Jump to content

Talk:Canberra Raiders

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

Coaches

[edit]

Adding a coaches section. All current teams will eventually have one, and most coaches will have their own article. --Cyclone James 07:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Past players

[edit]

Adding a notable past players section, containing players attaining Origin/Test honours. Feel free to discuss all suggestions/omissions here.--Alexio 14:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article

[edit]

I've tried to make the article flow a bit better than it was before, but haven't really added any new information, which I feel it lacks. I don't know enough about the team's history to add, but can those who do write something on it? Damanmundine 12:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super League

[edit]

It's not mentioned in this artile that Canberra were one of the clubs to sign with Super League and play in their competition in 1997. Surely deserves at least a sentence in the history section.--Jeff79 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence about 1996 and Super League, but I think that's all it needs on this article. Also, I think that it's certainly better than Start-class - what's the process for changing an article's rating? Damanmundine1 12:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I think there's some fortnightly thing where people try to work each NRL club's article into a featured article. Don't know much about it. Should be Canberra's turn soon enough though.--Jeff79 19:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:R43231 110996schifcofske.jpg

[edit]

Image:R43231 110996schifcofske.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

At the moment, the history section takes up almost all the article's space. I'm thinking of shortening the History section and moving it to a new article. Damanmundine1 11:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biased article, full of uncited glory

[edit]

Does the Wiki policy of "no original research" not apply to rugby league pages? Why is nothing cited? Where's the criticism? Where are the off-field incidents which so regularly make the news? (If it's news about the Raiders, then it should be in the Wiki article). Where are the disgruntled former players and their stinging criticisms of the club? At the moment there is lots of uncited fan talk, lots of original research about the glory days of the club, but nothing of the negative press. It is just a fan page, not a Wikipedia article. 203.166.255.9 04:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Importance

[edit]

If this article has high importance why has nothing been done. As I do not have the skills to fix this page, I can not. Several Changes need to be made to make it a feature article. It only takes one look at the Brisbane Broncos page to see that this needs to be fixed. I come back a update the results every week, but I can not change the formatting. Thomas-gough (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's quite a few articles that are high importance and need to be improved but there needs to be people able to spend the time improving them. You can spend the time to learn how the skills to improve the article, what improvements do you want to the article? --sss333 (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question about Captains?

[edit]

How many games as Captain do you need play before being listed? My question is related to Terry Campese and his captaincy role this year. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is captain due to injury, not appointment. Therefore I agree with his removal. If Tongue never captains the Raiders again and Campese continues in the role we can list his appointment as starting in 2010.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, now I understand, thanks heaps. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bring this up again, I notice that both Tongue and Campeses are co-captains (which seems to be the rage at the moment). Do we put a c beside each name?

It seems like they are now officially co-captains now, so I suppose... I'm not a big fan of the icons next to the squad names (or even the flags) --sss333 (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the flags are a bit silly when they are incorrect - Wikipedia is saying that Low played for the Junior Kiwis but yet his flag is the Cook Islands and Massy represented the USA but has an Australian flag, etc.CanberraBulldog (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season Summaries

[edit]

I'm changing the season summaries to be more like the Brisbane Broncos one Thomas-gough (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which format is better. Both have different pros and cons.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I like the Broncos one better as it is less full on with colours, I've started it and i have it on my user page for viewing, I'll continue to make it, and when the time comes, we can decide which one to use...Thomas-gough (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing we lose really is the average attendance, which I think is informative. If this data could be retained (perhaps in the rather thin 'Supporters' section) I'd feel better about it.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is true, I forgot about that, I might put that in after the captains and before the link to the season summaries, which probably isn't needed, as there is only 06-10 in the summariesThomas-gough (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I made the curennt one and personally like it more because you can sort it, though as it look slike we are going to use the other style I think we could at least put the current one on the List of Canberra Raiders records page --sss333 (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too like this table, but the colours make it too full on, and yeah we could put the current on that page it would fit well. It might take me a while to get it finished though, as i have to finish the HSC, but it is getting thereThomas-gough (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I've finished the table, and I've put the crowd averages in the table aswell, I'm going to replace the table, and also the captains and coaches as it is in the tableThomas-gough (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Large History

[edit]

Is a really large history required on this page, considering there is another page called History of the Canberra Raiders, There seems to be a more detailed history on this page then on that page. I'll look at summarising it mainly the 2000-2010 part of the history, once the HSC finishes.Thomas-gough (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've being thinking of doing that for a while now, I did cut down 2008 on the main page but didn't do anymore, it'd be great if you did summarise it. --sss333 (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought that ideally clubs' main articles should have a single 'History' section summarising the main points of interest in a club's history with a Main article: link to the 'History of _________' article, which should be more detailed, and broken up into sub-headings by decade. Then clubs' individual season articles deal with one year at a time in as much detail as you like. If this pattern is followed it should avoid duplication of content.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders Jersey

[edit]

It states that the current Jersey is the first image but I believe it is the second one - as the current Jersey has a blue strip on its arm where the first image does not.

CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these pictures [1] [2] it also has a yellow one just below the blue stip. Might be a new one. AIRcorn (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According the the Raiders Homepage, officially history the 1st Jersey is incorrect, it has always had blue and yellow, [3] The article states that is Green for the first League team - from the suburb of Hall and the Blue and Yellow represent the ACT. So, I guess the 1st Jersey needs to be deleted and replaced by the second and the current Jersey is the second - what do others think? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the 1st Jersey is incorrect and that's what has caused the mix up, I think your suggestion is the best option--sss333 (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squad

[edit]

The current squad is incorrect. I had a go at trying to fix it up but stuffed it up, sorryCanberraBulldog (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags used in Squad

[edit]

Hi just want to clarify - are the flags used for origin (country) of birth or country the player first represent (has played for, not available for)?

CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently having a discussion on this issue at WikiProject Rugby league. Mattlore (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canberra Raiders. 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.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canberra Raiders. 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: 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) 04:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Canberra Raiders. 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) 04:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canberra Raiders. 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) 14:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canberra_Raiders&oldid=1207837291"