Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 134: Line 134:


'''[[:Category:1965–66 in Romanian rugby union]]''' and 45 other similar categories, which are all within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 4#Seasons_in_Romanian_rugby_union|the category's entry]]''' on the [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|Categories for discussion]] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 19:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
'''[[:Category:1965–66 in Romanian rugby union]]''' and 45 other similar categories, which are all within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 4#Seasons_in_Romanian_rugby_union|the category's entry]]''' on the [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|Categories for discussion]] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 19:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

== Category:Seasons in Argentine rugby union ==

'''[[:Category:Seasons in Argentine rugby union]]''' and its 57 sub-categories, which are all within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 7#Seasons_in_Argentine_rugby_union|the category's entry]]''' on the [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|Categories for discussion]] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 09:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:03, 7 April 2013

WikiProject Rugby Union announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss
Announcements and News

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles for creation

Request for review: Limassol Crusaders

Collaboration

Current Collaboration - None
Nominations

Requested articles

more

Add this to-do list to your User page! {{WPRU Announcements}}

WikiProject iconRugby union Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Not sure if the RU project really still exists these days - mostly seems to be invidual editors doing their own things, but in case anyone is still out there, I stumbled across this in an WP:RU talk archive - its a bot-generated list of recently created articles which might have some RU content. Looks like it updates itself every day. Is it worth keeping handy on here so other articles can be linked to new ones etc?--Bcp67 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From archived talk page

A bot will generate a list of new articles as can be seen below Gnevin (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC) This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.[reply]

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-07-11 21:50 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

This is already linked at the top of the main page (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/New Articles) AIRcorn (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - apologies! --Bcp67 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 end of year rugby union tests

They are trying to delete this again. Please add your support here Talk:2013 end of year rugby union tests Hamish59 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. And it is gone again. Hamish59 (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of Clubs

I started re-assessing the Importance of Clubs against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Assessment#Importance_scale Almost all Premiership / Pro12 / Top14 Clubs are rated High which is not correct, IMO. My initial reading of the High Importance criteria

Club and provincial teams: General overviews of Super 14 and Heineken Cup championship teams.

and the Mid Importance criteria

Club and provincial teams: Club or province that has competed in the top professional domestic competition of a tier one rugby nation within the last 5 years and is not included above. All other club teams of the Super 14 and Heineken Cup.

was Clubs that have won the Heinenken Cup should be High, other Premiership / Pro12 / Top14 Clubs should be Mid. Now I am not sure. Can anyone clarify, please. Hamish59 (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any major club with a history in the top established league for their area is high. You can't link the criteria to winning a particular competition. ----Snowded TALK 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any major club with a history in the top established league for their area is high. - are you saying this is what the criteria is or what you think it should be? It seems to me that it is not what the RU Project Importance Scale is saying. Hamish59 (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the criteria it seems to say that winning the Super Rugby or Heineken Cup competition makes the clubs improtance high, while every other club in the competitions are just rated mid. I personally would change that to make clubs that to put any clubs that have competed in the Super Rugby or Heinekin Cup competitions as High no matter what there placing. I would then put any that compete in the top comptetitions for a tier one team as mid and the rest as low. So from a NZ point of view, the Highlanders (rugby union) would be high, the Otago rugby football club would be mid and Dunedin rugby football club (if notable) would be low. AIRcorn (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem sensible to me, AIRcorn. I assume this would require a change to the criteria. I am not sure how we would go about this.
We already are. If no one objects we can change the criteria from this discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There remains a question of timescale. A number of Clubs have participated in the Heineken Cup in the past that cannot be considered high importance e.g. teams now at the 3rd Level such as Ebbw Vale (now playing in the Welsh Championship below Pro 12 and Welsh Premier Division), Milan (actually, 4th level in Serie B, below Pro 12, Excellence and Serie A) or Bourgoin (now consigned to Fédérale 1 below Top 14 and D2) or teams no longer in existence, such as Aironi, Celtic Warriors and Borders. How do we rate them? Hamish59 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't get too hung up on it, just use it as a guide. You seem to have a good knowledge of clubs so I think your judgement would be fine. Worst case scenario someone disagrees with you and you can discuss it on the talk page or just let it go. If you really wanted something concrete I guess we could use "since professionalism" as the cut off or retain the "last five years" that is already there. AIRcorn (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, AIRcorn. I am happy to go through the Northern Hemisphere Clubs and put them into some sort of order. What I am worried about is having multiple discussions as people try to keep their own Club "high". I reckon more support / consensus is needed here before I make any more changes.
I suppose an alternative interpretation of the current Importance Scale could be 1) if currently playing in the Heineken Cup / Super 14, then "high" 2) if plyed in the Heineken Cup / Super 14 in the past 5 years, then "mid" 3) everyone else "low". Hamish59 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I think you will find little resistance, especially if you look at the number of rugby articles which have no classification. I agree with Aircorn, use your own judgement and I don't think you will get more than one or two (if that) disagreements. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a bit of a think about this one, I am going to do the following:

High Importance - Clubs playing in the current season of the Heineken Cup
Mid Importance - Clubs who have in the past 5 seasons played in the top Division of a tier 1 nation - so Top 14, Premiership, Pro 12, Excellence (only up to 3 years ago)
Low Importance - everyone else

I am going to keep clear of the Southern Hemisphere as this is beyond my ken. Hamish59 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent effort, and I agree with AIRcorn - go for it, use your judgement and put your thoughts here if you'd like some support / discussion. My only extra thought would be to vary the assessment maybe if historical circumstances suggest it - thinking here of a club like Blackheath, who are not currently a top divison club but who hold a historically important place in the development of the game in England. All the best! --Bcp67 (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point re Blackheath. Not covered by the existing criteria, so potentially a problem. Do we need additonal criteria? For example, Founding Members of the RFU surely should be high importance? Or should they? What about Wasps (snigger)? How about any Club old enough to be "FC" - Rosslyn Park F.C., Watsonians RFC (hmm, that article ought to be renamed). Without a strict, objective criteria everyone is going to wade in to argue that their own Club is more improtant than "low". OK, so I have made a start (mostly Level 1 and 2 clubs in 6 Nations). I will wait for the backlash. Hamish59 (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't imagine a huge amount of wading in to be honest - not many clubs have people who edit their articles. It's difficult to set an objective criteria for those historically-significant clubs anyway so maybe it has to be a bit subjective. I've got no club loyalty so don't mind giving an opinion from time to time. To carry on with the example above, not even all the founders of the RFU are of high importance, Wimbledon RFC for example. I've thrown enough spanners in the works for the moment - will let you get on! --Bcp67 (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm reverting back the Welsh clubs dropped to low importance who are of major historical value. The founding members of the WRU should be mid and the teams who played the touring internationals teams are high. As an Encyclopedia pro teams are blips in the history of Rugby Union, and we must understand the importance of historical teams. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FruitMonkey, I can see that the Founder Clubs may need to be of higher importance than "low", analagous to, say, Blackheath F.C. in England. However, I cannot see teams who played the touring internationals teams are high. If pro teams are histoical blips, then surely playing an international team way back when is also a blip? Hamish59 (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with FruitMonkey on this one. The fact that those clubs played the touring international teams isn't so much signigificant of its itself but more for the fact that it denoted their stature in the game. I'm assuming FruitMonkey is thinking here of Cardiff, Swansea, Llanelli and Newport, who regularly played (and sometimes beat) the Southern Hemisphere giants, rather than just a blanket approach to any Welsh club who played a touring side. I like to keep a historical perspective personally and accept that although people may mostly come here to find out about the present day, we need to keep a balance between where we are and how we got here. Let's keep those clubs as high importance? --Bcp67 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Reid

A page on the Irish player Tom Reid at Articles for Creation could do with a bit of help providing references. It looks as if there's plenty out there, but I don't know anything about rugby myself :) Dsp13 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

I am attempting to write an article on Aylestonians rfc without any success. Here is a link to what I have worked on already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Aylestonians_RUFC. Hopefully you will be able to help me get this published. Thank you in advance Aaron O'Rourke Aaron O'Rourke (Aaron1477) 16:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron1477 (talk • contribs) ps, I try to sign but it keeps saying I am unsigned despite putting 4 tidels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron1477 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it does not appear to meet the notability criteria - see WP:RU/N. noq (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I am having is that this club has had notable players such as Harry Sibson who is credited with the introduction of the offside rule as well as competing at regional level until very recently. The article I have submitted has more references and infrmation that [Leicester lions] [aylestone athletic] and [syston] yet they all have pages and it is starting to feel like my page is being discriminated against. I know this is starting to sound like I am becoming emotional but my article has sound references and is about a club that has made history and is currently working with the RFU at grass roots level to continue the development of the grass roots game.Aaron O'Rourke (Aaron1477) 22:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron1477 (talk • contribs)

Jim Kilburn

Working on this article, I discovered that Kilburn, primarily a cricket journalist on the Yorkshire Post between 1934 and 1976, was also that newspaper's rugby correspondent. The sources are sadly lacking on his work in this role; does anyone have anything at all on him as a rugby writer? Any help gratefully received! Sarastro1 (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Week-by-week standings tables in Six Nations articles

User:Rugby.change seems hell-bent on adding week-by-week standings to the most recent Six Nations articles, and using the countries' national colours to shade each cell of the table. Not only is this garish and probably in violation of WP:ACCESS, the table is pretty pointless. Because the Six Nations is so short, showing the standings after each round of games is unnecessary - early on, positions change like nobody's business, and later in the tournament, they hardly change at all. Plus, what difference does it make which team was in 3rd place in week 2? None whatsoever. The standings are also unsourced, though there is an argument that they have been synthesised based on simple mathematics; however, there is no evidence to suggest that the tie-breaking criteria for the Six Nations apply at any time other than the end of the tournament, so their application at earlier points may not be supported by evidence. An anonymous objector at Talk:2012 Six Nations Championship made the point that we could easily add game-by-game standings (i.e. 15 different tables) or even minute-by-minute if we had the inclination, so to add week-by-week seems a little arbitrary. Finally, if we have week-by-week tables, what do we do when a match is postponed to outside its original game week? Treating it as though it was played in that week would be inappropriate and inaccurate, while leaving it out until after it is played would defeat the point of having the table in the first place. Anyway, if you guys could express your opinions, positive or negative, about these week-by-week standings tables, I'd appreciate it. – PeeJay 08:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay, who has just ended a 48 hrs block for edit-warring on this and related articles, and has returned today to revert once again, I say this:
"At Wikipedia, a consensus is not a poll, it is for you as the antagonist to provide an acceptable argument for other editors. Until then you must not continue to revert the status quo"
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 09:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the relevant conversation please see Talk:2012 Six Nations Championship#Week by week Standings and Talk:2012 Six Nations Championship#France's six nations games are played in Paris. AIRcorn (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a straw poll running about this issue. Perhaps some users could have a look ? Talk:2012_Six_Nations_Championship#Use_of_Week_by_week_Standings. Thanks. Gnevin (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion Times

In a recent debate, PeeJay have mentions that converstion times should not be aloud on articles. I personaly disagree as on Offical score sheets that commentators and broadcasters use who are perfessinal, convesrtion times are used. This is why I personaly think Converstion times should remain on articles like the 2013 Six Nations Championship. What does everyone else think?

For the record, I don't think we need to list conversion times because they can be intuited from the time when each try was scored. The actual time when a conversion goes over is not relevant as it must follow within a minute after a try is scored, meaning that for us to note the time of a conversion is pointless. – PeeJay 20:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Usual expectation is that a conversion is within a minute of the try bring scored (assuming the conversion is made). I believe the kicker is allowed 90 seconds? Mostly, converstion time is not recorded, merely try time plus 1 minute (its what I do when I am score keeping for my Club), if anything. If someone wants to bother putting it in, fine. If not, no problem. If in there, leave it. If not, don't bother to add. My tuppence worth. Hamish59 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hamish59 puts it perfectly:
"... If someone wants to bother putting it in, fine. If not, no problem. If in there, leave it. ..."
Rugby.change is a diligent editor who is prepared to carry out the painstaking, conscientious detail that should be encouraged rather than dismissed. I support his endeavour to include the conversion times.
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 23:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he wants to waste his time by adding superfluous information, that is his prerogative, I'm just trying to save everyone's time. The try and the conversion are typically considered to be part of the same score, so the conversion should intrinsically have the same to the try (or similar). There are certainly far worthier pursuits to be concerned with here than adding pointless info, and I suggest that Rugby.change diverts his energy elsewhere. – PeeJay 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record if I dont mind adding this information then why should I divert my energy somewhere else??? Rugby.change (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can't tell you what to edit or what you should be focusing on. Personally I don't think they are needed and I would not add them myself. I would also not remove them if they were already there. It seems to be a small thing to argue about. However, we do specialising in arguing about small things. I am just glad to see a new editor interested in editing rugby articles. We all have to start somewhere and if it leads to them making more "worthwhile" edits then we all win. If it doesn't we haven't really lost anything. AIRcorn (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A large workload, for the record too! Rugby.change (talk) is employing his energy on a raft of editing these articles and is to be commended.
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 10:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With AIRcorn again on this one. We have a lot of debate on essentially trivial matters - for my money I'm not bothered about conversion times. If they are in there now, leave them in, its not worth the bother of removing them. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what about in the future? What about for articles that are yet to be created and matches that have not yet been played? We have to have some consistency here. – PeeJay 20:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are too many diverse personalities, cultures, nationalities and generations at Wikipedia to get any realistic consistency. If you create a new article and don't include the conversion times, even though the related ones have them, I don't think it is going to be a big problem. In the end it doesn't really matter as long as the information in the article itself is coherent and informative. AIRcorn (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Portuguese Super Bock rugby clubs

I've just received a question about the notability of Associação Académica de Coimbra (rugby union) which I created (I admit rather casually in the process of housekeeping, primarily to replace an embedded link to the fr.wp article for the rugby club in the main Associação Académica de Coimbra article). Would just like to confirm the rugby club meets notability for a standalone article. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks clear-cut to me. Supported by an external source and meets WP:RU condition 1 for notability of clubs - plays in the top division of any national competition. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bcp67 thanks, sorry I didn't say thanks earlier. Also I have just realised the word "union" has gone. Per Category:Portuguese rugby union teams does the absence of "union" matter in this context? Quite happy to leave this with folk here, I have no opinion. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby players and officials awarded knighthoods

This is a recently-created category, including both RU and RL individuals, which I've got a couple of questions on. First off - should we have separate "rugby union players..." etc, and "rugby league players..."etc, rather than just "rugby players...." etc? Secondly, is it a category for people awarded knighthoods for their rugby deeds, or for people who happened to play rugby and were awarded a knighthood? I've just added Wavell Wakefield, who is an example of the latter type (knighted for political service) but I'm not sure if he really fits the criteria. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we split them wouldn't there need to be three as anyone knighted before the schism would need their own category. I would just base it on numbers, if there are lots of knights then a union/league split makes sense. I would include anyone that has played a high level of rugby and has been knighted (for rugby or otherwise). AIRcorn (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Aircorn. Any rugby player, union or league, and knighthood for any reason. Also whatever we agree upon then the criteria gets added to the top of the category. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is presumably for people notable for rugby involvement, not just someone who played rugby as a kid? Hack (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Always the case. It is stated in our notability rationale that the likes of George Bush Senior, who played rugby at school, is not significant to WP Rugby union. Therefore the same rides for this new catagory. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. BTW, sure it wasn't Bush Junior you were thinking of? Hack (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1883–84 in Irish rugby union

Category:1883–84 in Irish rugby union and 104 other similar categories, which are all within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1982–83 in Spanish rugby union

Category:1982–83 in Spanish rugby union and 24 other similar categories, which are all within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1965–66 in Romanian rugby union

Category:1965–66 in Romanian rugby union and 45 other similar categories, which are all within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seasons in Argentine rugby union

Category:Seasons in Argentine rugby union and its 57 sub-categories, which are all within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Weisberg, Jacob (October 2008). The Bush tragedy. New York: Random House. p. 6. ISBN 9781400066780.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union&oldid=549125926"