Template talk:National Rugby League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] {{Rugby League in Australia table cells}}

I've removed this template because I'm trying to have all of the "Rugby League in --" templates using the same template style. Bongomanrae 09:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of seasons

I like this template. The only thing is, I don't know why the years 1908 and 1909 are all alone at the top there. Why doesn't the list of years start with 1908 in the spot where 1910 is? That'd be neater. Also I think it looks wierd with Super League's 1997 season out on its own there. I think slotting it into the main list alongside the other 1997 with '(SL)' next to it would be better.--Jeff79 02:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Made the changes. Looks better right?--Jeff79 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it originally had the Super League season in there, but i put it down the bottom because it looked really out of place with it taking up a lot of room in between 1997 and 1998. I don't mind the decade starting in the 8 years, but at this stage is looks no different with 2006 and 2007 at the bottom by themselves than 1908 and 1909. To be honest as well, Super League was a breakaway competition that year and should be depicted as that. --mdmanser 06:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just think it makes more sense to have the end of a growing list look incomplete rather than the start. I don't know how to get rid of the big blank space underneath the list of years though. Regarding Super League: in my opinion the more we just absorb the records generated by that season into the overall body of Australian rugby league data the better. It was certainly a breakaway competition, but it is recognised by all the clubs involved as though it was any other season. I don't think wikipedia should treat it differently either, and it doesn't on most articles. The premiership, wins, losses, appearances, tries and points are all included seamlessly in pretty much all other content on wikipedia. The '(S.L.)' is there, so it is still differentiated from the other seasons.--Jeff79 07:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind about the blank space at the bottom. Figured it out. How about the blank space on either side? The box is wider than it needs to be. Do you know how to bring the margins in?--Jeff79 07:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put some grey years in to get your opinion. It may look bad now, but once all the seasons are finished and are bluelinked it will look much better. The Olympics WikiProject has implemented this on country Olympic pages, such as Australia at the Summer Olympics. I really believe we should stick with decades beginning in -0 years per normal procedure. The Super League season would be a pain if it was stuck in with the others. It is given a mention here so there's no harm done if you feel it is being excluded. --mdmanser 10:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to discredit what you do manser. I see you as someone who genuinely works to improve the rugby league pages on wikipedia, so we're on the same side. My thoughts: the template is for rugby league in Australia. There was no rugby league before 1908. The way the olympics page works is to show that there were olympic games held in those years but Australia didn't participate. I don't think that really works for rugby league. If you wanted to do the same thing you would start with 1895, when rugby league first started in England. But that was England, entirely separate to Australia, so of course Australia didn't participate in England's rugby league seasons. It looks fine now. I don't see how it's worse than before.--Jeff79 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah look it's just a pain that Super League sticks out like a sore thumb in the template, and that's what I want to address. Without it the entire box would be pretty symmetrical and listed according to decade. Check out Template:MLB seasons to see how they have it. Look my main concern is Super League - doesn't it bother you how it takes up twice as much room as the others in the normal season listings? To be honest I think if it was down the bottom it wouldn't be any different: it is being given credit and takes up just as much room as it did originally. And the upside of this is that the years in other section of the box fit nicely alongisde one another. If we leave it in there the years in columns are getting all scrambled up. What do you reckon? Should we get a third opinion? --mdmanser 02:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should. But just have a look at it as it is now. It's like a perfect square. I don't see it sticking out like a sore thumb at all. As it was before it stuck out like a sore thumb down on its own there.--Jeff79 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, we definitely need a third opinion then. --mdmanser 02:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Shall we pop a link to this discussion in the NRL article's talk page?--Jeff79 02:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's probably the best idea I think. Just invite them to reply here. --mdmanser 02:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed the changes. It looked better before, it's too cluttered now and the fact that each row starts with '8' doesn't look right. Bongomanrae 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)