Talk:Canada national rugby union team

Rugby union Start‑class High‑importance

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Sport B‑class Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Not sure I'd call this B-class, it is not nearly as complete or referenced as South Africa national rugby union team which rates as B-class. This to me feels more like start-class.GordyB 11:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The United States national rugby union team is rated as start-class and I can't see any significant difference between the two articles.GordyB 11:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gordy that was my fault. Start is very much what it should be rated as. In case anyone wants to know how to get it up to B, the article would more references, info on colours/jersey and a deeper history in my opnion. Cheers. Cvene64 07:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"somewhat of a rugby stronghold"

I removed the line that said that BC, NS and NL were "somewhat of a rugby stronghold" due to their climates. Clearly, the line had originally been written with regard to BC, because they play year-round. Obviously, no other province has a mild enough climate to play year-round. Thus, it was not relevant for any other province. Someone put in a reference to indicate that Newfoundland's climate is milder than average, too. That's true, but not relevant, because it's still too cold and nasty to play rugby year-round. Then, someone who clearly likes Nova Scotia rugby kept adding in Nova Scotia to the list - Nova Scotia is about 5th or 6th after BC, Ontario, Alberta, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan in terms of rugby right now. I was trying to figure out how to make that work, but then I realized that really, that sentence was irrelevant. It might belong in an article about rugby in Canada in general, but did not belong in an article about the national team itself. AshleyMorton 14:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the reference in as it was in one of the sources used to write the article. The Rugby union in Canada did not exist at the time. Feel free to move the comment across.GordyB 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not using the terms "cold and nasty" without quoting a source as they are purely subjective terms and not suitable for Wikipedia. I live in Florida and find the weather in BC "cold and nasty". 152.1.111.242 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is a talk page, so unsubstantiated opinion and glorious hyperbole are at least *more* welcome than on the actual article itself. Second, I live in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the only place in the province where rugby is played, and do, in fact, believe that the climate is cold and nasty...

...But the real point is that I did not say, in isolation, that the weather was cold and nasty. I said that it was "too cold and nasty to play rugby year-round". That, I would suggest, is indisputable fact. The rugby season in all other provinces runs from spring through summer to fall, while in BC it runs from fall through winter to spring (and those who wish continue to play through summer). Thus, the climate in BC *does* affect it's ability to play year-round. In fact, nothing I said contradicts your analysis of the BC climate - even if it is "cold and nasty", it's not *too* cold and nasty *to play rugby in February* ...which is all I meant to say. Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly enough. AshleyMorton 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Lions

I have latered the line regarding th 1966 match with the British Lions - it isn't classed as a Test match but a non-cap ritish Lions XV match. Blogdroed 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admission at the Six Nations

There were never any proposals for Canada to join the Five Nations / Six Nations Championship ? They already beaten five of the Six Nations countries, except England, and in fact already reached the quarter-finals of the Rugby World Cup.81.193.221.140 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that they did propose joining the Six Nations? I can't see it in the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the opposite. If they were never invited by the members of Six Nations to join them. In the article about Romania national rugby union team they mention rumours that Romania might have been invited in the past.213.13.246.64 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]