Talk:Toronto Wolfpack

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because there is significant media coverage of this story and it's a team belonging to a notable sports league --Electoralist (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I nominated for deletion as there was already an older article for this club that had been redirected here instead of moved here. A sysop from WP:AN has fixed the issue now. Thanks 2.218.253.200 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

First trans-Atlantic sports team

We have sources that call Toronto Wolfpack the first trans-Atlantic professional sports team, lots of them in fact. However, some Union fans on here and social media are claiming this to be incorrect. Now, I know nothing about Rugby Union or their clubs, so the claims could be right or a complete fabrication by the anti-League brigade, I just don't know. The question for Wikipedia is, do we keep reverting attempts to remove or alter the sourced information here, or do we just remove all mention to it all together as potentially just trivia anyway? Skemcraig (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

First I've heard of anyone putting forward that this is not the first trans-Atlantic professional sports team. I would say that we make sure that we are correct with a variety of quality sources and anyone who wishes to dispute will be invited to battle the cited sources.Fleets (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is a few recent IP edits disputing the sourced information: IP one IP two Skemcraig (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The Jaguares (an Argentine team participating in Super Rugby, a competition held in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Japan) played their first trans-Atlantic match on 26 February 2016 during the 2016 Super Rugby season, the Toronto Wolfpack played their first match more than a year later, so surely the Jaguares was first? Both are preceded by the Pampas XV, an Argentine team that played in the South African Vodacom Cup competition as early as 2010, but I'm not entirely sure they were fully professional. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they were referring to the fact they are the first North American trans-atlantic sports team? Or the first trans-atlantic rugby league team? I know that many of the media articles, especially the BBC, have referred to Toronto Wolfpack as the first trans-atlantic rugby league team. Usually they are considered as a good source for Wikipedia. Migitgem2009 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think we need a notes section in the actual article talking about what t'other code is doing. This article is about Toronto Wolfpack rugby league team and only information relevant to that should be included. However, I think having the line saying first trans-Atlantic rugby league team instead of sports team is an ideal solution to the problem. Skemcraig (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the notes section which was WP:OR and unnecessary on this article. Moreover the claim of the Wolfpack being the first transatlantic pro sports team is backed up by numerous reliable sources and should also not be removed. The term 'transatlantic' is used in this case (and almost exclusively used) to refer to North America-European endeavors rather than the physical region of the Atlantic ocean, which might be where the confusion comes from. Dannys-777 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

How is the notes section WP:OR? Unnecessary maybe, but there quite clearly is confusion, and false information being presented on Wikipedia, so why not add a clarification? If your definition of 'trans-Atlantic' pertains to the northern hemisphere only (which is definitely not the definition of the word), why not add that clarification to the test in the article instead, rather than adding incorrect information? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"Moreover the claim of the Wolfpack being the first transatlantic pro sports team is backed up by numerous reliable sources and should also not be removed." But those sources are objectively wrong. The Jaguares were first. Both are professional, both are transatlantic (which, as per Transatlantic crossing, refers to "passages of passengers and cargo across the Atlantic Ocean between the Americas and Europe or Africa;" I've never heard anyone imply that "transatlantic" refers only to the North Atlantic. Grande (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the "notes" section as that was at best needless Trivia not relevant to Toronto Wolfpack article. If the Rugby Union club holds the claim and can be sourced properly, it should be placed at that article, not here. I fully support TMP's stance on ignoring sources we *know* are factually incorrect though and as I said before, calling Toronto the first transatlantic Rugby league team instead of sports team is an ideal solution to the problem IMHO, plus it's backed by the BBC source too. Skemcraig (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I agree with what you're saying, but that is exactly why it was added as a note. It's definitely not relevant to the Wolfpack, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the article, but since there are numerous reliable sources that claim this to be true, it would make sense to have a short explanation as to why this is not the case, with references to prove this. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If you think the sources are "objectively wrong" then you're free to write to them and ask them to issue a retraction. Until then it's literally the definition of WP:OR so yeah, no dice. Dannys-777 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, Dannys-777, it really isn't WP:OR. "Literally the definition of OR" is, according to WP:OR, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." So, if I made a change to state that the Jaguares is the first trans-Atlantic team, THAT would be original research. I don't know if they were or not (yet another team might have preceded all of them). Yet, please re-read what the content actually says. It states that there are claims that the Toronto Wolfpack are (with references to back it up), but that there is also at least one example (also with references to back it up) that disproves the claim. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, TMP, reverting Dannys doesn't give you the right to put the needless rugby union trivia section back into this Tornto RL article. It is not the job of Wikipedia to list in articles why sources we're not using are factually wrong. We just report the truth and cite the sources we know are right, like the BBC source using "first professional rugby league team" instead of "first professional sports team". Skemcraig (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, I know I said factually incorrect tabloids in the edit summary, which is mostly true. The official club website is also calling them the first pro TA sports team, but they are hardly a neutral source anyway. So basically we must discount that source anyway. Skemcraig (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Another thing to consider here is, are the Union clubs the first TA pro sports teams? I seem to remember a TA Gridiron league once upon a time. Was that professional? If so, that'd probably be the first. Not to mention there could be more lesser reported sports with a claim too. I think that's why Dannys is (IMHO harshly) calling it OR, we just don't know all the facts. Skemcraig (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Skemcraig:, what you call the "needless rugby union trivia" section is not in the article (and definitely should not be either). It was added as a footnote. As per the opening paragraph on WP:FN, footnotes are used for "providing tangential information" to provide "explanatory information", which I feel is required in this case, since there are reliable sources providing conflicting information. As per my response to @Dannys-777:, calling another team (such as the Jaguares) the first trans-Atlantic sports team would be WP:OR; we don't know the facts. But providing tangential information to provide explanatory information to prove that that the Wolfpack's claim is incorrect, is not. I really don't understand your aversion to a footnote to clarify this. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we're 95% on the same side here TMP, if we can find a source that definitively calls the Wolfpack claim wrong or definitively proves someone elses claim to be right, I'd support a short footnote along the lines of "Several sources^[1][2][3][4] claim Toronto Wolfpack are the first trans-Atlantic professional sports team. However, this is disputed by rival claims from Union and/or NFL clubs here^[1][2]" – I guess my main issue with the footnote as it is, is that the Argentine club being used as the example could be wrong too and a footnote should be short in nature. If it's too long, it just looks like a trivia section. Skemcraig (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Skemcraig:, that's fair enough. How about the current more concise edit? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheMightyPeanut: Short, to the point, makes no claims about which other team is the "first", just that several previously existed/currently exist. A good compromise! Skemcraig (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

References

A line in the lead should be removed

"and the first trans-Atlantic professional sports team that trains and play in both the UK and North America."

This reads like random trivia to me, which I'm pretty sure is not what is supposed to be in an articles lead. You may want to consider removing it @Fleets: Cheers Skemcraig (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

In what way would that differ to the previous three elements of the sentence, and as such the addition is not in my opinion a trivial addition and if anything it appears to be an improvement from having a brief scan of at WP:Lead.Fleets (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Just an opinion Fleets, just an opinion. It reads like needless trivia to me and also potentially misleading as several NFL teams have "trained" and "played" in the UK and North America. That is why I changed it to this, as it reflects the situation more accurately and is far less misleading. For some reason you reverted it back again? If we must have trivia, it needs to at least reflect the situation as clearly and accurately as possible, so to this end, I'm restoring my version of the sentence. Skemcraig (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That's correct, it was just an opinion. No worries. I have restored to my intention, which is accurate per the discussion and reflective of what it was intended to state, which was not the addition of a sport. The sentence can be refined to remove the doubt over pre-season training camps that could have potentially taken place for American football teams.Fleets (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Fleets, can't have misleading information in the lead. If you want to further expand the sentence to better reflect the situation, please do. Just reverting my edits doesn't help the article. Skemcraig (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries I have since alleviated your problem with the sentence. The result is a long sentence, but the theme of my addition is not misleading, and I believe that you were also not helping the article with reversions, on that I think we can both agree.Fleets (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Your current version of the article is now as clear as my previous version, for sure. However, mine was short, to the point and included a wikilink for further clarity. In the interest of keeping the peace though and not descending into a silly edit war over a trivial sentence, I'll not revert anymore. Skemcraig (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem with keeping people honest mate so job done there. As you say it was short, and I would say that now it is a little clunky, but we are both in agreeance that it is accurate, if not concise.Fleets (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Image

Sorry to be a pain @Fleets:, but the image you've added is very big in the article (at least when viewing via Google Chrome anyway). Any chance it can be reduced a bit in size or maybe moved into a different section of the article to make it fit in better perhaps? Skemcraig (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Madness, sheer madness.

A North American side playing in the UK leagues is, IMO, total insanity and surely cannot last. Do these people appreciate the geography here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.128.106 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Championships

Seeing what others think, but currently the infobox in the article says that the Wolfpack has one championship. Personally, I don't believe that should be there; championships usually only mean top tier, that is, Super League. I respect the team's success, but this is my currently understanding of how the championship tally works. Freddie AppsHero (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Dubious, unsourced and non-notable statement attempting to be edit warred into article

A user has been attempting to edit war the following sentence into the lead without consensus, describing the team as

the first trans-Atlantic professional sports team that trains both in the UK and North America and play competition matches against domestic competition in the UK.

This has been objected to for over six months (see discussion above), and diffs: [2][3][4][5][6][7]

The sentence is usually restored with the deceptive edit summary "tidy": [8][9][10]

To date, this claim still lacks any evidence that it is true. Almost certainly it is not. Regardless, the WP:BURDEN is on those who wish to add dubious content to articles to prove it. If no citation is provided, I will again remove the duboius claim per policy. Please do not restore policy violating content.

Even if a source is provided, I don't think the sentence adds anything of value. (It really don't think it's notable where the team trains.) But there is no point even engaging in that discussion until there is some evidence that the claim is true. TDL (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you dispute that the statement is inaccurate? It could be argued that they will be playing in France next year too, so that would add a further twist.Fleets (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes as explained, I doubt the claim is true. And the guardian article you added to cite this doesn't say anything to support this. Again, any sources to prove this? TDL (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

In what way? It does partially, and the note moved does explain the wording of the sentence.Fleets (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking about user generated wiki content. (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source since anyone can add anything, regardless of whether it is true or not.) I am asking about WP:reliable sources. What reliable source says that this is true. Where does the guardian source support the claim that it is "first trans-Atlantic professional sports team that trains both in the UK and North America and play competition matches against domestic competition in the UK."? What "parts" are supported? What parts are not supported? TDL (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I have since added another source to cover the agreed wording.Fleets (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

...which likewise does not say anything at all to support the claims in the sentence we are discussing. I will ask once again, do you have any sources which support the claims made in the sentence quoted above? TDL (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you discussing, I genuinely am confused by the failure to grasp the sentence construction, and then not link it to the cited sources and note that covers the agreed wording.Fleets (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing the sentence you have been edit warring to include for six months, listed at the start of this discussion: "the first trans-Atlantic professional sports team that trains both in the UK and North America and play competition matches against domestic competition in the UK."

This makes two claims

a) That it is the first trans-Atlantic professional sports team that trains both in the UK and North America

b) That it is the first trans-Atlantic professional sports team that play competition matches against domestic competition in the UK.

Neither of these are supported by the external WP:reliable sources you have linked. Am I missing something? Can you provide a quote for any of the cited articles which address these claims? TDL (talk)

I have not asserted to both A & B. There is no A & B, only that which is offered on the page as it is now.Fleets (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a direct quote for the current page. If you aren't claiming a and b, what are you claiming? TDL (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What? There is no A & B. Tweaked wording to a more simpler English, to avoid interpretation or interpolation.Fleets (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I split the sentence into two separate clauses as there are two separate claims. So what you are claiming is that it is the first trans-Atlantic professional sports team that both:

a) trains both in the UK and North America

b) play competition matches against domestic competition in the UK.

What source supports that? TDL (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That has since been addressed to avoid the potential confusion. http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/19070807/can-toronto-wolfpack-england-rugby-football-league-show-nfl-how-cross-atlantic Fleets (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, so you've reworded to "the first trans-Atlantic professional sports team that trains both in the UK and North America in addition to playing competition matches against domestic competition in the UK.". What source supports this wording? Please provide a direct quote, as I see nothing in the linked articles to support this dubious claim. TDL (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to read, I really can't be bothered to write. Goodbye Troll.Fleets (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I can be bothered to read. I've read every single word. A not one of the sources actually say what you claim. Calling me names doesn't change the fact that you cannot support the claims you are making. If you can't support I will go ahead and remove per policy. TDL (talk)

Are you from another planet? What name have I given you? You seem to be a troll, and I'm quite sure that you are one and if you are not, you will no doubt go back and reconsider, every single one of those cited sources and notes. They are both wide-ranging and detailed, and fully cover the assertion made.Fleets (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No, not one of those sources say they are the first team to train in both the UK and North American, and to play UK competition. If you are so convinced I am wrong, why can't you provide a quote from one of those many article to prove me wrong? Once quote is all I am asking for. The answer, of course, is because that quote does not exists. TDL (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It says that they do those activities, and the wording is to differentiate between the other sports. If you wish to find a better wording then please do, but the spirit of the wording is accurate. If you can see the sources, detailing the facts as a whole, but cannot link the wording, then perhaps find a better wording that succinctly rationalises the various sports histories into a sentence.Fleets (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Without being churlish, please state the team or teams that trained in both the UK and North America, and to played UK competition before Toronto, as American football and Rugby have lead to the current wording. If there is a team that is not covered by the cited sources I would love to read about them.Fleets (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly not suggesting that they don't train in both North American and the UK and that they play UK based opposition, I'm questioning whether they are the first to do that. None of the sources say anything to support that. The claim is at least partially contradicted by the very note that follows it: the London Monarchs, a domestic UK based club in the WLAF, hosted plenty North American based clubs during competitive matches during the 1991 season. TDL (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The reference to training is somewhat strange. Surely, if it is true, the notability comes from being the first sports team to be based in North America but playing in a European league (or vice versa)? If there is a source to support the statement that they are the first such team, then it is definitely notable enough to include. Mooretwin (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

EDIT. The London Monarchs would appear to disprove the claim and thus the statement should not be included. Mooretwin (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)