This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia Nrl2009ladder is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Rugby league Nrl2009ladder is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles

It's a bit of a leap to remove the "Tigers" part of the joint venture, Jeff. Like referring to St George without the Illawarra. The club may be referred to as "the Tigers", as it is also the mascot part of the name, but never as "Wests" alone.  florrie  14:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the ladder so that its appearance is similar to that used for Soccer qualifiers. A green line appears below the 8th place team, indicating that the teams above the line are currently in the top 8. Teams with a green background have definitely qualified for the finals, while teams with a red background cannot qualify for the finals.

Presently (as of 23:00 14/8/2009):
Dragons and Bulldogs can both finish as high as 1st and as low as 4th
Titans can finish as high as 1st and as low as 9th
Storm can finish as high as 1st and as low as 12th
Panthers, Tigers, Sea Eagles, Knights & Broncos can finish as high as 3rd and as low as 14th
Cowboys, Rabbitohs & Eels can finish as high as 4th and as low as 14th
Raiders & Warriors can finish as high as 5th and as low as 16th
Sharks & Roosters can finish as high as 13th and as low as 16th
Jarrod.spiga (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it smacks of crystal-balling. Why is it necessary? Wikipedia is not the news.  florrie  15:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. It "smacks of crystal balling" no less highlighting the top eight teams in green. In fact, it's less speculative since only the teams that have definitely qualified for the finals series are highlighted (barring the stripping of points - an event that would be highly speculative in itself). Can you say for certain that Manly will qualify for the finals? Currently, that is open to speculation - so why are they highlighted in green? Is that itself not "crystal balling"?

Further to this point, I could have made edits that said "If New Zealand Warriors lose to the Parramatta Eels, they will not be able to qualify for the finals provided that at least two of the following teams win: Tigers, Sea Eagles, Knights or Broncos". While that is fact, I can see how it would be deemed crystal balling, which is why I refrained from detailing these scenarios.

Why is it necessary? Well, let's start with the fact that most other sports use the same table formatting for leagues/tournaments that are in progress. For example, look at any of the current 2010 FIFA Word Cup Qualification pages. Look at the history of the IPL pages. Look at the History of the English Premier League pages (which even included additional lines to indicate the relegation zones plus the various European tournament qualification positions. Consistency is one such reason.

Other reasons include the fact that many people are actually interested on whether the team that they support (or even other teams) have a chance at making the finals series. It helps people determine for themselves how the final eight might look. With just the top 8 teams at any given time highlighted, you cannot easily make this distinction without looking at the points for each team, considering the number of games in hand and calculating for yourself. The fact that you can provide more information in the same amount of space in a more intuitive manner should be justification enough that this was an improvement.

I agree that Wikipedia is not the news - there's a separate news sub-site for that. But I hardly see how providing more detail on the ladder constitutes as news; especially seeing that the major news outlets don't publish whether a team can qualify mathematically (instead, they speculate on whether a team is likely to qualify).

I don't want to start an edit war, but it's a shame that you feel this way. The NRL pages on Wikipedia could certainly use more attention. I mean, the main 2009 NRL Season showed incorrect ladder & incomplete ladder progression tables for weeks (up until last week, in fact). I don't mean to undermine your work, but I simply edited the page with improvements that I saw fit, in the hope that I could add to the collaborative effort that this site is proud of. I understand that you personally may not like my changes, but I'm certain that other users would have found the changes that I made beneficial. I won't undo your changes, but if you feel that my points are valid, I would be happy to see my changes reinstated. Likewise, if there are any other users who share my opinion, I'd appreciate further discussion here.

Jarrod.spiga (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you say for certain that Manly will qualify for the finals? Currently, that is open to speculation - so why are they highlighted in green? Is that itself not "crystal balling"? - I have no idea if Manly will qualify or not and the ladder does not suggest that they will or not. The top eight teams are just that - the top eight teams at this particular point of the season, as anyone who follows the sport understands. There is no crystal-balling or original research involved. Maybe the other ladders you refer to operate differently. This ladder reflects the placement of teams at this time.
• Why is it necessary? Well, let's start with the fact that most other sports use the same table formatting for leagues/tournaments that are in progress. - see Other stuff exists.
• Likewise, if there are any other users who share my opinion, I'd appreciate further discussion here. - absolutely. Discussion is usually the best first course before introducing radical changes. If we do anything at all I'd personally rather see it follow the pattern of previous years.[1] Even then, the information is only valid for a small amount of time.  florrie  05:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Wikipedia is not the news - there's a separate news sub-site for that. But I hardly see how providing more detail on the ladder constitutes as news; especially seeing that the major news outlets don't publish whether a team can qualify mathematically - indeed, so are you freely admitting that your work is original research? GW(talk) 08:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding a notation to the end of any team's name to indicate when they have definitely qualified for the finals. It is similar to the idea mentioned above, but not as intrusive and only requires a simple edit. In my opinion this cannot be considered original research because the information used to calculate whether a team has qualified for the finals is derived from a verified source (The NRL Ladder). This small piece of information gives everyone a chance to look at the ladder and see if their team has already qualified for the finals without having to work it out in their heads.

This follows a pattern featured in the English Premier League (EPL) ladder. In the EPL ladder, the letter (C) is used to indicate when a team has definitely secured 1st place on the ladder. In this instance, I would recommend using the characters (F) or (Q) to indicate when a team has definitely qualified for the finals, and the characters (E) when a team cannot qualify for the finals.

I look forward to hearing your opinions in relation to this topic. Lindblum (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And then, as mentioned above, there is the system that has been used in past seasons.[2] Not sure why that isn't the easiest if people feel the need to have something. As always, come round 26, the teams in the green are the ones that have qualified.  florrie  16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand what you are saying about using the previous version of the template, but what is the difference between showing when a team has qualified for the finals in Round 23 and only showing this status in Round 26. For example, in the 2009 season the Bulldogs qualified for the finals after their win in Round 23. Why not show this status after Round 23 rather than having to wait to Round 26 to show it? Doing the calculation and adding the notation is easy to do, just work out how many more wins a team in the Top 8 has over the team in 9th place, then work out how many games there are left for the 9th placed team to play in the season. If the team in the Top 8 has 4 more wins than the team in 9th place at the end of the round, and there are 3 games to go, that team in the Top 8 has qualified for the finals. Showing this information as early as possible is more accurate than showing it at the end of Round 26.

Also, if you insist on continually using the previous version of the template, when can it evolve? Can it be changed ever again? Articles on Wikipedia should always be evaluated to see if they can be improved on. Surely what I am proposing is an improvement on the previous version.

Other tables from leagues around the world show when a team has qualified for the finals or playoffs. The prime example is the 4 major American sports leagues, (NFL, MLB, NBA and the NHL). All of these leagues show at the earliest opportunity when a team has secured a finals berth. Another good example is the ladder of the EPL on Wikipedia. If is easy enough for these leagues to show this information, what is stopping us in Australia from showing it? Wouldn't this make this ladder more consistent with the ladders shown throughout Wikipedia? Shouldn't we make the effort to make this ladder the best that it can be? Why should ideas be blocked just because it some people can't be bothered to work out the information? I am quite happy to make the effort to work out this information.

I have said my peace, I welcome all people who use this template to read over it and let us all know what you think about it. Wikipedia works the best if we all share our opinions about pages, not just a select few. Thank you for your patience in reading this entry Lindblum (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I can't get past not the news, crystal-balling, original research and other stuff. And please don't assume I - or anyone else who may not agree with you - "can't be bothered".  florrie  15:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I made the change to the template without discussing it first on the talk page after reading the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle page. Please see Don't revert due to no consensus before reverting the page back to the old format if you don't like the changes. The changes should be discussed by all and a consensus reached before any edits are accepted or rejected.

1. When teams qualify for the finals, it is news. If you read any paper or watch the news the day after Team A makes the finals, I am sure you will find that one of the first things they will mention is that Team A has made the finals. In the press conferences after the games, the coach is always asked if he or she is happy to have made a finals, and the fans of the teams are interested to know if their team has made the finals before the final round. After reading the not the news page, I can't find any mention where it says that Wikipedia is not the news.
2. Note Point 1 in the crystal-balling page. It states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", and that "a schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified". The changes I propose be made can be verified, and I only identified teams that cannot fall below 8th position on the ladder. This is therefore not crystal-balling. If you would like me to let everyone now how to verify whether a team has made the finals, please ask me.
3. The source I am using to determine if a team has made the finals is the 2009 NRL Ladder, as stated on the official NRL website. According to the policy of original research, I only need to provide a verifiable and reliable source. I believe I have done that by using the official NRL website.
4. As for the other stuff, I merely used the reference to the notations on the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and EPL ladders to show that other users have already accepted these changes without questioning whether they conflict with the Wikipedia rules.
5. I noticed that the change to show when a team has been eliminated from qualifying for the finals was kept. Is there a difference between showing when a team has qualified for the finals, and when a team has failed to qualify for the finals?
6. The notation only has to be added once when a team has qualified for the finals (only 8 times). That is very easy to add, and if anyone disagrees if a team has definitely made the finals, we can all discuss it on this page.

Thank you all for your patience in reading this Lindblum (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So I use the format of previous years - which had consensus. You add your two bobs - without consensus - claiming BOLD and then say it can't be reverted without consensus? Seriously, if you are going to get so worked up over the state of the WP:RL because of a few weeks of fleeting "news", who am I to try and stop you?

• What I will do is seek an opinion and consider reverting until you properly cite the changes as you claim you can verify. Please remember that drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. WP:OR
• Yes, I agree with you that showing the "cannot qualify" teams is just as newsy as those that have qualified. I was simply hoping to reach a compromise which you, obviously, didn't see as a compromise.  florrie  02:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I merely used the reference to the notations on the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and EPL ladders to show that other users have already accepted these changes without questioning whether they conflict with the Wikipedia rules - wow, I only just noticed this bit. Accepted your changes without questioning policy? Therefore it is right to do so here? For a moment I was concerned that I was exhibiting traits of ownership but I would now seriously consider whether you are exhibiting traits of ownership over this system of yours!  florrie  02:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I must admit I have no strong preference either way really. I suppose a speculative one as it is currently has a little more information, so I do (slightly) favour it more. It is not OR as every newspaper has reams of text on this from about 2/3rds of the way through the year. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi Lindblum, I undo your edit as the Titans has qualified for sure. Mathematically, they are assured of finishing top 7. Only Melbourne, Brisbane, Newcastle and Manly can overtake them. There are 26 rounds but each teams only play 24 games with 2 bye rounds. Correct me if I am wrong. As for the Rabbitohs, mathematically they can reach 27 points, so maybe I think they are not out yet although the chance that they can qualify is very slim. If Manly wins this afternoon they are definitely out because Penrith have to play Parramatta next week. So it is just a matter of time before they are out, but anyway I revert that change. If the Souths are to qualify, they need at least 6 remaining games to go their ways. (they win both of their 2 remaining games, Manly to lose all 3 remaining games and either Penrith or Parramatta lose their 26th round matches, assuming that none of these games end in a draw) Correct me if I am wrong. Mrlodotcom (talk 05:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I will start with the comments made by Mrlodotcom. I am fine with your reasoning, I only changed the entries for Gold Coast and South Sydney because I only base my decision on the ladder as it currently stands. I never look ahead and calculate ahead of time. It gets too complicated for my head so I don't bother with it, but if you or anyone else are sure with your calculations, you are free to change it as you see fit. This is NOT my page, or any one person's page. It is for ALL of us to use. I will never claim total ownership of this page. Thank you for enthusiasm and convictions in changing the ladder. The more people that edit Wikipedia, the better for us all.

As for Florrie, as I said previously, I never want to own this page, this is definitely 100% not my page. As provided by Wikipedia on the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle page, which reads:

"The assumption is that Most Interested Persons will have a page watchlisted or will quickly discover if a particular page is changed.

- BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.) - Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person. - Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.

Apply the compromise by editing the page, after which the cycle repeats. When people start regularly making non-revert edits again, you are done."

This page recommended I make the changes I thought might make the page better, and I included the reference to Don't revert due to no consensus so that the changes would not be reverted back to the old way before being discussed fully by all the users of this page. I never intended to have the changes forcibly kept forever. I wanted a discussion of the changes, and I thought that the best (and easiest) way for the changes to be discussed was for everyone to see the changes that I proposed.

As for consensus, it may not stay the same forever. More people might start using this page, so it helps to get a fresh opinion from everyone every so often. Also, people's opinions change over time, they never really stay the same. It may not be enough to pass the changes I proposed, but I am willing to let everyone decide whether the changes I proposed are appropriate for this page. Wikipedia will not stay fresh if everything stays the same for years at a time. New ideas help to keep Wikipedia fresh (and is actively encouraged by Wikipedia).

As for your compromise, I am willing to limit the changes to that part of it (the teams that are cannot qualify for the finals). I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intentions, but I never saw on this page that it was a compromise. If you had let me know that it was a compromise, I would had left it at that.

wow, I only just noticed this bit. Accepted your changes without questioning policy? Therefore it is right to do so here? For a moment I was concerned that I was exhibiting traits of ownership but I would now seriously consider whether you are exhibiting traits of ownership over this system of yours! - I only just noticed the last point from your previous message and something occurred to me, I never ever mentioned that I was the one that initiated these changes for the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and EPL ladders. Maybe if you treat me with civility and not accuse me of something I never did nor claimed to do, we can reach a consensus on this issue and a happy ending for this template and for the users of this template. Lindblum (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the mathematical calculations used to work out if a team has qualified already for the finals or is out of contention for the finals. I may have used too much words to outline my calculations, but I personally guarantee that the maths I used in the calculations are accurate. Hopefully the maths I used will pass the verification test, and the maths I used cannot be researched or made up. Lindblum (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Mrlodotcom Talk contribs 20:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so just 12 hours till the table can return to normality, top 8 in green rest not coloured, why people bother changing it before the finals is beyond me--sss333 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as the usefulness of the formatting, note that just by looking at the ladder right now, I was able to tell that Newcastle and Penrith play in the final round, based solely on the current 8th-place team being unable to qualify for the finals. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all users of this template,

Is there a record somewhere in Wikipedia of the discussions that took place when this page was created? I would like to see what consensus was reached at that time so that I can be better informed as to what was agreed to then, so that I can be more constructive in my editing suggestions. I mention this because I am finding it hard sometimes to see the specific reasons why some users do not like the changes that I proposed, or why they would like the template kept the way it is at the moment. Anything helpful would be much appreciated. Lindblum (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. But you could consider bringing your proposals to the Rugby league project before you make any changes to the format.  florrie  06:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]