Talk:Sydney Roosters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleSydney Roosters is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 30, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 8, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 24, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 24, 2009Featured article reviewKept
November 6, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Untitled[edit]

Nanobite I'm worried about the copyright status of the logo. Are you sure we can use it ? Steven jones 01:54, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You could be right - where can I find the exact copyright information showing what we can and can't use. I don't think that there would be a problem if we continued to use it, but it would be good to check out.

Easts. Eeeeeasts. They're still Easts in my book :P --Paul 08:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I used to do official logo's. It's usually copyrighted the team, but you should credit the artist too.

Club history NPOV[edit]

It's not too bad, but a few recent additions in the history section seem to be a little bias to me. Does anyone else think the same? mdmanser 12:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


please read article below.

The Roosters club history[edit]

I take it the NPOV warning was placed due to the information about the roosters juniors article.

It is actaully a known fact that the roosters junior boundaries were realigned in the 50's so that south sydney could increase the number of junior teams.

This is not based on here say and inuendo, this is fact that happened that even the New south wales rugby league has even alknowlaged.

I believe the NPOV warning is due to the fact that the article is written in a way that makes it seem the person writing it belongs to the club. Stating more than once 'we' and 'our', this should be changed so it isn't as biased as it is against those who aren't the Roosters. In other words, if you want it included, it shouldn't sound like another whiny Roosters fan bitching about "souths stealing OUR boundaries! D:". 210.84.32.32 07:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updates[edit]

Some big changes boys and girls.

Show off our history and tradition that only others can dream of.

Also with the updates I edited some parts of the Roosters juniors history. While it is fact that Souths did steal our turf; the article seems to be focusing on it too much and loses its credibility. Sbryce858 05:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we have won the Foundation Cup and SG Ball Cup of 2010. They need to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnyUntakenNames? (talk • contribs) 10:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things to Further Improve the Article[edit]

I like what the article looks like at the moment, however, I believe it can be improved through the following ways to make it reach the featured article status:

(1) Improve the prose of the article, especially by adding a little more sophistication to the wording of the history section.

(2) Trim down the history section - like a number of other articles it may be wiser to just quote the most important events in the history of the club and improve the quality of these facts, rather than including a larger, less detailed amount of text. A separate page could be used for history.

(3) Find some historical photos (check [http://www.pictureaustralia.org/index.html Picture Australia) about Roosters players, games and events and include them in the main body of the article - perhaps this would then warrant a removal of the logos scattered throughout the page and combine them into a new section.

(4) Talk about the changing ownership and management of the club - even I'm not too sure about this one, but maybe if I do a little bit of research myself I might learn something.

(5) Add as many references as possible, using the current style of citing sources - there can't be too many citations, and sources renowned for critical review may warrant WP:NPOV to be broken if primary sources are used. If just a few people do their bit this could really turn out to be a great article. It is a little hard to find information about historical events because they're just as readily available as they may be on other subjects, but if featured status is what we're aiming to achieve, then it's got to be done.

Cheers all, --mdmanser 10:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most things you're saying except for the history article. I think especially being a foundation club, we have a large emphasis of history in our club and it contributes largely to our club as a whole and for that reason should stay.

1. I like what you have done though with creating the other pages, it has definately tidied it up a bit as it was starting to get out of hand with its length.

2. In regards to pictures, there is a few that you may wish to upload from the new Roosters site; http://www.sydneyroosters.com.au/100years/

I'll put the centenary logo on soon.

3. With the amount of Roosters articles that are about I suggest we make a Roosters Project to link them altogether. Also for other articles we may want to put in a 'See Also' category linking the other pages together because apart from this page the other pages don't have a link to follow through to other Roosters articles.

We're not too far off featured article status, I think someone with a lot of experience with 'wikifying' articles was able to go over it it could get there. Its not so much the content that is the problem, I think its the presentation of it all.

Sbryce858 05:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I meant about the history was to move the whole lot to a new page, and just use the most important bits of information into this main article, then link the new History of the Sydney Roosters page from the main page. I like what you've done for it, but I'm sure the reviewers will have much to say about a section as large as that appearing on the page. Check the Arsenal FC page which is featured; our aim is to get their history section like theirs, with a separate page for everything on history.

Cheers, --mdmanser 13:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I like the look of their page. I can work on a broken down version of our history, also the timeline they have in the Arsenal history section, are you able to replicate that format? If so, we should publish and reference the timeline on the Roosters centenary site. While it may seem little sense to have an exact replica now, I think after 2007 when the centenary site probably will not exist it might come in use to have it archived on here.Sbryce858 06:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can do a format on that timeline, but probably not within the next couple of weeks. I think the priority at the moment is to get this main page on track, then worry about the separate history page. I think that's a good idea about the centenary site, especially as a resource from which we could get a lot of good stuff from. --mdmanser 07:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are inconsistencies with regards to the jersey information. The article quotes Sean Fagan as suggesting the jersey worn in the first premiership season as comprising of predominately red hoops. The Roosters adopted this design as their centenary jersey for the 2007 and 2008 seasons for this reason. However the images suggest that they did not wear this jersey until 1914. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.166.110 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History re-buff[edit]

The history section has its own article and I have done a quick summary of our history. I think its a bit below par with its standard, but its a great starting block to work on. Feel free to touch it up a bit to make it look a bit better.

Also, what do you think about re-doing our 'current squad' section. It looks too congested to me and I think we should cut it down to our 25 top grade players for a few reasons:

1. It looks a lot neater and is easier on the eye.

2. It caters for our first grade squad which is ideally what this article is all about. Too many reserve players just makes it look fluttered and takes away from the purpose of the article.

What are your thoughts?

p.s I'm also going to try and add a 2007 transfer section.

What else can we do to improve the page?Sbryce858 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article status[edit]

This nomination is on hold for 7 days: The image "Dally Messenger in action.jpg" has a deprecated tag, please update it. Also, most refs are in boxes or tables, see if you can find more for the body of the article. Dates are inconsitent format, should be August 08, 2006; and unlink any dates that aren't full. Rlevse 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA status achieved. Rlevse 12:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute[edit]

I believe recently reverted lines have to much pPOV on them. "Nevertheless, despite poor performances, the club still managed ninth highest home average"... 9th/15 is not a good performances and suggesting as such is infactual and gives the impression the club was well supported in 2006, which unfortunately, was not the case. Having such wording won't help or encourage anybody more to attend their games so why "they still managed to have the ninth highest..." is there is beyond me. --Timmah86 07:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been through a number of reviews, and is currently up for featured status. The fact that it hasn't been pointed out as yet sends a pretty clear signal to me that the statement is fine as it is. The fact that this statement is coming from a rival fan from Canterbury is one thing, but I also think you missed me intentions when I wrote the sentence. I was comparing our ladder position and crowd attendance position relative to each other to make a point about how our crowd figures are relatively strong compared to other NRL teams. It was meant to be a positive statement rather than a destructive one. --mdmanser 09:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus is that those figures are quite weak is the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps my particular wording when I made my edit was out of line and not in the spirit intended, but perhaps the sentence can be changed to reflect truth, rather than what most in-the-know would see as over-the-top optimism. Wording to the extent of.. "despite lower than average crowd figures in the 2006 season, placing ninth out of fifteen clubs, the Roosters are primed for an improvement in their centennial season in the competition" or something to that effect. Just a suggestion. Timmah86 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waratahs photo[edit]

Mdmanser call me old fashioned but I'm not too keen on the idea of a Waratahs match picture being show on a page promoting the Roosters. It is a good pictures of the SFS, however are there any we can find to replace that might be rugby league related. 124.186.243.153 12:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (sbryce)[reply]

I understand. I've got some photos of the SFS from the Broncos VS Newcastle finals match. They're not of great quality but if you like I could upload one of them if you'd like. --mdmanser 13:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What next?[edit]

The whole Roosters network is at a pretty good stage now. The question is, what features should be added next. Over the next few months I'll be devoting some time to the individual season articles for our club and also player profiles. Its important to make them all uniform so its more presentable. Tricolours went on a bit of a rampage with the season articles but has also managed to put in some good info, I'll be working on merging previous versions with the current especially to make it more presentable cause its a bit of a mess ATM. What features/improvements can we add?Sbryce858 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, everything's great. I think it would be good to start wikipedia pages for a couple of the younger players, eg. Josh Lewis, Mitchell Pearce, etc. and maybe improving a couple of the more experienced players pages as they are looking quite bland.Megan102 07:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about making Sydney Roosters a Wikipedia:Featured topic? If that was to be the case we'd need to have strong pages in things such as in the main page (FA), player list (almost complete and possible FL candidate) and history (just needs more information). Season articles are good, but in my opinion it'd be more important to work on the entire season page such as New South Wales Rugby League season 1908 rather than Eastern Suburbs 1908. That's just my opinion though. --mdmanser 11:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crest[edit]

The image found in the section Crest appears to be faulty... Bandwagonman 11:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

Is it necessary to have a 'controversy' section on this page? It's not as if the club was involved in these controversies (such as with the Bulldogs 'scandal') just single players and the Minichiello one wasn't even when he was with the Roosters; I really think it should be removed.--Tiburon 04:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. See related discussion at Talk:Brisbane Broncos#Controversy section.--Jeff79 05:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure how this is directly related to the club at all. Speedy remove. --mdmanser 06:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium[edit]

At the base of the stadium section it says that the roosters are moving to bluetongue in 09. It is uncited and i have not heard anything about it before. Perhaps the editor meant to say they are moving one or two home games to Bluetongue? ronan.evans 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protect featured article[edit]

Can we semi-protect this page? The wolfs are out and howling loud. Mister Fax 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)p[reply]

Well, tomorrow this will be on the main page, and it is general policy not to protect articles featured on the main page. Unless it is practicaly under a armed assault by evil mutant robots, it will probably stay unprotected. And, being on the main page, it will be on thousands of watchlists. ffm ✎talk 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

While I acknowledge the 100 Years Logo should be in the main part it strikes me as a bit odd the teams 'normal' logo isn't ANYWHERE on the page. Any particular reason??! ronan.evans 14:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The normal logo appears on the history page. It has little relevance on the main page because of the use of the current logo.60.231.151.64 08:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No Longer Bondi Based[edit]

The Roosters have moved into the old Waratahs building at the members carpark of the Sydney Football Stadium, Moore Park.

They still have very strong connections with EASTS at Bondi Junction (the parent leagues club where the football club was formally based), but it is no longer true to say they are "Bondi Junction based". 58.173.49.252 (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roosters still hold after-game functions there and have a strong and historical tie to the area. While the club still has ties with the region, be it historical and present, I think the term Bondi-junction based is still fitting. 203.29.94.10 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


bias in rivalries section

the author of the southsdney rivalries section is clearly biased toward south sydney and that section should be rewritten in a more balanced manner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.82.13 (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Dally Messenger photo[edit]

I struggle with the the use of this shot in this featured article for a couple of reasons: firstly the players are representing NSW not Easts; secondly it's not made clear that the photo is more featuring winger Dan Frawley in foreground with the ball and Dally M is in the background. Sure they were both Roosters but at the very least the caption should be changed.-Sticks66 12:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danger - Loss of FA[edit]

The article is seriously in danger of losing its FA status due to insertions of unencyclopedic content lacking citations since it was promoted. If something you've recently inserted or something you worked long and hard on disappears in the next days please talk to us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league -Sticks66

Firstly some of stats lists have been moved to List of Sydney Roosters records.
Secondly, genuine though they may be, some of the rivalries referred to in the Rivalry section read like Original Research and have been moved to the end of Sydney Roosters and South Sydney Rabbitohs rivalry.
  • Also, was Andrew Symonds part of the team of the century? Rexfan2 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation[edit]

Grand final appears to be Grand Final throughout but there are some differences with first-grade. Is it to be First Grade or first grade? Or first-grade? Premiership, minor premiers, semi finals all seem to be consistently lower case (except for one which I changed).  florrie  12:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand final should be grand final unless the start of the sentence, and first grade should be the same. Although I don't know about the hyphen, that seems inconsistent throughout articles and media sources so as long as it's consistent in the article.  The Windler talk  12:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent!  florrie  14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the biggest scoring margin in a grand final (8 tries, 7 goals) . This clumsy phrase presumably refers to the 75 GF? It was never the highest score, and the record margin was beaten over a year ago. But the page is blocked from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.234.63 (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heh, this sits here for two months without comment, when it's fixed, gets reverted in 29mins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defeatsemiprotect (talk • contribs) 03:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Links[edit]

Bryce and MD, can you make an edit to the supporters section of the wiki.

The peoples wall is now closed and Moved to www.thechookpen.com.au

The Chookpen is the new Unofficial supporters website (note it is not just a forum but a website as well)

This is an alternative site to the Roosters main website, the chookpen offers a free fans forum as opposed to the Roosters website which has a members only forum.

Thanks guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermario (talk • contribs) 11:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current squad and cap numbers[edit]

The current players list has completely wrong cap numbers. Carney is not 989 as he just started this season, and he can't be the same number as the other new player, Phil Graham. I tried to get the information from the Rooster's official site but they don't put the cap number on the player profiles. I will edit out the cap numbers to TBA where unknown.

Also there's a link there to "Sydney Roosters 2009" which needs fixing to 2010.


GermanicusCaesar (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Pending changes[edit]

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Supporters[edit]

User:YellowMonkey has started edit warring over the notable supporters included in this section without explaining himself. As per concerns raised in previous discussion, I have changed the bullet-point list of notable supporters into prose. I see no reason for it to be removed, does anyone else?--Jeff79 (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's completely ridiculous. Aaroncrick TALK 10:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's ridiculous? What is?--Jeff79 (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list. Firstly it's random and secondly it is recentist due to the bias of sources. Then, there are hundreds of blue-linked people who support some first-class team. And while most articles are junk, FAs are not supposed to be and articles on pop/movie/sportsstars don't have a list of admirers and such cruft YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awww, I love supporters' lists. Let's get an idea of numbers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although, hypothetically, if pop stars were to have a section in their articles called "Admirers" and reliable, third-party publications could be found stating the admiration of certain notable people, it would seem a rather neat fit wouldn't it? But I'm only humouring you. Clearly support for a football side and 'admiration' of a pop star are completely different things. If this is your argument it's obvious why you were reduced to edit-warring.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Qualitative discussion can only go so far before one needs to get an idea of real numbers. I suspect the consensus will be 'remove' but at least we get some data. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well no other sports club FA I think of bothers with this cruft, regardless of what Jeff79 thinks about his intellect. I bet every MP in an Eastern Suburbs seat has pledged support to these guys. about 50% of the MPs in SA support Crows/Power each and make silly media appearances before derbies and grand finals, so what. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooohhhhh. It's all clear to me. We're dealing with an Aussie rules fan. Now I get it. Oh well, that's disappointing.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining my oppose !vote below: I don't think it is sensible to list any notable person who is tied to supporting the club by a reliable source. Clearly, some can and should be mentioned. I think that (a) very notable people should be mentioned (eg John Howard/St George) and (b) people who have an actual connection to the club (eg Russell Crowe/Souths and Tom Keneally/Manly). If we really want exhaustive lists I guess we can create a separate article on "Roosters supporters".--Mkativerata (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think John Howard is the perfect example of why supporters shouldn't be included. He has no genuine interest in the game but has to pick a club to keep up his charade of footy-loving, beer-drinking everyman. On the Tigers page we have some wrestler listed as a supporter who had never heard of the club before his ten minute photo-op. Alternately, a list of suppoerters is fun if it's accurate & sourced. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The wrestlers must go. I think they were added by the same clown who goes around creating categories like 'Chinese rugby league players' and then trying to fill them.--Jeff79 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in 2004 the election coincided with finals, and Latham declared himself a Power fan ahead of the final and had a election photoshoot with a Power scarf and a few meaningless kicks. Just went around the GA list of RL and the Rabbitohs have an inane list as well. No wonder RL only has 4 FAs and 9FAs, half of which mostly about non RL stuff and a lot not actually meeting the standards eg the delisted Broncos and Storm. The RL WP isn't any more advanced the the hopeless Bangladesh project YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like no one has read the previous discussion. Arguments are being made here for politicians not to be listed and if that's to be, it's fine. But why should no one of note be listed at all? If it's good enough for reliable third-party publications, why is it not good enough for Wikipedia? I don't see how anyone can argue that such content doesn't enrich a section entitled 'supporters', where it's perfectly reasonable to find information that has been published about who supports a team. It's clear that this information's inclusion offends some people, but I don't understand how the article is somehow worse or less informative with it. I'll bet the average reader cares more to see that a notable person supports the team than that the team's supporters group usually occupy a certain stand in the stadium.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep in (as long as referenced)[edit]

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not that a vote should be what decides this, as per core Wikipedia policy, if it's good enough for reliable, third-party publications, it's good enough for us. Simple.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mattlore (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC). Those that are referenced and legitimate, such as the Mad Butcher for the Warriors, Russell Crowe for Souths and that Miss-World for Manly (?) should stay. Politicians, Wrestlers etc should go. I don't see anyone providing rationale to delete them all in there arguments.[reply]

remove[edit]

  1. Aaroncrick TALK 05:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mkativerata (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very crufty unless they've done something significant. Which none of the aforementioned really have. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The main thing that I am seeing from some of the soccer/football article is just a list of people who attended a game (or games) and people are listing them as a fan. Ideally, what kind of thing I would like to see is if someone has some something significant for the club (other than keeping a seat warm) and it has a third party source, then it should be included. If not, toss it. We are not Facebook, we are not supposed to list people who "like" a team. It is, however, perfectly acceptable to put on the person's bio page that they support a team (like Ben Afleck and his love of the Red Sox of Boston) but not OK to put on a team page (unless Ben decided to shoot films at Fenway Park due to his love for the team). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Do take the time to read the sources though. From memory none are there simply for having attended games. I think you`ll find most have gone on the record in interviews with reliable third-party publications stating that they are supporters.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no personal stake in this article, I was asked to be another pair of eyes because I also do a lot of work when it comes to Featured/Good Articles. What I am also thinking is have the "list" of supporters tail at a end of a paragraph after the important boosters are mentioned. I am just giving examples of what I think should be done, but my country doesn't even do much with rugby except with the occasional sevens match in San Diego. 06:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  7. My sense is that a list of this nature should be not merely sourced, but there needs to be some sort of justification for the inclusion of a particular fan. For example, in the article for my personal favorite New York Yankees, the only notable fans mentioned (Freddy Sez and the Bleacher Creatures) have a paragraph each explaining their significance to the team. None of the other random celebritiy fans (which the team does not lack in) are properly not mentioned. I say remove it. -- Y not? 02:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. per my initial removal. Daniel (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

discussion[edit]

  • One idea for improving the section is to limit to supporters who've done something - eg Russell Crowe's involvement with Souths, some famous might have tattooed a rooster on their body, or something like that...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of Souths' supporters have now been deleted as well. A huge mistake given the club's history and the role just such support played in getting it back into the competition. I would have thought it'd go without saying that readers might be curious to see who those supporters were. Why on Earth would anyone want to delete that (and call it "imbecile content" while doing so)? it's mind-boggling.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any consensus per Jeff's bogus claims. Daniel has also expressed his opinion to remove per his edit as such YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff's bogus claims. Very cute. Under "Remove" we have Mkativerata ("Clearly, some can and should be mentioned") and Doctorhawkes ("a list of suppoerters is fun if it's accurate & sourced"). The rest who vote remove are eerily silent on how listing notable supporters makes the encyclopedia worse.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Undue weight. These fans get two words in there. How are they more notable than other players who have played regularly, but are never mentioned. How many times does an average player get covered in a newspaper each year (dozens or hundreds in the daily sports news), yet aren't included, whereas a fan with little impact, is. These guys aren't any Abramovich YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's another section called "Players". You may have noticed it. The supporters simply have their name appear. I can see what you man about a bullet list drawing the eye and perhaps giving undue weight and it has been rectified. I think the listing is very low profile appearing at the bottom of the "Supporters" section. Readers of an article about a football team may well see this "Supporters" section in the table of contents and click on it hoping or expecting to find mention of notable fans that they may remember hearing or reading about in the past. If we can provide that information referenced by reliable third-party sources, then why shouldn't we satisfy these readers' curiosity? --Jeff79 (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears at least three of the users listed under "remove" are in favour of retaining some names of notable supporters in the "Supporters" section. Yellowmonkey clearly wants to expunge any mention of notable rugby league supporters from existence on all of wikipedia for some reason, but I don't think that is what this vote has established consensus for. So as long as the mention of the supporters is embedded within the paragraph of text and doesn't include local politicians or overseas celebrities promoting their visit, then it's fine?--Jeff79 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a block is needed. The refs linked simply they that they are supporters/fans of the club, not that they did anything at all, ie less than everyone who has played one game YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I guess you showed me huh, YellowMonkey? Now can we please get back to reality and could someone address the points I've made above? For what exactly has consensus been reached here, If at all? This discussion has still not been closed and for good reason.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of you think what I said was not clear. The example I used was Ben Affleck. While yes he is a major supporter of the Boston Red Sox of American baseball, but he does somethings related to either the team or to their image more than just keeping a seat warm. For example http://wbztv.com/local/ben.affleck.premiere.2.1913380.html shows him debuting his second directorial film at Fenway Park (home of the Red Sox) http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/09/07/ben-affleck-the-town-interview/ talks about him filming at Fenway and also his relationship with the team. This is what I want to see when a section about supporters is present. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about: What I am also thinking is have the "list" of supporters tail at a end of a paragraph after the important boosters are mentioned.?--Jeff79 (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you got a source, sure. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full protected[edit]

Full protected for one week, due to dispute. Please utilize talk page discussion and seek out WP:Dispute resolution steps. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Suburbs, Balmain, and… Hull?[edit]

A player named Jack Dawson played for Hull [1][2] between 1932 and 1942, is this the same person as the Australian player Jack Dawson (Eastern Suburbs, and Balmain)?. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use of File:Sydney Roosters logo.svg[edit]

The non-free use of File:Sydney Roosters logo.svg is being discussed at WP:NFCR#File:Sydney Roosters logo.svg. All interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sydney Roosters. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sydney Roosters. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Sydney Roosters. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sydney Roosters. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sydney Roosters. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA standards[edit]

This article does not meet FA requirements because it has unsourced material, extreme recentism, material sourced to the club itself and unnecessary procedural details on club business Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney_Roosters&oldid=1211434197"