heading for reduced width. Worthy but could be covered in the notes
   5. Points - Mandatory
6. International Team Stats - M, T, G, F, P - Included as it has relevance before and during the competition. As above with respect to goals and field goals.
   1. Debut - Used the year rather than the date for a narrower column, which is also why "Dbt" is used rather than "Debut", as my preference is to have the info present on one line when viewed on a laptop, tablet or PC. A benefit of its inclusion to an attentive reader is in comparing two players that debuted at the same time, but have different number of matches. Worthy
   2. Matches - Mandatory
   3. Tries - Mandatory
   4. Goals - Worthy but could be covered in the notes if there is consensus to do so
   5. Field Goals - Worthy but could be covered in the notes if there is consensus to do so
   6. Points - Mandatory
7. Club - The moniker has been used for a narrower column. Dragons is a lot shorter than St. George Illawarra Dragons (says a Dragons fan, who loves travelling down to Wollongong). Nearly all readers are going to know the monikers, and if they don't they can hover or click to find out. An alternative for narrowness is to use the name rather than the moniker. I opted for Dragons rather than St George Illawarra because it was narrower. I also innovated to shade the clubs outside the NRL and Super League, and then also mention such club's full name in notes. Inclusion Mandatory but width debateable. Using the moniker for a narrower column Worthy
8. CM - Club Matches - Included as it was misleading with only the total matches column appearing next to the club. Worthy
9. TM - Total Matches - Included as it collectively demonstrates the experience and quality of each squad. Worthy
10. SL - CM / TM - Including these columns where two or more squad members have played in England/France during the year, such as the Fiji men's team. I expect Cook Islands men and PNG men will be similar. As NZ men and Tonga men have one SL player I have excluded the column but have called it out in the notes. An alternative could be to add Super League and NRL matches together in a single column, say T1M for Tier 1 matches and use a Current Club Matches column as well. Worthy
11. Other Reps - Similar to including the number of NRL/SL matches, the intent here was to show the experience of players. Icons were chosen as a succinct way to showcase that experience. Due to the variation I opted for one shared column than several columns with mostly zeroes.
    1. Origin - Included due to the high standard and the benefit that most players exhibit in and after playing Origin. Worthy
    2. Other nations - A succinct way to show that a player has international experience with other teams. This is also called out in the notes. Worthy
    3. Prime Minister's XIII - Included more to call out the experience of PNG players, I agree that it has less relevance for those that have played for the Australian PM's XIII and my use of the same icon does not help. Worthy for PNG, whilst Australia PM's XIII appearance could be called out in the notes.
    4. All Stars - Included partly for completeness, and partly because I like the way that flags subtly identify players with Indigenous heritage. Worthy for Aboriginal or Māori players, less relevant for NRL All Stars although they are dwindling.
    5. City / Country - Now excluded for the men - as the last origin was in 2017 there are only a few left with such experience. Have included for the women, as the most recent match was last year (2023).

Finally, as I suggested in my reply to @Mn1548 there is a way to get an objective indication as to whether the format I have put forward is preferred by readers. That is to run two parallel pages to the conclusion of the tournament.

• ...squad statistics using the table format and notes that I have used
• ...squad lists which has minimal information, based on what the four of you agree upon

Both options can be referenced from the main page.

We can than see by page views which is preferred by readers other than ourselves.

Yours in Rugby League,

John Moriarty

Cronulla, NSW Nhoj1898 (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Not going to address everything myself, the other fellas should be able to help with that, but re the positions if we do want to use shorthand I can't imagine it would be too hard to find a way of doing so without using the really long links I used earlier. Team boxes on something like the PM's XIII article include position links in shorthand form.

Only other thing I want to specifically mention is the other reps column, if consensus is that it should still be included it should definitely be formatted some other way, like just having the name of the country. League icons aren't really helpful because, using Mitchell Moses as an example, few people will instantly recognise Lebanon's colours and clicking the icon doesn't help as it's not named correctly (unlike the utility value of an NRL team league icon, say). Ditto the use of team colours or the Australian flag to represent PM's XIII matches. PhinsUp23 (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Jersey - already discussed but only worthwhile if squad numbering is used. If the team use positional numbering then it's of no relevance.
• Player - should be linked, even if currently a REDLINK as players who have played internationally have more chance of becoming notable.
• Age - moot whether it's particularly relevant, but need to be reliably sourced somewhere, e.g. in the article on the player.
• Position - position(s) they normally play, not what they ended up doing during a tournament
• Tournament stats - no disagreement, except for WP:ACCESSIBILITY purposes we should not be using low contrast text and backgrounds. Standard black on grey (or white on black as it appears in dark mode) should be used.
• Club - full name, we're writing for the general public, not just other rugby league fans.

The rest, club stats, total matches, other reps, non-NRL clubs, debut. All this is not relevant. To quote WP:NOTEVERYTHING; Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Articles such as 2024 Rugby League Pacific Championships squads are not substitutes for articles on player's career histories. Club stats etc are all relevant information about each player and that is the place where those facts belong, that's why we have links so readers can click through to the appropriate place. This absence of an article on a player (acknowledging that there are a lot of redlinks for female players especially) is not a reason for putting the information in the wrong place, it should be a driver to getting rid of the redlinks.

Neither is it our place to "demonstrate(s) the experience and quality of each squad". We don't offer our opinions, we report what reliable sources say. So if the SMH says "this is the least experienced squad Australia have announced since 1990", then we can report that. Nthep (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

My preference would be to generally match the 2023 squad lists which seem to cover what is most significant, though I have no issue with keeping team colours for the column headers rather than everything being grey. For the club information, only the current club name is needed, not the match totals with it. The tournament stats relate directly to the scope of the article, but the career stats do not and are better covered in the player articles or national team/list of players articles. I would perhaps keep the debut year as this will not change, but the other columns only tell part of the story, i.e. career up to that point - which currently matches their total career stats, but whether the information will stay like this or be updated to include the tournament itself, or even post-tournament careers, is not made clear. Also I am not convinced of the value of the Other Reps column, but if using icons for this there needs to be a footnote that lists what each icon represents, with All Stars for example, is not obvious because the icon is not used on any of the articles about the All Stars matches, each of which have different colours for the team. The 2023 Championships and the last World Cup each had only one field goal, so for these I would consider having a combined goals/field goals column using something like (+1) to indicate a field goal rather than a separate and mostly empty column. EdwardUK (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I have just added a table under the subheading #Tournament versus post tournament presentation to demonstrate that the tables during the tournament do not have to be those preserved afterwards.

My contention is that the career statistics, club matches and other reps columns add value. To readers familiar with rugby league it displays that data in one place. This provides an easy option for readers to draw their own conclusions as to the relevant strengths of the squads. To those readers who see no value in this additional information, no harm is done, they can simply ignore it.

Once the tournament concludes, the relevance diminishes and so that additional data can be removed.

Another reason is that not all players in the tournament have an individual page, and of those that do, not all are up to date. It would be more accurate to refer readers to the external websites of the Rugby League Project or Rugby League Record Keepers Club. And both of those do not have the full set of games played by longer serving Women's players like Ali Brigginshaw and Elianna Walton,

Also, to clarify, for positions I have used the mostly recent club positions. For players outside the RLP database I've generally looked at just one recent game. I've limited it to two positions. Where a player is usually a bench player for their club, I've typically used used the position (or two) of where they start on the occasion that they start.

Age is calculated from the Date of Birth in the spreadsheet, as taken from RLP which manually lifts from the NRL website when ages are added. This appears to be the responsibility of the clubs, as there are several NRLW players whose DOB is not yet on their NRL website player profile. An example is Pihuka Berryman-Duff (Eels).

As to the grey text, I have only used grey text for zeroes. The intent of doing so is to aid with visualisation, as tries, goals and field goals stand out in contrast.

Regarding the use of redtext for players without a page, I am more in two minds.

Page views will be highest prior to the conclusion of the tournament, which is an argument in favour.

That said, readers that themselves would take action to create a page would be able to surmise that the lack of a hyperlink when other players in the list have them, means that a page does not exist.

For the casual reader, or a non-contributing rugby league fan looking at the page, the presentation looks better with plain text rather than red text, especially the large proportion of women's players without a page.

To reiterate but slightly refine my earlier suggestion. If you remain against including the additional data during the tournament that we can make an objective study by running two pages during the tournament, and reverting to one at its conclusion.

1. 2024 Rugby League Pacific Championships squads - with the additional stats
2. 2024 Rugby League Pacific Championships teamlists - without the additional stats

Reference link both from the main page, with an explanation

We can then take a look at page views at the end of the tournament. That will provide an objective count of what readers prefer.

After the tournament concludes, say in early December, the content of the teamlists page can be copied over to the squads page, removing the international career, club matches and other reps data from it. The teamlists page can then be redirected to the squads page.

At the moment, based on last year and this year so far we have over 200 views on several days, looking at what I had presented including the additional information. But of those 200, only 5 commenting in this forum have objected.

So, implicitly, 95% of readers are happy or at least content with the information as presented.

Running two pages would measure that. If your supposition is correct, readers will overwhelmingly prefer the teamlists page. If I'm right the squads page will get more view.

It might be that both pages get a decent number of views, in which case there is an argument for repeating the two options in future tournaments.

Given that I agree to merge the pages after the tournament then there is no need to worry about running two parallel pages for more than two months.

Yours in rugby league

John Moriarty

Cronulla, NSW Nhoj1898 (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but no the career information does not add value, it is nothing to do with the tournament and player's appearances and scoring in it and that is what the article is about. You also seem to be suggesting that some information cannot be verified from reliable sources in which case if fails WP:Verifiability and/or WP:Original research and those are other reasons for not including it. The place for sourced career information about a player is the article about that player, not repeated at various places across Wikipedia just because it seems convenient to dump everything on one page rather than encouraging readers to explore Wikipedia and follow links.

Grey text on a white background fails MOS:COLOR. If you think it's important to highlight the non-zero values (I don't) then use n-dashes rather than zeros.

Redlinks are encouraged and omitting them on the basis that red text doesn't look nice is just rubbish. Please read WP:Red link.

2023 Rugby League Pacific Championships squads has had 1232 pageviews since 15 March 2024 with no comment whatsoever, so implicitly 100% of readers are happy or at least content with the information as presented. True? Probably not because we can't draw inferences about the opinions of readers unless they specifically comment somewhere. Wikipedia doesn't work on pageviews. Policy on content, style, scope is decided by consensus of those who are prepared to contribute to the discussion. Nthep (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nthep

Reading the Consensus page that you referred to there are three sentences that are of some relevance.

• Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work.
• Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not combat and capitulation.
• Editors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others.

When I added the tables last year I did so in good faith.

Mn1548 opened a discussion and you made a comment with a mild insult – dog’s breakfast – to my earlier work on the 2021 Women's Rugby League World Cup squads. That page did vary from table to table. The variation in content then was due to the disparity of information available from Australia through to Brazil. At the time, I had good information on England player’s international careers, but club information was incomplete.

In the 2023 squad pages I had, however, attempted to standardise the information. There was some variation that cascaded to the tables. No Australian men’s players had played in Super League, but players from Pasifika nations had, in varying numbers.

A comment was added by a third user on 8 October.

Neither Mn1548 or you extended the courtesy of informing me that you had concerns, or of inviting me to provide a rationale.

Instead, having agreement from two readers of the forum you chose combat with the intent of forcing me to capitulate. Your changes blindsided me, with the negative impact on me being greater as I had travelled from Sydney to Townsville to attend the opening two matches. I found out on returning to my accommodation with intent of updating the tables.

Upset, I reverted and made the updates. Having ambushed me, you then accused me of starting an edit war. This suggests that your expectation was that I was obliged to capitulate.

To your point, Mn1548 it was the day after this combative action that PhinsUp23 added a comment in support of your opinion, whilst a fifth user/contributor offered a balanced comment.

This year, it was Mn1548, that showed courtesy in inviting me into the discussion.

In your comments this year, you are calling into question my integrity. If you look at any of the articles which I have started, or to which I have made a major contribution, you will see that they are well referenced. Some editors might suggest that some have too many references.

My point in rehashing the above is that you are demanding that I submit to policy/guidelines to which you have, al least in this instance, ignored.

Despite being upset by this behaviour, I have conceded several points and offered a compromise where the additional detail remains on the page now, but it removed a few weeks after the tournament concludes.

Acknowledging that our difference of opinion as to the worthiness of including the additional information is subjective, as is inferring what readers what, I made the suggestion that we run two versions temporarily and use page views to measure what readers prefer. The outcome of such an object study might be the low info you prefer, the detail I prefer, or combination where readers are split, but free to choose.

As I have previously acknowledged, readers viewing on smart phone may prefer just seeing teamlists as my version requires them to either scroll right or tilt to horizontal to see the data.

Getting back to the point on the relevance about the inclusion of the data, I wish to add some historic and contemporary context.

You may already be aware that the Rugby League News is digitised on Trove. Here I link to a 1972 issue where Australia hosted New Zealand in Sydney: Rugby League News Vol 53 No 26

• On page four we have pen portraits of the New Zealand players that cite their province, age, weight, height, occupation, position and representative experience.
• On page fourteen both sides are listed with their age and weight.

The inspiration for the squad tables comes from this approach. As I was born in 1970, I first encountered it in the late 1970s Big League. Unfortunately, the Big League is not yet digitised. More recent examples from the late 2010s include the player’s representative career matches, tries and goals alongside their name. If you would like to see an example, I can post an example to facebook or Twitter X.

So, my innovation was really only to bring in club matches as well, and use the icons as a shorthand way to show their other representative achievements.

Now to a contemporary example. Given you were likely in attendance at the Super League Grand Final, you may not have yet watched the Prime Minister’s XIII matches. I watched the women’s and the first twenty minutes of the men’s at Marrickville Library before going to the nearby Henson Park to attend an AFLW match.

Rewatching on 9Now Channel Nine’s commentary there are several mentions with the intext to inform viewers about players to which they are likely unfamiliar. From the first six minutes:

1. At 1:50 re Sam McIntyre — Played every game for North Queensland in an excellent campaign this year
2. At 2:04 re Sanny Wabo — There's Wabo who played 30 games for the Hunters over the last couple of years in the Queensland Cup
3. At 2:18 re Brandon Nima — And now Brandon Nima, almost a hundred games of Queensland Cup experience
4. At 3:30 re Australia — It will be a real challenge for this young Australian side. Not all of these fellas will have played together very much at all, and certainly a lot of them are inexperienced at the international level.
5. At 4:28 re Sylvester Namo — Here's Sylvester Namo. One of the best credentialled playes in the team, 24 years of age, he's played 4 times for Papua New Guinea, 14 games in the Engish Super League for Castleford this year.
6. At 5:30 re Judah Rimbu — You don't win the Petero Civoniceva medal for the Player of the Queensland Cup for no reason
7. At 5:47 re Judah Rimbu — He's a try-scorer Billy, he got 16 tries in 23 games in the Queensland Cup this year. For a hooker, that's huge.

My apologies if you are geo-blocked from watching on 9Now. The vison that the NRL has posted on YouTube uses the local PNG Digicel commentators. Nine do often post matches on YouTube a day or so later, so perhaps they will add it sometime this week.

You cite a preference for users to be obliged to go into a players’ page. My design doesn’t preclude that, neither does the suggested running of temporary two versions. As I called out last year, a flaw with the players pages is that they require manual update. For the majority of southern hemisphere players who are well-behaved, they typically are little more than putting the Rugby League Project Playing Career page into words, only with a random delay in updates.

For example, the Judah Rimbu page is currently a QRL match and try short, and doesn’t yet mention his award or include his appearance and try from yesterday’s match.

Finally, and I apologies for the length of this missive, I would like to mention the NRLW club pages. At the start of the 2024 NRLW season I was maintaining 8 of the 10 club pages.

• The exceptions were North Queensland Cowboys Women and Newcastle Knights Women, which are primarily maintained by a single user. They use a different format to what I have used for the other 8 clubs. Recognising their passion and good faith, I have not interfered with their pages or insisted that they use my design.
  • Both contributors are diligent at creating pages for their clubs NRLW players, with both implicitly using a rule that the player must debut internationally or in NRLW before they create a page.
• During the season, a user began updating the Gold Coast Titans Women page. I’ve simply let that contributor take over that page.
• Curiously, I am the only user to make any significant edits to the Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks Women page. Those that contribute to the men’s page have yet to show any interest, despite a team from their club making the recent NRLW Grand Final.
• I created the New Zealand Warriors Women page, and already others have contributed. I’m confident that that will be well run by contributors other than me, going forward.

So at last to conclude, given that I have been conciliatory and have acted in good faith, I feel that there are just reasons to maintain the squads page with the additional data through to the end of November.

If you wish to have a simple teamlists page as well, I am open to providing that option to readers.

Yours in rugby league,

John Moriarty

Cronulla, NSW Nhoj1898 (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi John,

A lot to get through here again so like last time I'm not going to address everything myself but still have some points I want to reiterate. I think I'm starting to come around to your point of view - I still have to question the relevance of including every single parameter your tables show, but can understand that showing non-tournament statistics as of the time of the tournament may be useful down the line, when statistics on player articles no longer reflect their experience at the time of the tournament. I think after this I'm going to stay out of which parameters should and shouldn't be included for the rest of this, let the rest of you fellas come to some form of compromise.

I do want to address a couple of your points however, because I don't think they're the best arguments in favour of including everything, and I have some stylistic criticisms. Firstly, you bring up Rugby League News and Big League. Obviously as magazines have a different format, I don't think they're necessarily the best reference point for the standards wikipedia should meet. We can refer to player articles for more detailed information, which means we don't have to include every relevant statistic like they do, although as mentioned previously I can see the justification in wanting something to represent experience at the time of the tournament. You did bring up how player pages aren't always up to date but I don't think we can use that as an excuse, we should be updating them if we know they're outdated.

Secondly, while I can understand having something to show experience, I still don't think we need to go to the level of detail of including things like "matches for current club" as separate from "total club matches", separate columns for NRL & Super League, or the entire note list you have underneath. Simply including the club a player last played for at the time of the tournament should be enough, and if first-grade matches are shown a single figure should suffice. If the club is already linked, there's not really any justification I can think of for having notes saying e.g. "two squad members played for northern hemisphere clubs", nor is there a need in my opinion to double-up on representative matches such as the New Zealand Maori with both an inclusion in the table and in the notes. For players who play for teams that do not have articles, such as those included in the Fiji women team list, then the team name can be used as a redirect to link to something like the "rugby league in fiji" article. We could alternatively add a "(NSW Cup)" or "(Vodafone Cup)" after the team name for non first grade sides but I don't think that's necessary.

Finally, for the "Other Reps" column, even if consensus is reached that it should be included, I have to stress again that the current format is a poor way of showing them. I'm one of the few people here who defends league icons as having a minor utility value, but again I have to point to Mitchell Moses and Hamiso Tabuai-Fidow as examples of poor use. When league icons such as "Canterbury_colours.svg", "Queanbeyan_United_Colours.svg", and "Australian_colours.svg" are used to represent Samoa, NRL All Stars, and the PM's XIII there is no way that the average reader will interpret those as the correct teams without:

a) not immediately noticing the notes, opening the player's page, and then figuring it out from there, as I did last year when I first saw them, and which is counterintuitive to your view that people shouldn't have to read every player page to get the necessary information.

or b) referring to the notes, in which case why include them in the table at all?

While it can be used for the experience factor previously mentioned, I personally still take the view that as this is an international tournament, showing representative matches like origin, all stars, and pm's xiii are unnecessary, just as we don't include details for players' other reps in Origin team lists nor NRL club squad lists. The only representative information I think can warrant inclusion is previous international team for players who have changed their allegiance, that way if somebody like Moses is labelled as a debutante he isn't labelled on the same level as somebody like Lindsay Smith with zero international experience. Even then, regardless of which representative teams if any remain shown, I definitely think we have to move away from the use of "league icons only" in the table. Either simply include the name of their previous country represented, or include their representative details in the notes as you have done rather than the table/both. Current use of the icons in the other reps column most likely goes against the wikipedia standards used to justify trimming down on them in the (unrelated to this topic) discussion about league icons last year, somebody who was in favour of trimming them last time is probably better suited to confirm this. PhinsUp23 (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nhoj1898 I've never doubted that you are editing in anything but good faith, if you have got the impression otherwise, then for that I apologise. I don't disagree with the validity of any statistic (that can be verified), my point is that they are going in the wrong place. This is an online encyclopedia. That means, that unlike paper versions, we don't have to store and display the same information multiple times, as cross-referencing is easy due to links. If you really are set that experience of individuals is necessary then how about, in these tables, just including first-class appearances at the time of selection (or the date of the first match in the tournament). No breakdown by club/representative matches, just how many they have played.

I get the impression that part of your preference for presenting the information the way you are doing is ease as you're using some automated help which is quicker than updating the player articles as that needs to be done manually. I have absolutely no problem with (semi-)automated tools for prepping content but I agree with @PhinsUp23 that it isn't an excuse for not updating the player articles just because they aren't s quick to do (there are probably ways that could be more automated but that's the basis for a separate discussion about possibly using Wikidata as one way). Nthep (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

A suggested table. The column order can change, the width can change, and they don't have to be sortable. On the colours, various combinations start failing accessibility, so black or white text is best on most backgrounds.

Australia

Australia squad for the 2024 men's Pacific Championships

#	Name	Club	Age	Position(s)	Tournament statistics
					App	T	G	FG	Pts
–	Mitchell Barnett	New Zealand Warriors	30	second-row, lock	2	1	0	0	4
–	Lindsay Collins	Sydney Roosters	28	prop	3	0	0	1	1

New Zealand

New Zealand squad for the 2024 men's Pacific Championships

#	Name	Club	Age	Position(s)	Tournament statistics
					App	T	G	FG	Pts
–	Mitchell Barnett	New Zealand Warriors	30	second-row, lock	2	1	0	0	4
–	Lindsay Collins	Sydney Roosters	28	prop	3	0	0	1	1

Tournament versus post tournament presentation

From John

In considering your comments we have a difference of option on whether career and matches for clubs should be included on the page.

Perhaps I have not been clear enough in stating that my opinion is most valid prior to and during the tournament, but once the tournament has concluded, it is greatly diminished. Consequently, I have no object to the career and club information being removed at the conclusion of the tournament - or shortly there after, say December.

In a bid for clarity, I have prepared the following:

Column	Prior / During	Post Tournament
J#	Include. If jerseys change from game to game, use the most recent	Remove unless fixed jerseys were used
Position (Length)	Full Name	Full Name
Position (Link)	Currently linking to existing pages, but given the large number of players without an individual page, for asthetic reasons using plain rather than red text. I am monitoring this for page creation. If such a page in linked linked to the squads page the main page, then I will see the notification, and update. That said, the highest number of page views will be between now and the conclusion of the tournament.	Use redtext"
Age	Include where DOB is known	Age at conclusion
Position (Selection)	Regular position(s) played, limit of two, with most recent positions used in instances where a player has transtitioned.	Positions played during the tourament
Position (Length)	Currently full name using rlp template. Use of the abbreviation would allow greater space for the use of the full name of the club	Full name using rlp template
Tournament - M, T, P	Include	Include
Tournament - G, F	Zeroes in grey to that players that kick goals or field goals are more easily seen by readers	Include
Career - Dbt	Include.	Include. Bold the year of those that have made their debut during the tournament.
Career - M, T, P	Include. Relevant during the tournament to readers familiar with rugby league. Purpose is to bring that information into one place. Also, not all players in the tournament have wiki pages. Does no harm to the casual reader.	Remove. Career matches is less relevant once the tournament has ended, and career tries and points are also . "
Career - G, F	Currently included. Given that so few players have kicked goals or field goals a possible alternative is to tabulate in a separate goal kickers section.	Remove
Club	Shorter version used to accommodate career stats and club matches. Currently using the moniker as it offers the shortest description.	Full name, preceded by club icon. Could also include the club's country flag is there is a consensus. Preference to include both icons is used at all due to the similariy of the Australian and New Zealand flags when small.
NRL CM	Include. Purpose is distinguish between games played for the current club and total career games.	Remove
NRL TM	Include. Relevant during the tournament to readers familiar with rugby league. Purpose is to bring that information into one place. Also, not all players in the tournament have wiki pages. Does no harm to the casual reader.	Remove. Less relevant once the tournament has ended and the tallies become out of date once club competition resumes in February"
SL CM	Currently included if two or more members have played Super League during the year (2024). Reason for having a separate CM (Club Matches) column is that several players have not played any Tier 1 (SL, NRL, NRLW) matches, or have done so but have played more Tier 2 or lower matches for their current club. If a single column is used could combine Tier 1 and Tier 2 club matches, and show a blank or show ND for No Data as a tooltip.	Remove
SL TM	Currently included if two or more members have played Super League during the year (2024).	Remove
Other Reps	Include in some form. Relevant during the tournament to readers familiar with rugby league. Icons and a combined column has been used to help each row of the table fit into one line when viewed on a laptop, tablet or PC screen. Notes below each table clarify the icons.	Remove

Doubles, trebles, and quadruples

I think we need to rework how this information is displayed. Currently information is on this topic is displayed independently on Super League, Super League Grand Final, League Leaders' Shield, Challenge Cup, Double (rugby league), and Treble (rugby league).

I think a single template for the lists is in order as currently, one or two pages get updated or changed and they all end up contradicting each other. A problem further created by British and Australian doubles/trebles being different.

Further, what actuall is a double, treble, and quadruple? The media is so poor at reporting this, with sources constantly contradicting each other and themselves.

Eg the BBC's Grand Final match report. It describes Wigan as having won the quadruple with 2024 WCC, CC, LLS, and GF but also states they were the fourth quadruple team after St Helens (2006), Bradford (2003), and Wigan (1993-94) who all won the WCC the season after, which has always been the definition as far as I can tell as you can't get to the WCC without winning the GF. Similar to the Sextuple (association football), where Community Shield, Super Cup, and FIFA Club World Cup (now FIFA Intercontinental Cup) are all won the season after the treble of league, cup, and Champions League. Mn1548 (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

From the technical side of things, WP:LST is the best option here; have the winners tables in their relevant articles (e.g. Treble (rugby league)) and then transclude them to the other locations as necessary; creating templates for each list is a bit much. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats a better alternative, thanks! Mn1548 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relatives in infobox

What are people's thoughts on including family members in the infobox (e.g. Jack Sinfield)? I know that the rugby union project does have them in their infoboxes, but is it relevant enough to a player's career to be worth including? J Mo 101 (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

For most articles this information is usually covered in a relatively small background/personal life section of the main text. I am not sure of the value of also including it in the infobox, but if doing so a single parameter for relatives would be better than separate parameters for family members which in most cases would (or should) be empty. In the roughly 17,000 rugby biography infoboxes the parameters for spouse and children are only used 400 times each (2,000 for the relatives parameter). The documentation states that these are for notable people and the template parameter report suggests that although this is done for the relatives, for spouse and children the notability part is generally ignored. EdwardUK (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

For what's it worth, I agree that it shouldn't be included in the infobox (covering any relevant family connections in the prose is sufficient, in my opinion), but wanted to get some more opinions before removing. If more people are in favour of inclusion, it would be better to add a field to the RL infobox, rather than shoehorning the information in by embedding another infobox (like in the example above). J Mo 101 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Embedding a second infobox seems to be the preferred way of doing things, rather than adding additional parameters. Nthep (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It is an easy way of doing it, because the template is protected - so making any changes to it has to get consensus and be requested. Embedding a second infobox for something like a boxing or cricket career makes sense to me as they display a clearly defined section covering something beyond the scope of the rugby league infobox, but the relatives look out of place when tagged on to the end in this way. I think that if they are included they would look better if displayed at the end of the personal info section. EdwardUK (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a gentle swell towards using Infobox person then embedding others as necessary, so we might end up with the rugby sections being embedded into a generic Infobox rather than the other way round. Nthep (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It seemes to be common place in alot of people's infoboxes across Wikipedia, so I would lean in favour of including any notable relatives. Mn1548 (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see much point in the information being in the infobox but also can't see any harm and it's pretty common elsewhere. Obviously only for notable family members. But, I would much prefer an addition to the current infobox rather than adding another, which seems to confuse the inexperienced. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

List of Australia Schoolboy rugby league team players

List of Australia Schoolboy rugby league team players needs some sources or deletion. On the talk page an IP has asked for date changes but I can't help as the sole reference link doesn't work. Commander Keane (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Men's Ashes Modern Series & Original Series

Hi all, Last year I proposed merging the original ashes and modern ashes series article together, this was done and undertaken. Given that just one of the teams has changed the Ryder Cup model seemed to fit. This seems to have then been undone - despite agreement being found. I've proposed the merger again and made a discussion here so we can come to a consensus. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

N.B. I can see there was a discussion above RE: a separate page for Women's Ashes. While I don't think it needs one yet as one has yet to played and it was not a current ongoing series I'm happy to concede that point --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose - While I don't see any harm in merging now, my worry is it will need splitting again in the not too far future, which was kind of the issue when the previous discussion happened. This might not be as bad an issue now that the women's ashes is a separate article, but all three merged was definitely impacting readability. Further, in my opinion, both are two separate series with different teams and a 22 year gap between the last of the old and first of the new. One page could promote editors to unify statistics which would require sourcing that the 2025 Ashes is the 40th of the series and not the 1st of a new revivied Ashes which isn't currently the case. In conclusion, I think that two articles is better futureproofing both. Mn1548 (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose on the same basis as Mn1548. If 2025 is England v Australia (or vice versa if the IRL, ARLC & RFL can ever decide where the series will be played) as opposed to Great Britain v Australia, then it becomes a new event. The Ryder Cup isn't analogous as England and Great Britain are considered separate teams, unlike golf's expansion from GB to GB&I to GB&Europe. Nthep (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but do you both want to copy your responses onto the other talk page just so they're all together. Then I'll happily respond there! --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Done. Nthep (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Nthep Mn1548 (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Fassolette-Kielty Trophy start date.

RFL claim 2012 ref, FFR claim 2015 ref. Anyone have any further insight? Mn1548 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why FFR say 2015 but one of the references in the article is to this 2012 article which mentions the trophy by name and says in the inaugural playing. Nthep (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There is also an article from 2021 on the FFR website that gives 2012: . EdwardUK (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Tours vs test series

Do these two terms have official destinctions? Tours seem to be a more historical concept whereas test series seem to have alot more recent uses especially given th3 shorter length of these "tours". The recent Tonga/Samoa v England games have been described as tours alot in the media. But series like USA v South Africa or last years Kenya v France, can these be described as tours? Considering they are both in one location (Pretoria and Nairobi) you can't say the team was "touring" the country, unlike the England series where the Pacific Islanders did move through England. They also are of a lower prifile so don't really have the mass media coverage for a consistent description of the event. Mn1548 (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I got the impression that it was a test series if just internationals against one team whereas historically tours involved multiple opponents and could include test series, for example – 1911 NZ in AUS: a tour without a test series, 1937–38 Kangaroo tour: a tour with 3x test series, 1995 Trans-Tasman Test series: just a test series without a tour. Most sources used in the 2023 Tonga and 2024 Samoa in England articles refer to them as test series more than tours. However, according to the IRL they have no official definition for Test match (and it would seem therefore of Test series) as noted in this 2020 article: Why SIMs – not Tests. It is basically down to what the individual governing bodies and those reporting on it have chosen to use. EdwardUK (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Tests and SIMs are basically one of the same thing, but that doesn't answer the tours vs test series question. Your argument on multiple vs single opponents is a good one. But that's not official. Mn1548 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Without a clear definition for Test series the IRL site does not appear to indicate how to distinguish it from a tour – and they seem to be used interchangeably for example with Kenya in 2023 – reports for their matches against South Africa call it a "historic series" and a few weeks later it is called a "two-game tour", this was followed by the arrival of the France tour in Kenya for their two-game series. For Samoa in England they had this article: that uses series and tour several times. There does not appear to be anything definitive on the ERL or NRL sites either, and the Asia-Pacific site has been dead for about a year. EdwardUK (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it Hull FC or Hull F.C.?

This has been rattling about in my head since I wrote up the articles for the 2024 and 2025 Hull F.C. (see already?) seasons, but I think there needs to be a bit of clarity and consistency on the issue.

Wikipedia tends to go for 'Hull F.C.' in most cases - see Hull F.C. and Template:Hull F.C. current squad - but then the by-season articles go by 'Hull FC' - see 2009 Hull FC season and so on. On the club's website, they refer to themselves as 'Hull FC', and the Betfred Super League refers to them as 'Hull FC'. As far as I can see, the only prominent instance of the 'Hull F.C.' title is on the club's badge.

So, on Wikipedia, which is it? Is it maybe worth combing each article related to or mentioning the club and renaming/editing them one way or the other? Hullian111 (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

In British sports clubs articles, football club is usually always stylised as "F.C." (see St Helens R.F.C., Harlequin F.C., Everton F.C. etc.), so for consistency's sake, I would just add the dots to the season article names. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

F.C. is an acronym for Football Club, so it should be "F.C." Mn1548 (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Given what the OP wrote about Hull FC, those last two comments are unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The full name of rugby is rugby football, hence Rugby Football Club. "Football Club" can refer to any code of football. Mn1548 (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The club website uses Hull FC and has done since 2000 (archived on wayback machine). This is also the version used on current news sources for the club such as BBC Sport, Love Rugby League and Hull Daily Mail. As such it would make sense for it to be the name that is used for the article title and although this does not fit with consistency for other articles it may be the equivalent of the unusual exceptions in the Biography MOS.

However, in other articles about the club, the name could vary depending on the time period being written about - I did an image search and found that on team photos from throughout their history the name varies between F.C. and FC (and sometimes N.U.F.C. and R.L.F.C.). This is also the case on the British Newspaper Archive where articles appear to mainly use F.C. to start with then a mix of F.C. and FC. EdwardUK (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for you and others' replies, I've been mulling your responses for the past couple of days, hence the delay in replying. Unfortunately, I don't really think the discussion has gotten any closer to a consensus.

If I may bring another concern to the fore, this issue is also prevalent in the articles for St Helens R.F.C. - for example, 2022 St Helens RLFC season and those by-season articles before it, as well as List of St Helens RLFC players. I have this gut feeling that getting these articles consistent in their titling is going to be a lot harder than it first looked. Hullian111 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The St Helens one is probably the more pressing issue as it is officially "St Helens R.F.C." per the badge and official website (despite rlfc in the URL). Mn1548 (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the fixing process (I wouldn't know how to do this) but their was a mass page move a while ago that changed every page with "Final" in the title to "final". Perhaps a similar thing could be done changing "St Helens RLFC" to "St Helens R.F.C."? Mn1548 (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"Quota players" page name

The Quota players article is entirely about the RFL and not a general page. The article should have a more precise name such as "RFL Overseas Quota" which is what various news outlets refers to it as and reflects sources already in the article. Mn1548 (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Foreign players in sports leagues already exists as a more general page, so no issues with re-naming. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It might only be about league in the UK at the moment but it could be expanded to cover other sports/leagues if they have quota requirements. Loan (sports) was only about football for a long time before being expanded to cover other sports. Nthep (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Such expansion can be covered in the Foreign players in sports leagues and if Quota players expands to include the NRL for example the page can be further renamed at a later date. Mn1548 (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

My search for "quota players" turned up a bunch of racial quota information from post-Apartheid South Africa, so I added in a section about that to the page, though it could probably use some more fleshing out. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well with that information now on, a merge of the two articles is probably the most appropriate with a bit of a reformat. Also expanded to link to Designated Player Rule and similar as these are a quota of players who are exempt from a salary cap. Mn1548 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice job on the expansion, Mn1548, looks loads better now. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Mn1548 (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC on a standard format for English teams' fixture results

Should we standardise each English Rugby League team's seasonal results article (where at all possible) to adopt the collapsible fixtures box format used by articles for Australian NRL teams as well as, most recently, for Castleford Tigers? See 2024 Newcastle Knights season#Matches and 2024 Castleford Tigers season#Results for the system in action:

• Yes
• No, adopt a different results format, or
• No, keep the results formats as they are

Hullian111 (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No as long as there is a consistent format with the article, that's enough. Nthep (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No, If the current state of the article is acceptable then it is fine to leave it as it is. There are some club articles that need improving, quite a few where they appear to have been abandoned a few matches into the season, and with these I have no issue with changing the formatting as part of a major rewrite. However, my preference would be against using the collapsible fixtures box for this, compared for example with the formatting used for 2022 Hull FC season#Results. For an article about a particular club, it does not seem necessary to repeat their name and icon for every match and I find it makes it slightly harder for me to pick out the name of the other team. The use of collapsible content may be considered as an accessibility issue and I am unsure of the value of including the points scorers for the opposition. Colour could also be an issue as when used 20+ times in a row the whole screen becomes a wall of green and pink rather than just a single win/loss column and I find this is particularly noticeable in dark mode where the background colour stays the same. EdwardUK (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I can never tell if I am doing these RfCs right by replying in this way, but I've always wondered, after copying the formatting of 2024 Wigan Warriors season (speaking of, @Mn1548, do you want to get in on this discussion, too?), whether I was going down the right track with colouring the whole row in with the win/loss/draw colours. It always nagged as a possible accessibility issue at the back of my mind.

As for 'the value of including the points scorers for the opposition', I will concede that it was half the reason for filing this RfC in the first place. It usually took up a full day to (re)write a Hull KR season article from scratch (especially the early Super League ones), and I'll say I'm not overly inclined towards the faffage of having to go back to each article, apply the template and research which player scored for the opposition, got red-carded and who the referee was, too. Hullian111 (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

If I'm being honest, my writing of the Wigan seasons article used a format based off a combination of the Manchester United season articles and the rugby league season articles at the time I started doing them (around 2019).
So to answer the questions:

• Do I think there should be a standard format across all rugby league season articles? Yes
• Do I think the Wigan season format is a good format to use? Yes
• Do I think the format I have used should be the one used? No

I am very open to discussion about what format should be used. There is probably a lot more concise way and way closer to wiki policy way to do this and I'll happily use that way going forward. Mn1548 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think there necessarily needs to be a standard format across every article, as long as each one conveys the important match details. When I added the collapsible boxes to 2024 Castleford, I was following the lead of the NRL club season articles which were increasingly using them (a majority of articles by 2024) as well as football articles (like Liverpool and Man City). In my view the scoring minutes, opposition scores, and cards add valuable context on how a match developed and played out; even if not necessarily critical, they enrich the narrative for readers interested in more than just the final score. That said, while it was simple to keep up with as the season went on, I agree that it is tedious to apply this format when creating/rewriting older season articles where finding detailed match data can be difficult, so for instance I used a tabular format for 2019 Castleford. I think this flexibility should remain, with editors choosing the format that best suits the article's context and available data. Ieatseatbelts (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, collapsible can allow for more details without it looking too messy and disorganized. I am unsure of the harm that standard formats for the seasonal results would have. LemonberryPie (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No It might be hard for some users to operate the page that way. Manuductive (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC) — Manuductive (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Lardlegwarmers (talk · contribs).

2025 Ashes

Will not act on this until the fixture are released, but would like to pool opinions now.

Should we move 2025 England Lions and Lionesses tour of Australia to 2025 Rugby League Ashes?

The new title:

• Matches the format of the World Cup, Pacific Championship, European Championship articles
• Is a more concise and descriptive title
• This title allows the inclusion of the wheelchair series on this article which will be in Australia and not be moved to England like the men's and the women's

Also, previously another editor expressed concerns about the title and intro stating a joint tour, which was initially hinted at by the IRL, but is increasingly looking like they'll be independent.

Note: If and when a confirmation is made that England will host the page would need moving to 2025 Australia Kangaroos and Jillaroos tour of England.

Therfore I think a decision about the name should be made before a confirmation of change of host to avoid moving the page twice. Mn1548 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

As a cricket fan with limited interest in rugby league, I find the use of he word Ashes in connection with any sport other than cricket quite disconcerting. Unlike cricket, there aren't even any physical ashes. In language normally used in other contexts today, it seem to be a classic case of cultural appropriation. I would very much prefer that we avoided the term completely here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I can empathise with that, but it's not a recent appropriation, it goes back to the first tour in 1908, and there is a trophy, even if it isn't a burnt offering. That said I'm not in favour of the Ashes as the article title here, I think there's enough material to sustain separate articles on all three tours and that 2025 Australia Kangaroos tour of England, 2025 Australia Jillaroos tour of England and 2025 England wheelchair rugby league tour of Australia are in keeping with article names on previous tours. Nthep (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a recent appropriation. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. I'll leave changing anything for now until we get venue / fixture announcement, as now the tour is still officially of Australia. But this approach is a good one. Mn1548 (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviving this topic after the recent news, but 2025 Rugby League Ashes is a more preferable title IMO (or 2025 Men's Rugby League Ashes if the women's series actually goes ahead). It's far more natural and concise than the existing title, and unlike tours in the previous century, this is a stand-alone series aside from one potential warmup game in France. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

While this was my initial preference, the point made by Nthep is a good one about consistency in article titles. If we did this, I would argue that every tour after the 2007 All Golds tour would need renaming as this is, in my opinion, the last tour not to be just a single series +- a warm up game. Mn1548 (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Should state aswell, zero objections to the the current x tour of y names either. Mn1548 (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with using an alternative title if it's more recognisable (cricket articles follow this approach - see 2023 Ashes series & New Zealand cricket team in England in 2023). Consistency has some weight, but it shouldn't supersede WP:COMMONNAME. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Point. This discussion relates to a previous question I had here, that most of the recent 'tours' are referred to more often as "test series". Following the 2007 All Golds tour, only four top level 'tours' have actually taken place (ignoring 2019 GB which always looked to be an ill fated attempt at a traditional tour), Samoa and Tonga in the last few years, plus New Zealand in 2015 and 18. Renaming them plus 2025 to [Year] Ashes Test Series / [Year] England vs [Team] Test Series wouldn't be alot of effort if what's the direction people want to go. Mn1548 (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ben Hunt (rugby league)#Requested move, 20, March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ben Hunt (rugby league)#Requested move, 20, March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Billy Moore (rugby league, born 1971)#Requested move 20 March, 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Billy Moore (rugby league, born 1971)#Requested move 20 March, 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Updating List of Australia national rugby league team players

Hi. Keen to update this page (no one listed from 2019), but struggling to source the data. I can't find any official lists so would be inclined to go off RLP project, only there's a bit of a discrepancy with the numbers. According to an NRL press release, the most recently capped player Lindsay Smith is #858. On RLP however, Smith is the last listed at #850, so they would appear to be missing several players? Jevansen (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

RLP has some errors (e.g. Tom Tyquin's games for Australia are mistakenly listed as appearances by his brother Bill) and is still missing a few appearances for some games against rep teams. I'm not aware of a single complete list online, but you could probably work it out by looking up images of the players who have debuted since 2019 (e.g. you can see #833 on the Kangaroo jersey of Angus Crichton in his bio). J Mo 101 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it's definitely RLP throwing the count off. We were in sync with official records as of 2012, which seems to be what our list was built off. I've updated to the present day using match reports and images of player jerseys as suggested. Double checked against the RLP recent additions and they match, so all their data issues are for yesteryear players like the Tyquins. Clubs still need to be added to our list and match tallies will likely need updating for current players. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Western Bears #Requested move 24 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Western Bears #Requested move 24 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move discussion at Talk:Western Bears #Requested move 8 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Western Bears #Requested move 8 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Women's State of Origin

I think that coverage of the Women's State of Origin could benefit from being rearranged. There is duplication of the match details which are given on the main Women's article and the yearly State of Origin and Women's State of Origin articles, and also transcluded onto the NSW and Queensland team pages. I suggest the following:

• Women's State of Origin yearly articles: should contain full details for Women's and U19 Women's matches
• State of Origin yearly articles: Women's and U19 Women's matches can be transcluded here
• Women's State of Origin: match details from 2018 onwards are covered in yearly articles so can be removed, results from the Interstate Challenge era can be grouped under one section header and listed using "rugbyleaguebox collapsible". Women's U19 section from the main State of Origin article should be added here.
• State of Origin series: Keep brief summary, but remove tables of Women's results which are not needed as covered in separate article
• NSW and Queensland team articles: replace match details with a table of results as done for most other representative teams, and currently used in these articles for pre-2006 games. (when removing match details the team lists can be kept)

Before making any significant changes I thought it would be helpful to know what other people thought and if there are any suggestions for other ways these articles could be improved. EdwardUK (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Point 1: Yes, fully agree.
Point 2: I'd say a brief mention in prose and a link to the article similar to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup final, don't think there is a need for women's results here if separated articles exist for them.
Point 3: Don't really have an idea on the best way to improve but agree it needs improving.
Point 4: Agree, same justification as point 2.
Point 5: Yes, fully agree. Mn1548 (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Point 2: My suggestion was based on articles such as the World Cups where there are separate articles for each group which, apart from the team lists, are almost entirely transcluded to the main article. However, I think you are right that for the state of origin articles a brief mention with a link to the article would be sufficient. (off-topic - would separate group stage articles still be needed if collapsible team lists were included in the main world cup articles?)
Point 3 (match details): For most matches played in the Interstate era there are clearly not enough sources to create separate articles and although the details could be included on the yearly articles covering the men's series, my thought was that as they were not played under the State of Origin banner then they could be seen as out of place there. Whereas they are clearly part of the history of the women's game so I think it could be appropriate to have a list of these matches on the Women's State of Origin article - the suggested formatting is simply because a lot of it can be done just by adding "collapsible" to the existing match details from 2006 to 2017.
Point 3 (U19s) and Point 4: I have already made the changes as these were fairly easy and I thought they would be unlikely to be objected to. EdwardUK (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Re point 2 if its the "main article" its makes sense but I read that as the men's article as that's what 90% of it is and what is in the infobox. Plus that seems to be a more standard approach. For point three, as "list of women's interstate challenge results" could be an option. Mn1548 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a list article would work well – the equivalent of something like RFL Women's Championship seasons (2017–2023). In the Women’s State of Origin article, I feel the results would need to be condensed down as a list of 21 games could take up so much space they would overshadow the rest of the content, so this would be a good solution to that. EdwardUK (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I have created the List of Women's Interstate Challenge results article (splitting from Women's State of Origin and then expanding it seemed the least complicated way). There are some missing results and team lists and scorers are incomplete, but if any sources are found for these they can be added. The match details have been removed from the Women's State of Origin article and there is a more detailed results table instead. On the yearly (men's) State of Origin articles the match details for Women and U19 Women have been replaced with brief descriptions and links to the yearly women's articles. Match details on the NSW women's team article have been replaced with a wikitable of results. I have left the Queensland team article mostly unchanged so far as I am unsure of how best to tackle this, but I have updated the transclusion links to avoid breaking the article. Also, I have converted the article on the Women's U18 Queensland team so that it now covers the U19 team instead. EdwardUK (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Melbourne Storm

Melbourne Storm has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:NRL Grand Final#Requested move 2 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:NRL Grand Final#Requested move 2 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Challenge Cup Final: a favour?

Hi all, not sure if requesting 'favours' is an accepted thing to do on Wikipedia, but if anyone here from the WikiProject (regardless of support of Hull KR or Warrington/Wigan or St Helens Women) is going to the Challenge Cup Final this weekend, ideally are located in the lower tier and have a pocket camera/phone with a decent camera), is it possible for you to do me a favour and get photographs of the match and the following trophy lift to put up on Commons? I did the same thing for Hull KR's 2023 final and for Hull KR's 2024 Grand Final at Old Trafford, and I would have gone and done the same photos this time, but the matter of going to this final is unfortunately out of my hands. Any quantity of photos will do this time around: just the match, some outdoor signs and the trophy lift are the big 'mains'. I'll say if you want something to go off, see below:

• Media related to 2025 EFL Cup Final at Wikimedia Commons.

Thanks in advance, Hullian111 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Anybody want to take over some Super League teams' seasonal articles?

Would anyone with vested interest in this year's Super League season be up for filling out the results, league positions, transfer news and infobox points, among other things, for the in-progress 2025 Leeds Rhinos season and 2025 Warrington Wolves season articles? You don't have to be a fan of Leeds and/or Warrington, but I suppose it would help for closely following their matches and team news.

Without wanting to sound too WP:OWN-y, I've kept updating said articles through the first half of the season, but with the addition of the Warrington article most recently, it is becoming rather a pain to juggle updating four seasonal articles (Hull KR, Hull FC, Leeds and Warrington) at the same time, especially when they're playing each other (see tomorrow's Hull KR vs Leeds fixture). I'll be happy to stick with Hull KR and Hull FC's articles if someone's happy to take Leeds and Warrington off my hands. Hullian111 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

adding video referee as parameter in rugbyleaguebox

I've added a parameter|vreferee= in {{rugbyleaguebox/sandbox}} to allow the video ref (if applicable) to be shown. As they have become an integral part of first class matches, it seems a sensible addition to me. You can see an example at User:Nthep/sandbox3#support for video referee. Before putting this live can any NRL fans clarify for me if NRL games have a single named video ref or does everyone in the bunker get credited? Nthep (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I've added the code to the live module. Nthep (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Cheers for this. The NRL are now using "Senior Review Official" for the named video referee, but I like the way you've coded it as that will work for seasons 1998 onwards. Storm machine (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Sam Tomkins

Sam Tomkins has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Brick Community Stadium

Brick Community Stadium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Australian minor competition season articles

There are quite a few season articles for state/regional rugby league comps in Australia (e.g. 2025 NSWRL Feeder Competitions, 2019 Canberra Rugby League) which go into an excruciating amount of detail, but with little to no sourcing. I am not hugely familiar with the structure below the NRL, so before I propose deleting, I was wondering if anyone has a better idea of what is worth saving (if anything?). The Canberra example seems particularly egregious, as it lists the results for seemingly every age group in existence. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

From my understanding of the structure below the NRL, each state has a premire competition before very regionalised tournaments below that. From the articles you gave as examples I would delete all as neither are cited well enough for notability nor other season of the sane competition, but I wouldn't be quick to do it as they are all well put together, though I also think an article explaining the structure of Australian rugby is needed to contextualise it all. Mn1548 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

For the Canberra Rugby League, it looks like the season articles could be deleted. There are not enough sources that demonstrate notability for the senior level, and certainly not for the juniors. For the NSWRL/QRL Major/Feeder articles, it looks like some of the competitions they cover would not pass notability if they were separate articles. The level of statistical detail seems excessive given the limited sourcing and there is unnecessary duplication of the separate articles covering the Queensland Cup and Auckland competitions. In previous seasons the NSW Cup and PNGNRL were covered in their own articles, so it seems to be creating inconsistency to change from that. Also, given that it is not in NSW, I would suggest that it may be better to have a separate article for the Victoria season if there are sources to support it. EdwardUK (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Is Rugby League Project a reliable source? It would appear to be fan-generated website

Hi all.

Editing context: Harry Robertson (rugby league)

https://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/ would appear to be a fan-generated website. I can see that the article Rugby League Project or rugbyleagueproject.org has never been created.

It's linked to a lot of articles - please see and so on.

I seek your opinions about this.

Pete "my bunnies for lyf" and "Queenslander!" aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think its the most authoritative site in the world and shouldn't be relied on for an entire article, especially when it comes to BLPs, but I use the same logic I do with buslistsontheweb.co.uk/: the site can be used as a good starting point to put together, for example, a team's seasonal article, provided that RLP's information can also be cited from other secondary sources - e.g. for Super League articles, BBC Sport, Sky Sports, local sports pages or failing that, club history articles. One thing I will credit the site for is that match reports (among other things) do get author credit, e.g. Tim Costello and Shawn Dollin for their report of Hull F.C. against Leigh. I wouldn't say full depreciation as an 'unreliable source', but maybe pivot towards using with a bit of caution? Hullian111 (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Many of the player pages (see for example Garry Jack) do attribute credit to various rugby league annuals printed over the years, which according to WP:SPS would make this an acceptable source. Having said that, I agree it should be used with caution, particularly for players based outside of Australia (for players in the English leagues, I would personally always use the Rugby League RKC website, which is considered reputable by both the RFL and IRL). J Mo 101 (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with use with a degree of caution. I find that RLP has a habit of publish first and fix errors later - see the forums . That said, I'd say it's generally reliable for the game in Australia. Nthep (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

From my use of the website I have noticed a few inconsistencies but nothing horriblly inaccurate (or anywhere close) from what can be verified elsewhere. For me a good supplementary soured but I wouldn't be using it for the main bulk of an article section, rather just for filling in odd gaps in information. Mn1548 (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it's the best we have in many circumstances. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

For biographical articles it may be preferable to use RLP in support of other sources but not as a substitute for them due to RLP having some mistakes and potential errors due to incomplete information. Unfortunately, the area in which RLP is commonly used as a source, player career stats in the infobox, seems to be the thing most likely to be inaccurate, for example, where a match report is missing a team list then that match will also be missing from the related player profiles meaning their career stats totals will be incomplete. And I recently spotted this example, Joe Walsh (rugby league, born 1988), where RL RKC and other sources indicate a single player, but on RLP it is split into two profiles. However, RLP looks to be fairly good for coverage of competitions and match results where it seems a reasonable alternative to official/non-independent sites or paywall/restricted access news sources and is also useful for providing a single source for a piece of information which may otherwise need multiple citations. EdwardUK (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Jungle (Wheldon Road)#Requested move 13 August 2025

An editor has requested that The Jungle (Wheldon Road) be moved to Wheldon Road, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Ieatseatbelts (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Scope of International rugby league in FOO articles

Most of these articles start "A list of men, women and wheelchair international rugby league matches played throughout ..." and only show matches involving a country's senior team in each format. We have included games involving non-senior teams as long as one of the sides is a senior team e.g Greece's 2022 World Cup warm up match versus Cumbria, England vs Combined Nations All Stars. Anything else, e.g. youth, masters, u-16 matches, starts straying into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory and perhaps we should properly clarify what the scope of these articles are. Nthep (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Limiting to matches with a senior international team involved seems reasonable and should ensure that every match listed includes at least one notable team (The only double redlinks appear to be some of the African women's matches) If outlining this as the standard, there are a few PM XIII only and 'A' or 'B' team matches that should be removed, and the inclusion criteria should be noted at the start of the articles and {{List criteria}} added on the talk pages too. EdwardUK (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this approach. At least of the teams should be a senior international side of the co-equal disciplines (ie men's, women's, and wheelchair) which are at least observer members of the IRL. The only exception I would give is a match between two teams not fitting the criteria in a tournament when other teams do (eg Western Australia vs Victoria in the 1975 Pacific Cup). This leaves the criteria open for further inclusion if to say for example PDRL gaining co-equal status within the IRL in the future. But as of now PDRL would, as mentioned by Nthep, class is indiscriminate, and opens the doors for theoretically U-11 games to be included which clearly aren't notable. Mn1548 (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

NSW/Queensland Cup

A while ago, there was a bit of an inconclusive debate about if NSW/Queensland Cup games should be listed in infoboxes and county towards. I found a post from Wales Rugby League that suggests the RFL records them in their statistics, but they have never been historically recognised. link

So personally I'd say if the debate ever came up again, that if Australia, the local body doesn't recognise them then they shouldn't be included as such. Mn1548 (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Friendlies

We currently describe all non-tournament games and non-tour matches as friendlies, when most of them should really be described as one-off internationals as they are SIMs are defined by the IRL. The only games that meet the meaning of friendly (a sporting event whose prize money and impact on the player's or the team's rankings is either zero or otherwise greatly reduced. - see opening paragraph of Exhibition game) are matches that are not SIMs e.g. Cumbria v Nigeria, or are not played for world ranking points e.g. the upcoming Japan v Niue game.

Without getting to wordy in articles like International rugby league in 2025 is there a better way of heading the tables in the summary other than Tours, Friendlies and Tournaments. Arguably one-off matches are tours, just playing a single match; so SIMs, Tournaments and non-SIMs perhaps? Nthep (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Fundamentally, a friendly is any match between two sides not part of a competition, and I would say it's a stretch to argue that Italy vs Lebanon (to give a recent example) is a competition because they are competing for ranking points. Stating that two IRL sides competing isn't a friendly because they are both registered to IRL also creates a problem as you could then very easily argue that Wigan vs Leeds in pre-season wasn't a friendly as both teams ate registered to Super League. I also can't agree with the idea of a one match tour as the away team have not tourd a place.

Issue we have here is that were using a mix of general sports terminology and IRL specific terminology.

Personally, I think "test match" (eg Nigera vs Ghana this weekend) and "friendly" (eg Japan vs Niue) show be used with a note at the top of a result list stating something along the lines of 'since 2020 the IRL has referred to tests as SIMs and test has no official meaning', but also like the idea of "Senior International", "Senior International Series", "Non SIM international" abriviated or not depending on what's appropriate. Mn1548 (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ray Lindwall

Ray Lindwall has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)