:To me, this looks fine other than in my opinion the fixture it self shouldn't be collapsible just the line-ups. [[User:LouisOrr27|LouisOrr27]] ([[User talk:LouisOrr27|talk]]) 22:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:To me, this looks fine other than in my opinion the fixture it self shouldn't be collapsible just the line-ups. [[User:LouisOrr27|LouisOrr27]] ([[User talk:LouisOrr27|talk]]) 22:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::Considering this page has thirty matches displayed, I think it’d be asking too much of readers who simply want to see teams and scores to make them parse through much more information being displayed at once. Not to distract from this conversation, but you brought up [[2023–24 Premiership Women's Rugby]] and [[2023–24 Premiership Rugby]] earlier, and I thought it appropriate to note that a simple [[Module:Sports results]] table would suffice for those articles, instead of meticulously detailing all ninety home and away matches. — [[User talk:AFC Vixen|AFC Vixen]] 🦊 02:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::Considering this page has thirty matches displayed, I think it’d be asking too much of readers who simply want to see teams and scores to make them parse through much more information being displayed at once. Not to distract from this conversation, but you brought up [[2023–24 Premiership Women's Rugby]] and [[2023–24 Premiership Rugby]] earlier, and I thought it appropriate to note that a simple [[Module:Sports results]] table would suffice for those articles, instead of meticulously detailing all ninety home and away matches. — [[User talk:AFC Vixen|AFC Vixen]] 🦊 02:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I recommend you stay away from the Premiership, because unlike the Top 14, people actually work on that and are not lazy. [[User:Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel|Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel]] ([[User talk:Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel|talk]]) 22:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
== Compression of WXV 1 section ==
== Compression of WXV 1 section ==
Revision as of 22:25, 19 August 2023
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2023 WXV article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Citation error
@Achmad Rachmani and Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: Please be more careful when updating citations; you two made quite a mess here. Ideally, there should not be two different sources in a single citation. Also be sure to replace or remove quotes when changing the source, and make note that archive-url is meant for an archive of the source, and id is not for URL links. — AFC Vixen 🦊 17:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: Your recent edit summary suggests you prefer seperate articles for the divisions. This seems excessive for a competition this small in scope and notoriety, especially compared to the World Cup. If you do insist on having these intricately detailed tables of players, officials, substitutions, ect. for every single match, would you be willing to compromise for a single article compiling match details, à la Super League XXVIII results? We could name it 2023 WXV matches, perhaps. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No.
This competition is not a league like the Super League or Super Rugby, nor is it a major tournament as the World Cup. You either split the article, leave it whole, or put games in a single collapsible section. Otherwise, it is a mess. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But... that's what I'm literally asking you. Do you want to have it split? Because this seems like a very efficient way of splitting it; one parent article and one supplimentary article similar to 2023 Super Rugby Pacific season and List of 2023 Super Rugby Pacific matches. The alternative split, one large article and three very small nine-match articles, seems inappropriate here. Otherwise, we can leave it whole, but we're going to have to forgo the excessively detailed tables for readability sake, and you seem very opposed to that. — AFC Vixen 🦊 16:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The actual spilt I'm talking about is the split of competitions. One article per tier of competition, not the whole module then a separate article for the games. The competitions are not small in scope as there are nine games per tier, far more than the Pacific Four's tally of six which seems to be going well without any need to get rid of it. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the 2022 Pacific Four Series article looks great without massive roster and personnel lists, and starting 15s graphics. The "Report" hyperlink for each match suffices for further reading, as Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. In any case, those exist as articles because they're about singular tournaments; this is also a single tournament, and thus should be kept as a single article. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, some inquiries into your recent edits. Why do you insist on a longer, clunkier lead sentence that repeats "WXV" and "2023" twice? If your issue was that "first edition" could be mistaken as a competition title, then we can easily not bold font it; MOS:BOLDAVOID permits this. Why did you re-link country names when I made it clear that MOS:OL does not permit this? (See MOS:GEOLINK also). Why did you remove spacing from section headings that make it easier for editors like me to identify them? What's wrong with {{Rugby box collapsible}}, and why did you remove many parameters that {{Rugby box}} shared in common anyway? Why did you reduce the amount of matches in each division from nine to six? Why did you remove the WXV 3 play-off match? — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The facts just don't care about your feelings. The team sheet is there because it is informative. That is how it works for every single international competition... male and female.
It’s less my feelings and moreso the feelings of the people who wrote that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not a sports database, this is an encyclopedia, and your “that’s just how it is” arguments are unsubstantial and threat to ruin another page is childish. Are you at least going to attempt to answer any of the concerns I raised about your edits from today in particular? — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is genuinely the most boring experience arguing with you. I am not interested. Anything I say, you seem to have a problem with. In the end, you are not going to be the one there when it actually gets underway. The first sentence of an article addresses the title. That is Wikipedia 101. I do not need you deliberately saying everything is garbage because it isn't. Any general reader who comes across it is not going to be interested in how revolutionised an article by simply changing to your own whim. If you really insist doing you way, go to EVERY article, EVERY Six Nations, EVERY Rugby Championship, EVERY World Cup, EVER Premiership, EVERY Top 14, EVERY URC, EVERY Premier 15s, EVERY Super Rugby, EVERY Pacific Four and EVERY Lions tour and waddle it down to your simplicity. I do not care until you too are lazy to do it so you pick out one Top 14 season and one WXV. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re not interested, then stop this nonsense reverting, reverting, reverting of every single thing that I do and then having a big sook when I question you or attempt to compromise with you. If you have no answer in particular for country wikilinks, the rugby box changes, and the ten matches you removed, I will be restoring those in due time. For the other issues discussed here, I will attempt to seek mediation. — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: I see you've again removed the collapsible rugby box and nine matches, while offering no explanation here, or in your edit summary. Please properly explain why you think a rugby box without a collapsible option is better, and why you think those nine matches need to be removed. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: Why are you now starting to remove sections of prose from the article? You can't seriously think "gibberish" is an adequate explanation. I've sought a third opinion for the rugby box dispute, but I'd still like an explanation for the missing matches. If you continue being silent, I will have to restore them again, and if you revert it again, I'll have no choice but to once again report you to the administrator's noticeboard. — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think the background to the European play-in is, at the very least, relevant? I think a short one- or two-sentence profile of recent Spain v Italy encounters would be completely harmless. I'm also still seeking an explanation for the nine missing matches. — AFC Vixen 🦊 15:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the qualification stuff is relevant, but saying Italian-Spanish rivalry history is not. It is not an article about that. Saying England and Canada are playing each other before the tournament is also relevant. What is only relevant is the game they have with each other during the tournament. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I wanted a dissemination of the Italian–Spanish rivalry, just a short profile of their recent encounters would suffice as a background, similar to what was done for Colombia v Brazil. This will also be my final time asking for an explanation for the missing matches. — AFC Vixen 🦊 16:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you are also going to need to imply what these "missing games" are. There's 27 games, 6 per tier, and the play-off between the WXV 3 last ranked team and the next best ranked team not in the WXV. I put all of them in. None are missing. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, we're going to have all these team sheets and personnel for every single match like it's a World Cup? I'm confused by the scope here. Also, 27 divided by 3 does not equal 6. It's 9. There are even sources being used in the article now that state things such as "the teams will play nine tests during the tournament",[1] and "each match weekend venue hosting a standalone Friday night Test followed by a Saturday doubleheader".[2] — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase it then.
There's 27 games, 9 per tier, and the play-off between the WXV 3 last ranked team and the next best ranked team not in the WXV. I put all of them in. None are missing. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a third opinion: which of these reads better as a lead sentence: the current one (1) or my proposal (2)? While MOS:LEAD does encourage the title be used, an exception is made if it feels unnatural, and "the 2023 WXV is an edition of WXV held in 2023" is both unnatural and borderline MOS:REDUNDANCY in my opinion. The name "2023 WXV" is also seldom used in official sources and reliable third-party sources. MOS:AVOIDBOLD also encourages bold font to not be used in these instances, which is why it is not used in my proposed version.
(1) The 2023 WXV is the first edition of WXV [...] and will take place between 14 October and 4 November 2023.
(2) The first edition of WXV [...] will take place between 14 October and 4 November 2023.
All other things being equal, my preference is for (1). I don't think any of the exceptions in MOS:LEAD really apply here, and, speaking as someone who knows nothing of this topic, I would be disoriented if I encountered (2) because the page title doesn't make it clear that this is the first edition. Also, the first sentence truly concludes with "14 October and 4 November 2023," so it's not exactly redundant—it gives more specific information that "WXV 2023" lacks.
That said, if you feel that "WXV 2023" is a poor title for this page, that's another issue altogether. Maybe it is a poor title, and if so, renaming the page might lead to a better first sentence. If you wanted to convince me that the title should be changed, I would hope you would suggest an alternate title and supply some authoritative sources demonstrating that your suggested title really represents common parlance. Of course, you probably wouldn't need to sway just me, but that sort of evidence would probably sway others too.
Also, if the subject of this page isn't covered at all in RS as a distinct concept, it kinda calls the page itself into question. The sources here all seem to talk about WXV1, WXV2, and WXV3 separately. Maybe each of these tournaments should have its own page instead? I kind of get the impression that the discussion above has something to do with this but I feel like I'm missing a lot of context there.
As a side note, I'd like to gently remind both of you (@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel) to be kind and respectful towards one another. In my eyes, it's not particularly civil to say to another editor "The facts just don't care about your feelings," to call another editor's behavior "childish," to say "It is genuinely the most boring experience arguing with you," to call another editor "lazy," or to describe them as "having a big sook." Please remember, we all must strive to treat the other person with respect and goodwill even if their behavior is frustrating. I know it's hard, but it's what keeps the world spinning—we could never have formed a culture without that beautiful human capacity. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤23:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. All I’ll say is that it’s just nice to be able to get an opinion from somebody who doesn’t clearly outright disrespect other editors and participates in blanket reverts and stonewalling. I apologise for my use of language in particular, I’ll continue to try my best to be as respectful as possible when criticising other users’ poor behaviour. — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. ^^ Also, you don't need to apologize to me, I wasn't involved :P I just wanted to say something as a bystander. It's certainly good to be respectful if you must criticize, but in most cases I would say it's not even necessary to criticize at all—we're here to work on the articles, so most of the time I find it works to just ignore anything unkind or personal and stay laser-focused on the article content in disputes. Also, it really helps to center debates on questions that RS or at least some kind of hard evidence can answer whenever possible, because those kinds of debates can be easily and often genially resolved. Matters of pure opinion are dangerous, and debates based purely around policy are honestly not much better. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤11:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rugby box
For a third opinion: This article will eventually list between 27–31 rugby matches. Should {{Rugby box collapsible}} or {{Rugby box}} be used to list them? While {{Rugby box collapsible}} can be expanded for more information, which can also be set as default, {{Rugby box}} doesn't have a collapsible option, and doesn't have a column on the left to display notes such as "Test: 1612".
Hi. Friendly reminder that the "Test number" info was deemed irrelevant during the delete discussion of templates Wrugbybox and Wrcode. That being said, I personally prefer the use of collapsible. PotatoNerd (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My definitive answer is neither. Cards are irrelevant for displaying as they are put in the team sheet anyway. If you really want collapsible boxes, then put the entire competition in a collapsible box... Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PotatoNerd: Apologies for bothering you, but is it possible you could clarify why you prefer the use of collapsible rugby boxes, so that your viewpoint is clearer? — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's one small technical issue: if you have in the page an element with float right (like for example maps with the teams locations) and a rugbybox next to it, the match data gets displayed wonkily, because rugbybox has a display block while collapsible has a display table. It's a minor issue, though. Mostly is just I find collapsible to be more visually pleasing? Like Marge Simpson said, "I just think they're neat". PotatoNerd (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Italy v Spain background
For a third opinion: Should a brief, one-sentence summary of recent encounters between Italy and Spain's women's rugby union teams be added to provide readers a context and background to their consequential play-in match? Its relevancy is supported by an article from the sport's governing body, which notes Spain's losses, and the World Cup qualifying match in particular, as context for the upcoming match.[1]
(1) The European play-in will be staged as a single match between Italy and Spain on 22 July in Piacenza, Italy.
(2) The European play-in will be staged as a single match between Italy and Spain on 22 July in Piacenza, Italy. Spain had lost their previous two encounters against Italy, including a 2021 Rugby World Cup qualifier where Italy ended Spain's World Cup bid by scoring five tries in a convincing 34–10 victory.
3O Response: I prefer option 2. I see no harm in a background sentence. It is useful to the reader, and can be expanded upon with the match results when it occurs. Having background sections in articles about sports matches is pretty common, and although it is not an article about a match, I see no reason not to include it. JML1148(talk | contribs)11:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a third opinion: Should the year be repeated in the "Dates" cell of this article's infobox, even if the infobox's title, "2023 WXV", already implies that the subject takes place in 2023? e.g. "14 October — 4 November 2023" instead of simply "14 October — 4 November"? — AFC Vixen 🦊 04:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that yes, the year should be repeated in the "Dates" cell of the infobox.
Doing so doesn't clutter the infobox, contributes to the infobox's goal of summarizing the key facts of an article,
and is worth adding for the sake of completeness. Tuckertwo (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lineups
Example
The round five match between England and France was held at Twickenham Stadium in London, England; the first ever time the English women's national rugby union team had played a headlining match there.[1] It was the final test match for French forward Jessy Trémoulière after 78 games, and English coach Simon Middleton, who had led the team since 2015.[2] The world attendance record for a women's rugby union match was set during the game at 58,498, surpassing the 2021 World Cup final's attendance of 42,579.[3] Claiming a 38–33 victory over France, England consequently won their 19th Women's Six Nations title (their 5th in succession) and their 17th Grand Slam.
@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: I've come to propose another compromise that I hope is better to you than my last. I've drafted a template for a simplified, collapsible, horizontally-aligned lineup list. It accommodates a full list of players, coaches, and notation for substitutions. Don't worry though, red and yellow cards, assistant referees, and television match officials have been preserved in the rugby box above it! Using it is as simple as writing the names of players on each team from 1 to 23 in order as inputs. Substitutions are easy to note as well. For example, the substitution of a home team's #13 player is written as |h13=sub (Abigail Dow13), while a blood substitution is noted by |h13=blood (Abigail Dow13). The code is presented in the "Syntax" table above. Thoughts on this being used on this page? — AFC Vixen 🦊 11:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The round five match between England and France was held at Twickenham Stadium in London, England; the first ever time the English women's national rugby union team had played a headlining match there.[1] It was the final test match for French forward Jessy Trémoulière after 78 games, and English coach Simon Middleton, who had led the team since 2015.[2] The world attendance record for a women's rugby union match was set during the game at 58,498, surpassing the 2021 World Cup final's attendance of 42,579.[3] Claiming a 38–33 victory over France, England consequently won their 19th Women's Six Nations title (their 5th in succession) and their 17th Grand Slam.
@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: If a simplified lineup is unsatisfactory to you, this detailed collapsible lineup is also relatively straightforward to use. Like the previous template, the names of players are simply listed from 1 to 23 for each team, though this time it is presented in a more familiar three-column, vertically-oriented format, with support for full substitution and card notation. For example, a red card for the #14 player of the home team in the 18th minute is noted by writing | h14=red | h14t=18 ('18 Lydia Thompson14). A third column is also supported – h1e, a1e, ect. – for any additional notation whenever needed, such as if a substitution later receives a yellow card, which would be written as | a20=subon | a20t=50 | a20e={{Yellow card}} 65{{`}} (20Kennedy Simon (c) 50' 65'). The code is again presented in the "Syntax" table above. Would you support this being used on the page instead? — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice if you'd at the very least be helpful in your criticism, instead of just saying "no" and "no point of existing." Saying what exactly about the template you disagree with, and why, would be much more helpful in informing what needs to be changed. — AFC Vixen 🦊 04:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well your only interest is to make everything yours. You want everyone to know that this template is created by you even though it is a carbon copy of a template that already exists and is used. You are wasting time and energy making a copy of something that already exists. Stop wasting my time. We're doing it the same way with the original template and that is final. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it exists today is the result of numerous discussions involving numerous editors either on this talk page or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, so I'm truly baffled as to why you think this way, and immensely disappointed that you don't seem to care for any attempts at finding common ground between us. — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried finding common ground. I found nothing. I have good relationships with other people, but not with you. Therefore, it's best you leave me alone, and I will leave you alone. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we tried in the W6N a few years ago and it was far too messy so we abandoned it. The whole box being collapsible or nothing at all being collapsible is more sensible. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assistant referees: [[]] ([[|]])
[[]] ([[|]])
Television match official: [[]] ([[|]])
Notes:
PotatoNerd, you had a preference for the use of {{Rugby box collapsible}}; LouisOrr27, you seemed to have had the same idea as me, to place lineups underneath each match in a separate collapsible box. Would something like the example above be preferable in your opinions, or are there any further improvements that need to be made? — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I liked the idea you had in the green examples at the beginning of this section, but have nothing against this last option either. That being said, I think this has turned into a discussion that should probably be talked with the whole Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union cause, ideally, if you gonna make changes to how lineouts are displayed, wouldn't it be better to have more people involved and also, the selected format used in way more places, not only on this particular article? PotatoNerd (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, {{Rugby lineup}} will be eventually proposed to WikiProject Rugby union, but it’s still being worked on. Implementing it here and now would clearly be controversial, and so this interim solution I hope can suffice to resolve the issues unique to the circumstances of this particular article compared to most articles on rugby union competitions. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this page has thirty matches displayed, I think it’d be asking too much of readers who simply want to see teams and scores to make them parse through much more information being displayed at once. Not to distract from this conversation, but you brought up 2023–24 Premiership Women's Rugby and 2023–24 Premiership Rugby earlier, and I thought it appropriate to note that a simple Module:Sports results table would suffice for those articles, instead of meticulously detailing all ninety home and away matches. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: I prefer option 2. I see no harm in a background sentence. It is useful to the reader, and can be expanded upon with the match results when it occurs. Having background sections in articles about sports matches is pretty common, and although it is not an article about a match, I see no reason not to include it. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
Abigail Dow 13), while a blood substitution is noted by 
Abigail Dow 13). The code is presented in the "Syntax" table above. Thoughts on this being used on this page? — AFC Vixen 🦊 11:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Lydia Thompson 14). A third column is also supported – 
50' 
65'). The code is again presented in the "Syntax" table above. Would you support this being used on the page instead? — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Australia
Wales