Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.42.64.254 (talk) at 23:32, 4 December 2009 (→‎Irish flag, not more of the same: rename). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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}}

Proposal for new article

I have just been creating another page (Tony Shaw (rugby)) when I came across this link. I was thinking if we should create a similar page on wikipedia, possibly called list of australian wallabies or list of australian international rugby union players etc etc you get my drift. Or would we not be able to do it because of cipyright (what if we find more links). Await feed-back. De Mattia (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are already pages for complete lists of other nations players, including England, Wales, Ireland and New Zealand. None follow a standard style, with the Irish being the most basic and the Welsh the most data heavy. There is no problem setting up an Australian list but I'm unsure if the Project has a prefered style to use. Check "Category:Rugby union related lists" for the other articles. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the lists mentioned above (lists of english players etc). I looked but couldn't find them. De Mattia (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find the England one, but the Wales, Ireland and New Zealand ones can be found at List of Wales national rugby union footballers, List of Ireland national rugby union footballers and List of New Zealand national rugby union footballers respectively. Cheers. – PeeJay 22:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The England list uses the same naming convention as the others, i.e. List of England national rugby union footballers.Kwib (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
De Mattia, if I was you, I would avoid splitting the List of Australia national rugby union footballers into sections like the England, Ireland and New Zealand ones as it interferes with the sorting of the article. I suggest following the Welsh model. – PeeJay 08:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? There isn't a list article for 'Australia'. De Mattia (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why you opened this topic of discussion. But when you do start the article, try to follow the Welsh pattern. – PeeJay 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would I be able to start by placing say 15 players and then everyone can slowly add more or do I have to place all names in one big hit before I save it for the first time? De Mattia (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can add as many or as few players as you want to start with, but I would suggest working on it in your userspace (say at User:De Mattia/List of Australia national rugby union footballers) and then moving it to the mainspace when it's in a condition that you believe is worthy of publication to the encyclopaedia. And of course, even when the article is in your userspace, people can still work on it with you as a collaborative effort. – PeeJay 10:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, is there a page of information on the type of table used in the Welsh list? That is the type of list table I will use in the list but I will need to kow some information about how to use it. Ir will I just have to go 'copy and paste' from the Welsh page and then take it from there? De Mattia (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now up and running as a user sub-page here. Will need a lot of work before it can be moved onto the encyclopedia. De Mattia (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like this style of table. When I created the England table, I believe I did not see the Wales version and followed another style. However, the Wales table is a more user friendly version. I have just appended to De Mattia's user page the complete table for all Australian internationals, but left out details such as birth date, death, and the points breakdown. However, I have added to each player's line a hyperlink to the profile of that player on scrum.com in order to make filling in the details easier (because you can navigate to them quickly). I hope that helps.Kwib (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These tables are excellent and the work is great. However, I'd caution against linking every player's name - many of the links in the England article point either to disambiguation pages or to articles about a different person with the same name. Maybe better to set links up to "name (rugby union)" where there isn't an existing article.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree about not linking all the names, as apart from the disambiguation, it also helps us know which players we have addressed. Just thought I should state that I went with the type of scoring achieved by each player in the Welsh list as the points system changed so much from the early days to present times, and can not be compared. Early tries, for instance, carried no points. Not sure if anyone wants to change that?FruitMonkey (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of automatically putting a redlink with rugby union as a disambiguation marker I think it would be better to not link to missing articles at all. As for the problem with scoring, maybe split the table at the points where the scoring changed with a brief explanation of the scoring system at the time preceding each table? noq (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is now also a List of South African national rugby union footballers in need of collaboration. Please pitch in! Sahmejil (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of Irish Rugby player Bios

Some of the Irish Rugby Bios aren't of great quality. I'm starting a clean up of them, beginning with current international players and working onwards from there. Plan is to have them in a similar style as I've done here with:- Alan Quinlan. Any input, help, suggestions etc. would be appreciated. I'm starting with the current Internationals as listed here:[1], first up:- Rory Best GainLine ♠ ♥ 12:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the Irish rugby bios that aren't good quality. In fact, most rugby bios are complete crap, IMO. – PeeJay 16:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tis true! Thought I'd start with the current irish internationals and work form there, could take some time GainLine ♠ ♥ 18:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I was suprised by both the lack of content within existing bios, and the general lack of bios altogether when browsing for rugby players. This is most apparent with historical figures in the game (and indeed with historical clubs) but does extend into the modern era quite significantly. However, I suppose the predominant reason for a project is to elevate the quality and content of the subject. Does wikiproject rugby union follow the guidelines set out by the overarching wikiproject biography, or does it have its own slant, i.e. a specific rugby union biography template?Kwib (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikiproject rugy union doesnt seem to be one of the more active projects hence my proposal to start cleaning up Bios, begiining with the irish ones. GainLine ♠ ♥ 14:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few months I have created a few Ireland player articles (Philip Matthews; Nigel Carr; William Tyrrell (RAF officer)) mainly because I happened to be looking up these particular players and found nothing on them. It astonishes me that rugby is so poorly represented on wikipedia in the biographies, but projects such as yours will help enormously.Kwib (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a project, there isn't much in the way of standardisation and individual editors tend to do their own thing - the bios I've created for example have tended to be very short stubs giving a few basic statistical details.Kwib's ones quoted above are good patterns and also the ones which FruitMonkey has created, usually for Welsh players from historical days - e.g. Billy Bancroft. I've found that newspaper obituaries are quite good sources of biographical information about a player's life outside rugby. Good luck with whatever you do, we need more rugby union contributors!--Bcp67 (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I kinda got sucked into other stuff but am intending on getting back on track soon as its out of the way. GainLine ♠ ♥ 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of Rugby player Bios

Hello,

In fact, most rugby bios are complete crap, that's true in wikipedia.fr and in wikipedia.en. If you want it, we can better together some bios : look at fr:Sébastien Chabal. We can do the same work with Jonah Lomu and Jonny Wilkinson and...

or other players in order to have 15 good articles... Ddfree (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an excellent article. I'm going to aim to get the Irish ones in order first then a bit of collaboration to maybe get some rugby Bios to good article status could be in order. GainLine ♠ ♥ 08:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are other great players, 15 of them could have a good article status...

 South Africa

 England

 Argentina

 Australia

 Scotland

 France

Wales

Ireland

 New Zealand

Ddfree (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello !
We are working on fr:Jonny Wilkinson... If you want to do it too... Ddfree (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have finished fr:Jonny Wilkinson... with many references and works. If Wiki.en, it or fr could better a few bio ( to choose : Serge Blanco, Keith Wood, David Campese, Jonah Lomu, Gareth Edwards, Martin Johnson... ) that would be so fine !!! Ddfree (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest Eric Liddell as well? He isn't well known for his rugby career, but it would be good if the article reflected the fact that he was a Scotland international as well as that guy who wouldn't run on Sundays... --MacRusgail (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, he is a great name and a good bio wolud be fine... The French language article fr:Jonny Wilkinson is a featured article. We try to better Serge Blanco, David Campese, Jonah Lomu. We hope you'll do it too... Ddfree (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, some great players don't even have articles, or at least not until recently. I had to create Hugh McLeod (rugby union) myself, and he appears on at least three lists of all time Scotland greats - is there some way we can get checklists for each country of their great players? That way we can clean up bad articles, and also create new ones where necessary.

One word of warning though. I think if we focus too much on the likes of Lomu and Wilkinson, we may be in danger of neglecting the older greats. There must be a huge range of them from the 1960s, and 1970s backwards.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

qv Gordon Bulloch!--MacRusgail (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting: Royal Free, University College and Middlesex Medical Students RFC

Folks, the above needs better sourcing to support notability per WP:CLUB. Anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above suggests that you believe that the content within the article is sufficient for the club to be deemed notable, and just needs sourcing for verifiability. However, just to be clear, is this the extent of your concern, or do you think that the article content itself needs to be more indicative of the notability of the club?Kwib (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:rugbybox

I have made a change to this template to allow the entry of tries, conversions, penalties and drop goals separately as "tryX", "conX", "penX" and "dropX", where "X" can be either "1" or "2", 1 being the "home" team and 2 being the "away" team. A trial of the modifications has been rolled out at 2009 British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa so that you can see how it works. – PeeJay 12:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

League

Maybe the union and league kids can get together and collaborate a new list as well as a new cat regarding league-2-union converts and vice versa..--Warpath (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that covered within List of players who have converted from one football code to another? Has sections within for converts in both directions.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but doesn't that page look a little bit messed up ? ..--Warpath (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Dual-code rugby internationals if you aren't aware of that page Mattlore (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the dual internationalists, there are a number of converts who are single internationalists, or who have had notable careers without being capped.--MacRusgail (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what happened?

Is it me or since Shudde left, people have stop paying attention to articles and WP:RU completely? ...--Warpath (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself, I still see hard work going into many regions of rugby articles; just may not be your region of interest. Also I don't see how this statement moves us foreward. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This used to be a busy section of WP:RU bu bad wikipolitics killed it ...--Warpath (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that statement; misdirection like the Irish flag debacle, I believe, has driven people away from the project. Though there are still quality articles being created and maintained. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Largely, because of my experience on the Irish flag issue, I for one have given up on the whole section because of, what I see as, the small-minded intransigance of a tiny clique who police any changes to these pages; I do not see it as a rational, open-minded collaborative effort at all. . MukDen (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you've given up on the project because of an issue that we have absolutely no control over, then I think you need to take a good look at your decision-making process. Personally, I can't believe you would give up on the project just because we can't use one particular image! – PeeJay 15:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a number of people beavering away, a number of whom use this talk page. I've been trying to create articles on rugby heritage from all corners of the world, and have created one or two Scottish ones. (Although Scottish rugby isn't really receiving much attention on wikipedia unfortunately - especially considering we're the second oldest rugby nation!)

I didn't like the Ireland fiasco myself, since there were several viable all Ireland alternatives available...--MacRusgail (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article names of RU tours to Northern Hemisphere

I'd like to open up a discussion which is going on around 1984 Australia rugby union tour of the British Isles and Ireland. This, and a number of other RU tours have been subject to multiple page name moves and I'm hoping that between us we could thrash out a policy for such tours to establish a definitive name which we can stick with.

Should it be "Britain and Ireland", which is my own preference, "British Isles" - politically controversial... "British Isles and Ireland", which doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense... or "something else"? Suggestions please!--Bcp67 (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the naming conventions for the countries, but the whole title should be discussed. I believe it should be YEAR / TOURING COUNTRY / rugby union tour of LIST OF TEST COUNTRIES PLAYED. Therefore if a tour takes in Canada, America, France, Ceylon, Zimbabwe as part of a larger tour, but no caps were awarded for the encounter, it is not named in the list. Also "Touring Country" is the actual name of the country and not the team's nickname. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would go for "Britain and Ireland", as you say "British Isles" while technically correct could annoy some people. The "British Isles and Ireland" is just wrong. I would also endorse FruitMonkey's suggestion on the wider naming convention. noq (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely happy with that, but certainly less clunky.--MacRusgail (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Came across a new article Harold Dingwall Bateson at first I thought it was a hoax as it said he played for Liverpool F.C. so I added speedy tag editor has now added source that he was capped for England could do with expert eyes. BigDunc 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was capped for England in 1879. Just the once, but he's valid.FruitMonkey (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats great thanks. BigDunc 21:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Gould (rugby player)

I'm going to try and push Arthur Gould (rugby player) for Good Article status. If anyone wants to give the article a quick look over, or better still knows of a photo that can be used would be appreciated. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea on a photo I am afraid, but I'm willing to run a critical eye over the article and see how it stacks up against the GA criteria.--Bcp67 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to add two images since initial statement. A team photo of Gould as captain would be welcome. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Arthur Gould has made it to GA status - good work!--Bcp67 (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-code rugby

Can I suggest that we should have an article on cross-code rugby? I have put some notes on the hybrid sports page, but it would be interesting to have some material on league-union games. I think these are probably more common than people realise, and took place during the wars in military set ups etc. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pontypridd RFC

Numerous people have, over the past few months, been working dilligently on the Pontypridd RFC wiki, trying to bring it up to scratch. We'd very much appreciate some solid feedback. Thanks so much. --Monkeynuts2008 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miamiwomensrugby

Can anyone offer some help? I don't know anything about notability requirements for rugby union teams. I declined the speedy deletion on this userpage, but I had to block the username per WP:ORGNAME. - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches

I have nominated List of 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idi Amin and the Lions

I have nominated myself Template_talk:Did_you_know#1955_British_Lions_tour_to_South_Africa

Did you know that "... that a young Idi Amin was reserve for the East Africa rugby union team when they played the 1955 British Lions tour to South Africa?"

Bcp67 has told me my edit made him/her "sit up", and this encouraged me to put this up. I don't know how many unusual rugby facts we get on the front page, but I hope you will support this one for the "Did you know?" section.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a him! Fruitmonkey gets a few facts on there from time to time. I'll give it my support.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, it will get rejected. To be accepted for a DYK, the article must either be created within the last 7 days or be expanded by 500% over the same length of time. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did wonder about that and have stuck a note on MacRusgail's talk page to that effect - the fact also appears in his newly created article on the East Africa rugby union team but I fear that might not be long enough to meet the criteria.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's our way in; I've got some books with info on the East African team, but not much. It should be enough to get accepted as a DYK though. I'll give it some attention tomorrow.FruitMonkey (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Definitely a him!" - Sorry, no offence meant! --MacRusgail (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And none taken either!--Bcp67 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The East Africa rugby union team page is now over the 1,500 character minimum for a DYK, I did a bit of expansion of the material. So I may try and resubmit this under the EA article rather than the Lions one. I also suspect that EA may have played other games, but it is very hard to track them down. The article got created yesterday (2:45 am here and I must go to bed), so there's still six days to play with.

By the way, if anyone's interested in the unusual corners of rugby, someone's created this article - Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games. The Maccabiah are basically the Jewish Olympics (and are partly a political exercise to get people to settle in Israel - but let's not go there!), and the teams that enter are amateurs from the various countries, and not up to the standards of the "real" national teams, but something I wasn't aware of until this year.

I'm hoping this isn't the last rugby DYK I can get. I'm sure there's more. (The South Sea Islanders playing their first international with a tree in the middle of the pitch?) Guid publiceety fur the eggba' an aw that... Thanks for the support. --MacRusgail (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East Africa's on the front page today! Thanks for your help.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest rugby club outside Europe?

Or so they claim.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Rugby biography

Is there a way to add a link to the source of the infomation found in players infoboxes? I'm thinking of something like the "|source=" field found in template:Infobox cricketer biography. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Stuart

I recently created an article on Angus Stuart, a little known Cardiff and Dewsbury player who toured with the British Isles team of 1888. On completion I found he linked to a New Zealand tour of 1893, and a list of New Zealand rugby union players. Does anyone have any information linking Angus Stuart from Cardiff to Angus Stuart the New Zealand player. They are surely the same person as Stuart settled in New Zealand after the tour, but I have no proof such as a date/place of birth or death to link the two together, and I don't want to enter information built on assumption. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The South (rugby) - rename

I've come across an article named The South (rugby) which describes the South district team which used to play against touring teams (and in the SRU district championship) in the amateur era. The title doesn't seem fully descriptive and I'm proposing to change it to something along the lines of South (Scottish rugby union team) or similar. Any thoughts from anyone?

The books I have that list the South Africa and New Zealand tours call this district side 'South of Scotland'. Is 'The South' a term used within Scotland to describe the team? FruitMonkey (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Rothmans Yearbooks they use the phrase South of Scotland for the tour matches but just South in the results and tables of the SRU district championship.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article would be better with the article, or at "South of Scotland" (edit to add - SoS is probably better). Generally the name would mean anywhere in Scotland, south of the Central Belt (i.e. Glasgow-Edinburgh hinterland), but due to the dominance of the Borders, I suspect few players in it came from Dumfries and Galloway (although there are some notable players from the south west, such as Nick De Luca and Arthur Smith)--MacRusgail (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and moved the article to South of Scotland rugby union team. I think "the South" is in common use in Scotland, but is not appropriate as an article title for several reasons. It's fine and well within a purely Scottish rugby context, but within an international one, I don't think it's helpful. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your boldness - I picked up the change and added a few links to tour articles, although I'm not here much at the moment.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might interest people to know that there was an article in The Scotsman the other day about the possible revival of this side.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, today is the 25th anniversary of their victory over Oz too, by the way.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A notable scalp, the Grand Slam Wallabies. Worth setting up a little table in the article of "games played against international opposition"? The Welsh clubs have tables like that. When I've finished with the 1975-76 Wallabies I might do it.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure what the best source for the info is. I'm also hoping to start an article on the (much less successful) North-Midlands/North and Midlands (etc - the spelling of that's complicated too) side. The SRU has neglected the north of Scotland, but I've got a sort of personal connection to northern rugby... so there's a personal angle there too!--MacRusgail (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing sections on this page?

Why is it impossible for me to edit individual sections on this page now? Is anyone else having this problem? – PeeJay 06:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've hit the same problem. FruitMonkey (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we ought to ask someone at the helpdesk for help! – PeeJay 19:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's an option to prevent section editing. Somebody had added it to this page. I've removed it. If it happens again, search the source for NOEDITSECTION and remove it.Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Bcp67 (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fullback, Full back or Full-back

I've been picked up on a GA nominated article that I have used at different times all three spellings. Even the page Rugby union positions has used all three terms in different places. Could we come to a decision on the spellings as it will prevent updates further down the line. I'm going for 'full back' in the article as it appears to be the most common spelling in text books. While we are at it are there other positions that crop up with this problem, such as threequarter, three-quarter and three quarter. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 'full back' is the most logical version and probably the most common too. And I can't edit sections either!--Bcp67 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this BBC page says "full-back"... – PeeJay 19:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is why it's a real problem. The RFU use full back in some pages while although only mentioned on the IRFU site on their Hall of fame they use fullback and full-back. Scrum.com use Fullback, but like PeeJay states, the BBC use full-back fairly constantly. I feel no closer to any option. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shute Shield RU early winners

I understood that the Sydney club Rugby comp started in 1900 but on the Shute Shield page it only has winners from 1906 onwards. I believe the old Glebe club won 4 titles and 1 each by Eastern Suburbs and the old South Sydney RU club in the period between 1900 and 1905.

It seems that things are a little confused on the Shute Shield page. First of all, the Shute Shield certainly was not contested as early as 1900 or 1906, it was presented to the NSWRU in 1923, so I guess either the 1923 or 1924 winner was the first one? Secondly, while the Shute Shield is currently the premier competition in NSW club rugby, it hasn't always been - e.g. from 2002 to 2006 it was an early-season competition which preceded the Tooheys New Cup, which was the main trophy for the year, and the "NSW Rugby Premiership 1900-2008" list I have here (in Rugby News from last week) lists the TNC winners as first grade premiers from 2002 to 2006.
According to that list, the premiers 1900-1905 were: 1900 - Glebe; 1901 - Glebe; 1902 - West Sub; 1903 - Easts; 1904 - Sydney Uni; 1905 - South Sydney. I'm reluctant to add that to the Shute Shield article, though, given that this was clearly not the Shute Shield being contested. --Stormie (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on suitability of article

Hi all. I was planning to write an article about Reuben Paniora, a New Zealand-born Danish international (17 caps) who played professionally in Spain and passed away last year. Before I start writing, though (I have a good number of sources by the way), I would like to know if my article would be considered worth keeping or would be deleted for lack of notability. What do you think? McMarcoP (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say that Paniora wouldn't be notable, since Denmark is a Tier 3 rugby union nation, the lowest level of international rugby union there is, so I doubt that matches played by the Danish national team would be considered Test matches. However, if he played in the División de Honor de Rugby in Spain, then perhaps he would be notable. Which club(s) did he play for? – PeeJay 12:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to my sources, he played for three years for Granada University "as a professional". Must have been... let me see... 1998 to 2001. McMarcoP (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...OK, looks like CDU Granada is a SECOND division club. Weird that they could play a New Zealander's wages, for average the player could be. McMarcoP (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think, if he only played in the second division, that he's probably not notable. I mean, even players in the second division of English rugby don't seem to be notable, so I doubt that a player in the second division of Spanish rugby would be. – PeeJay 20:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I agree. Too bad. McMarcoP (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not mention him on each of the individual articles?--MacRusgail (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banner/Template

Soft redirect to:Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

Can someone help fix this? I'm trying to ad this to articles that are relevent such as Mob football.Rowlan (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an existing template: {{WikiProject Rugby union}} already in use noq (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, added it to Mob Football. Rowlan (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania, Japan, Canada, Italy

I have had conflicting information for the first internationals of each of these countries. I suppose part of the problem is that the top tier rugby nations didn't award caps (for some reason) for teams playing these countries until relatively recently. I would be interested in any feedback on this matter.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? --MacRusgail (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Romania played against France in 1919, lost 48-5, probably no caps awarded. Japan, first matches I can find is the 1930 tour of Canada, which was reciprocated in 1932. This could be the first international competition for Canada too as their CRU was only founded in 1929, despite rugby being played in Canada since the 1860s. Though I am sure 'Canada' toured Wales in 1909/10. Italy founded their union in 1928, but their first accepted international was a 9-0 loss to Spain in Barcelona in 1929. That's the info I have, hope it helps. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I needed a second opinion on this. Canada in Wales sounds interesting, and is plausible. After all, if the future "SANZAR" countries sent over teams, why not Canada, where there were a good many players before Canadian football started to predominate.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found it; in D.E.Davies' Cardiff Rugby Club; History and Statistics, he states that during the 1902/03 season a team from Canada, called the 'Canadians' toured the UK. On 7th January 1903, the Canadians had already played 11 games, losing 5, winning 5 and drawing 1 before being beaten by Cardiff. They played in blue jerseys and shorts and red stockings. I'm not sure who else they played, but it's a fairly interesting rugby fact from a North America angle. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A short sentence mentioning the tour is already mentioned on the Canadian team article, should have looked there first. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union in the Soviet Union

Comrade editors, you may be interested in the article I am "growing" at my page User:MacRusgail/Rugby union in the Soviet Union. I intend to try and improve the references, and have got hold of the rugby article in the English language version of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

So far, the article perhaps has a bit too much of an emphasis on some of the more unsavoury aspects of the USSR, but getting material has been difficult, and I would appreciate any advice. In particular, there is a story of a brawl in Moscow between Welsh and Romanian players, which resulted in the police getting involved. Some sources put it in the '30s, and others in the '50s. Or did Llanelli visit in both decades? Certainly the claim (in certain books) that it resulted in the game being banned in the USSR for several decades is untrue, although it may have diminished official support. I say this because there is evidence of the game being played in the '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s, and even around the early post-war period.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not cricket!

There is a fascinating list of people who have played both high level rugby and cricket at List of cricket and rugby union players.

However, a quick look through the articles shows that many of them are heavily biased towards cricket, probably because they've been written off the cricinfo site. I've tried to make some amends, but some of the articles are really bad on the rugby side. For example, the English player Frank Mitchell's rugby career is given only in a tiny paragraph at the end, despite the fact that he captained the national team.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable?

I notice User:MBelgrano has tagged a number of rugby tour articles such as the 1952 Ireland rugby union tour of South America, British Lions tours, and French tours as "not notable". Needless to say, I have left a note here, and explained that these certainly are "notable". However, given my general lack of faith in Wikipedia bureaucracy, I'm surprised some administrator hasn't gone and deleted them! So keep a look out!

However, one of his/her other tags is perhaps more justifiable, since it was about context. It may be worth providing more context in these articles.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Those teams are notable, nobody holds that in doubt, but those articles are not about the team: they are about a small number of matches and their results. They don't even seem to be about regular championships, or are they? The question is why do those matches deserve to have a specific article? This may be legitimate information but not for a stand-alone article as it is now. If those matches take place as part of a bigger tournament or championship, they should be merged in there. But if they were just exhibition games, if there isn't any more than the existence and results of the matches themselves, they should be deleted. MBelgrano (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you might be a bit unfamiliar with rugby union history, which isn't intended as a criticism of you. These matches are about "tours" - in the amateur era of rugby union, before the World Cup and Tri-Nations and regular internationals between national teams in different hemispheres, it was commonplace for international teams to undertake a tour of a country or countries, playing matches both against the national side of those countries and against local clubs, select teams, and representive teams. The tradition lives on in the British and Irish Lions tours. It makes perfect sense for a rugby union tour to have a stand-alone tour - the games and players of the tour are notable, and generally notability is asserted on these sort of articles by citation of a written reference or a website. Some of the tour articles are fairly bare stubs but others (e.g. 1981-82 Australia rugby union tour of Britain and Ireland) are more detailed. Hope that helps to clarify.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment about context though - I've just had a look at 1954 France rugby union tour of Argentina and it's dreadful - no lead, no context, headings without content, I can understand why it looks worth deleting.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland flag (yet again, and again, ....)

I see that File:Irelands Flag.svg has started to show up on several articles. Is there consensus for that? I'm unclear whether that is close enough to the real IRFU flag to be a copyright violation or not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is clearly based on the real IRFU flag and would probably be considered a copyright violation. There was no discussion about it here, and it should be deleted. – PeeJay 06:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated it for deletion on Commons. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just reverted the flag off the six nations template, and then after a discussion and a balls up realised I couldn't remember the exact rationale for it not being included and have put it back. I'm seeing alot of probably copyright discussions etc, but no definitive discussion. Even if it was copyright, wouldn't it come under fair use as per WP:LOGO for example? Cheers Khukri 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted logos can be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons) for fair-use on a minimal number of locations per the WP:Non-free content criteria policy. Practically speaking, this means that the IRFU logo and/or flag could appear on the Irish Rugby Football Union page (as File:Ireland rugby.png now does), but cannot be used as a decorative icon on pages such as 1999 Rugby World Cup, nor transcluded by a template such as {{Six Nations wins}}. I think that template ought to be fixed now, before the image is deleted on Commons. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK then so which would be the more correct, the clover or flag? The clover I would say is a symbol of the IRFU body itself, and then the flag being logo of the team? Shouldn't the flag be tagged in the same way as the Clover, as fair use logo and not deleted? all I'm trying to do is just get a definitive discussion noted somewhere for everyone to point to in the future saying why X, Y or Z was done. Thanks Khukri 18:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly, the flag image ought to be tagged the same way as the logo. But it must be deleted from Commons, which cannot host any fair-use images. It can (and should) be re-uploaded to this Wikipedia, but per NFCC policy, it would be subject to the same kinds of usage restrictions as the logo. That means it must be removed from User:UBX/IRFU, Template:Six Nations wins (as you have done, thanks), and most of the articles in which it is included directly. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<facepalm> just seen there's a mention of it on the project frontpage and a really long discussion there, thanks for your help. Khukri 21:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent>Following on from last nights discussion and one I've just had with Andrwsc who recommended I brought it here first, would any one have any objections if I removed one line from the {{rugby squad player}} template. To allow that the code IRL denotes the irish flag, as it's the players nation or nationality the template is depicting and not to which union they are affiliated? Cheers Khukri 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree with this. The flags in teams' rosters are supposed to denote which national team they are (most) eligible to play for, not where they come from. Case in point, Manchester United F.C. lists Owen Hargreaves as English, not Canadian, as he plays for England despite being born in Canada. Apologies for not coming up with a rugby example, but you get my point. – PeeJay 10:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but in this case he is actually English. Mark Van Gisbergen on the Wasps page would be an example you are looking for, as he doesn't hold a British pasport I think. But what I am looking for is if you look further down the Wasps page, the players in and players out the tricolor is displayed as their nationality. The template is titled Nat being nationality or one could argue Nation, if this is used to denote which country they play for it should be entitled affiliation or union to remove ambiguity, as Joe Bloggs off the street will instantly assume it's their nationality being displayed which is incorrect. Anyways I digress, prior to Andrwsc change at the beginning of the month, one could put Ireland down as the country code and get the tricolor, I'm not talking about removing all of them, to add the tricolor that would be incorrect, I'm talking about giving the templates an options. Does this not mean the template should be changed as well, at the moment the Ireland links to the IRFU, shouldn't the other flags link to their repsective unions? <tongue in cheek> Also if this template is used then to denote affiliation, where would I put myself:P born in England, Scots parents, residency and licensed in both France and Switzerland, and ended up playing for representative to a country I don't have a passport and don't claim that nationality. Cheers Khukri 13:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small point of clarification—it was actually User:Gnevin's edits of 6 February to change the behaviour of that template to remove the flag when the nat parameter was set to IRE or IRL. My edit on 7 October was also to give the same treatment when the input parameter was Ireland and not just a country code. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename of 2005 New Zealand rugby union tour of Britain and Ireland to 2005 New Zealand Grand Slam Tour

It seems that someone decided to rename the above article with the following reason: "It looks better and makes it sound more special , because it was." Should we move it back to be consistent with the other tours? noq (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, plus its not quite WP:NPOV GainLine ♠ ♥ 12:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also completely agree with GainLine. If you ever disagree with a unilateral move such as this, I believe it should also be moved back until such a time as a discussion has taken place and garnered a consensus. – PeeJay 22:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, did anyone take a look at the actual content of this article? The prose is disgustingly POV, and I'm fairly sure that any MOS the article is following doesn't exist on any other article. The scoring summaries look like they were pulled straight out of an American football article! – PeeJay 14:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion: List of rugby union footballers

This page is useless.

It is hopelessly incomplete - alphabetically, chronologically and nationally. I also can't see that it will ever be completed. To list international rugby players alphabetically, when the country they represent, and the time they played is other important factors, is also counterproductive. Players should be listed by the country they play for (hence the "national" in "international"), and within those lists they can be organised either alphabetically or chronologically or whatever those editors wish. Some of those lists already exist in a fairly complete format.( Category:Lists of international rugby union footballers ) I propose to delete this page, or radically restructure it. Sahmejil (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is pointless and should be removed. There is no structure to this list. Maybe more useful as a disambiguation page to all the other international rugby lists. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Are there actually any inclusion criteria for this apparently all-encompassing list? Or was it just intended as a list of rugby players that one editor thought were good? – PeeJay 19:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also have no idea what the original editors meant to do here. There also hasn't been much activity on the talk page either. As far as I'm concerned its just a random collection of names and links. Fruitmonkey, what do you mean with "more useful as a disambiguation page to all the other international rugby lists"? - Sahmejil (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means that, instead of deleting the page, we could just turn it into a collection of links to the lists of international rugby union players, which can be found here. – PeeJay 09:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its just a random list without any context or structure. I think redirect it to somewhere more meaningful GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect to the Category would be appropriate. However, in doing this it does highlight the need to harmonise those lists, and indeed to add other lists by country. Once we have an agreed harmonised structure, this could be completed in relatively short order. I would also question the need for the List of rugby union footballers by country, which is doing largely the same thing as the individual lists.Kwib (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the List of rugby union footballers by country should remain until we are able to build the lists such as those that exist for England, Wales, South Africa, etc, with those countries already with their own article stating 'see Article ... for a complete list of players from...' next to them. If that makes any sense? FruitMonkey (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created back when there only were about twenty or so player articles and so having a list of them wasn't such a bad idea; particularly as categories barely existed at all. It no longer serves any purpose and ought to be deleted.GordyB (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fruitmonkey. This article no longer serves its purpose, but it would be a shame to lose the info on players from countries without their own list. - How about we delete everything referring to players from England, Wales, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa, since these countries already have their own complete lists, and then move all other players to List of rugby union footballers by country? (Those not already there). - Sahmejil (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in keeping the article at all. After all, that's what we have categories for. If you wanted to find a list of every Singaporean rugby player (for example), you would look at Category:Singaporean rugby union footballers, not List of rugby union footballers, wouldn't you? – PeeJay 12:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PeeJay. We should be using categories - maybe redirect the "List of ... rugby union footballers" to appropriate categories. noq (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on the more technical wiki-stuff yet, but wouldn't a drawback of using categories be that only players with articles about them will be listed on the category page? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I do think it is necessary to have a more complete list of players, even if there isn't articles on all of them yet. - Sahmejil (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the lists are important as separated from Categories. The fact that they highlight those players who are missing articles is extremely valuable.Kwib (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name standardisation: Lists of international rugby union footballers

I refer to the lists that form part of the Lists of international rugby union footballers and the category by the same name, currently concerning England, Wales, Ireland, South Africa and New Zealand (Mentioned in previous thread). Currently they all have the same general title form of: "List of (country name) national rugby union footballers]].

Should it not actually be : "List of (country adjective/posessive noun) national rugby union footballers, eg "List of English"..... or perhaps "List of England's..."? It may sound like nit-picking but if you think about it, the current names (although perfectly understandable) doesn't make sense. I think it is a category that should be expanded, and it is probably something that could easily be done since that info is already somewhere in electronic format for most countries, so establishing a standard format now would be better than later. - Sahmejil (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the standard has been decided a while back, and that England, Wales, New Zealand are the correct terms. English would fall apart as there are players who play for a country who are not the nationality of the team. Take John Griffin (rugby player) for example. The term for the national team would be England; you are an England player, not an English player or England's player. I think that's the argument anyway, we went through this sort of thing when coming up for the categories, Category:England national rugby union footballers and the like. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm a bit of a philistine in this area, but don't most people talk about "rugby players" these days, rather than footballers? --MacRusgail (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC) p.s. Agree with Fruitmonkey on this, there should be a distinction between players from somewhere, and players who get capped. There are some very notable rugby players (often for other reasons) who haven't been capped for their country, Javier Bardem and Jacques Rogge are two good examples.[reply]

This inevitably means arguing over whether a particular non-capped player is English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Irish or even Cornish.GordyB (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment we've got categories, for example; "English rugby union footballers" and "England international rugby union footballers" - the former being all-inclusive (although as Gordy says, opening up a whole world of debate about some players' nationalities) and the latter being specifically for full international caps who have a Wikipedia article. The lists of internationals are good because they should provide a full list of capped players. Having said which, there are plenty of links in those lists to people who played as many international rugby matches as I have, i.e. none! I like "rugby players" too myself, "rugby footballers" sounds a bit archaic these days.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As most biography articles have at least one category which states the person's nationaility, and many rugby articles hold no information other than rugby info, the nationality category allows us to link the person to a nation. For capped players I tend to use their country of birth and their adopted nationality. For example, I have categorised Paul Robert Clauss as both a German and Scottish rugby player as he was born in one country, but spent most of his life in the other. Like the example I mentioned above of John Griffin (rugby player), he was obviously not Welsh despite playing for Wales, and I therefore did not put him in the Welsh category. PS... I also find footballer a bit archaic, ...and I'm probably the most archaic person presently attached to the project. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rugby players would fall fowl of naming conventions i.e. that rugby union articles and categories have the word "union" in them to distinguish them from the other code. I don't find "footballers" to be archaic but I don't have strong opinions on it either. England internationals is an easily defined cat but I think people's nationalities should be defined solely in terms of which passport they carry i.e. those with British passports are British and save time arguing over whether Colin Charvis is English or Welsh.GordyB (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It won't work, the Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh will want to be defined as their own nationalities. It happens in all other fields, rugby should be no exception. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They might want to but these labels have no objective basis in fact. There is no such thing as Scottish (or English) nationality in law. There is no way that you can put a player in one category or another other than an arbitrary (and POV) basis.GordyB (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Law has nothing to do with it, the basis of the category is that we place articles into groups that aid recognition. Nationality is based on place of birth, and ones adopted nationality. Otherwise we should be attacking the Cary Grant article for stating that he is an English film actor... but we don't. If Nationality is an issue, like Colin Charvis, then give them more than one nationality. I've already given one example of a Germanic/Scottish player, should we call him European?FruitMonkey (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
European isn't a nationality, British is and Cary Grant should not be described an English film star becausse English isn't an official nationality. It's difficult nay impossible to decide if a Welshman has adopted "Englishness" just because he lives in England. There is no "Englishness" ceremony nor any change in legal status that would identify an "assimilated Welshman" from an "unassimilated one".GordyB (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is getting interesting. Depending on your usage of the term nationality, Europe, Britain or Wales are all nations or only Britain. It's either a group of people under a state or the ethnic or cultural bonding of a group of people. It's a very difficult situation, as we will not be able to stop people being categorised as British only, as there is too much desire by people to categorise by their perceived nationality. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the idea that England, Wales etc are nations just that "English" and "Welsh" aren't defined in any legal way so that it is very difficult to say who is English and who is Welsh. This problem occured on the rugby league equivalent as players were identified as "Italian" on the grounds that they might have had an Italian grandparent (or even less) or "Welsh" on the grounds that they were eligible to represent Wales via residency. It got really absurd.GordyB (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I don't think anyone suggested dropping the union, just switching footballer to player, therefore 'rugby union footballer' would become 'rugby union player'. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. My vote is for "rugby union player". I've never heard anyone talk about rugby players as "footballers" off-wiki. I prefer a title like (eg:) "List of Australian national rugby union players". Any takers? - Sahmejil (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion has developed a few distinct issues and we should also distinguish between what is relevant to the lists, and the categories here, and what would affect both.

  • The footballer vs player terminology would obviously affect lists, categories and even use within the specific article.
  • The lists mentioned in this thread title should be populated with all names that have been awarded caps, or at least international status by their rugby board. (This makes any discussion about a player's "nationality" unnecessary. It doesn't matter what passport they hold/held or where they were born/lived or what the law says - only what international team(s) they played for. Actually a very simple process since the respective rugby bodies decides their status, not us.)
  • For the categories of international players the above also applies.
  • For the categories of national players, the nationality might be a worthwile discussion.

Since the "biography-angle" and the "rugby union-angle" have different contributions to the article, would it be a bad thing to be an "English doctor and a Welsh international rugby player"? (John Griffin) The two statements deal with seperate issues that are not mutually exclusive, don't they? - Sahmejil (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. The lists should only link people to the country to which their caps were awarded, not their own (or perceived) nationality. I only believe that someone can be given multiple nationalities under their own articles though catogarisation. I hope that I didn't confuse people to think my opinion was different earlier on. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been stagnant for quite a while, but I don't think there is clear consensus yet.

  • Can we start systematically changing footballer to player?
  • Can we call people that played for Australia : "Australian players"? (And by the same token, English, Scottish, South African etc...) - Sahmejil (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has to be "List of England international rugby union players" or "List of England international rugby union footballers". Using the demonym instead of the country name just opens up the possibility of people including English players who have played for a different country. I definitely prefer the "rugby union footballers" title, but if more people prefer "rugby union players" then I'm happy to go along with that. – PeeJay 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind between footballers and players, but as PeeJay mentioned above, we can't change the naming of the categories as discussed earlier in this article. You can still have Australian rugby players and Australia rugby union international players, but they are not the same thing. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - Che Guevara is an example of a notable "Argentine/Argentinian rugby player", and there is at least several websites I know of which talk about his great love of the game, but he never got anywhere near the national side. In The Motorcycle Diaries, he is also known as "Fuser", a rugby based nickname. However, he's much better known for his guerilla activities, much as Messrs Bush and Clinton are slightly better known as American presidents than players. There are dozens of other examples, even from within the game - Izak van Heerden - great coach, but never made Springbok. Bill McLaren, played for Hawick and even some Scottish XVs, but never made a full cap... so Bill and Izak are Scottish/South African players rather than Scotland/South Africa ones.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've done a runner (been offline for a few days) - and the words "can" and "worms" spring to mind. In my experience, "footballer" tends to be used by older rugby folk, but I do notice it occasionally creeping into the BBC's coverage still. I think we have to face the fact that soccer has completely appropriated the term "football" in many places (even though rugby is actually more like the pre-codified football varieties). Is there some way of getting a "robot" to do some of the legwork if it does get changed?

Another issue, which I might as well mention. I notice an issue with the disambiguation of players from folk of the same name. In my view "X (rugby)"/"X (rugby player)" should be reserved for people who have played both codes, the rest should be under "X (rugby union)" (and "X (rugby league)" for RL). It's very difficult to link articles when there isn't really a standard for this.

As regards nationality, speaking personally I may be "British" on paper, but it is something completely alien for me, and the imperial overtures of the British Lions do nothing for me (one lion on the shirt, Union Jacks and going off to the Colonies etc - not my cup of tea thanks). Scottishness is a choice for me, admittedly, but it is also a result of my background, long term residence etc. I've no problem with the likes of Cary Grant being called "English" - I think for far too long, English people have conflated Britishness with Englishness.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back around. I quite like the Lions concept personally and the way it takes in the best (possibly) of these islands, but that's rambling off the point. I'm totally with you on the (rugby union)/(rugby league)/(rugby player) business and I can vaguely remember chipping into a debate on this very subject at some point, possibly on the RL project board. I'd always follow that formula for disambiguation myself and it'd be good to have it as a consensus standard. Anyone got any supportive or argumentative thoughts?--Bcp67 (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Myself, I'm against the (rugby union) and (rugby league) as it is against Wikipedia standards. The American sport articles have got away with this, and have decided that this is now standard, but it is argued against outside American sports. The point being that the disambiguation should explain the persons profession or description. Therefore Winston Churchill (politician) not Winston Churchill (politics). I personally believe that (rugby union player) / (rugby league player) / (rugby player) are the way forward. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, if a bit cumbersome!I'd be happy to fit in with that.--Bcp67 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a need for some kind of straw poll here. We have several possible options. The methods of going about this on wikipedia are bureaucratic and time consuming. But if and when we do this, I hope rugby fans will muck in. There's nothing worse on wikipedia than people voting through/against stuff that they know nothing about! However, like that pesky business with the Irish flag, it's never going to be completely ironed out, and will keep popping up til kingdom come, but I think it's worth considering this, and the majority of articles can be standardised.
"X (rugby)" is useless in many ways, unless we're talking "dual coders". I'm sure that many league fans will agree with me too. (Gordy B is on the RL project too).--MacRusgail (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC) p.s. The Churchill business, I'd definitely favour "politician" over "politics" as it makes more sense. "Politics" should be used for abstract concepts and inanimate objects, not people.[reply]

I like the idea of changing it from footballers to players and regarding the "X (rugby)" issue, it should only be added to those with a disambig list and the "X (rugby)" one to those that are not players or have not been players for sometime such as coaches, sport administrators or referees and if a player has disambig issues such as another player with the same name, then the country should be used such as "X (Welsh rugby player)" etc. No need to add "X (rugby)" or "X (rugby player)" to a player with no disambig list (unique name) for example Sitiveni Sivivatu etc..--Warpath (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important point though... where there is no disambiguation, a redirect might be desirable, e.g. Sitiveni Sivivatu (rugby union), to the main article. Or at least in the more notable examples.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My preference for "X (rugby union)" rather than "X (rugby union player)" agrees with Warpath's comment above about people who hasen't been players for some time. For example, is Ian McGeechan a rugby union player, or a rugby union coach? Of course he's neither exclusively, he's been both in his time. So to me, (rugby union) suits better. In the other area I edit a bit, horse racing, a common disambig is (horse racing) which covers jockeys, trainers, owners, whatever and works well for individuals who have had more than one role. Agree with the idea about disambig using country for similarly named individuals (e.g. Steve Smith), and year of birth is the next disambig where name & country is the name (e.g. the two Welsh John Bevans from the 70s)--Bcp67 (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree, however when writing two new bios of Scottish rugby players I used the format - Angus Buchanan (rugby) and Thomas R. Marshall (rugby). This is simply because they played in the 1870s, before the schism. (I was amazed Angus Buchanan and William Cross had no articles, but that's by the by) As for adding "player", I think this should be put up to a vote. A standardised naming system is preferable.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC) p.s. Dabbing can be a complicated business - check out Scottish Labour Party (disambiguation) - some of these are unrelated parties.[reply]
This isn't something we can vote on as a project. It is a Wikipedia-wide situation. Adding rugby would be incorrect if the person is a rugby player, even if it was before the schism as it does not disambiguate the person. Again the disambiguation should be what the person was most notable for to allow people to chose the correct article. Angus Buchanan was not a rugby, he was a rugby player. If we go ahead and make an incorrect decision as a Wikiproject we can just see this being ripped apart later on by a Wikipedia-wide decision. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sucession box - Template:S-sports

Sporting positions
Rugby Union Captain
Rugby union

At the moment various sucession boxes (mostly used for captains/tournament winners) start with this template and lead to the header "Sporting positions". There is now two extra options: { { s-sports|ruc } } will give "Rugby Union Captain" and { { s-sports|run } } will return "Rugby union". - Sahmejil (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy darts! I'll start integrating into needy articles. Thanks. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential historic image resource

Hi, browsing across Flickr I came along some nice collection of historic rugby relates photos, sport card, some scans from the early 1900 [2]. As I am not an expert in this field, I cant evaluate it's value. At least some of images are clearly in public domain because of age and if found useful freely uploaded to Commons. If you will need help in licensig, uploading and so on feel free to contact me --Justass (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statsguru

I believe we should add the statsguru detail to every player article. Why you might say?, its because it the only stats which is reliable and update regularly and if we have a smart wikipedian, they can make a bot (RugBot, RakaBot) which can update players stats from the site instead of being forced to do it manually all the time. We could add the statsguru thing to the rugby infobox if the bot idea seems a bit crazy..any1?..--Warpath (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team Colour Templates

it would be a good idea to emulate Template:Leagueicon (suggested Template:Rugbyicon) and I have started to create colours on Shute Shield but I'm not good with templates and things, but if someone knows and needs colours created i already have the Graphical template for it. --Hatgreg (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, new messages go at the bottom of the page. Second, this is a terrible idea, not least because of WP:MOSICON, which states "Do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas". Since these icons would be synthesised specifically for the purpose of decorating our articles and would have no basis in reality other than an estimation of each team's colours, they would be in violation of WP:OI. Sorry. – PeeJay 09:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't violate the laws as it reflects a clubs colours which are a set pattern and are not considered a manipulated image or rather an image created using no legitimate information, they convey a brand and help people identify a team and could be seen as a useful tool, as it is used in the many rugby league articles, people find things easier to identify using pictures.--Hatgreg (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the rugby league project is wrong on this matter for the same reason that this project would be wrong to use a synthesised flag to represent Ireland. Creating an icon to fill a perceived need for one is inappropriate, especially when that need is for decorative purposes. Furthermore, the club's colours may be a set pattern, but the patterns used in these icons have very little relation to the club they represent other than the colours used. If anything, we should be using the club badges, but since those are copyrighted and limited to Fair Use only, we must not use any form of icon at all. This idea really is a non-starter. – PeeJay 17:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of team colored templates but not in favor of team union icon..its silly and per PJ. I would love to see a canterbury colored squad template (for e.g {{Crusaders squad 2008 Super 14 champions}}). something we used to have before...on every cantab players profile instead of that ugly gay (no offense to LGBT's) colored purple (for e.g {{Crusaders squad}}) which always makes me throw up in my mouth a little...--Warpath (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The award for bad taste in rugby must surely go to Stade Français. Their current kits, and their website certainly hit new lows... --MacRusgail (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical flags

Is the flag in usage Six_Nations_Championship#Home_Nations_1883.E2.80.931909 correct ? Ireland was never officially the flag of Ireland and WP:MOSICON says we should use the flag the IRFU use or should we use historical flags which can be WP:V .

A knock on of using historical flag is the Wales and Scotland might have some issues . 87.198.164.254 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu, ever get the feeling we've been here before?
Deja vu, ever get the feeling we've been here before?
Deja vu, ever get the feeling we've been here before?
Sorry about that! The Irish flag issue is a boring one, which will never please everyone. The two best choices - the shamrock, and the four provinces were turned down. The St Patrick's cross is a non-starter as you say. There is no issue, at all about the Scottish flag. We have used the St Andrew's Cross for over a thousand years. The thistle is the rugby logo, and the lion is the royal ensign, but there is no issue. Likewise, the flag of Wales is done and dusted, for all but a few Christians who think the dragon is satanic, and one or two republicans. The Welsh flag was in use during WWI (I've seen it on recruitment posters), the design just got standardised in the 1950s.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But did the SRU and WRU use them since 1873 or so? If they did then there is no issue. What about Canada pre 1965. I notice the South Africins are using historical flags here? Has this been discussed and a rule of thumb been accepted 86.42.64.254 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue of the Unions using the flag, it is the flag being used to associate nationality within the articles. Thus the problem with Ireland. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the core of the issue. Other flags for Ireland where rejected as the IRFU don't use them and would be considered WP:OI 86.42.64.254 (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may never get solved so I'd like WPRU People to do us a favour. In places where the ireland flag is used with a link to the rugby team, please use {{ru|IRE}} because in the future when this problem does get fixed, we can just make the changes in the template and it will automatically apply to all related articles instead of going around and fixing it manually and since we don't have a rugbybot, it will be a hassle......and If the irish flag prob doesn't get solved, I will just use a pic of Brian O'Driscoll as the irish flag..hehe..--Warpath (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Ireland, is not Ireland's flag. We should use this just to save some potential time in some potential future where some potential fix has been found 86.42.64.254 (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.B I've renamed this section to Historical flags. I want to prevent a repeat of previous Irish flag discussions. This is about Historical flags and should we be using them 86.42.64.254 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union&oldid=329764336"