Portal talk:Rugby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Rugby Portal Talk Page. Please list all comments with proper headers and sub-headers.

Contents 1 Page Creation Note 2 Virulent Green 3 League/Union 4 Future Did You Knows? 5 TfD nomination of Template:RugbyPortal 6 What's the Point in Editing Things of which You Don't Care? 7 Portal name 8 Image replacement needed 9 suggested merge

[edit] Page Creation Note

I've created this page for harmonious existence between both union and leaguers. Having said that, have at one another! This should give us a gateway for improving all rugby football related articles.

Rowlan 02:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

test

[edit] Virulent Green

• Aaargh, my eyes, my eyes... Must we use this virulent green colour? Lisiate 02:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• We don't have to, but first come, first serve.

Rowlan 02:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] League/Union

First of all great job man, this portal is great. But Im not sure how a Rugby portal will work though, as it could get rather competitive between the League and Union fans in terms of equity (coverage of articles/news/images), and some people may never be happy in the end.

Also, if two subportals of both League and Union were created, what point would a Rugby portal serve?

Forever young 05:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about that, but C'est la vie, right? I know that I can't please either side, but the truth is the sports are related and there are commonalities (is that a word?) that we both share. Also, this isn't a debate site...it's not a forum, it's an encyclopedia. Seeing for all scholarly purposes the two (union and league) fall under RUGBY. So I decided to brave the critics and creat the Rugby Portal. I'll try to help and make sure both sides get exposure, even if it means splitting everything to "best rugby league picture" and "best rugby union picture." I'll freakin' do it if that's what it takes.

Cheers, though,.

Rowlan 05:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It likely will, there is a lot of bitterness and resentment between followers of the two codes. I think you are making a rod for your own back as trolls and vandals on both sides will have opinions. Is Super 14 more newsworthy than the NRL? There's little way of quantifying it. Better I think to have two seperate portals so that there are fewer edit wars. Though what you have made looks good so far.GordyB 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What I'm now considering is taking any content off of the Rugby Portal that would be party to either side and let this portal only stand as a gateway to the Union and League Portals. Therefore there will be no news, no featured picture, no featured club, no featured profile. I will only list information on Rugby as far as inception and the game before the split. Therefore we have a sort of family tree:

• Rugby
  • Rugby League
  • Rugby Union

Rowlan 18:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it...I've pulled down any options that could lend itself to either Rugby Union or League and set up a Neutral "Rugby" Portal. Now for the developement of the Portal:Rugby Union & Portal:Rugby League. I will work on both of these (although, like I've said I have had little exposure to League (although I've watched a few matches and it seems quite nice). It won't happen until this weekend or next week, though. Please continue the feedback!

Rowlan 18:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a combined effort is good for now. Theres no reason why you couldn't later create a port for each code if you so wanted. This will be a good place to inform people about the differences in the code. This is a must have, because rugby must be one of the most defragmented of all sports, i.e. league, union, non-contact, tag etc and possibly even american/canadian football (although i dont see those two as neccessary). POds 10:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Did You Knows?

Where do we add these? I've got a fairly topical one (more relevant to Union than League):

Did you know that Tana Umaga is the only player to have played in the very first games of the Super 12 and the Super 14?

• That's a cool fact. What I'm going to do is set up a Union and League Portal seperate from the Rugby Portal. The Rugby Portal will be the gateway (and remain nuetral to) for the two sub Portals (union and league). Once I've done that then that will be the first did you know on the union page. That's a cool fact, and I can't wait to see him in the Super 14...I've been hearing that he should be phenomenal.

Rowlan 22:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like you haven't seen last night's (NZ time) games then... When are they screened in the States? 22:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll see some of them tommorow...but I think they're all Aussie matches. I'll read...I don't know to be excited or worried?! It depends on what the league or competition is as to when we see it here...some are live (celtic league and guinness premeirship) some are delayed (six nations and super 14)...it's all licensing laws. I'm just glad we flippn' get them. Thank God for Setanta Sports!

Rowlan 00:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:RugbyPortal

• Template:RugbyPortal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.--cj | talk 01:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• I've left cj a brief note calling him a wanker. So, that's probably not the correct way to settle matters here, but nevertheless, he is being one. Please vote to save this template that you can see at the head of the Portal:Rugby. Go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:RugbyPortal and vote KEEP. Cheers, Rowlan 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment on your talk page.--cj | talk 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the Point in Editing Things of which You Don't Care?

If you don't like RUGBY and/or don't know anything about RUGBY, why would you edit things regarding RUGBY? I don't go about editing pages concerning Star Trek and Dungeons & Dragons, do I? NO, because I don't know a flippin' thing about those subjects, so I make the assumption that I'd make fairly crap contributions to pages relating to those topics. Please have the same respect. Don't edit for editing's sake. Let us (people who care for and love RUGBY) handle it, and I'll leave you to editing the profile and biography of Bill Gates and Dr. Who. Rowlan 18:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't understand Cyberjunkie's edit to this portal. As far as I can the the header to this portal is in keeping with the tone with other sports portals. Nor do I see how the comment about not being a web hoster is very relevant. If you are going to make these kind of edits could you please link to whatever protocol you feel that we are in breech of.GordyB 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have done. It violates the neutral point of view and misunderstands the purpose of portals and what Wikipedia itself is. Portals, like articles, are still subject to the neutral viewpoint and should not be promotional of or favourable to the topics they cover. The object of a portal is to provide access to Wikipedia coverage in particular areas, not as webspace for devotees to those particular topics. Moreover, portals are not WikiProjects.

And Rowlan, I urge you to cease making inflammatory comments. The is no ownership on Wikipedia. Besides that, I haven't made any edits to the topic of rugby. I have, however, as my contributions show, made extensive edits to portals and happen to know a thing or two about them. Thanks, --cj | talk 04:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Portals or Wikiportals are pages intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics or areas. They may be associated with one or more WikiProjects; unlike WikiProjects, they are meant for both readers and editors of Wikipedia, and should promote content and encourage contribution.

From the portals page you quote, I believe that Rowlan's original header did promote content and contributions and I cannot see any difference between this Portal's header and the Community Portal's header. Both are written in an informal style.GordyB 13:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read through all of your linked articles. None of them have anything to say on the subject of portals. The only relevant thing I found I have posted above. It clearly says that it should encourage contributions. I have therefore reverted.GordyB 14:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't Wikilawyer – those policies apply to Wikipedia proper, of which portals are a part. I'm afraid you seem to have missed my point. The sentence which you quote (that I just happen to have authored) does not require that one abandon neutrality. To promote content is the purpose of a portal, and is achieved simply by displaying and giving structured access to Wikipedia's coverage for a particular topic. It is content that should be promoted, not the topic itself. By encourage contribution is meant that editor-related facilities be included in the portal as a secondary aspect. These include opentasks/collaborations, to-do lists, links to WikiProjects etc. Furthermore, excepting the contribution-encouraging features, portals should refrain from self-references.

Compare what I removed to what was present before. All that I removed were aspects that appeared to present the portal as though it was a website for fans ("the home for Rugby Union & Rugby League!"; "shape the face of Rugby on Wikipedia"; "make Rugby the best sport on wikipedia (sic)"), or that were un-necessary ("was created on 09 February 2006"). Remember, as you quote above, portals should be similar to the Main Page (although more accepting of contribution). Please review the Main Page, existing featured portals and their standards before you decide if you'll revert again. Thanks, --cj | talk 05:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

These are simply your opinions, I've read all your links. They specify no such standards as you claim they do. "shape the face of Rugby on Wikipedia"; "make Rugby the best sport on wikipedia (sic)" - how can these be interpreted as anything but encouraging content creation. None of the things that you are objecting to come under POV biases, you are just using this as an excuse to edit things you don't like. If you were quoting some agreed specifications on Portals you might have a point but none such exist. Again I state that the header here is stylistically not different from the Community Portal, but I doubt that you would dare do a similar edit on that.GordyB 14:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you actually get a policy agreed before you start enforcing it everywhere. As for 'wikilawyering' - this is precisely what you are attempting to do. I have reverted.GordyB 15:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I love GordyB. I do not assume that there is "ownership." I don't own any articles on wikipedia...even those that I started/created. I completely understand the GFDL. My point, however, is that people should only edit articles of which they have knowledge. If you know nothing of Rugby what do you possibly have to contribute except things that would be trite. Your supposition is that we are stating our POV on the Rugby Portal. If you understood the subject of Rugby and knew that it is a topic where POV could lead to a great amount of argument (ie. Rugby Union v Rugby League) you could be assured we strive to remain nuetral and concise.

Rowlan 18:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I principly object because your edit is a negative one. You are taking something away without replacing it with something better. You don't seem to be interested in adding to the Portal just objecting to stuff.GordyB 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I am gradually sorting through portals to bring them up to standards which have been discussed over the past year at WPT:P and elsewhere. Rowlan, I again bring your attention to the fact I haven't editted anything on the topic of Rugby (not that I'd be incapable of doing so, being somewhat invovled with Union myself - but, as I've said, it's completely beside the point). Gordy, that you are drawing on the Wikipedia:Community Portal shows that you are fundamentally failing to understand what portals are. In a nutshell: Wikipedia:Community Portal is not a portal in same way that Portal:Rugby is a portal. The Community Portal is just that – a portal for the community. That is why it resides in the project namespace. Portals, however, are for Wikipedia proper - in other words, the encyclopædia. They are content in themselves. They are not communities. There are thus no similarities that can be drawn between the Wikipedia:Community Portal and those in the portal namespace. If you are going to cite precedent, at least point to actual portals.

What's more, if you review those portals which have actually been judged by the community as being the best we have to offer, and then compare them with what you're attempting achieve here, you'll notice that you're headed in the wrong direction. In particular, look to Portal:Cricket – the only featured sport portal – for guidance. You may deem my edit negative, but such an opinion is poorly considered.

My arguments, unlike those put by you, have not in the slightest approached wikilawyering (and I'm not sure if you know what I mean by the term. It means: denying the intent of policy on the basis of perceived technicalities). I remind you that there is no excepting neutrality. It is not an excuse on my part; consider the point of view those lines I cite were written from. They were written with from the aficionado point of view, not a neutral, encyclopædic viewpoint. Moreover, the contribution-encouraging aspects of a portal are supposed to be minimal, much in the way they are in articles (stubs, etc). They shouldn't be the principal focus (read: in your face). My edit wasn't negative - it was a building point.--cj | talk 10:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that the disputed header is the best that could ever be produced, but I do not see the point in taking stuff away without replacing it with something else. When you put the header up for deletion it would have taken you two minutes to correct the problem but you didn't do so, nor did you leave an adequate explanation of why you had done so. Again you edited the header without replacing any of the deleted content with anything new and until now not explaining why you were doing so. There is no agreed standard as to what a portal should look like. You can cite that some portals have 'featured status' and some have not but that's it. This portal has not long been existence and isn't anywhere near featured status and won't be unless people actually add stuff to it. If you are going to continue to object to the header can you please at least replace its content and not simply delete aspects that you do not like.GordyB 16:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

GordyB hit the nail on the head: We Portal:Rugby are nowhere near featured status. Our articles are nowhere near featured status. The header, for now, is a rally cry for anyone with Rugby knowledge to edit, to add, to help the connected articles and information grow. The whole point of it is growth and community. Regardless of where the namespace lies, I do see a connection in the Community Portal and our portal. They are gateways to the world of Wikipedia...ours being a gateway to the world of Wikipedia Rugby. I think it's very important for attentian to be drawn to the following points:

1. the Rugby Portal is new (hence the date of creation)
2. We need as much contribution to Rugby articles as possible because there are a lack of images, stats, ect..to make the articles related to Rugby both connected to each other (for ease of cross reference) and up to feature status.
3. It is the home of all information Regarding Rugby Union and League...as I've said, it is a gateway, a port of entry.

I see nothing wrong or inconsistant with Wikipedia in what the header claims, states or requests. I feel it stylistically adds to the overall appeal of the page, and creates the idea of a community of editors working together for a common goal. Why don't you like teamwork, community, and improvement? Why are you striving to hamper those ideals?

Rowlan 16:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal name

The name for this Portal should be "Rugby football" rather than "Rugby". Rugby football being the name of the game, and Rugby being the name of the town (or even the school). The name of the main article is Rugby football. Anyway, I tried making the name change and the universe collapsed. As this is a difficult name change it needs to be done by an experienced admin. A request should be put on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Pass the ball! SilkTork 08:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image replacement needed

I have deleted an image which is linked to from this page Image:Leedstykeslineout.jpg because it was for non-commercial use only, replacement needed.--Konstable 10:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suggested merge

I think that the suggestion to Merge "Touch rugby", "Touch football (rugby league)" and "Tag Rugby" is not a good idea. There have been long discussios about merging "Touch rugby", "Touch football (rugby league)" and it is generally agreed that this is not the way to go. To suggest that Tag Rugby should be merged with Touch is IMHO even less of a good idea. I am going to remove the suggestion but of course if after reading the discussion on talk:Touch football (rugby league) anyone thinks it is a good idea... --Philip Baird Shearer 17:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC) by rkghedh