Talk:St. George Dragons

Fair use rationale for Image:Stgeorge 1988.jpg

Image:Stgeorge 1988.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 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 11:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1949gf.jpg

Image:1949gf.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 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 08:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Internationals - credit where it's due

They best be Internationals who represented while playing at St George I say. So not John Peard or Steve Rogers. -Sticks66 15:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's how I work it. Only if selected while playing for the club, not before or after. •Florrie•leave a note• 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Years in InfoBox

Links should be to our NSWRL Season articles , yes ? Is that what we do in the other clubs boxes ? -Sticks66 15:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at the Newton article for something or other and noticed the premierships years in the infobox weren't linked. So they should be? Makes sense. •Florrie•leave a note• 16:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Post 1999

Unless you're writing something notable about the continuing St George Dragons Toyota Cup side, then there's no post-1999 data to be added to this article. There's a great article called St. George Illawarra Dragons. That's the club who won the 2010 premiership, that's where you add current season data. -Sticks66 00:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Many media outlets have acknowledge that the club who won the 2010 premiership won it for the first time in 31 years. 2010 minus 31 equals 1979. That then means, we're talking about the same club. So, unless you're ignoring the media outlets, we're talking about the same club who won in both 1979 and 2010. The Illawarra Mercury of all media outlets acknowledged this; given their devout and unquestionable loyalty over the years to the whole, "this is a completely different club" propaganda, I'm actually surprised they acknowledged it. However, fact of the matter stands - this is a 16th premiership for the St George Dragons. Given the nature of the joint venture, I would also like to suggest that this is also the Illawarra Steelers first premiership since their inception in 1981. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.242.193 (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What ? And i suppose last week the Western Suburbs Magpies played in their first major final since 1963 ? Neither the St George Dragons nor the Illawarra Steelers play in the NRL premiership anymore, you idiot. There is a joint venture club called the St George Illawarra Dragons, they started in 1999 and there is a perfectly good article here about that club here , which is the place to record the victories and history of that club-Sticks66 02:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadly it's true what he says about the media. I've lost count of how many times I've read about a drought being broken. Illawarra seems to be completely ignored. But I think they're wrong to do that. We don't have to blindly follow the media on everything. I think when the media talks about the drought they're talking more from a (St. George) supporters' perspective than anything else. The club in a sense does still exist as one 'half' of the present day Dragons. I'm still not convinced any mention has to be put into this or the Illawarra Steelers articles, but if it does it should be kept to the absolute barest minimum and have a link to the St. George Illawarra Dragons article. Both this and the Steelers articles are in the past tense "were/was a rugby league football club" and for good reason. We don't really go around updating them with the latest of what's going on at the Dragons. It really makes no sense to record the 2010 premiership on Wikipedia as having been won by three different clubs, regardless of what the Australian rugby league media put out there.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I recall Andrew Denton's quote about the merger being St George + the Illawarra socks. (at least I think it was Denton) More of a takeover than a merger really..however officially it is a merger.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The premiership was won by St George Illawarra & should be recorded accordingly. The media talk of 31 years since a premiership may be annoying, but no reason to post what is obviously not true.Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We acknowledge the NRL's "history" despite that being a joint venture . . .

First major final since 1963?? What about 2005?? To get to answer your question, yes! By your logic then, there are two Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles clubs. The one that runs around now, has only won one and that was in 2008. Are you going to edit that Wikipedia article since you must insist on this with St George? That article notes that they have won 7 (with one in 2008), but by your logic this would be wrong. The St George Dragons is one half of the Joint Venture, this was their first in 31 years and therefore they won it in this year being 2010.

Jeff79, I do not blindly follow the media. The newspaper I have quoted (the Illawarra Mercury) has staunchly trumpeted the fact that this a Joint Venture for years and have personally attacked me on some of my actions in following the club i.e. calling for the sacking of a certain coach.

The bottom line is, St George as one half of the Joint Venture won something in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.242.193 (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Be careful not to personalize this issue too much. Frankly, anything that's gone on between you and some newspaper has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and its editors have no knowledge or interest in it. Personally I prefer what Matt Cooper said when he said "It's been ten years". The fact is we can all probably find wording to support different points of view (although I doubt any official statistic-oriented sources will be putting 2010 down as anything other than the joint-venture's first premiership). If you really want some mention of the 2010 premiership to appear in this article I suggest you put forth some wording for us to discuss. It should be well-referenced, brief, and should objectively reflect the controversy surrounding it as well. Perhaps something like, "Despite the original St. George Dragons club ceasing to exist since their merger with the Illawarra Steelers in 1999, some in the Australian media still touted the 2010 NRL Premiership (won by St. George Illawarra) as the Dragons' first in 31 years".--Jeff79 (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks at least for trying to talk about it. I have actually posted a link to the newspaper article at the bottom under "sources" as my reasoning for even doing it. To me, they exist as St George, as much as they are the Illawarra Steelers--because it is a joint venture. I am more than happy to have that acknowledged and if people want to acknowledge this as a Steelers premiership too, that's fine. I actually tried to edit the Steelers' page too, for that reason. That's what a joint venture is. How about listing 2010, and say stating that, "The 2010 premiership was won as in a joint venture with the Illawarra Steelers as the St George-Illawarra Dragons."

Actually it's not just the media but even the NRL website is claiming it as the Dragons' 16th premiership:

"It was the club's first premiership since 1979, its 16th overall and its first since as St George Illawarra following the merger with Wollongong's Steelers in 1998."

--Thatsgold (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How is acknowledging the joint venture coaches going to far?? It is acknowledged that they are the coaches of the joint venture of the club; the joint venture is very much part of club history. Dragonman1986 (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It should go without saying that records no longer accrue on this article (just as they don't on Illawarra Steelers, Western Suburbs Magpies, Balmain Tigers, Newtown Jets, etc.) as it's already taken care of on the relevant article. As stated above, a breif, well-referenced mention can be inserted in the history section (definitely not in the lead section).--Jeff79 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet still they come...anonymously and in waves...-Sticks66 05:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't see us old Magpies fans making trouble in 2005. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Dragonsman1986 is right. Sticks66, you say "yet they still come." Seems like not just Dragonsman1986 thinks this way, but a lot more people outside of your bubbles of wikipedia think the way Dragonsman1986 does. They come anonymously--"Sticks66" is on your driver's license is it? My point is, I think you guys are being outvoted here. Doctorhawkes, you didn't see St George fans trying to impose a different history on the Balmain, Wests or the joint venture back in 2005 either; that's not their place as it is not the place of a non-St George Illawarra fan to really comment here. Jeff79, your Newtown jets analogy is faulty as they have not been in a first grade competition since the end 0f 1982. Old Steelers fans can do what they want, just as old Balmain and old Wests fans can, but I think the St George fans are speaking here, "in waves." On other wikipedia articles such as the NRL article, history prior to 1998 is acknowledged. The NRL is Joint Venture of ARL and News Limited, yet history prior to 1998 is acknowledged. That's all St George fans want. The other clubs can do as they please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.247.206 (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take ownership of that thank you! Thank you for introducing me to another RL fan on this campus, it was great meeting him! I'd have responded earlier, but this place is like the Chinese Communist Party--step out of line and people take every move to gag you. I'd have created an account when it was suggested, but the block extended to account creation too didn't it? Rabbits in 2011 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You would say Dragonman1986 is right, wouldn't you? You are Dragonman1986. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dragonman1986, my moniker isn't Sticks66 without reason, I've been a wholehearted St George fan for more than 40yrs, but that oughtn't affect how I edit things here in this "wikipedia bubble". We're not fans expressing fans' points of view. We aim to be non-partisan, admittedly it's not always easy to achieve but it is a fundamental principle here. And in terms of "anonymous" , I meant editors who use an auto IP address or fail to sign their posts. Why don't you sign yours, then we'll know whose view is being expressed. -Sticks66 01:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't I sign my posts? Because at first I didn't know how to, and then occasionally I forget . . . I'm not trying hide; wikipedia just doesn't explain things overly clear in my opinion (I mean, the information is there, its just hard to find). I know wikipedia isn't trying to express a point of view, that's why I cited the Illawarra Mercury in edits (and somebody even pointed to the NRL website); I've felt like you have all tried to force your point of view (without any actual citations) on this page when I merely tried to cite something--by the way, thanks for the inline citation of what I used, I don't how to do that yet. Do you have a citation for your point of view? I don't disrespect your opinion or point of view, I can see full well what you're saying Sticks; I don't necessarily agree with it but that's ok. All I wanted was to at least have the premierships noted parenthetically to acknowledge that, hey it was won in the joint venture. I feel that it acknowledges that "St George" did not win it alone, but they still won something. That's all I am saying. By the way, Mkativerata, that was a bunnies fan you had a go at. Not me. I have told her to come on here to take ownership of it--she would have earlier, but you blocked her. Dragonman1986 (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

References

The so-called "departure date"

They did not "depart," they still play in lower grades. This is not a matter of consistency, this is a matter of fact--the fact that they have not departed. There are teams who have long left, by all definitions given, the competition that mention no departure date i.e. Perth Reds, who I notice still play in lower grades (S.G. Ball Cup). Look at the South Sydney page; there is nothing in the information box stating they had "departed" for two seasons. To further strengthen that point, The Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles page refers to "Departure" and "readmission" date--the South Sydney Rabbitohs page does refer to that in the information box. The South Sydney Rabbitohs information box mentions nicknames; the St George Dragons information box does not. The South Sydney info box does not mention minor premierships and the times they came in runners up, St George Dragons does. So if you want to talk about consistency, let's talk about consistency. If the WA Reds have not departed because they still play in the S.G. Ball Cup, then neither have St. George. But I suspect the real issue at hand is not consistency--there's plenty of other inconsistencies that you do not pick on.

Who are you anyway? The only two people to have a serious issue with the departure date removal haven't even registered with Wikipedia one is Melbourne and the other seems to work for the Commonwealth Bank in Sydney. Dragonman1986 (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger dates aren't departure dates.150.203.190.160 (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Jersey influenced by St Helens?

I've recently heard the suggestion that the StG jersey was inspired by that of English club St Helens (also known as the Red V) or vice versa, but I can't find any confirmation anywhere. Anyone here have any idea? Grutness...wha? 08:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• St-George-District-Logo2008-NEW 200-red.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)