[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Brisbane Broncos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Former good articleBrisbane Broncos was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2007Good article nomineeListed
April 23, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 5, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 4, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Typo?

Is Gorden Tallis actually meant to be spelt Gordon Tallis? Also, perhaps it would be a good idea to put in a Club Information section, like the Sydney Roosters have?

No, that's how Gorden spells his name. Great idea about the club information section. Get cracking!Dr Zen 00:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History

  • The history needs some serious fleshing out. It just discusses the first final etc. THeres a massive hisotry (not very long granted) about the Bronocos... their defection to Super League, the turmoil of Powers beer vs XXXX leading to the move to ANZ. The loss of Wally Lewis because of rumoured fighting between him and Wayne....
  • The history section is still very bland and very vague. The Broncos have so much history and in this web article such little is written. Would expect to see alot more. [[Bradley1956 11:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Tidy up

This article is untidy. Its lengthy and has unnecessary information

Many times is it filled with biased and emotive language as well as informal language. There is a load of information in this article, but with that alot of biased one sided commentary in the writing.

Also I dont see any sourcing to the article in the history section? I would expect something like this addressed. Since I don't have access to Brisbane Broncos sources you have been using I would think it appropriate any uncited, unsourced material be removed. [[Bradley1956 11:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

I have removed the inappropriate tone tag as the article appears to be fine on this front. If anyone would like it to be reinstated, please list areas that need attention.--dan, dan and dan 20:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can the following statement be expanded/referenced? "with many percieving the Brisbane Broncos as the orchestrators", eg, who are many? -mike —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.63.40.190 (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Article Status

I've watched this article take shape over the past month or so and I'm paticularly amazed at the number of editors that contribute to the article. The history section seems quite comprehensive from a neutral point of view and I can see that a lot of people have put in much dedication into the article. But personally I think this article could be improved dramatically with relatively little effort at all. All the basic parts of a featured article are there, but a lot of tidying up needs to be done. Check out the layout of Sydney Roosters and Arsenal FC and have a look what needs to be done to get it to this stage. As I said, what's been done so far is great, but I think tables and statistics need to be reduced in numbers and a few more direct references need to be made if you guys want this to be pushed up to featured status. Where do you guys want this article to head? --mdmanser 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved some stuff around, and added info on the crest, colours, etc from Gallaway's The Brisbane Broncos: The Team To Beat. Stuff that was taken off was put into the Brisbane Broncos records and Brisbane Broncos Stadiums sections - imo its still good info, just it couldve been in a better place. Steeden 08:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 GF?

The 2006 Grand Final was the first final between two non-NSW based teams, not Sydney based. For example, the 1994 GF between St George and Broncos, both of these teams are not based in Sydney.

St George are, and always have been based in Kogarah, which is a southern suburb of Sydney. --mdmanser 03:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, what about Panthers v Raiders in '91 then? Or is Penrith still technically still part of Sydney? 144.134.73.207 02:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penrith is a part of Greater Sydney and has been at least since the early 1970's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.240.162 (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

History Section

Is it worth including a bit of the history, briefly summarising what is said on the history of the broncos page?

Colours

I'm a little concerned with the language used in the section particularly the comment about navy blue being used to complement Ergon Energy's sponsorship. It makes the club seem a little mercenary and seems more like a opinion than a fact.

Also, who the heck is Thomas Bradford? (14 January 2007)

Club Song

If anyone knows the words to the club song I think it would be a valuable addition to this page. Other club's pages include their songs.--Jeff79 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked everywhere for the club song and amazingly (since we hear it more often than any other clubs') I can't find it anywehre on the web.--Jeff79 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

team song

Yeah, I saw that. But that's not the one the team sings after the grand final (which is the only one worth mentioning I think). I have a general idea of its melody in my head and I think the very last line is something like: "..and they're (we're) never gonna do it again. BULLSHIT!"--Jeff79 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but even if you did find it you'd have to put it onto a new article connected to the Brisbane Broncos template because the team song on the page would make it look very informal.. (i dont know why) SpecialWindler 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Players' Games

This list: [1] is from the official brisbane broncos webpage and shows the number of games each player has played for the club. The figures are different from those in the Brisbane Broncos Players list. Is this because the wiki list isn't including super league or World Club Challenge games, but the broncos.com.au list is? I think Super league games should certainly be included in players' and clubs' game-playing histories.--Jeff79 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you see that link - it shows first graders (including knockout cup matches) - they are not first grade games and are not included in the Broncos Players list. SL games are included though. 202.83.118.27 22:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but WCC matches should definitely be counted I think.--Jeff79 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kits

http://forums.rugbyleague2.com/showthread.php?t=25695&page=10

Are we able to use these kits on wikipedia? Londo06 07:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but it'd be wicked if we could!--Jeff79 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Fans

I think Peter Sterling's more a rugbly league fan than a broncos fan. I have doubts about his inclusion in this list.--Jeff79 06:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broncos History

If you want to add to the history of the Broncos, please do so on the Brisbane Broncos History page. It is the main article on that topic. The history section in this article should briefly summarize the information in the history article, as per every other page on Wikipedia.--Jeff79 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Broncos Seasons

Why'd you move the season summary table to the history page? I think it's not too detailed and sums up the club in a nutshell, so should stay on the club's page. Don't you think history pages are for detail, not summarisations?--Jeff79 05:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the table is a good summary of the club's performance but ironically I believe a bit too detailed to be left on the main page of an article. All of the important points of the club's history are already summarised in the main history section of Brisbane Broncos. I don't think having games won, games lost and ladder position are a major priority for readers, and from my experience with other editors tables are not encouraged unless they significantly improve the article or are absolutely essential. I'm happy to discuss this with other editors and change my mind if there is a general consensus to leave it where it is. But what I'm doing to the article at the moment will, in my opinion, make the article look and read better. Cheers, mdmanser 05:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I feel it shows the club's history 'at a glance', which is exactly what the summarised history section on a club's page should do, linking to further details on the history page. And I think someone who has just read paragraphs of details about each year of the Broncos' history on the history page would be puzzled to find a summary table at the end of it. Also, with regard to readers' priorities, alot of the items within the table are links to other pages that a reader might be interested in.--Jeff79 06:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a heading for the season summaries table for now, but I think that it'd look better at the end of the article. While having something like that in the main article is convenient, it's a bit incongruous in the middle of all the text. Damanmundine1 11:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History approch

I find the duplication of content in the Brisbane Broncos History article in the form of 'Season Summary' sections in Broncos' season articles really absurd. We can approach this two ways: Do away with the History article altogether and just copy and paste the sections of text in it for each year onto their respective season articles, or, put descriptive text in the history article only, and just have tables and lists in the season articles. I don't mind which of these two approaches we use, but having a section of text describing each season on the history article and again on each season article is wrong. Readers should be able to do all their reading about a Broncos season in one place.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would prefer to keep it the same. But I understand your point of not having duplicate information. So if I must have a choice, I'd prefer the History article stay, therefore the history section loss of every article but a link to the History article. But as I've said, I don't think it should change at all.  The Windler talk  08:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've given a good reason for it to change. You've given no reason, good or bad, for it to stay the same.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who wants read an entire history of the Broncos would go to the History page, and read up. Whereas someone who wants to look at the 2006 season, they want to know what happened. It wouldn't be a great 2006 article season if it didn't mention anything about how they got to the grand final. Someone who wants to read a comprehensive history of the Broncos dosen't want to go page by page through each season. They do overlap, and none really are detailed comprehensiveness but with work they can be the same. Is that a reason? I think so.  The Windler talk  08:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know what "the history section loss of every article but a link to the History article" or "none really are detailed comprehensiveness but with work they can be the same" means. So you agree that duplicating is a mistake and your vote is for the history article to stay. In that case I shall go about amalgamating the paragraphs of text on the season articles back into the history article (remember, each year in the history article has a 'see also' link to the season article if anyone wants further details of match results, points totals, signings/transfers, etc.). --Jeff79 (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the history section loss of every article but a link to the History article" means If we decide to remove the history from the season articles we should link to the history page.
"none really are detailed comprehensiveness but with work they can be the same" the word same should be "better" meaning none of the history sections are comprehensive, but could be better.  The Windler talk  09:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has moved to The WikiProject Rugby league's talk page on 03:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC). 
If it is not there check the talk page's archives.  The Windler  talk  03:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey

Is anyone else out there as disgusted as I am at the lack of maroon, white and gold we see the broncos wearing these days? Not really related to the article but it drives me nuts whenever I see them in that ridiculous white and blue rubbish (especially in a grand final or against the Titans, whose jersey features alot of white and blue). Do the people in charge think we have no pride in our colours? What would bulldogs supporters think if their team ran out one day wearing maroon and gold? What are the Broncos' admin. thinking? Sorry, had to let that out.--Jeff79 02:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate I'm with you - I hate the away jersey with a passion. Steeden 11:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-assessed

I have re-assessed this article from B class to GA class and from no importance to low. Harrison-HB4026 03:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My apologies to editors of this article but in discussion with Harrison I have pointed out some of the reasons why this is not just yet a GA article so I have reverted back to B grade for now. I will later this evening give a fully detailed assessment so that with some minor adjustments this article will reach that grade.--VS talk 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Turner

In the early 1990s did Tina Turner have any special affiliation with the Broncos in particlar, or just the Winfield Cup in general?--Jeff79 07:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I was at the ad agency that did the campaign. She had no particular affinity for the Broncos as such. There are shots of her with the team after the 92 or 93 GF because she was at that GF and performed the song beforehand (footage has her sitting on the ground with them mouthing the team song, though she had no idea of the words). I remember other shots of her one year running on a beach with Alfie, ET and Junior Pearce but there wasn't a Broncos affiliation as such. Sticks66 13:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I've been a bit confused about exactly when Tina Turner was involved with the NSWRL and what she did. Maybe you can shed some light on it as I think it's rather encyclopedic information. Check out Talk:New South Wales Rugby League season 1993 and feel free to edit related articles so it's all correct.--Jeff79 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just come across your series of NSWRL season articles and think they're a great idea. So many of the contributions about a particular season are written from the perspective of the competing clubs. I support the idea of having them be less NPOV by having a common format in setting out season issues neutrally. On the Ad Campaign stuff I think I can help. I was at that agency from 1988 to 1996 when the NSWRL was a client. I'll see what I can dig up. I've made some other comments on Talk:New South Wales Rugby League season 1993 Sticks66 12:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

Further to my comments above under the heading Re-Assessed I provide the following.

This article is quite well put together. It is reasonably close to a GA but at this stage is only a high B.

I suggest as a minimum adjustments to the following before a further re-assessment according to the GA criteria. Other editors may have more suggestions. Please note my suggestions at times whilst obvious perhaps to Rugby League followers or Australians, attempts to take into account the fact that Wikipedia is an international online encyclopedia:

  1. The lead sentence refers to the Modern Era – what is this, where is it defined (is there a need for an inline specific reference)?
     Done I changed it to history of the game, because that what the link shows, the modern era is the National Rugby League (1998-2007) SpecialWindler 06:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Brisbane Broncos Ltd. is currently (as of 30 June, 2006) 68.87% owned by Rupert Murdoch's… is there a later dating reference to this claim?
     Done SpecialWindler 04:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barry Maranta and Paul "Porky" Morgan – should these two have wikilinks to their own page (I note that Maranta redirects back to the Bronco’s page and Morgan is not even mentioned. I note that many other League players are considered notable with their own pages – perhaps these two are not but why redirect one name and not the other?
     Done see below SpecialWindler 12:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is a spacing error in the second paragraph under the sub-heading titled Broncos History.
     Done SpecialWindler 06:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. National Panasonic Cup is not wiki-linked and perhaps it should be because any person who checks this detail out as a search item will be linked to the AFL.
     Done It was retitled, it links to Amco Cup. SpecialWindler 07:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There should be no spacing in the third para of this section between orchestrators and the inline link. (Please note there are other similar errors throughout the document which I may not individually refer to in this assessment – all should be fixed). I am also wondering about both the correct use of the word orchestrator and its pluralisation.
     Done SpecialWindler 09:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The article variously uses the terms mid-season and midseason. Midseason is not an English word.
     Done SpecialWindler 07:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The paragraph that ends … As many of the Queensland Maroons who compete in the mid-week State of Origin matches are Broncos' players, this extra workload often results in a loss of form for the club around and after the time of the Origin series. probably needs a reference.
     Done SpecialWindler 07:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The language used in this paragraph … In 2003, they were in the upper echelons of the ladder before losing their last eight games and falling to eighth place, nearly missing the finals for the first time since 1992. 2004 was marginally more successful; the club finished third on the ladder, but quickly bowed out of the finals series after losing to the Melbourne Storm and North Queensland Cowboys. In 2005 the Broncos led for much of the season before fading yet again and limping out of the competition early in the finals' series. is a little choppy and un-encyclopaedic.
     Done it is source 4. SpecialWindler 07:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The final paragraph in this section refers to The Storm and probably should refer to The Melbourne Storm considering it does so earlier in the article without suggesting a shortened naming for future occurrences.
     Done All fixed. Harrison-HB4026 07:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The last sentence in the first paragraph under Emblem probably requires referencing.
     Done SpecialWindler 07:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The first sentence in the second paragraph under Emblem refers to an image that is not there.
     Done It is actually to the leftSpecialWindler 07:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The second sentence here requires an inline reference.
     Done - I couldn't find an adequate source. so I removed the claim SpecialWindler 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. There are spacing errors for both of the references in the first paragraph under Colours. One is before the comma and should be directly after it and the second takes out the space after the full-stop.
     Done SpecialWindler 09:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. There are grammatical errors with the sentence that reads …. It was, though, dropped in 2006 in favour of a mainly maroon jersey with gold trim.
     Done SpecialWindler 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. The final paragraph under Colours talks about The Sevens tournament and I do not think this tournament is either linked nor disambiguated – which I believe it should be – considering there are various forms of Sevens on wiki.
     Done SpecialWindler 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The first reference under Stadium should come immediately after the full-stop and the third should be preceded by a full-stop because the sentence at this stage is unpunctuated.
     Done SpecialWindler 09:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. There are similar errors in the areas titled Current Players and Notable Players.
     Done SpecialWindler 09:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As time permits I will be happy to re-assess if someone drops me a line at my talk page after these adjustments are made and some of the more prominent editors involved in the article have made a thorough check of all content and images. Good luck – keep editing.--VS talk 04:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestration?

A note to editors - As I am trying to assess this article for a GA grade I have noted that the article comments in relation to Super League that ... many perceiving the Brisbane Broncos as the orchestrator's,[3] however the reference used does not say that the Broncos Orchestrated - that is composed, arranged or combined to get Super League up and running but rather that when the Super League war arrived in 1995 [they] were right to the fore of it. Can we either get another word in there because such an important point (in the history of Rugby League) needs to be corrected or be verified by a correct reference? --VS talk 11:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have done this SpecialWindler 12:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say something like "the Broncos played a central role in the advent of the Super League war". No need for colourful language like 'orchestrated'.--Jeff79 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Maranta and Paul "Porky" Morgan

Further to the above assessment - the article relates the fact that Barry Maranta and Paul "Porky" Morgan won the Brisbane licence. As these two people are an integral part of the Broncos I have checked to see if either have their own wiki articles (many less important and less notable sports people do have). At the moment a search for Barry Maranta reveals a redirect back to the Broncos page and there are no hits for Paul "Porky" Morgan at all. It would seem to me that either an article is created for both these ex-players or a redirect for Paul "Porky" Morgan also occurs? Any thoughts by other editors?--VS talk 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC) PS on this point I note that Paul Morgan directs to a British engineer so if a page is created it will have to be in a format that dismbiguates from that page.--VS talk 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information on Paul Morgan (rugby league footballer) at this site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpecialWindler (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
 Done(sorry for not signing before): I have created Barry Maranta and Paul Morgan (rugby league footballer) SpecialWindler 12:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. All references and images have been checked by me this date and are accurate. New reference added today is appropriate to cite in relation item of ownership. Adjustments to the 18 items listed for review are well completed - particularly two new player/owner pages. To help the article keep its GA status, please make sure that all new information added to the article is accurate and properly cited. Altogether, the article looks great. Keep up the good work!--VS talk 04:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

People should stop deleting it. It is relevant. The newspapers of the day covered it at the time, so they considered it significant.

Besides, the Broncos should not worry too much because they have no new controversial incidents in 2007. So the Broncos are doing well compared to some other clubs.

Also, it is the only list that shows what Broncos players were involved in incidents. 210.84.33.138 22:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, we don't put details of everything that national newspapers have ever reported about every Brisbane Broncos player in this article. That would be absurd, so your argument is pretty flimsy. Secondly, the information has been typed out already in players' pages and the rugby league incidents page. It does not need to be typed out a 3rd time. I am removing it again as it is not relevant in an encyclopedic context to the Brisbane Broncos club as a whole, which this article is about.--Jeff79 22:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A great deal of the League coverage in the media these days is about player indiscretions and incidents. There is obviously a public interest in the subject. I feel the real reason you are deleting it is to protect the reputations of the players involved. Obviously, the public want to read about these incidents (which is why the newspapers keep covering it). I guess that you don't like that kind of coverage, but the wikipedia (and in fact, any encyclopaedia) is not solely to show just glory of players. It should show both the positive, the negative, and especially the controversial. Also, you'll find that this controversy section is in point form, and often much briefer than the accounts that are found in the players' pages.Besides, repeatedly deleting wiki content is against the wiki rules, and is forbidden. 210.84.33.138 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Brisbane Broncos football club. Players have their own pages. Rugby league incidents even has its own page. Why do you want this content to appear verbatim in several articles on wikipedia? I think it's quite clear that you have some kind of agenda for raising awareness of player indescretions. I'm just trying to keep this article looking professional. It's also a shame that you're so misguided you think that because newspapers print it, therefore people want to read it. That's not a basis for inclusion in any encyclopedia. This isn't a news site, it's an encycopedia. I welcome the input of an admin on this issue. Look at the headings on this page: History, Colours, Players. These are important themes for a football club and deserve their own sections. You think the isolated controversies involving individual players throughout the past is equally deserving of its own section? If you must type it out a 3rd time, perhaps the Brisbane Broncos History page would be better.--Jeff79 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Jeff79' said: "perhaps the Brisbane Broncos History page would be better" - I guess that would be a way to bury the information. That would bury negative or controversial issues deep down enough so that few would find it, while leaving the front page clean of any hint of controversy. But what you end up with (and what it is now) is a clone of the football club's website, with only glory comment and scores. Even with a 'Controversy' section added, the disputed page is still 95% glory and 5% controversy. You could set up a separate personal fan website for the glory of players. 'Jeff79' also said: "It's also a shame that you're so misguided" - It would have been better keep this discussion serious, without the personal comments.210.84.33.138 00:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you'd re-type what I put on a discussion page. It's right there for all to see. Anyway, I'm happy for the controversy information to appear on relevant players' pages in wikipedia. I'm willing to accept it appearing again in the list of rugby league incidents page and yet again in the relevant year of clubs' history pages/sections. However, I reject its appearance yet again on clubs' pages with its own section, putting it on par in terms of relevance/importance as the club's history, players and results. How is this trying to bury it? The article is for the Brisbane Broncos rugby league club. And I don't think you've actually clicked on the broncos' official website, as it doesn't mirror this article at all. If anything you should add a section on the NRL page (oh, but wait, I'm supposed to be trying to 'bury' the information, oops, shouldn't have said that). Why must you go through to each club's page to add it? It's a blatant awareness raising mission akin to advertising. It is not worthy of its own section on all clubs' (not just the Broncos') pages. I can't wait for more people to join this discussion.--Jeff79 00:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of fairness and balance. The number of fans who put their comments on this discussion doesn't reflect one way or another on whether the article is fair & balanced or not. The page should cater both for people who are members of the club, and for those who have nothing to do with the club. People come to Wikipedia to get both sides of any issue (which other fan sites don't provide). The page should allude to all issues, even if those issues are in more detail elsewhere in Wikipedia 210.84.33.138 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for fairness and balance. That's why I have no problem with the inclusion of those issues in wikipedia articles that deal with past incidents involving Broncos players. As a matter of fact I created Joe Kilroy's page and I did not neglect to mention his conviction on drugs charges in 1989. I created Julian O'Neill's page too (all the controversy you could ever want). I also inserted the bit about Darren Lockyer's 2004 Johnny Raper joke in his article long before you came along. So much for my efforts to only glorify players and to 'bury' controversial information about them. Because they are isolated issues that concern individual players that happened in the past. The issues for this article are Brisbane Broncos issues. As I have said repeatedly already, I am all for the information appearing on wikipedia in the right place (even more than once if you insist). But this just isn't it. Even Super League doesn't have its own section heading! The sacking (the only part of your proposed content that actually involves the Broncos club) of relatively junior players Seymour and Costigan does not warrant its own section heading on the Brisbane Broncos page, for the same reason that similar 'controversy' sections don't appear in AFL, NHL, NFL, NBA, Super 14, English Premier League or any other sporting competion's clubs' pages.--Jeff79 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you move the Contreversy section to Brisbane Broncos History, because they are history. SpecialWindler 08:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that was already said, but the Broncos contreversy doesn't deserve it's own section because no Broncos contreversy, beside the Super League War, is notable enough to mention, which can be mentioned in History page. Its not as if any of those contreversys were 37 points off their ladder for salary cap breaches like the Bulldogs. SpecialWindler 08:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the points of controversy which I have noticed on each of the club pages refer to individual incidents, not the club as a whole. The only notable "incidents" relating to clubs in rugby league that I can think of are salary cap breaches. These do not constitute a section of their own either - rather, integrate them under history. --mdmanser 04:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coach

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure no other club in Australian rugby league history (or even world professional sports history?) has had the same coach for 20 years. This should be mentioned either in the introduction or the records section.--Jeff79 06:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a possibility for rugby league, but certainly not for other sports. Sir Alex Ferguson has been in charge of Manchester United for over 20 years now I think. --mdmanser 07:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this bloke, this one as well
Okay, well rugby league only then. That's hardly insignificant.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hill

Nowhere in this article is Red Hill mentioned. I'm not 100% certain on the details of what the signifance in its entirety is to the Broncos, but I'm pretty sure it's their training ground and perhaps more. I think it should be mentioned in the article as sometimes the club is referred to as 'Red Hill' in the media.--Jeff79 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Red Hill is the location of the Gilbert Park - the location of their training ground, Leagues club and general club management. So it would play a role in the Broncos, but where it would it go in the article? Maybe under homegrounds? Steeden 05:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Added a mention on the Red Hill article after first discussing it there. Now, where to put it in this article. Maybe briefly in the introduction?--Jeff79 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that'd probably work. Maybe have a "Based at Red Hill in Brisbane's inner-north, the Broncos..... (etc)" Although that does sound like they play out of Red Hill. Theres probably a better way to word it. On the topic of the introduction, I think "The club was founded in 1988 and, together with the Gold Coast-Tweed Giants, was one of the first clubs from the state of Queensland to participate in the New South Wales Rugby League competition." could be reworded, mainly because the Giants were entirely based at Tweed Heads, so the Brisbane Broncos were technically the first club from Queensland to play in the Winfield Cup. Actually now that I think about it, they may actually be the first team from outside of NSW to play in the competition because (I think) in 1988 Canberra were still based at Queanbeyan (sp). Ill do some research on the matter. Steeden 11:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Rivalries

Does this section really help make the article better? I would say that really the only major rivalry the Broncos have is with NQ and the Gold Coast (possibly - the Giants/Seagulls/Chargers vs. Broncos games were always great). Steeden 04:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? What about the rivalry with st george in the 90s?

The dragons one is/was a good one, but I was concentrating more on the value of having the Broncos vs. Wests and other rivalries there. TBH they're not games that the media sits up and pays attention to year after year. Think of all the attention the Gold Coast generated when they wanted to open their season against the Broncos. IMO that showed the rivalry (and respect) the Cowboys and Broncos have for each other. I wouldnt rate the Tigers in the same bracket. Steeden 02:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think the broncos have a greater rivalry with one club than another. I'm against the inclusion of this section. It would be misleading to people unfamiliar with the broncos and puzzling to people who are.--Jeff79 06:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Brisbane fan, so I can't say for certain who their biggest rivals are, but I'll gladly help expand any section which does name who the rival teams are. I'm guessing the Gold Coast and North Queensland teams are the bigger rivals, but could someone please open a new section just to give a start? The more text in the article, the more inclined FAC reviewers will be inclined to promote the article. Sure, the team is relatively new but surely such a section could be created. --mdmanser 11:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
South Queensland derby had over 50,000 people at Suncorp for a NRL weekly round game. Goal Post Titans are the Broncos local rivals, with the Gold Coast club edging out Brisbane when they played a few weeks back. Londo06 11:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a section like this (below) but was too out of hand. The only real club that the Broncos have rivalry with is the North Queensland which they dub the "Local Durby", they also dubbed this again with the Titans when they played in Round 5. Rivalries below that are really belony are St. George and Dragons. Melbourne may have a revenge thingo going after the 06 Grand Final. The Sydney Roosters have a scheldeled game on Good Friday which has been going since 2000, but only Nth Qld and Titans have anything worth saying. SpecialWindler 12:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I read the Rivalries section above, there was a rivalrie with St George in the 90s so. The Tigers one is the only real balony one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpecialWindler (talk • contribs) 12:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Was there ever a rivalry with the old Gold Coast team? mdmanser 12:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know SpecialWindler 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could say there was - they did get over 50,000 to a game at ANZ back in 1993 (I think that was the year). Steeden 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Rivalries

  • North Queensland Cowboys - At every start of the season, since the Cowboys knocked out the Broncos in the 2004 finals, these two teams have clashed in the oepning round at Suncorp Stadium. Matches at both this ground and Dairy Farmers Stadium always attract large crowds. The Cowboys have won the last three contests, including the 23-16 season opener at Suncorp Stadium in round 1, 2007.
  • Melbourne Storm - Brisbane and Melbourne made NRL history by becoming the first non-NSW teams to fight out a decider in Sydney. In front of a sold out crowd, the Brisbane Broncos stormed to their sixth premiership, winning 15-8. However in a recent trial they were thumped 46-0 at Princes Park, the Storm's training ground and former home of the Carlton Football Club.
  • Gold Coast Titans - rugby league's newest team have already created a HUGE rivalry with the Broncos, with a round five match scheduled for Friday, 13th April, 2007, at Suncorp Stadium (NB: This is a Titans home game). These teams are the closest to each other outside New South Wales.
  • St George Illawarra Dragons - Matches between Brisbane and St George Illawarra always attract large crowds. The Dragons have a strong supporter base in Brisbane ever since its' inception in 1999. The Dragons have won the last four contests, including the 20-4 final at Suncorp Stadium in 2006 which proved to be the turning point in Brisbane's charge to the premiership.
  • Sydney Roosters - Since 2001 these two teams have played on Good Friday. All matches are played at Aussie Stadium and is usually Channel Nine's first pick from whatever round it lands in. The Broncos have claimed honours all but twice (in 2001 and 2003) since this started in 2001. In round 26, 2000, with the minor premiership secure, they were thrashed 28-0, but won the premiership against the same opposition four weeks later. This year's only clash may determine who wins the Test fullback position out of Karmichael Hunt and Anthony Minichiello, who had his Test jumper taken by Hunt after a horrific season. Ironically, Minichiello's last match was also against the Broncos.
  • Wests Tigers - In 2005 the Tigers entertained the rugby league world with players such as Brett Hodgson, Benji Marshall and Scott Prince shining. In the finals series, they knocked the Broncos out of season 2005 with a 34-6 win. However in their round 21, 2006 match-up at Suncorp Stadium, the Tigers caused a 20-6 upset without Hodgson, Marshall, Liam Fulton, Paul Whatuira and Bryce Gibbs, who all sat out the rest of that season with long term injuries.

As I've already said, I really don't think the broncos have a greater rivalry with one club than another. I'm against the inclusion of this section. It would be misleading to people unfamiliar with the broncos and puzzling to people who are. I know it was suggested by an editor in the FA review, but I doubt that that person is familiar with the subject matter. Creating a major rivalries section just for the sake of having one does not enrich this page as an information source on the Brisbane Broncos club. If more text needs to be added to this article I suggest more relevant topics like Red Hill, Wayne Bennett, the club's song, etc. that I've started discussions about on this page already.--Jeff79 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it so that if mmasner (or whatever his/her name is) wanted to add a rivals section he/she could see what the old rivals section was like, which was deleted. SpecialWindler 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm still against the idea of a rivalries section because I personally dont think it adds anything to the article. If anything, it makes it look worse because most the "rivalries" are nothing more than media hysteria (like Tigers, Melbourne, etc. Even the NQ rivalry only really began from a Brisbane perspective in 2005. Before that the crowds at Cowboys games were not that impressive. Steeden 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is already a page on this, but just suggesting a separate page on Rugby League rivalries over the years. That way all clubs could be listed and linked back to the NRL page.CEP78 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem

Read the article for crest and the article for emblem. The Broncos (and all NRL clubs for that matter) do not have a 'crest'. NFL and Super League (Europe) club articles on wikipedia as well as the official NRL website use the word 'emblem'.--Jeff79 19:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I think it was me who originally put it in, so yeah, I'll take responsibility for not researching it better in the first place. The Titans article and some of the Qld Cup articles are probably in the same boat as well. Definately change to emblem. Steeden 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly Listed

"The Brisbane Broncos are the only publicly listed sporting club on the Australian Stock Exchange". While this may be true, I just wondered if the Melbourne Storm aren't also listed, as apparently they are also partly owned by News Ltd. Can we check this and maybe add a citation?--Jeff79 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Player matches

There are very unreliable, I have a full sheet with all the Broncos first grade games and etc. It a bit sketchy for example
      • Petero Civoniceva played his 200th game on Round 8, 07 (last week), but is states he has played 202 games (+2games from no where).
      • Darren Lockyer has played 268 games (Round 8, 07) but it says he has played 265 (so thats -3games)
      • Shaun Berrigan has played 159 games (Round 8, 07) but he seems to have 50 games added to him. (which contradicts its own site)
Don't trust that. It may have other games added such as trials etc. The club record is 274 by Michael Hancock, followed by Darren Lockyer (currently 268 (Round 8,07)). SpecialWindler 11:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if anyone would include trials. However it's my opinion that World Club Challenge games be included in individual and club totals. These are serious games that are played and trained for with the genuine intention of winning.--Jeff79 18:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say every team goes in with a genuine intention of winning, but they are only first grade NSWRL/ARL/SL/NRL games, if you take one club or one player and added 2 games to it, it makes it inconsistency. I have a full database of the Broncos players which is only first grade games. SpecialWindler 12:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The World Club Challenge is without doubt a first-grade game. Jersey Flegg, Premiership, Jim Bean are not. Are Queensland Cup 1st grade in the effect that it is a league. Londo06 12:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what school of thought you come from really in regards to Qld Cup games. Going by NSWRL records Wally Lewis played for Australia before he played first grade, but at the same time the Qld Cup and NRL are technically the same as the NRL is a successor to the NSWRL and the QC is a successor to the BRL. Tough one really. Id probably leave it out, or reword it to say only NRL games. Steeden 11:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, until poker machines were introduced in New South Wales in the 1950s the BRL and NSWRFL were on pretty much an equal footing. But I think ever since then the BRL (sadly) started to decline and the NSWRL took precedence. Televisation of the NSWRL games really damaged the BRL, then introduction of the Broncos was the final blow. I guess it's not really clear-cut when the Queensland comp took a back seat to the NSW comp. It was a gradual process. Some players' articles use the expression "first-grade" in relation to their BRL careers. I think that's fair enough if it's specified. Since this article is about the Broncos, which came about in 1988, well into the NSWRL's rise to dominance, first grade would apply to the NSWRL. The Broncos were never part of any other competition.--Jeff79 19:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Broncos

Shouldn't there be something written about the London Broncos partnership, the modern day London club Harlequins RL.

Would it be worthwhile to have something written about the London Broncos and the Brisbane players that the London side gained in the mid-90s as part of the deal between the two clubs. Londo06 16:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a mention in the history page a while ago. But it's only brief. I think the association has since ended, so it is history now.--Jeff79 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Broncos

Does anyone else think the "Baby Broncos" deserve a mention in this article? Their games each year have become somewhat notable fixtures. And I think it's something that's unique to the Broncos.--Jeff79 22:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this article, maybe in Brisbane Broncos History. SpecialWindler 11:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea but where abouts would it fit in this article? If we want this article to become featured we do need to include more information in though - I think that may be some useful additional information. mdmanser 11:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Often the problem when adding info to this article. We had the same dilemma with Red Hill (as discussed above). I added mention of that recently in the introduction because the article needed it. Again with the Baby Broncos: where to mention it? They're a feature of the club that's ongoing, but the history section could be a place to put a mention. Not sure when people started talking about them. I think it was a match in the NRL era that they won aganist the Tigers. Not sure why that's when people started taking notice though. Origin has always taken most of the players away, so there would have been Baby Broncos teams before that. Under the Notable Players section there's mention of the Broncos' high rate of representative absence, which is directly related to the Baby Broncos and might be an appropriate spot to mention them. I don't really know where to mention them though. Tough one.--Jeff79 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

In the first para of the history section, the word "competition" is used three in times within two sentences. GizzaDiscuss © 05:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? SpecialWindler talk 06:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if the vocabulary is varied a bit. Perhaps use another word, because hearing competition so often doesn't sound good. GizzaDiscuss © 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bronco

Anyone know the name of that horse that does a lap of the ground everytime the broncos score a try? I remember seeing something on the news about it. Maybe it retired or something. It has a name. Anyone know any details worth putting into the article?--Jeff79 (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the horse's name is Buck.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its worthy to put in the article, in comparison to some things that are. Though if you'd like to help me, I propose a "Club culture" section. In that we could discuss, the Red Hill factor etc...  The Windler talk  03:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"in comparison to some things that are." Like, say, the entire Toyota Cup squad? Hmmm, interesting. Thanks for your two cents. I was just seeing if anyone had more detailed information before I add it to the article. Red Hill's already in the introduction where it belongs.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boot Camp

For a number of years now the Broncos have involved the Australian Army in their pre-season training routine. Is it every year? Anyone have any citeable details about this? Might be worth a mention.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

section headers

I plan to revamp this article by dramatically expanding this article to have it up to FA status by the NRL grand final. Just to help me:

Planned sections

  • Corporate
    • The Brisbane Broncos as a franchise
      • Their buying of the London Broncos
      • The only NRL club on stock exchange.
  • Club structure
    • Infrustructure
      • Where they train,
    • Training
      • Regular training.

Any help would be appreciated.  The Windler talk  11:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're gonna struggle to fill these enough as individual sections. They're good ideas for content, but they simply will not be long enough to constitute sections of thir own. It really is ok to have a few paragraphs of text in one section, don't think it's not. This excessive use of headings in rugby league articles is just making it look like the people who work on them want to have a lot of headings.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The will only be the addition of two headings ("Corporate" and "Club structure") the info above that are underneath these arne't going to be sub headings, just whats going to be in the above section.  The Windler talk  20:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under 20s Comp

Just thinking if we should add the squad for the toyota cup under the 2008 Subject. I would be interested in creating the profiles for each player just like the first graders. Also maybe creating a Brisbane Broncos Toyota Cup 2008 page for keep track of scorers, results in the same mould of the Brisbane Broncos 2008 page. Smiley21 (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beware: Non first grade player articles will be deleted due to lack of notability. Don't create them for the sake of creating them, because they will be deleted.
However there is no problem with adding the squad to the Brisbane Broncos article.  The Windler talk  10:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Brisbane Broncos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria):
  • The lead has instances of bad link formatting: ref one is just a naked URL, and there's a direct external link in the text at the end.
  • The sections are all messed up. Unfortunately there's no template for rugby league team articles, but see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs, that should apply perfectly well.
  • "State of Origin": this is never explained, only wikilinked.
  • "Club legend Allan Langer retired mid-season, perhaps as a result of the team's form.": no ref, WP:OR
  • "Notable players": the picture here is not appropriately labelled, who are the players?
  • "Supporters": this section contains one sentence of prose: "The Brisbane broncos have the largest fan base of any rugby league club in Australia." There is no ref, which there should be. Further, it's only a list of notable supporters, which is peripheral information. There is nothing on such subjects as traditions, chants, socio-economic and geographic origin etc.
  • "Corporate": this section is tagged for expansion.
  • There are 6 dead links (see [3]). Lampman (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that some effort has been made to improve the article, though issues still remain, particularly with structuring and sourcing. I will give the article one more week, and then check back. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Lampman (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though some changes have been made, the main concerns of this review – to do with structuring and sourcing primarily – have not been addressed. I will therefore delist this article now; if adequate measures are taken in the future, please contact me and I'd be happy to give the article another look. Lampman (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brisbane Broncos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Brisbane Broncos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in infobox: premierships

Looks like someone's added in a few years to premierships; the number says 6 but is followed by ten years listed by name. Some years are listed without links and punctuation so I'm guessing they're the suspect years. The Cowboys won in 2015. Gehyra Australis (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Brisbane Broncos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error of fact in first paragraph

Sentence 5 in the first paragraph reads: "The Broncos have never been lower than 12th place on the NRL ladder, making them the only team to have not been bottom placed in their history." The Manly Warringah Sea Eagles have also never been bottom placed in their history - currently 70 years. Additionally, the New Zealand Warriors (joined 1995) have also never been placed at the bottom. The sentence needs to be amended to become factually accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.165.165 (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Brisbane Broncos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Broncos commercial arm : The Thoroughbreds

Earlier references to the creation of the Commercial arm of the newly-established Brisbane Broncos RL Franchise - namely The Thoroughbreds- mistakenly had been attributed to Paul (Porky) Morgan. In fact, bringing together this group of high-powered Brisbane business identities was the brainchild of the Founding Chairman of the Broncos franchise, Barry Maranta. The Broncos franchise was formed in 1987 and the first competition games commenced in the following year. It was in 1988 that Maranta created The Thoroughbreds with his close colleague and nationally-known businessman, Ron McConnell as inaugural Chairman. Indeed, the twenty (20) selected high-profiled businessmen to link up with the Brisbane Broncos were chosen by Ron and Barry. The Thoroughbreds enjoyed a hugely unique relationship with the playing, coaching and front-office staff under McConnell’s tutelage. However, when Maranta elected to stand down as Chairman for the 1992 season and Paul Morgan took over, relations between him and the Thoroughbreds deteriorated noticeably. In fact, McConnell stepped away from his six-years at the helm of The Thoroughbreds and other members followed suit. When News Ltd purchased the highly successful Brisbane Broncos franchise in 1997 and removed Morgan from the Chairmanship, The Thoroughbreds was later revived. Fair to report that this concept continues to this day with a different set of well-established businessmen.

[Drafted by Barry Maranta with actual first-hand knowledge of occurrences related to The Thoroughbreds] 49.197.148.145 (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brisbane_Broncos&oldid=1211434210"