Talk:Castleford Tigers

Untitled

Assessed as "Start" standard with "High" importance. History section may need expansion, and a section on amateur RL in the area may be useful, as would some photographs (particularly any from previous eras). Tim Fellows 03:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a little about coach Terry Matterson He is currently on the Harlequins RL page, but if anyone wants to write a bio it would improve the Cas page. Londo06 13:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Should the page be split up? Seperate sections for the fixtures/results, squad/notable players etc? It would give it a cleaner look.

RichardLowther (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As a start the 2008 section would be best moved out into a season article, probably with a short summary added to the history section. The section on international caps in 4 columns is really unusable in that format especially with small text and needs referencing which would add to the reading difficulties. This section could probably be moved to a sub article or as a minimum the columns got rid of. Keith D (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Overseas?

I looked at a few other pages about rugby teams and they don't seem to separate out English and foreign players. I'll change this in one week (on 2011-01-02) unless there is a good reason to keep it. Please post here if there is such a justification. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done I haven't changed anything, but it seems the page is being maintained now. —Tom Morris 17:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Posted from deprecated comment page

1. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
2. Switch existing references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates
3. Requires copy edit for WP:MOS
4. Requires photographs

Keith D (talk) 10:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Transfer tables

Regarding recent changes to the 2025 transfers section and a couple of reverts, I thought it best to discuss here rather than edit warring. Per the message left by User:L1amw90 as a comment within the article, "LEAVE IT AT IS. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HOW IT LOOKS", I would say that while broadly the same information is conveyed by the altered tables, there are a few issues and I don't see a reason to divert from the status quo.

• Useful information is removed for no apparent / explained reason. The squad number correlating to each player is removed, and I see no reason why the date of each transfer can't be included alongside the month and year (especially when they are sorted in chronological order, and most transfers tend to happen in close proximity). Footnotes that explain distinctive context or special details when necessary have also been deleted. References have been lumped with dates, and some parameters deleted.
• Even though the contents of adjacent rows may be identical, they should still be kept separate because each row details one distinct player movement. Merging cells across multiple rows reduces clarity and readability here. For example, merging 'Contract' cells implies that the different players are held to identical terms, and merging 'From' cells implies that numerous players were transferred to the same club in a package deal.
• It makes most sense to organise the transfers as they were: permanent moves into 'Transfers in' and 'Transfers out', and temporary moves into 'Loans in' and 'Loans out'. From the perspective of a club (the article's subject) there's no reason to separate 'Players out' from 'Players released' because the current situation for both is identical in that they have departed. Furthermore, it is essential to list loan moves separately - not only because these players don't actually belong to the new team, but also because, by season's end, the number of loan moves rises and would clutter the other tables. (See a previous revision for example.)
• The altered tables do also contain general typos and errors which lower the quality of the article. These include a visible typo in a header, incorrect capitalisation, footnote citation errors (which had to be resolved by a bot), missing reference parameters, a blank cell, and inconsistent use of 'N/A' / 'Released' / '—' for released players.

I appreciate the work carried out by User:L1amw90 across rugby league articles, but here I feel there's no reason to change from the existing version. There's no specific style guide for these tables as far as I'm aware, and the original format is consistent across other season articles I've worked on. Roughly a year ago I posted another message along the same lines, and I hope this can be resolved again now. Ieatseatbelts (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ieatseatbelts I don't really see any difference in my edit and yours. I just thought it would look better with different sections with "players in" etc. I don't really see the point in edit warring as you say, so I'll just leave it as it was before I started editing, rather than cause arguments etc. I just thought it would be easier for people to see/find that way, plus - say if 2 or more players have the same number of contracts, I tend to merge them into one (rowspan) as I thought it looked better that way. Also, I don't really see the need to have the squad numbers next to their names as it doesn't really make any difference 🤷‍♂️– 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 L1amw90  (🗣️ talk to me  • ✍️ contribs) 04:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I just wanted to set out my reasoning here before switching the tables back again, so it was clear there was no disruptive editing and my rationale could be understood. I appreciate your efforts to make the table visually appealing- though I do think for the reasons above it has greater clarity with distinct rows and clear transfer/loan groupings. On squad numbers, they do add helpful context to identify players within the squad by their unique number, similarly in a way to the flags indicating international allegiance, as seen in comparable tables for different sports teams with squad numbers. Ieatseatbelts (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)