Talk:State of Origin series/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

State of Origin Article

The following is a discussion that's been taking place on the Talk:State of Origin page. I'm putting it in this talk page because I believe this is the real State of Origin discussion page so most people probably miss what's discussed on the other talk page. I thought some of you might be interested in adding to it.

Primary Topic

There can be little doubt that the ongoing and extremely popular (fact, not opinion) Rugby League State of Origin is the primary topic when it comes to the words 'State of Origin'. Yes, the concept may have originated from Aussie rules, but timing doesn't determine whether something is the primary topic or not. Much fewer pages in wikipedia have links to the Aussie rules version of state of origin, or, for that matter to the 'concept' of state of origin, which this page is supposed to be about. Countless pages on wikipedia link to the rugby league state of origin, and the reason that WP:DAB#Primary topic wikipedia policy exists is to stop the situation we have now, which is one where editors must type out "[[Rugby League State of Origin|State of Origin]]" as the link on all rugby league-related pages that link to the state of origin instead of just "[[State of Origin]]". Why should editors of Aussie rules pages have the luxury of only having to link to 'State of Origin' when no more links to it will probably ever be created again, whereas editors of rugby league pages will continue creating links to the origin page as time goes on. The first line of a corrected State of Origin page will point to the disambiguation page anyway, where the few who want to read this tiny article on the 'origin concept' and aussie rules aspect can get their information. Read the policy. I want this debate re-opened because it needs to be fixed.--Jeff79 03:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, this is not the main article about Aussie rules state of origin, which is at Interstate matches in Australian rules football.

As far as the primary topic goes, I think this article is about the primary topic, which is the concept. And the term is now used far more generally than the two codes of football in Australia. For example, when I worked for a national organisation a few years ago, we had a "State of Origin Quiz Competition". How about State of Origin Chicken Challenge, State of Origin curried sausages or calls for a New Zealand State of Origin Series? For that matter, there are still calls to "Bring back State of Origin" in Aussie rules, and it may just happen.

So this is an unusual situation, just like the Football article, which is not about soccer or American football, even though they are what most people are looking for. Among the reasons why Football is a stand-alone article is because of games like rugby league and Aussie rules, which don't have many followers world-wide but are still part of what the word or term means. These pages also serve to educate people about the broader implications of a word or term.

In the spirit of WP:NPOV, if there is any ambiguity about a term, we don't discriminate in favour of one or the other interpretation. And if the consensus is that we don't need a separate page on the concept, then the proper way of resolving this dispute is a standard disambiguation page, i.e.

State of Origin may refer to:

• Interstate matches in Australian rules football
• Rugby League State of Origin

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Cheers, Grant | Talk 09:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer that to what there is now. But what it comes down to I think is how many people are going to click on what. People wanting the primary topic shouldn't have to follow two links to get to it. Look at the Peter Jackson article. There are several Peter Jacksons but it's been assumed that the majority of people who type in 'Peter Jackson' will be looking for the filmmaker. There's a link to the disambiguation page at the top of his page for people wanting information on other people of the same name. I think a similar assumption can be made about State of Origin. Clearly the Peter Jackson (fimmaker) equivalent to State of Origin is the RL SOO.--Jeff79 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I'll retract what I said before — I don't want a straight dab page because information/knowledge will be lost.

The "Peter Jackson" analogy is not apt, because there is zero connection between the different "Peter Jacksons", apart from their name. By contrast, state of origin is one concept, applied to different codes/sports/contests. A better comparison is saying that we shouldn't have pages called "grand final" or "McIntyre Final Eight System", because these also cut across different codes/sports.

I guess the problem is that supporters of different football codes don't tend to know much about each other's games, and while it is perfectly clear to a Queenslander that SOO means "football" (i.e. league), that is not the case to a South Australian or a Tasmanian campaigning for the return of the concept to "football" (i.e. Aussie rules). But it is the same basic concept.

Grant | Talk 06:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who search or create links to the words 'state of origin' will intend to reach the the RL SOO. This makes it the primary topic (again, I ask, read the policy). Of course information will not be lost. It will simply be moved. The very top of the page will say something like:

"State of Origin" directs here. For information on the state of origin "concept" and Australian rules football interstate matches, see State of Origin (Disambiguation).

Or something along those lines anyway. How is any information lost? You won't be able to convince anyone that the RL SOO is not the primary topic in this situation. It's clearly a matter of pride for Aussie rules followers who want credit for having applied the term to their code first. That's why you've come up with this "concept" of state of origin business, purely to create non-league-related content. There's no "concept" that requires explanation. It's three simple words and there are only two topics worthy of appearing in wikipedia (rugby league and aussie rules) that they refer to. For me however, it's not a matter of pride at all. It's a matter of Wikipedia working according to its policies, which exist for good reasons, i.e. those I've mentioned above).--Jeff79 07:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, according to that logic, grand final should redirect to AFL Grand Final, since that is what most Australians mean when they say "the grand final" and the present content from grand final should be moved to grand final (disambiguation). I don't think we are going to agree on this; it may have to go to formal mediation. Grant | Talk 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

that is what most Australians mean when they say "the grand final". I actually didn't think you'd say something like that. Need I remind you that almost a quarter of the country's population live in Sydney? Oh well.--Jeff79 08:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this discussion about the meaning of "state of origin", a term which could also mean fruit & veg labelling, or the pride of rugby league fans? You don't believe that the AFL Grand Final is more popular than the NRL one? Check the stats on TV viewers. Grant | Talk 11:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, it's a discussion about the pride of AFL fans, as I've already said above. But nice try. And I even re-typed your exact words about the grand finals so you'd know exactly what I didn't agree with, but you got confused anyway. I'm more than happy to stay on the topic of this discussion, and that is that the RL SOO is the primary topic when it comes to the words 'state of origin' according to WP:DAB#Primary topic. Feel free to actually address the points I've made above that prove this. The things looked at to determine whether something is the primary topic are google search results, the size of the articles and how many other articles link to them.--Jeff79 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And nice try at rallying the rugby league supporters. Should I also advertise this debate at Aussie rules talk pages? This article didn't even exist before I wrote it. State of origin doesn't just mean the rugby league series. State of origin didnt originate (hoho) with rugby league.

You can waffle about "primary subjects" all you like. The concept, as I've said, is the primary subject. I didn't invent it. As the article says, it was invented by a rugby union identity in 1900. It was first put into practice by Australian rules in 1977. Wikipedia policy says that if there is no consensus on what an article should be called, it remains at the original location. It doesn't even have to go to mediation, which I offered you in good faith. It's not my problem if you take umbrage at a simple analogy. Grant | Talk 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to discuss this anywhere you want. And yes, OF COURSE you created this article. And I've already said I'm aware that SOO didn't originate with league. A page detailing the "concept" of state of origin is needed as much as an article detailing the concept of "country of origin". As I've said, they're three simple english words. I didn't reject your "offer" for mediation, I welcome the input of administrators on this issue. Because, unlike you, they're concerned primarily with Wikipedia working according to its policies.--Jeff79 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing a temporary manifestation of a concept with the concept itself. Don't worry, it's not unusual. By way of analogy, the "primary subject" of President of the United States is George W. Bush but that will soon change. SOO certainly didnt mean rugby league in 1977. It didn't even mean league and league alone in 1997. John Doyle a.k.a. Rampaging Roy Slaven -- among many other people who are in a better position to see the future than me or you -- says rugby league is a "dying code", which means that "state of origin" may not mean rugby league in 2017 either. Grant | Talk 09:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't take the "dying code" seriously, people who say this are usually rugby union journalists with a chip on their shoulder e.g. Stephen Jones. The sad thing is that if enough people do this, people start taking it seriously without checking out the facts for themselves.GordyB 10:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

More anti-league sentiment. Quoted from a comedian, no less. You're really not doing yourself any favours here are you? Let's not lose focus of the real issue. Go and type "state of origin" into google (with the inverted commas). Go and look at all the RL SOO-related articles here on wikipedia and the further multitude of articles that link to them. Because that is how wikipedians will establish the primary topic. Your American president analogy doesn't work. Not only because 'George W Bush' and 'President of the United States' are entiely different sets of words, but also, to use your own logic, In 1977 the primary topic for Peter Jackson certainly wasn't the filmmaker, and in 2017 it may not be either. But it is now, so his page is what 'Peter Jackson' links to. Wikipedia is a living breathing document too. It will change with the times if need be (why do I even have to type this out for you?). The words 'state of origin' have precisely the same meaning as the words 'country of origin' but with 'state' substituted for 'country' (I can't BELIEVE I'm having to type this out). A page explaining that is not needed. The words 'state of origin' refer to two article-worthy topics: the interstate rugby league competition and the interstate Aussie rules football competition. One of these competitions is currently of greater relevance to the english-speaking world than the other (as google and wikipedia both prove) and is thus the primary topic.--Jeff79 10:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Doyle was speaking as "John Doyle, journalist and rugby league fan", in an interview with The Australian when he made that comment. He is many things, but a rugby union fan he ain't. As Jeff knows very well, he is not merely a comedian, and he wouldn't blithely trash rugby league in either persona (Doyle or Slaven). Possibly it is a case of shock tactics and he is trying to stir league fans into action, but it was a serious comment from someone with a deep love and knowledge of the game.

Jeff, maybe you're just trash talking, but it is looking like you don't understand the difference between description and prescription; between analysis and recommendation. That is to say, you wilfully interpret any statement of mine that harms your case as being anti-rugby league. It isn't going to work with me and there are enough people around who know my contributions to articles on various football codes. For instance, I wrote a fair proportion of the Australian content in History of rugby league, because it needed doing and Aussie league contributors were few and far between when that article was being put together.

All Wikipedia policies are open to interpretation. I have to say that I find the redirecting of "Peter Jackson" to the film maker controversial for the same reason why I'm objecting to your proposal. But whatever, that horse has bolted. This one hasn't. You can say Wikipedia changes with the times, but it hasn't been around long enough to really demonstrate that is what will happen (if the meanings of word and terms change in years to come). When it comes to the English language I'm a conservative, and if that means more dab pages and "one more click of the mouse", then so be it. Grant | Talk 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice not once in this discussion have I tried to diminish the significance of the Aussie Rules state of origin or Aussie rules in general. I avoid that type of thing altogether. I'm not interested in any point-scoring debate between the two codes of football. That isn't what this is about. Almost all of what I say here relates to why the RL SOO is the primary topic according to wikipedia policy when it comes to the words "state of origin" (hence the title "Primary Topic"). I also found the directing of Peter Jackson controversial, and when I tried to start a debate on that page, I was quickly shut down by someone quoting the primary topic policy. I'd have liked Peter Jackson to lead to a straight disambiguation page, but I learned that's not how it works here. I've already said I'd be happy with a straight disambiguation page for 'state of origin' too rather than the status quo. Although supposedly it should lead to the primary topic as in the case of Peter Jackson.--Jeff79 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Jeff, all fair enough, but what is the point in having a simple/straight dab page, when we would still need a State of origin (disambiguation) page to explain the concept? Some strange things go on in Wikipedia, I must admit, but I can't see why "one more click" is such a trial for the league buffs. In fact, I wouldn't be so sure that league fans are not interested in the concept in general --- only two other people (both anonymous) have strenuously objected to the present format, in the three years since I started the article (as 203.59.203.190). Grant | Talk 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've explained more than once that the "concept" of state of origin doesn't need to be detailed in a wikipedia article for the same reason that country of origin doesn't. State of origin just means the state that something originated from. Exactly the same as 'country of origin' or 'port of origin'. I think we can assume that people know what the words 'state' and 'of origin' mean. Only two topics related to the exact phrase 'state of origin' are worthy of articles in wikipedia. The history that is common to both can be mentioned on each page and at the end, if you must, you can say something like: The State of Origin phenomenon in Australia has served to generate greater pride in poeple's states, and as a result various other contests held sometimes involve competition between representatives of each state and assume the moniker 'State of Origin'.

Since it is so obviously the primary topic, the clicking through two pages to get to it bothers me, but what got me started in the first place was the fact that every time a link to state of origin is created in a league-related contribution "[[Rugby League State of Origin|State of Origin]]" must be typed out instead of just [[State of Origin]]. And believe me, not only "league buffs" will be going to the State of Origin article. It is one of Australia's (and indeed the region's) major sporting events, up there with the grand finals and the Melbourne Cup whether you like it or not.

I think you want to preserve this article because if there's a straight disambiguation page that will leave only one article with the words 'State of Origin' in its title, potentially strengthening my case for primary topic. To tell you the truth I'm not sure why the Aussie rules-related article is called "Interstate matches in Australian rules football" rather than containing the words 'state of origin'. People do call it "state of origin" right? I think a disambiguation page should read:

"State of Origin" may refer to:

• State of Origin (rugby league), the annual Australian interstate rugby league football competition
• State of Origin (Australian rules football), Interstate matches in Australian rules football

This makes it clear to anyone who searches 'state of origin' in wikipedia that (beyond the obvious meaning of the expression) there are two different football competitions in Australia that use the name 'state of origin'. I think that reflects reality perfectly.--Jeff79 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sports fans tend to be uninterested about sports that they haven't grown up with. That is natural. But the point of an encyclopedia is to inform, educate and expand knowledge, not to confirm and reinforce what people already know, and their prejudices. The meaning of "country of origin" is obvious to people from all of the world; "state of origin" is not, as very few countries have federal systems. Even fewer have domestic sporting contests in which players are forced to play for a team related to their regional origins.

The reason why why the Aussie rules-related article is called "Interstate matches in Australian rules football" is because state of origin is first and foremost a team selection rule. The fact that I have to remind you of this only proves why we we need a seperate article on the origin concept. Also, the first intercolonial/interstate match was 1879, so there were 98 years of state/colonial games before state of origin selection rules were introduced. There are still games involving the state Aussie rules leagues (e.g. there is a VFL v WAFL game in a few weeks time) which do not use state of origin team selection rules. The only Aussie rules event still utilising state of origin selection rules is the annual veterans game, which is Victoria v Allstars (i.e. the rest). Grant | Talk 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems all this time I'd actually been overestimating the relationship between the words 'state of origin' and Aussie rules. But it's good to see that this debate is starting to boil down to what it was intended to be: a discussion about the interpretation of wikipedia policy in relation to these three little words. For mine, I think you underestimate the english-speaking world's knowledge of the word 'state' and its implications. Certainly there's no problem in Australia and the United States. And I think we can assume that Canadians and Britons are fully aware of the word's implications too. That covers a good portion of the world's english speakers.

Really, there are only two ways that people are going to reach the article with the title 'state of origin': 1) by clicking on a link with those words, or 2) by typing them into the search box. Now, the greatest number of links made of the words 'state of origin' on wikipedia are on rugby league-related articles. So if someone clicks on them, it is because they'd like to read more information about the rugby league state of origin. What these people clearly don't need is an article explaining that 'state of origin' means the state that something/someone originated from. They are aware. I think the same can be said of people clicking on 'state of origin' links in aussie rules-related articles too. All of these people will get the details of how the concept was started in the article they reach, whether it be the league one or the aussie rules one. The second group of people that will arrive at an article entitled 'state of origin' are the ones that search the phrase. These people won't be pulling those words out of the air and just typing them in by accident, with no real idea what may come up. So they don't need an explanation of how much more there is to the expression "state of origin" than country or port of origin. They will have heard/read the words 'state of origin' somewhere before. Most likely from an Australian source with regard to one of two sporting contests. Both of these groups of people know what 'state' means. Even if they aren't aware that Australia is divided into states, I'm willing to say that every english speaker on earth knows that the United States of America is divided into states. That leaves very few (if any) readers that may require an explanation of the implications that the word 'state' has when preceding the words 'of origin'. Let's face it, every english speaker knows what "country of origin" and "port of origin" mean. Every english speaker is aware that some countries are divided into states. Beyond what is explained in both articles when it comes to the expression 'state of origin', I really don't see what else they would need.--Jeff79 05:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"What these people clearly don't need is an article explaining that 'state of origin' means the state that something/someone originated from. They are aware." No, wrong Jeff. As the prolonged debate at talk: football (word) and similar places has taught me, no-one really knows whether a majority of the world's English as a second language speakers use "American" or "British" English, so I wouldn't be too sure that "a good portion of the world's english speakers" does understand the implications of the word "state" in SOO. For instance British people, in my experience, generally use the word state to mean "a government or regime", rather than a geographical area that is one part of a country/nation. While British people may be aware of the word's different meaning in the US, my two years spent living in the UK tell me it's a big stre-e-e-etch to suggest that they are aware of Australia also being a federal system, let alone relating that sense of the word "state" (i.e. one part of a federal system) to "State of Origin", even if they are fans of rugby league.

As for your second paragraph, you are speculating on why people are visiting this article, and there is no evidence that people who visit it are not interested in the information here. Grant | Talk 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, when I just did a Google search for "state of origin" on ".uk" sites,[1] the first entry is a reference to Australian rules(!) and on the first results page there are several references to the movement of goods, rather than any sporting contest. Grant | Talk 13:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The information on this state of origin article is present in the rugby league and aussie rules articles. If this becomes a disambiguation page no information will be lost. People will click on one of the two articles. They won't just stop at the disambiguation page and give up because there's no information on it. They will click on one of the two articles and those without a sense of the word "state" (i.e. one part of a federal system) in relation to "State of Origin" will promptly be informed: The first sentence of the Rugby League State of Origin article reads:

Australia's Rugby League State of Origin is an annual series of three interstate rugby league matches between the Maroons, representing the state of Queensland and the Blues, representing the state of the New South Wales.

Any uncertainty about the word state is taken care of there I think. The first sentence of the Aussie rules state of origin article reads:

Australian rules football matches between teams representing Australian colonies/states and territories have been held since 1879.

No problems there either.--Jeff79 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to agree on this. It will probably have to go to mediation. Grant | Talk 07:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But I don't know how to arrange that.--Jeff79 05:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We can go to Wikipedia:Mediation, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I'm easy.

At least we haven't ended up in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ;-) Grant | Talk 12:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm doing the Medcab request.--Jeff79 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

For others who may be interested, the mediation is taking place at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-11 State of Origin. Grant | Talk 05:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin Conspiracy

I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in wikipedia (correct me if I am wrong) but there is what appears to be a widely known "conspiracy" in regards to why the third game is rarely 'dead rubber', and mostly a decider. Of course this is good for ratings/sponsers/viewers and promotes the possibility that an external force is behind the high rate of deciders. There is of course a thousand reasons for this being merely an unfounded conspiracy, but in the pursuit of objectivity shouldn't this be included in the article?

I only have one source (aside from unreliable forum entries) being http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200605/s1634515.htm which reports on a player acknowledging the possibility of a conspiracy. His case doesn't make this the best source (and is also ambiguous), but wondering if there were any other sources anyone knew of before maybe including it in the article. Drewhoo 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

State location map

While I think that the state location map is good, I don't think it should be it's own section. Perhaps it could be placed at the top of the article where the logo used to be?--Jeff79 (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How does that look? •Florrie•leave a note• 08:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Great.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Shield

The Shield is mentioned a few times in the article. But no real details are given about it. Is there still a shield? Does it have a particular name? Would be handy to include some details on this page perhaps.--Jeff79 02:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is 'a' Shield, probably the first one, although given that Bert didn't play until 1982, presumably it was created some time after the fact. I took this photo at the League of Legends exhibition, alas the lighting was very poor, so the photo isn't of much use. But feel free to use it.

http://img363.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sooshieldap8.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.210.213 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

removed tag

hi folks - I removed the 'improve' tag from last august, because the article looks pretty good to me..... not to say it couldn't be improved, just that getting rid of an ugly tag hopefully helps! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Exceptionally even?

18 to 12 origin victories is hardly even let alone exceptionally even. What's the deal with that?

It wasn't long ago that that statement was true. It's just old. Feel free to remove it 89.100.101.40 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement is correct, but the table is partially misleading. You'll find that the first two "series" were in fact exhibition matches, with NSW already having the series in the bag. Also some of those "victories" are actually draws. In terms of match totals it is extraordinarily even.--Jeff79 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The 8-point Try

Should it be mentioned about the very first 8 point try to be scored by NSW because a player on QLD kicked the try scorer in the head? Just asking if it's worth a mention. 114.77.223.5 (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You could put it in the article for the year of the series that it happened. If it was big news then it could go in this main article. LunarLander // talk // 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Add Medal winners to series infobox

Should there be a place in the infobox for the winners of the Wally Lewis, Brad Fittler and Ron McAuliffe Medals because they are not aways stated on the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerfanno1 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something can be done about the infobox, but I encourage you or anyone with the information on these medal winners to add them to the articles as the infobox is meant to be a summary of an article. LunarLander // talk // 00:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

They definitely should be mentioned somewhere in the articles. Eithr in the introductory paragraph or at the end of game 3. I'm not really sold on their includion in the infobox, but if it were done, only be the man of the series (what is now the Wally Lewis Medal) should be included, and not the QLD and NSW men of the series (the fittler and McAulliffe medals).--Jeff79 (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2012

The result of the 1988 series listed in the table is incorrect. Queensland won 3-0, not New South Wales. Please refer to

The following lines (in order per table):

|- style="background: #BBCCFF; color: #000000"

|1988 || New South Wales || 3 || 0 || 0

Should be changed to:

|- style="background: #b03060; color: #000000"

|1988 || Queensland || 3 || 0 || 0

References

Sabracad (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Television ratings

With the very high TV ratings State of Origin is getting (2012 Game 3 broke 4 million Australia wide), would it be a good idea to have a table or graph of the ratings for each game? Roboh11 (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Such figures are really only ever meaningful when they are able to be compared with something else. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

---

State of Origin series → State of Origin – There is no test for primary topic that rugby's State of Origin doesn't easily pass. - Relisted: Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 06:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC) -Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you propose the current State of Origin article gets renamed to? Mattlore (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

State of Origin (disambiguation) or State of Origin (rule).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. State of Origin is just as prominent in Australian rules and is indeed where the concept began, not to mention the other sports and countries where the term is used. The nominator presents no evidence that the rugby league version is the primary topic and the current order of things, with State of Origin serving basically as a WP:CONCEPTDAB, seems right to me. Jenks24 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

An older Victorian here with little interest in Rugby League, but I cannot agree with the claim that "State of Origin is just as prominent in Australian rules". There hasn't been an Aussie Rules State of Origin game for so long that many younger fans would be surprised to hear that it ever happened. HiLo48 (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly an overstatement on my part. That said, I still think State of Origin is quite prominent in Australian rules and that having the CONCEPTDAB at the primary location is the best location. Jenks24 (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. After thinking about this for a while I think the status quo is satisfactory, with State of Origin acting as a general article and a disambiguation. Mattlore (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

But why? Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Broad-concept_articles sets two conditions:

1. 1. the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article
   2. a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type

I don't see how either of these are met, since the present State of Origin article is merely repetition of what's already covered in State of Origin series and Interstate matches in Australian rules football. It isn't even a close thing, State of Origin series doesn't just pass every test for primary topic, it does so overwhelmingly. So I think better justification of the status quo is needed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Greg Inglis Eligibility

I have added details to the "Eligibility" section, and my contribution is completely sourced, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.248.133 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Expanding on the shallow section immediately above, I removed the content, but in the past week, while I've been away from Wikipedia, it has reappeared.

The content is blatantly POV. The sources are appallingly unacceptable - YouTube, another Wikipedia article, and two articles that don't support the editor's claim.

I will remove the content again and ask anyone interested to come here to discuss it.

BTW, I'm Victorian. I don't care much for rugby league, nor who Inglis plays for. I just want good, properly sourced content in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the content & I certainly do not agree that they are POV. The sources do indeed support the fact that there is continuing controversy over Inglis' selection, indeed all sources -- especially the ones referenced -- are evidence that he is eligible for the team that he is not playing for. Why is a video containing evidence not a proper source? I have doubts over the veracity of your comments above.

Yes, there is controversy, but it needs to be written a lot more objectively than that, and with quality, independent sources that actually support what you write. And you need to keep your obviously NSW leaning opinion out of it. A YouTube video is simply not good enough. Maybe a couple of lines saying there is a controversy would work, but not a judge and jury, journalistic piece. (Oh, and please indent and sign your posts.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

For someone who claims to not care about Rugby League, you are showing an obvious bias. There are four paragraphs in this article, each one is sourced. The YouTube post contains evidence that is crucial. The so-called opinionated piece includes "there is some dispute". Please do not continue to vandalise (you have done so twice). If the facts do not agree with your opinion, the facts are not the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.248.133 (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea what bias and vandalism are. I have no opinion on who Inglis should play for. The text is (again) very poorly written, in a sports journalism style, not at all in an encyclopaedic style. It's obviously intended to prove that Inglis should be playing for NSW. That's POV. YouTube videos are not acceptable sources. Etc, etc, etc. This need more eyes. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.248.133 (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tidied it up somewhat. It's still unhealthy and POV because there is nothing presented justifying his selection for Queensland. There must be something, because NRL rules obviously allow it. Can anyone closer to the game add something on that front please? HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The inherent problem here is that there is *nothing* to justify his selection for Queensland. There is nothing to present, because they have cheated & have been allowed to get away with it. There is no dispute, it is not POV, it is fact. Arguing otherwise without any evidence is like saying that tall people shouldn't be allowed to play basketball. And by the way, why haven't you policed the rest of this page with the same diligence? One example: "they would go to any length to restore some vestige of their lost pride". You have also assumed that I have a NSW leaning opinion, which actually betrays your own bias. Nothing I have stated has said that, it has just been a presentation of evidence. You have made a biased assumption. And one more thing you are wrong about, the NRL does not oversee State of Origin.

Who does? (Innocent question.) (And can you sign your post please? You've said I made wrong assumptions about you. You may be right, and if so I would apologise, but from that post I can't tell who you are.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oi, I just saw your latest reversion. That's just silly. The state Inglis supported as a kid has no irrelevance relevance to who he is eligible to play for now. You MUST know that. That content doesn't help your case. It simply doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That content has been up here for weeks? And "no irrelevance"?! Seriously, what is your problem with these facts? It is a correctly sourced and published article specifically discussing the exact content here, displayed without bias. Just to make you happy, I found & referenced another published source which presents a slightly alternative view. Can you please stop vandalising this section. 122.106.248.133 (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. My stuffup. I've corrected it. But I'll say it in a different way. Supporting NSW as a kid doesn't have any connection whatsoever with who he can play for now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll say it in the same way: "It is a correctly sourced and published article specifically discussing the exact content here, displayed without bias". Is this the same HiLo that just publicly disrespected Lauren Jackson on the SMH website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.248.133 (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your consistent reverting to your prefered version of the page is not helpful - you need to engage and discuss with the editors that have reverted your edits per WP:BRD. HiLo has explained that he does not believe the state Inglis supported when he was a teenager has any relevance to the state he is eligible to play for, you have ignored that viewpoint and not explained why you disagree with it. A whole section on just Inglis gives undue weight to the topic and that is why a number of editors are now involved. Also, Talking about an editors potential work outside of wikipedia also breaches WP:PRIVACY. In short, please do not default to reverting back, instead disuss on here. Mattlore (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Happy to. There are two articles, both published & sourced, directly discussing the content herein, offering alternative viewpoints. Here is the 'offending' material, which keeps being removed:

Inglis' cousin, fellow NRL player and childhood friend Albert Kelly stated that Inglis grew up supporting New South Wales , although Inglis himself has contradicted this

References

I'd think that could have a place on Inglis' page, but not really worthy of being placed on this one. Kids can support whoever they wish, it's no controversy. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the reference to the source perhaps needs to be changed to remove the "supporting New South Wales" comment. However, both articles are very definitely discussing this specific topic. The fact that this section keeps being altered seems to me to be self-supportive of the fact that this is a controversy!122.106.248.133 (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that others have become involved and hopefully will continue to make a balanced assessment. Thank you. Furthermore, my previous concerns -- about another reference (video evidence) being vandalised and older <bold>extreme POV</bold> comments elsewhere in this article remaining untouched -- have not been addressed.122.106.248.133 (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Which other sections do you think are POV? We can address them here. With video evidence there is usually a copyright problem if it comes from YouTube as it is usually owned by a media source who have not uploaded it themselves. Mattlore (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the entire "1987: American controversy" section is POV. The YouTube reference that is continuously removed is from Channel Nine news & I believe is therefore in the public domain. Also, a section referring to State of Origin parody videos has been vandalised, again without comment. Furthermore, a number of references to players from other countries (e.g. Tonie Carroll & Brad Thorn, among others) have been removed. All of these changes seem to be demonstrating haste in anything that reflects poorly on the Queensland team; there seems to be an agenda at play.122.106.248.133 (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a NSW supporter, I can assure you that is not my intention. I feel the controversy over some inconsistent selections needs to be addressed. However, a quick mention of the more notable cases (Inglis, Lam, Thorn, Nagas, Tamou) should suffice. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC) And yeah, there probably is undue emphasis placed on 1987. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that TV news broadcast material IS protected by copyright law in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice. What is your source?58.168.23.90 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you go to http://nine.com.au/, at the bottom it states "© 1997-2012 ninemsn Pty Ltd - All rights reserved". Furthermore the copyright section states "The ninemsn network includes services and content which are the intellectual property of ninemsn Pty Ltd and our content and service providers. You may use our content by downloading and storing limited copies for your personal use only. You may not otherwise reproduce or redistribute or use our content or services in any way unless you have our express permission." Mattlore (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answering Mattlore on behalf of your friend, to whom the question was directed. However, this footage that has apparently been repeatedly deleted is not news footage. It is public domain footage aired publicly on a news and also Internet service. So does this justification still apply?58.168.23.90 (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you might be missing my comments in the http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=State_of_Origin_series&action=history History section] when I do certain edits. When I removed the video section I commented "Videos: delete section - one of these videos only had 39 views, how is that popular?". I don't think such a section belongs in the encyclopedia, unless they get coverage in reliable sources, such as newspaper articles. Mattlore (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, especially with regards to the 334,000 views. Will you be restoring it?58.168.23.90 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No, for the reasons above. Mattlore (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I will edit via those guidelines, using one or more of the many public sources that satisfy your criterion.58.168.23.90 (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Am very confused. An addition was made (regarding the notability of a public video), strictly as per the guidelines in this discussion. Yet it was vandalised without reproach, with a comment saying merely "as per discussed". Yet the criterion put out here on the edit was clearly addressed. Why the censorship? I am really confused. Is there an agenda here? Do some people really not want a balanced opinion to be witnessed?122.106.248.133 (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said above; "I don't think such a section belongs in the encyclopedia, unless they get coverage in reliable sources, such as newspaper articles." I see you've found one article that mentions Inglis found That's In Queensland funny but I don't think thats enough to establish notability of the video. I've also had a search for other news articles on videos but I haven't been able to find any. Mattlore (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No offence, but you contradict yourself. You stated that you wanted coverage in a reliable source and one very specific source was provided, including a quote from the notorious Inglis himself. Surely WikiPedia is here to share information, not to censor it. And BTW, maybe you need to clear your cache, because my Google search on "That's In Queensland" provided 36,100,000 results.122.106.248.133 (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This revision has been rebuked. It needs to be reinstated.121.218.255.169 (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

While I do agree with this edit. I'd be happy for this to be included in Greg Inglis.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense. Do you think it belongs in the controversy section or in early years? Mattlore (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Been trying to figure that one out myself as well. I'm quite against "Controversy" section headings to begin with, and very much pro chronological order. So I'd be leaning towards early years, but I think it is worth making a link to that and the controversy surrounding his selection for Queensland. So perhaps inserted at the point of his selection, or maybe at the time of the Kelly interview? (and we should probably be discussing this at Talk:Greg Inglis). But this is perhaps a worthwhile point to be made here. Let's keep in mind that there is also a Queensland rugby league team article and a Greg Inglis article, which may be better suited to some of the details around this issue.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A draw IS as good as a WIN to the team reataining the title

Well that's according to the ARL!

http://www.australianrugbyleague.com.au/index.cgi?det=1&intArticleID=357&sID=21

NSWelshman

The series in 1999 & 2002 were both Drawn 1-1. Source listed above is a dead link. Here is a link to the correct data: http://stats.rleague.com/rl/soo/soo_idx.html

All you need to do is watch the reactions of the players on the field at full-time in those drawn deciders: identical to what you'd expect for a win (complete with hugs, speeches and shield raising), and nothing like what you see after a drawn club game. So do you really think the Blues players would be bothered that the drawn series are shaded maroon?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Year by year part of the Results section - still needs work

An editor has just made good faith "improvements" to the second paragraph of this section. (They were sorely needed.) Unfortunately, it's still pretty gruesome English, is unsourced, and is not a great explanation of the problem and the solution. I'm not an expert on this stuff. Can anyone who is and can explain it well PLEASE have a go at improving it? HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Table update to include the shield holder.

Retrospectively or not, the original State of Origin Shield is titled the “Winfield State of Origin Shield, 1980–91” as stated by the current holder’s, the National Library of Australia. As the first State of Origin was 1980 in which Queensland won, it has been assigned to Queensland and should be documented as much. Additionally, the shield for the series of 1999 and 2002, was assigned to Queensland and once again needs to be documented as such.

The winner of series is debated, however the shield holders is not and should be documented, as it is simply a fact and relevant to the state of origin article. Why should this information be concealed? There is no reason not to state the truth, and listing this additional column is factual and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chotora (talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Shield didn't exist in 80-81 (these were only trial games), and the 99 and 02 series were drawn. The fixation on the Shield is merely attempt to portray those four years as QLD series wins. Had NSW won/held them the table would just be a simple listing of the match and series results as one would expect. Likewise the attempted minimisation of the 1987 Long Beach game, which always had equal status right from the start; no manufactured dispute would have been invented had QLD won.

You have the right to say whatever you want on the talk page, sure. But the article space itself is and must be ruled by reliable sources.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, no sources will portray the results as "Times Shield won or held or retrospectively awarded". This concept was synthesised by Wikipedia editor. A list of results should look like this

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/series_results.html?class=1;id=2;type=team. The matches won in each series, and the series result (with non-Ashes series having no entry).

Who the hell are the Blues and the Maroons?

It is insane that the first mention of the teams involved in this series is their nicknames. I changed it to the names of the states involved, so that it would actually mean something to a reader not already familiar with the series, but another editor reverted it with the Edit summary "It is not a game played by two states, but by two teams representing those states." Well, yes, so we name those states. I cannot think of an exception to this approach anywhere else. This is a global encyclopaedia, not the sports pages of the Daily Telegraph.

I have changed it back to the names of the states, for sanity, and asked the other editor involved to discuss it here. Others, of course, are also welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The nicknames are in common usage, but just introduced right at the start without any explanation is inappropriate.

"Who the hell are the Blues and the Maroons?" Other than being two of the most famous football teams in Oceania (whether you like it or not), the long-standing version tells us (and provides links to) exactly who they are:

State of Origin is the annual best-of-three series of rugby league football matches between the Blues and the Maroons, who represent the Australian states of New South Wales and Queensland, respectively.

Your version (which implies that states, rather than football teams, play football matches) does not:

State of Origin is the annual best-of-three series of rugby league football matches between the Australian states of New South Wales and Queensland.

Which really has to make one wonder what your intention is here. It's (naturally) being changed back. Oh, and I'm not sure the wording of your post is dramatic enough. More hyperbole, please.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You are editing in bad faith. You posted once here and immediately reverted. Two editors disagree with you. Nobody has agreed with you. You obviously don't have a consensus. I cannot comprehend your attitude. Oh, BTW, the question in the title (not the "post" - this is a thread anyway) was rhetorical. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to discuss the actual wording and any improvements that might be made to it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Discuss? You don't know the meaning of the word. If you really mean that, respond to the points he IP editor and I made. (That's what a discussion is.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor gave their opinion that the teams' nicknames should not be "just introduced right at the start without any explanation" (an opinion with which I agree). So I responded by pasting the opening line's wording that quite clearly gives us an explanation of who the teams are, complete with wikilinks.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's better. You are actually discussing! It would make more sense, in a global encyclopaedia (i.e. not just for aficionados of the game) for the formal names to be given first, and the nicknames later. Most people in the world will know the names of the states. The nicknames are known by fans of the game, a much, much smaller cohort. Use the globally recognised names first. Think about whether the nicknames are really even important enough for the lead. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia, not tabloid sports journalism. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Rugby League NRL State of Origin series → State of Origin series – I propose the page is moved back to its original place before it was moved by an editor with a COI. There is no need for the disambiguation of "rugby league" to start the article name, or the need for the NRL in the title. Mattlore (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Support move: As above, NRL does not run SOO. I think this could even qualify for a WP:BOLD move ASAP as current title is plain incorrect and an editor with a COI can technically be considered a disruptive editor. Bwfcwarrior (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've mentioned this at WP:AN as well. Bwfcwarrior (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The name of the page now represents the story, the article is all about the NRL State of origin, The ARLC now run the NRL State of Origin event. To public people it’s better known as the Rugby League State of Origin, we ask that it stays. We have no COI but think it better describes the article.

There is no such thing as an NRL State of Origin, just like there is no such thing as an FA Premier League World Cup etc.. Plus, please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ Bwfcwarrior (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to deny a COI when you say on your talkpage that you run a business with the same name. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, you refer to yourself as "we", only one person should have access too and be using your Wikipedia account. Bwfcwarrior (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

A previous incarnation was primarily concerned with spamming various articles with the website [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.66.72 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you identify any sources that refer to the series as the "Rugby League NRL State of Origin series"? From a quick look at the sources in the article I couldn't find any. Mattlore (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Support move: I'm not fussed on which version, but it can not have NRL in it. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok than the page would be best suited to read Rugby League State of Origin, and some reference made within the article to NRL. The words State of origin are used by other sporting bodies and not one body will ever own the rights to the use of the word exclusively. I think its important that the article is correct, that way a reader will not get confused when reading about other state of origin events such as the AFL and there is also another page which lists other state of origin events. It appears that the ARU will be holding there own State of origin event in July this year also. Stateoforigin, we have been registered for 14 years with this user name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stateoforigin (talk • contribs) 02:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Page mover, user:stateoforigin, is now blocked for his/her/their username violation. Bwfcwarrior (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Support per above discussion.Theanonymousentry (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Article title has been factually incorrect for a while now. Time for someone to provide a source to prove us all wrong or get the page back to it's original title IMHO. Bwfcwarrior (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC) It's currently a wrong title, but just realised this discussion needs the full 7 days anyway per policy. Bwfcwarrior (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Selection rules section is a mess

It contains a large collection of "controversies", but almost nothing about what the rules actually are. The very first paragraph purports to tell me, but really doesn't. The two citations are next to useless. I want to know what the rules are. A clear summary of them should be right there in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Understand that this page is a continual tug-of-war to portray their side in the best possible light, dry facts are of secondary importance. Here's how it's put on the NRL site, even the actual rules are messy.

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/documents/state-of-origin-eligibility-rules.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look. Yes, I'm a Victorian, interested in the competition, but without a welded-on allegiance. It's quite amusing watching editors behave like drunk supporters at games when editing the various Origin related articles. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Page name

I don't really like the State of Origin, Rugby League name for this article. How about Rugby League State of Origin? Grinner 13:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm agreeable. I don't know how to change it tho, and what happens to the pages i've linked this from?

It's very easy, you just use the Move button at the top of the screen (next to History). A redirect is automatically created, so you won't have to update all the pages that link here. I'll wait another day before making the move. Grinner 10:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I agree also. Make it: Rugby League State of Origin. 110.142.232.71 (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)