Talk:2011 Rugby World Cup

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.

New Zealand Start‑class Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vote tally

This tally makes no sense. It shows a seven-all tie in the first round, which certainly wasn't the case (South Africa had to have less than the others, or there would have been a second ballot without elimination), and it disagrees with the only linked source still available (The New Zealand Herald). Can we get a citation, or an explanation by whomever wrote it the first time? 210.55.146.221 10:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:2011nzl225.gif

Image:2011nzl225.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pools

Does anybody actually know that they're the groups the non-seeded teams are going in, or is it just a guess? I've heard that New Zealand (5th seed) with be in (4th seed) France's pool, 6th (Australia) with 3rd (Argentina), 7th with 2nd and 8th with 1st (South Africa) Mjefm (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the draw for the pools will be ramdomised and based on the IRB rankings of qualified countries in November 2008. Theby the countries ranked 1 to 4 will be drawn to fill the first place in the pools, then those ranked 5 to 8 will be drawn to fill the second slot, and then 9 to 12. What happens if a team that has not yet qualified but ranked in the top 12 in November is unclear. Perhaps the draw would be delayed until the top 12's placeholders in the rankings qualification are certain. As of today the highest ranked teams yet to qualify are Samoa 12th, Georgia 14th, and Canada 15th. As such it is a distinct possibility that an unqualified team will be in the top twelve come November. Thecrystalcicero (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of pools, on what basis are the teams listed in the pools? Wouldn't alphabetical be the most sensible way (at least for those teams already qualified)?76.175.153.230 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Thanks. – Pee Jay 17:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the teams in the order they are? I agree they are the likely positions, but that doesn't make them the actual positions until the games are played. Upsets may happen... Argentina looks to be the dark horse.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking going into draw

It matters not one jot, but Wales are ranked above England going into the draw. The bands are listed here [1] The IRB's site does list the ranking on its front page with England higher, but those are the ranks at 24 November, not after 29 November. Wales went on to defeat Australia, and England lost to New Zealand. But for one soft try and one knock on Wales would have got the 1.5 times bonus for a >14 point win and would have gone fourth. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samoa

Seriously - we all know that Samoa will be Oceania 1. Can we just put it in already!202.67.88.12 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. There hasn't been a single game played in the Oceania qualifying tournament, so to put Samoa in as Oceania 1 is pure crystal-balling. – Pee Jay 09:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is more chance of a rugby ball coming out of my arse tonight than of Samoa not qualifying for this tournament. 202.67.78.8 (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allthough you could have put slightly more eloquently I have to agree that there is very limited probability that Samoa won't qualify. What you could do is find a source pointing this out and mention in the article that Samoa are almost universaly expected to qualify. 130.56.71.132 (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is extremely likely that Samoa will qualify for the tournament, but until they have actually won the matches they need to win, we cannot speculate. – Pee Jay 09:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of this, does anyone know when the Oceania qualifying will take place? The Oceania site doesn't say anything yet.Alanmjohnson (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we decided to be addicted to semantics and delay on that one... guess what - Samoa qualified! Why we didn't put that in 6 months ago is beyond me! 121.218.7.101 (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's beyond you, then you really should try reading WP:CRYSTAL. Samoa hadn't qualified for the World Cup six months ago, they only qualified in the last few weeks. – Pee Jay 08:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Flag?

Seems to be missing? Perhaps due to a dispute over using the tricolour? If so, can we have the IRFU flag>. Rugbymadnut (talk) 14:18, 06 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That particular issue has been talked to death. Sorry, not sure where (someone help on that?). The upshot is that the tricolor is inappropriate in that it is the flag of the Republic of Ireland and the Ireland team represents all of Ireland. The Shamrock flag or a (non-official) 4-Province flag would run afoul of a Wikipedia guideline against the use of a flag (where none exists) solely for the sake of having one. The IRFU flag, which everyone seems to agree is most appropriate, is unavailable due to copyright issues. Obviously there is a lot more to these discussions than I have expressed here, but that's it in a nutshell. But for the time being, having no flag seems to be the only viable alternative, unfortunately.Alanmjohnson (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah very good... I thought it had just gone walkies. Perhaps I'll approach the IRFU? all you can do is ask .Rugbymadnut (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the IRFU have already been approached, and since Wikipedia requires that they release the logo for use for any purpose (not just on Wikipedia), they were unsurprisingly reluctant. It's a shit scenario, but what can you do? – Pee Jay 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we use the 4-province flag? What wikipedia guideline does this fall afoul of? Little Professor (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Irish rugby team doesn't compete under the four-province flag means that the use of that flag would count as creating an image to fill a perceived need for one, effectively a violation of WP:OR. – Pee Jay 23:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have the shamrock flag

back? The absence of a flag is ridiculous. There was clear consensus for its use following extensive discussions in the past. Someone has removed all uses of it citing a 'pedantic' (their own word) application of WP:OR preventing us from 'inventing' a new flag in such situations. Surely this is a candidate for WP:IGNORE if ever there was one. The use of the shamrock flag satisfies the north/south controversy, is readily identifiable as an Irish symbol, and is clearly an improvement to wikipedia from the current status quo of blank squares next to every mention of the Irish team. As WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY states, rules are not the purpose of the community, but rather a documentation of existing consensus. We have a consensus that in this individual situation, the use of the shamrock flag is both justified and the least-worst option. It seems silly to prevent the use of this 22px icon of an ensign simply due to the rigid application of WP:OR, when the OR policy itself is currently locked due to disputes over its wording and application Little Professor (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively

:) Little Professor (talk) Little Professor (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Harp flag?

Romania

The main article says that 19 teams have qualified and then lists the 19, HOWEVER, Romania (which was not listed as one of the 19), is shown in one of the groups as a team in the field of 20. Have they or have they not qualified? Either the list of qualified teams need to be updated to include Romania or Romania needs to be removed from the groups and schedule. TheNextSocrates (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kick-off times

Kick-off times can be found at http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/RUgbyWorldCupSchedule.pdf. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]