WikiProject iconSports Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
To-do list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Rugby League is a hybrid sport in what way?Londo06 22:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that it's not , its a sport which was combinded with Aussie rules to make Universal football Gnevin (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through is it notable enough to be included on the rugby league main page?Londo06 22:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's on Austus, American football, Australian rules football, Composite rules Shinty/Hurling, Shinty ,Hurling, International rules football, Gaelic football .Their is no reason it shouldn't be on the RL page Gnevin (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from the rugby league article[edit]

I have removed this template from the rugby league article following on from another editor. Along with the problems of notability there is the biggest problem which is the title that suggests that rugby league is a hybrid sport. The collapsed box makes it appear that way. A name change may well be enough for me, but I can't speak for whether that will appease others.Londo06 09:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then instead of RV'ing for the last month WP:Be bold and change the title, the issues dont seem to effect any of the other articles Gnevin (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then either remove the offending section or choose another name as I am at least the third editor to remove the template from the rugby league page in the recent history. I don't presently have a new name for the template I'm afraid.Londo06 09:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine i'll work to improve the article/template , you let me know when you happy Gnevin (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Hybrid sports and the sports that form them? Gnevin (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely a step forwards. Just don't want to get into an edit war over this.Londo06 09:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that may not be better for the other editors who have reverted it, but thankyou for changing the title and making it clearer what the template is all about.Londo06 09:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how the new title changes the impression given that rugby league is a 'hybrid sport' - but apart from that, the presence of universal football in this navigation box is certainly misleading and gives undue weight to a game that was trialled once in 1933 and then never mentioned again! I thought it was some game currently played that I had simply not heard of! At least the other sports deserve a mention but this other is purely a piece of sporting trivia. •Florrie•leave a note• 10:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearer, than before, but that still for me is the issues that have once again been brought up; the general impression and lack of inherent notability. I am going to be bold and remove it from the article and gain a resolution from there.Londo06 10:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What harm does having a link to this notable part of RL history do? This template adds to the article , removing it takes information away Gnevin (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infact the team sports template has less direct relevance to RL than this template ? Gnevin (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a navbox for heavens sake , your meant to click on it to find out more. The American football ,Aussie rules games was only played a few time but it's been on the American football article since the template was created .Gnevin (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's lovely, but just because it exists elsewhere doesn't cut it. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as surprised as you are that editors on the other sports' articles haven't said anything about it. It took me a while before I noticed it down there. It's fine for this template to contain a link to rugby league's article, but that doesn't mean it should appear in it. This is because the hybrid sports do not define rugby league but rather rugby league defines a hybrid sport. It is for this reason that Template:Steven Spielberg does not appear in the 1990s in film article despite containing a link to it. That period of Spielberg's career is defined by the 1990s in cinema, but the 1990s in cinema are not defined by that period of his career. Templates do not always have to appear in all articles they contain links to.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the Stephen Spielberg example, perhaps you should simply switch the two halves of this template ("Hybrid Sports" and "formed by") around. The foundation sports are appearing where the hybrid sports should appear and vice versa.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their are 2 templates currently on the RL page so template over kill cant be claimed. In fact one more which adds information about RL history albeit a minor note is adding to the article removing it is taking away from it . What harm does including this template do ? Gnevin (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the "Team Sports" template does, it gives the casual reader the (false) impression that rugby league falls under the category of "Hybrid Sports". I've outlined clearly for you the problem with it.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title has been changed so their is no way a read can get that impression ,if you have layout/stylistic issue with then template then change it Gnevin (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that rugby league is not defined as being a hybrid sport, but you're insisting that this template remains in the rugby league article simply because it contains a link to it? I've already explained above why that's not a good enough reason.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No not because because it contains a link to it? I think an attempt to Hybridise League is notable enough to take up 10px on the bottom of the page Gnevin (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is notable enough, in your opinion, then add it (a brief mention of 'universal football', wikilinked) to the article on Rugby league and be done with it. No need to hide it away in a nav box that still, regardless of the change you have made, gives a false impression. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a problem with the layout WP:BRD or suggest a improvement Gnevin (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance the nav box can be improved by removal from the article and that has already been done by another editor. My suggestion was to you, if you sincerely think 'universal football' notable in the history of rugby league, to add it to the article text yourself. See WP:BB. •Florrie•leave a note• 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This template can be improved by editing a totally different page! That is a new one on me Gnevin (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volata[edit]

I think the claims that volata is a hybrid of handball and soccer are dubious. Volata was highly influenced by native Italian football codes, and also by rugby as well. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories