Who have Wakefield played the most?

I'm guessing its Leeds, Castleford or Huddersfield.

These are based on provisional records, as we haven't yet loaded Wakefield into the database, but they have played Leeds the most: 276 times.  Hull are actually next, only just behind, at 269 times.  Huddersfield are third, 237 times.  They have played Bradford Northern/Bulls 225 times, though also played the original Bradford club on a further 21 occassions.  Castleford only joined the pro ranks in 1926, so are quite a bit down the list.

20 hours ago, Neil_Ormston said:

These are based on provisional records, as we haven't yet loaded Wakefield into the database, but they have played Leeds the most: 276 times.  Hull are actually next, only just behind, at 269 times.  Huddersfield are third, 237 times.  They have played Bradford Northern/Bulls 225 times, though also played the original Bradford club on a further 21 occassions.  Castleford only joined the pro ranks in 1926, so are quite a bit down the list.

Thanks Neil you wouldn't know how much of those Leeds fixtures Wakefield won by any chance.

On 07/06/2020 at 15:01, Scott Sinfield said:

Thanks Neil you wouldn't know how much of those Leeds fixtures Wakefield won by any chance.

I'd have to manually calculate Scott, so not too easily.  We'll have the info in due course, and head-to-heads should be easy to generate.  Get yourself signed up if oyu want early access to this sort of thing, as it'll likely be a few years before this all goes up online publicly.  It's only a fiver for the calendar year

On 09/06/2020 at 00:31, Neil_Ormston said:

I'd have to manually calculate Scott, so not too easily.  We'll have the info in due course, and head-to-heads should be easy to generate.  Get yourself signed up if oyu want early access to this sort of thing, as it'll likely be a few years before this all goes up online publicly.  It's only a fiver for the calendar year

Look up rugby league project Neil. Its a shambles.

2 hours ago, Scott Sinfield said:

Look up rugby league project Neil. Its a shambles.

No it isn't. Far from it. Its scope is ambitious and huge gaps remain, but it's not a shambles. 

if you're talking about the new RLRKC project its not a shambles, it seems very well organised, but needs more volunteers to get everything moving forward quickly. as no 16 said its ambitious but always aim high!

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the Rugby League Project website.

RLP have a different approach than the RKC, and are happy to publish information earlier than we will.  However, it's certainly not a shambles IMO.

I have been clear all along that we will check and double check everything before we publish (and even then some info will still be wrong!).  This clearly means things take longer, and the public won't see the efforts our labour for a good while - maybe years.  But the more people helping, the faster it will move, and get to the point where we can share accurate records.  It's easy to criticise, but there's an opportunity to play a part in constructing something for the benefit of the whole of RL here, so I'd encourage anyone to sign-up to help achieve our lofty ambitions.  And as a bonus, you'll get access to this info earlier than Joe Public, to answer whatever queries you may have.

On 15/06/2020 at 19:50, Neil_Ormston said:

RLP have a different approach than the RKC, and are happy to publish information earlier than we will.  However, it's certainly not a shambles IMO.

I have been clear all along that we will check and double check everything before we publish (and even then some info will still be wrong!).  This clearly means things take longer, and the public won't see the efforts our labour for a good while - maybe years.  But the more people helping, the faster it will move, and get to the point where we can share accurate records.  It's easy to criticise, but there's an opportunity to play a part in constructing something for the benefit of the whole of RL here, so I'd encourage anyone to sign-up to help achieve our lofty ambitions.  And as a bonus, you'll get access to this info earlier than Joe Public, to answer whatever queries you may have.

Anything in particular you'd like help with?

4 hours ago, Scott Sinfield said:

Anything in particular you'd like help with?

We now have pretty much a full set of electronic records for club games, and have started work typing up info relating to non-member clubs (amateur & overseas) & representative teams.  Most of this is allocated now, but there is a small amount still to do, and around 500 teams that we're missing (mainly amateurs in the cup) that need researching.  There's then a lot of data checking for nearly all clubs.  i.e. plenty to do!  Best thing is to drop me a mail or a PM, sign-up, and then we can work out what's of most interest / most suitable for you (or anyone else) to pick up.

The answer is Leeds on 277 occasions ... Trinity winning 102 of them

10 hours ago, Trinity Heritage said:

The answer is Leeds on 277 occasions ... Trinity winning 102 of them

Hmm, I had 276 Lee, but did it manually - I wondered if they'd played since I posted, but it seems not   I don't think I retained the lookup I did (but it was based on your info!)  One to check when we get loaded in!

I get 276 as well.  

One of the things people from different clubs will be able to help with is any errors in cross-referencing - games, dates and of course players. 

I don't think RLProject is a shambles, but they tried to put everything they had out at once so there are some huge gaps - most noticeably British RL but also Australian.   One of the future tasks to complete will be to join the two together in some way so we can track complete career records of Aussies and Kiwis. I'd say the lesson is less haste more speed (if I've got that the right way round!). I've just been messing around with Leeds and when I try to do too many things at once it all becomes impossible to manage.   

3 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

I get 276 as well.  

One of the things people from different clubs will be able to help with is any errors in cross-referencing - games, dates and of course players. 

I don't think RLProject is a shambles, but they tried to put everything they had out at once so there are some huge gaps - most noticeably British RL but also Australian.   One of the future tasks to complete will be to join the two together in some way so we can track complete career records of Aussies and Kiwis. I'd say the lesson is less haste more speed (if I've got that the right way round!). I've just been messing around with Leeds and when I try to do too many things at once it all becomes impossible to manage.   

   

To be fair David, we'll box off the game & dates bit pretty easily with the checks we've got for loading stuff into the database.  Once we've got Leeds & Wakefield in there for example, I would be able to confirm which is correct, 276 or 277.  Leeds is in, but we're not quite there with Wakey yet, which is with Lee for review.

Could the discrepancy be an abandoned/ void match?

1 minute ago, marklaspalmas said:

Could the discrepancy be an abandoned/ void match?

Possibly Mark.  My list includes those, but it’s possible one has slipped through the net, as they’re difficult to identify, and impossible to reconcile (by definition).  However, IIRC I reconciled Wakey’s abandoned games with Lee recently, and we agreed on that.  More likely I’ve missed one that Lee’s creates one!  We’re in the process of reviewing Wakey’s data, so that should sort it out.

On ‎05‎/‎06‎/‎2020 at 17:15, Scott Sinfield said:

I'm guessing its Leeds, Castleford or Huddersfield.

Not only the above, but teams, judging by results, which are much better than Wakey.

Neil - I guess that's the point in comparison to RLP. What you're trying to do is a step-by-step process which allows for checking of a large number of errors.  RLP have put up a huge number of bits and pieces up and almost none of it is complete, so its impossible to do much in terms of reconciliation. But I'm not writing RLP off - it has a bunch of information which isn't online anywhere else.