Jump to content

Talk:2008 NRL season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Draw has been released, but I guess technically before the games are played it's copyrighted? http://www.nrl.com/portals/0/docs/2008_TelstraPremiershipDraw.pdf

Top 8 Progression

[edit]

I've added this new table below the ladder in an attempt to try and illustrate both the form of teams over the year, and also to track those as they make their way up and down the ladder from week to week. Preferably it would also include the ladder position but I'm not sure how this could be done without making things too messy. First of all, what does everybody think of it and secondly, should it stay? MDM (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love tables and stats so you'll always get support from me. I do like this one and I understand the messy concerns but I would like to see position from week to week as well as whether or not a team is in the top eight. I had a play with it here - User:Florrie/Sandbox4 - rather than a "W" or "L" could it be a colour for win and a colour for loss and then the position week by week? Obviously the last completed round will reflect the position in the far left column. My positions aren't accurate, just filled the squares to see how it looked. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work with thinking about making the font smaller - I'll incorporate that somehow. I've removed the "W" or "L" tag and instead have replaced it with a progression of points. This does not necessarily reflect position on ladder (because of F/A), but I feel it is stronger in that it strongly highlights relative differences between teams in terms of games won. For instance, showing first as 40 and second as 32 illustrates the large gap moreso than "1st" and "2nd". That said, I will add positions somehow (whether visible or not) and make the table into a sortable table so that it truly reflects a round-by-round progression also incorporating F/A. What do you think about that idea? MDM (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need to see it to get the effect. I might plot out last season using the new version, see how it looks. Points seem less important to me as we already get the end result on the established season table. But I'll wait till I've had a look at a whole season. •Florrie•leave a note• 05:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what I was thinking. Too much like hard work! I'm happy to go with the flow and see how it works out. •Florrie•leave a note• 06:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Records set

[edit]

Is the "records set" section for club records or for league records? I would have thought club records would go on club season/club articles pages and the "records set" section here would chronicle league records set such as most goals kicked in a season, tries scored, highest ever point scorer, most tries scored in a game, etc etc. Any opinions? •Florrie•leave a note• 03:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. If a club record is set in a match I don't mind it being mentioned in the match summaries on the Season Results article. But I think NRL season articles should only have League records, with club-specific records going on the club's season article (or if they don't have one, the club history section). I've also argued before against these records on season articles having their own section, as most of the season articles desparately need expansion of the body text.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to clean out this section - there are even more club records than before. Any editor that wishes can retrieve the info from the history and add it to the club pages, if it isn't already there. All league records should be properly sourced, too. •Florrie•leave a note• 01:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tedium

[edit]

If this tedious article 2008 NRL Grand Final is going to be left to stand; then let's transfer there the tedious section on "when they scored" (the minute by minute scoreline in the Grand Final section of this article) Support, yes ? -Sticks66 12:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they should stay. I say we're at a crossraods with this so maybe a vote's required (for those of us that are still around during the holidays). We should either decide that the information for NRL seasons stay as it is (season and season results articles only) or is divided differently (season, seasons results and grand final articles, or something like that). I'll argue that it must stay as just the one article for pre NRL (1998) articles. If we're going to increase the number of articles that season info is detailed on, then 1998 (1st NRL season) is the logical date from which to do this. But going back and doing results articles for years where one doesn't already exist is unworkable I think. I propose the following:

  • 1908-1997: seasons covered by one article only
  • 1998-2005 (I think this is the earliest year for which no results article exists): season article + grand final article
  • 2006 onwards: season article + grand final article + results article

I don't feel particularly strongly about this though, so if anyone has any better ideas I welcome them. But I do think 1998 is clearly a logical choice from which major changes in article formatting should take place.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 NRL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 NRL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_NRL_season&oldid=1196520816"