Talk:Rugby World Cup

2007 RWC Tournament Results

I jumped the gun a little, I added teams in the finals a couple days before the games, not seeing that it was for the "Winners" in column 1, I thought it was home/visitors. Either way, the teams are in there and I have them in their pool standings as of the end of the regular games (Each game has the winner and 2nd place of the respected pools this year). I was thinking of removing the post for the 2 days until the games but I decided to leave it there for who ever is around a computer that day so they don't have to redo the work that is already done, all you will need to do is cut/paste IF they are in the wrong order and add the final scores. Billy Nair 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That works, someone just removed the teams in the {{}}. Once they are determined, someone can place the proper countries in there. Billy Nair 20:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

2007 RWC Favorite to win

How can anyone claim that the Springboks are the No.1 seed? This has to be a personal point of view! Look at all of the bookies numbers, as much as I hate to say it NZ is out in front by far. Every single site clearly confirms this. In fact, quite a few sites are no longer including NZ in their pools and are looking to second place.

old debate I know but seeding and favorite have zero to do with each other. Seeding is determined by the IRB rankings at a point in time about 3 years before the WC. I don't remember who was the number 1 seed but it could have been SA since they had a good 2004 season

Biscuit1018 (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.248.197 (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 

I could not agree more.GordyB 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Should it even be mentioned? Maybe in 2007 Rugby World Cup, but in this one? - Shudde ^talk 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we delete any reference to the 2007 RWC having a 'favourite'. Wikipedia is not an odds maker; and the phrase doesn't sound like a NPOV. --johnsemlak 4:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but if we say that for instance William Hill and Centrebet for instance have the Ab's as unbackable favourites we are then presenting facts and not pushing a POV. Soundabuser 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Springboks dang near lost to Tonga, if not for that kick being one step in front of that player 5 seconds to full time Tonga WOULD have won. When Ab's lost the announcers said they were the favorites to win this year. Anyway, seeing how the semis have played (the other 2 tri-nations have been kicked out), England might win this thing. Billy Nair 19:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Where in the article does it say this stuff anyway? Goldman07 07:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RLWC

I have put the link to the Rugby League World Cup back at the top, as users may just be looking for that tournament, so its just easier if it is there. I will remove it from the See Also I guess. Cvene64 06:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't 'Rugby World Cup' go to a disambiguation page, instead of the Rugby Union World Cup? 194.203.110.127 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No this has been discussed before, and it was moved back to just Rugby World Cup. The name of the tournament is Rugby World Cup, and a link at the top of the article points people to the RLWC. And even if the page was still at Rugby Union World Cup, it would not be refered to as that in the text, as it is incorrect. Cvene64 23:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can see now that the sport is consistently referred to a rugby union, only the name of the competition omits the word union (which isn't the fault of the article), and the disambiguation link is appropriate. 194.203.110.127 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't some mention go to the fact that the Rugby League World Cup was originally called the Rugby World Cup - and was started in 1954? The IRB policy of erasing history shouldn't demote the rugby league competition from its place on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.124.112 (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Its real name is the IRB Rugby World Cup, just as the Football World Cup is the FIFA World Cup.

• Hmm dunno about that. It may be formally referenced as the IRB Rugby World Cup here and there, but it is definantly not in common usage at all. Cvene64 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have only seen the IRB in front in the logo, even on the IRB web site has it as just "Rugby World Cup" when in text format, and since in the logo the IRB is in a different font/color than the rest of the text, you can assume they are not interconnected. Billy Nair 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Importance

Is there any evidence for the claim that the Rugby World Cup is amongst the top three international sporting competitions, especially given the limited geographical range of rugby? Is this not POV? --Parslad 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have heard this claim made many times as well. There are quite a few references backing this claim. It usually comes from rugby governing bodies. Try these:

• [[1]] *www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2004/feddep/FinalEconomicImpactOfRWC2003.pdf
• [[2]]

Soundabuser 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just looking at the article there are also two references to support this claim. How do you mean it is POV? It is verifiable by many sources on the web. Soundabuser 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, its claim is to international competition..so it doesnt mean things like the Superbowl, which is bigger. Cvene64 03:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"""In addition, see Sports_league_attendances#Competitions_between_national_teams. It is second to only FIFA. Read down further, the Summer Olympics surpasses it, but the Commonwealth Games and Winter Olympics do not. Hope this helps. Cvene64 03:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree with the claim - I don't think there can be any serious doubt that the UEFA Champion's League is a bigger tournament, or that it is an international sporting competition (it is just that clubs compete instead of countries). So that would push RWC (at highest) to fourth (taking the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics as a given). Arguably Baseball's World Series is also international (having two Canadian teams), which is also larger that the RWC by almost any measure. Either way, I think the claim looks a bit shaky to be asserted baldly. Perhaps rephrase as "it's organisers claim ....". Weasel words are OK if attributed. Legis 16:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the World Series (that is just clubs as well yeah?) has less games, their culumative attendance and average game is less than half of the RWC. And its not intended to include the UEFA champions league which is clearly bigger. I'll reword it to be clear. Thanks. Cvene64 00:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you wouldnt mind Legis, please edit it to what you think is best. I dont want to upset anyone over it. Cvene64 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK will do. BTW, I fully support the nomination for 'good article' status, but as it was only nominated a couple of days ago, we should probably wait until others have had the chance to comment. Legis 07:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Claimed works for me. The nomination is actually pretty old, its the third oldest on the Social sciences and society list. Anyway, thanks for the help here. Cheers. Cvene64 08:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

GA status

This article seems to fit all the criteria nicely, and it seems you've worked out that dispute up above with references, so I see no reason why it would fail stability, references, or NPOV. One thing that struck me though, is that this article is a bit on the short size for what appears to be an extensive topic, I recognize that the sections with articles which say "Came from" may just be that short because you may of wanted the bulk of the info in the other articles, but for now, maybe expanding on some of the sections wouldn't be a bad idea. Homestarmy 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass and the comments. I will admit that some section are rather short, but I have a view to make things more comprehensive, as with every up and coming event, more resources re-surface and so on, so I expect as we approach 2007, the article (more specifically it's subarticles) will become more comprehensive. Thanks again. Cvene64 05:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration time

Ok, the thing of it is, as User:Cvene has pointed out, we might have to wait until 2007 to give the article more comprehensiveness, which I don't think is before the end of this week. So uh....what are we gonna do? Homestarmy 18:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

What do people think of putting an image in of England celebrating in Trafalgar Square as opposed to Millenium Stadium? They can both be in the History of the Rugby World Cup, but theres probably only enough room for one in this article. Thoughts? Cvene64 03:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Anythings better than a picture of the Millenium Stadium. Arguss 11:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ireland flag is wrong. Can someone change it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.239.133 (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll change it to a Northern Irish flag if you like, I won't be changing it to the flag of the Republic of Ireland because it isn't a Republic of Ireland side.GordyB 19:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Where does the shamrock flag come from? Is this an official IRFU symbol? According to the Wikipedia article on the Irish RFU team, the "four provinces" flag is flown at Ireland games, though frankly that wouldn't look very good as a thumbnail (too busy). I say keep the shamrock unless there are serious objections.213.42.21.156 05:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup Ltd

there is no mention of this in the article. Being that they are intrinsically involved in the host nation selection and organisation, it is strange that it has been overlooked. Needs to be addressed for the article to become FA ??? --Bob 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation spot check

As part of this project I've performed a citation spot check on this article. The results were:

1. Footnote 3: The other four automatic entrants - the losing quarter-finalists from the previous tournament are drawn into an individual pool at random.
   • Checks out. From site: "Four countries - last year's beaten World Cup quarter-finalists Scotland, Wales, Ireland and South Africa - were handed the top seed status, and were kept apart, and selected at random to go into one of four pools headed by 2003 World Cup semi-finalists England, Australia, New Zealand and France. It is the first time in Rugby World Cup's 17-year history that the whole draw has not been based exclusively on seedings or rankings."
     • It might be worth mentioning that this is a recent change in the rules.
2. Footnote 5 (a): "The idea of a Rugby World Cup had been suggested on numerous occasions as far back as the 1950s, though the IRFB made it clear that it did not want its member unions to get involved in anything like the Football World Cup."
   • Checks out. From site: "...he suggested a Rugby World Cup in the late fifties. In 1968, the International Rugby Board (IRB) forbade it's countries to get involved in an international tournament along the lines of the Soccer World Cup."
3. Footnote 7: "Such was the celebration of England's victory, that an estimated 750,000 people gathered in central London to greet the team, making the day the largest sporting celebration of its kind ever in the United Kingdom."
   • Checks out. From site: "Police estimated that 750,000 supporters made the trip to central London, making the day the largest sporting celebration of its kind in the United Kingdom."
4. Footnote 9: "Recently, some media outlets speculated that the Unión Argentina de Rugby had only voted for New Zealand's bid for 2011 so they would receive regular international competition in return."
   • Checks out. From site: "Minutes from a recent Argentina Rugby Union (UAR) committee meeting reveal that New Zealand won the rights to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup by a single vote - and that Argentina, who voted for South Africa in the first round, switched its support to New Zealand in the hope of future favours."; "...that the UAR needed to meet with them to discuss the possibility of having regular international competition in the southern hemisphere in the nearest future, having already obtained South African approval for Argentina's inclusion."

Well done. --Robth^Talk 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Media coverage

The numbers are all wrong. 3 billion + people did not watch the the World Cup. This is spin by some very creative PR men. Even the soccer World Cup does not get half the entire world watching the final.

What the figures probably indicate is that the audience for all the games totalled up to 3 billion. I.e. if 20 games were watched an average audience of 150 million then 150 millin X 20 = 3 billion. It does not mean that any game had half the world watching it.

Even this might well be rather creative use of figures. PR men often talk about a potential audience of 1 billion which merely means that if everybody who could possibly watch the game on TV did so, the audience would be 1 billion. Free to air programmes in the UK have a potential audience of 60 million but in reality 18 million is the maximum achievable.GordyB 20:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A peak national audience of 4.34 million during Channel 7’s coverage of the final made the telecast the most watched television program of the year. from the IRB (bottom reference on this article).

If only about 25% of Australians watched the final when a) they were the hosts b) they were in the final c) rugby union has a reasonable presence in Australia, then it is pretty unlikely that very many people from non-rugby countries did.GordyB 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Initiative, the company which collates worldwide TV audiences, the opening game of the last rugby union world cup was watched worldwide by 10 million people and the final by 23 million people. That hardly fits the 3.5 bilion estimate considering the final was by far the most watched of all the games.

The figures are usually revised downwards before the next RUWC figures are published, so they don't look bad. For example, there are claims that 4.2bn people watched last year's RUWC (2007). However, only 33million watched the final and Georgia vs Namibia probably didn't pull in too many viewers. Did the remaining games really do so well? If this is meant to be an accurate encyclopedia then the dubious IRB claims should be countered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.124.112 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The [1} citation is from a company that sold the software they used for the RWC so I doubt its credibility. Even with the inflated numbers ICC WChttp://knol.google.com/k/most-popular-team-sports-soccer-cricket-baseball-basketball-rugby-hockey# has bigger numbers. Reegan.milne (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hosts

Wales should be left as the host nation in the table, same with France for 1999, I think even though England hosted the 1991 final, it is only appropriate for the 1991 tournament to list the other nations as hosts, whereas Wales and France are considered the hosts, regardless of where some pool matches were taken and so on, leave those details to the individual tournament pages. Cvene64 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

All Blacks

I have replaced New Zealand with All Blacks where the team is written up. The first mention of them in All Blacks (New Zealand), so it is o.k for anyone who does not understand. Also, the table has NZ flags, and the records section describes the players as NZers.Allblacks91 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted. I think we should keep it consistent, just naming the countries, not the nicknames.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 03:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In the performance of nations section, there are still references to both "New Zealand" and "All Blacks". I think this should be cleaned up, but wanted to get opinions to avoid ping ponging edits. In particular, "South Africa and the All Blacks" seems incorrect. I think it should be "Springboks and the All Blacks" or "South Africa and New Zealand". Paddyslacker 06:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All references should be to the name of the country. If we allow references to the All Blacks and Springboks, then why not the Wallabies and Pumas? Or the Lelos (Georgia) or the Stejarii (Romania)?213.42.21.156 05:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

I think the nations best peformances image should be exchanged for a different one. First off, at first glance it looks as though those are the only countries that have ever tried to get into a world cup, which is not true. Secondly, you have to click to see what the colors/descriptions are. I think it would be better to color in all the nations that have played/tried to qualify for any world cup, those who have made it in green, those who have been unsuccessful in organe or something. This way it shows the countries that have competed in the final tournament, but also represent those who have not yet made it, then the image description can in short explain the color scheme so we dont have to click on it. I would do it my self, but Im not that flash with that kind of thing...Wkto guy 16:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most countries have taken part in qualifiers.GordyB 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And your stupid because no one calls them the New Zealand rugby team. They are known as the All Blacks

Other info/views

Do you think we should include other information such as those that criticize the World Cup? For example, people recognize how big the event it, but it has turned everything in between it into "friendlies", and everything now is "in preparation for the next world cup". People have also become upset at what has happened to some competitions, in particular, next years Super 14. Also, some people say that it has devalued the 3N, etc etc...I know that there are policies on original research/point-of-view neutrality, but is this type of thing significant/relevent enough to be included somewhere??

Captain/coach

I have dug up this info from the old table, and pasted it here, just incase anyone needs it. It probably is not needed in the main article, as teh table would become too detailed, but it is interesting to keep on the talk page I think.

Captain	Coach
David Kirk	Sir Brian Lochore
Nick Farr-Jones	Bob Dwyer
Francois Pienaar	Kitch Christie
John Eales	Rod Macqueen
Martin Johnson	Sir Clive Woodward

• • Note: there is a "Sir Brian Lochore" article, but it is at Brian Lochore, could someone do a redirection page?
  • Could someone please do a Kitch Christie page also?

There seems to be some dispute as to whether the 'Sir' should be included in personal names.GordyB 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Sir usually is not included in the name of the wiki article, but the Sir Brian Lochore is now a redirect in case anyone searches the full title. Cvene64 06:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• We should make templates for RWC-winning captains and coaches. What do people think? Goldman07 15:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Webb Ellis trophy

I originally posted this at William Webb Ellis Cup, but I guess it would be just a relevent here. Anyone, both this article and the sub-trophy article say that "International Rugby Board" is engraved on the trophy. But I dont see how this can be, as the trophy came about in the 80s, and there was no "International Rugby Board", but instead, the "International Rugby FOOTBALL Board", with the name change apparently coming about in the late 90s...so whats the deal with the engravings??

World Cup or world cup?

When used in an isolated context, should it not be lower case? Narrasawa

No, it is a title even when 'Rugby' does not come before it. The same as 'Six Nations' or 'Super 14'.GordyB 13:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The whistle

I heard that the same whistle has been used to kick off every WC, and that it is over 100 years old. Apparently it was also used at the 1905 English/All Blacks Test, as well as the 1924 Olympic final..and...it was used in another All Blacks/English Test in 1925, the first Test where a rugby footballer was sent off. Should we integrate this into the article or somewhere else? Obviously it does warrant its own section, as it would be too short, but its a notable tradition.Narrasawa 11:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone got any thoughts about this? Narrasawa 12:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, add it if you have any sources.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 14:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read about that on a few websites. But I don't know where you would put it..maybe it would be better under its own section at History of the Rugby World Cup..? Cvene64 13:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Main

We did!--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Did we? lol... i think you forgot "it" -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The trophy is currently kept in the Museum of Rugby, London.

I thought that the real trophy was on tour in france? And I was under the impression that the real cup is kept at the IRB hq?

Media coverage is misleading

The Media coverage numbers are misleading. You should define the term "cumulative audience" (like the FIFA World Cup article does), otherwise, it would beat the FIFA World Cup by numbers. In fact, the cumulative audience is misleading and insignificant in terms of comparing with other sports events. Therefore these statistics should be removed from the article and replaced by the number of watchers for ONE match (a final probably). Check the "Media coverage" section in the FIFA World Cup article. CG 04:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some vandalism has gone un-detected = Rugby_World_Cup#Records_and_statistics.--Aqua2000 14:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The template

Can someone make the title Rugby World Cup at the top appear in the middle, not slightly to the side?--Aqua2000 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Which one?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 14:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammar police

I found this article off the main page (congratulations!), but spotted a few grammar mistakes in it; normally, I'd just change it, but since this is FA and main page article, I'm reluctant to do so. So, I'll put the suggested change here, and if no-one complains will do it properly in a day or two's time:

• Sentence "The tournament included a repêchage system, alongside specific regional qualifying places, and an increase of 16 to 20 participating nations" - needs changing to say "increase from 16 to 20"
• Sentence "The 2003 event was hosted by Australia, though it was originally intended to be held jointly with New Zealand, though disagreements between the IRB and the NZRFU, over sponsorship, advertising and ticketing, saw the competition given in its entirety to Australia." just reads wrong. I'd suggest changing to "The 2003 event was hosted by Australia; although it was originally intended to be held jointly with New Zealand, though disagreements between the IRB and the NZRFU over sponsorship, advertising and ticketing saw the competition given in its entirety to Australia."

There are also a few places throughout the article where commas are mis-used (wrong place, shouldn't be there at all, whatever); I'll change them at the same time. Carre 17:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change the errors. Btw, isn't repêchage the correct spelling--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Choice of 1987 as year for 1st edition

Hi, does anybody know why 1987 was chosen as the year for the first World Cup, it may be to avoid been the same year as the Football World Cup and the Olympic games, any reference on that ? Thanks Dingy 07:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Stats

If Portugal is listed as Most Recent (2007) so should all the other 2007 nations. Goldman07 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, are there any other countries making their first appearance though? - Shudda ^talk 03:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Think he means that if (2007) comes under Most recent app., then the other 19 teams should have that as theirs as well. Cvene64 10:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops sorry. Yeah that shouldn't be done yet. Although unlikely, they may not appear in the World Cup this year. - Shudda ^talk 10:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think if Portugal have 2007 as theirs, so should all the others who are going. A note/ref should be attached to the heding of Most recent appearance that says this includes the yet to be played 2007 tournament. 06:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Most points scored in a game is 162 when New Zealand beat Japan 145-17 in 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.160.170 (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The World in Union

Should there be any space devoted to "The World in Union?"24.44.137.19 00:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please correct a typo

Hi there Protected page and don't have a login.

Text "... single of numerous nation(s)..." should probably read "... single or numerous nation(s)...". Actually, "... single or multiple nations..." would probably be better still.

Cheers Gavin

Done. Thanks for the requst. Tonywalton  | Talk 08:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Streak"?

The table in the "Performance of nations" section includes a column headed "Streak". What does this mean? The term is unexplained anywhere in the article, as far as I can see (apologies if I've missed something!) Tonywalton  | Talk 08:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Maximum number of consecutive appearances at the WC, I think. --necronudist 09:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, but if that's what it means something should say so (or is it a reference to Erica Roe? ;-) ) I'd ask the original creator of the table, but unfortunately they were an anon editor and haven't been around since May. Tonywalton  | Talk 09:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Media Coverage

This section compares the Rugby World Cup with the FIFA world cup, Superbowl and Olympics as 'international' events. Either the Superbowl should be removed or the word 'international' should. Matt Adore 11:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean, the Superbowl is shown round the world on TV so does that count as 'international event'?GordyB 11:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Internationally televised", perhaps? Tonywalton  | Talk 12:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Superbowl comment. It's not mentioned in either reference; it may well be incorrect. - Shudde ^talk 00:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User boxes

Is there, by any chance, a user box relating to the current world cup? just a thought - I'd like one. :-) --Merbabu 13:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Irish Flag

A shamrock? The Irish flag is the tricolor isnt it? Marcus22 12:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in the rugby world, where Ireland and Northern Ireland are the same team. --necronudist 12:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh. I had no idea that the two parts combined for Rugby. Thanks for the info that would kind of explain it then. Marcus22 16:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

INTRO

it isnt being hosted in wales and scotland, but only a few games are being played there. France is the only nation to host the 2007 rugby world cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.34.125 (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

care to change it anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.172.246 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Team Rankings

What's the basis for the ranking of teams in this table? It's clearly based on the premise that a team is ranked by the number of wins, followed by the number of runner-up spots, etc - but is this a commonly/officially accepted method of ranking World Cup performance? If not, then I don't think this table should be in here.213.42.21.156 06:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone who won two cups has certainly done more than someone who won just one. We can make the columns sortable, though. -- ReyBrujo 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you take the "position" column out then it is merely a statement of fact. Australia have won 2 World Cups = fact and England, NZ and SA (at the time of writing) have won one each=fact.GordyB 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In soccer, I have seen tables ordered by matches result in World Cups, taking into account all the matches since their first participation. By doing this, you could then sort the columns to know which team won the most matches in all world cups, which one scored the most tries, which one won the most cups, etc. Such table may be better than the current one (especially when the information there is already found above, in the world cup results). -- ReyBrujo 17:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is an approximate table, up to last Sunday's results. I haven't included the 1995 final (South Africa 15 - New Zealand 12) nor the 2003 one (Australia 17 - England 20), because those ended in extra time, and in those cases only the normal time result is counted (at least in soccer). I forgot about the "Tries Against" column, and some values may be wrong, so recheck everything. I haven't included bonus point nor point columns because the different world cups gave different punctuation (2, 3 and nowadays 4 plus bonus points). However, adding the columns for best positions we could have a very useful table. Only matches for world cup are counted here.

Team	Played	Won	Drawn	Lost	For	Against	Tries
New Zealand	36	30	0	6	1702	497	232
Australia	33	28	0	5	1195	413	152
France	35	26	1	8	1185	612	141
England	33	24	0	9	1071	548	108
South Africa	22	19	0	3	804	325	92
Scotland	29	17	1	11	899	561	108
Wales	25	14	0	11	686	559	83
Ireland	25	13	0	12	653	485	81
Argentina	24	11	0	13	608	522	56
Samoa	20	9	0	11	494	559	59
Fiji	20	8	0	12	479	590	52
Italy	20	7	0	13	363	716	35
Canada	21	6	1	14	387	539	40
Romania	20	5	0	15	261	770	29
Tonga	17	4	0	13	256	633	28
United States	17	2	0	15	262	614	28
Uruguay	7	2	0	5	98	352	9
Japan	20	1	1	18	359	975	48
Georgia	8	1	0	7	96	311	6
Namibia	11	0	0	11	86	708	11
Zimbabwe	6	0	0	6	84	309	11
Portugal	4	0	0	4	38	209	4
Côte d'Ivoire	3	0	0	3	29	172	3
Spain	3	0	0	3	18	122	0

Nice table. But I don't think you can just not include those two finals - you have to either include the result after normal time (i.e. a draw, with the relevant number of points), or the final result.80.227.170.154 05:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I am asking what is the common "behavior" for games finished in extra time. I think it should be considered a draw, but then, we don't have the draw result, just the overtime result, so we would not be able to update the other columns. -- ReyBrujo 09:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The table looks very good, it certainly tells a story. Look at the comparison of tries scored! Include those two games as wins, thats what they were (even if achieved after extra time). - Shudde ^talk 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wales/Argentina Wouldn't it be reasonable to rank Wales ahead of Argentina based on more quarterfinal appearances (3-2)?Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Webb Ellis Myth

{{editsemiprotected}} it should be indicated that the Webb Ellis story of the invention of rugby is a myth.

Good point. Done. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, is it even appropriate to refer to "association football" in that context when association football was not codified as such until 1863? Whatever football was played at the time, it wasn't soccer as we know it. What's more, some interpretations of the myth suggest that his disregard for the rules had less to do with actually using his hands (which may have been permissible), but running with it after doing so.Alanmjohnson (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1991

We really need to sort out the 1991 hosts. Currently it says United Kingdom, when in fact it was also hosted by Ireland and France. I myself don't see any way other than to list five countries, or maybe UK + France + Ireland. That's what I've put in for the moment. In this instance the tricolour Republic of Ireland flag is appropriate because it's a political entity not a rugby entity. Landr (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it to list the individual countries as I feel this is more appropriate. _wjemather^bigissue 10:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The C of E seems to disagree and thinks that Dublin is in the UK. As such, this article is now in conflict with the individual tournament page in this regard. As Landr suggests, this needs to be sorted out. _wjemather^bigissue 16:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Welsh Rugby Union describes the 1991 tournament as follows: "The 1991 Rugby World Cup was hosted in the Northern Hemisphere. With England as main hosts, various matches throughout the tournament were dispersed into Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France, with the final due to be held at Twickenham. With each country wanting a slice of the action nineteen venues in total were scheduled for match fixtures." Later in the article it says that "hosts England kicked off the tournament". The IRB's own site, reporting England's bid for 2015, says "England hosted RWC 1991 along with Ireland, Scotland, Wales and France". From this, it seems that the "host" should be England, with the contribution of other countries being noted in the article. Failing that, the entry for 2007 needs to be amended for consistency, since I have a distinct recollection of travelling to games in both Edinburgh and Cardiff, neither of which are in France!-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Who were the official hosts? Was is just England, with matches staged elsewhere (as with 2007 with France as hosts), or all five nations jointly (as with 1987 with Aus & NZ). Once this has been cleared up, the solution will present itself. _wjemather^bigissue 19:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The UK and France were the official hosts —Preceding unsigned comment added by The C of E (talk • contribs) 19:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No. If anything, it should be the UK, Ireland and France. Dublin -- which hosted two pool matches, a QF and a SF -- is not in the UK, it is the capital of the Republic of Ireland and I suspect that more than a few Irishmen (not me, I'm English) would be greatly offended by the notion that their country should be subsumed into a political entity against which their ancestors fought for several hundred years.-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to list each of the five hosting countries individually. The 11 matches in Scotland and Wales were hosted by the SRU and WRFU, not by the "UKRFU". Likewise, the Japan-Zimbabwe match in Belfast was hosted by the IRFU. And while Belfast is obviously in the UK, for rugby purposes it is in Ireland.Alanmjohnson (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable way forward (or combine with Grutness's comment below and list the details in footnotes). Either way, listing one of the venues as "Ireland" does, as you say, reflect the fact that the games in Belfast and Dublin were hosted by the IRFU; listing just UK and France is politically inaccurate and insensitive, while listing IRL and NIR separately is (as you note below) inaccurate in a rugby context.- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

One point which I don't think has been mentioned yet - if Ireland is listed, surely it should be with the shamrock flag used by the IRFU, not with the republic's tricolour flag. Grutness...wha? 11:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes. 100% agree. It's too bad the somewhat antiquated term "All Ireland" isn't still used in a rugby context...that might actually simplify things.Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion. In the "hosts" section, list the venue for the grand final, and add footnotes under the table explaining this and any further hosts for the finals competition. Adding Eng, Sco, Irl, NIr, Wal and Fra to the table itself makes the table too messy. The same could be done with 1987. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't do to list Northern Ireland, as Northern Ireland is not a national entity in rugby. And while 1999 and 2007 were contested in multiple countries but explicitly hosted by only one, 1987 and 1991 were all jointly hosted endeavors. You're right that it screws up the table, but I think we should just live with that.Alanmjohnson (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not a national entity in rugby, but neither is the republic. So in theory... what do we do? if you have the RoI flag you should have the NI one. If you don't have the RoI one, then you have the problem with it not being in the UK. I suspect the best solution might be to list UK and France only in the table, but add a footnote mentioning Ireland's hosting of several matches. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I prefer your suggestion above of using the shamrock flag...or even no flag at all. I would definitely not exclude them and I wouldn't use the tricolor either.Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Selection of Hosts

The text in selection of hosts

("All the tournaments thus far have been held in nations in which rugby union is a major sport; this trend continued when New Zealand was awarded the 2011 event ahead of Japan, a traditionally weaker rugby nation. The allocation of a tournament to a host nation is now made five or six years prior to the commencement of the particular event, as New Zealand were awarded the 2011 event in late 2005.")

is now out of date and therefore does not seem to add anything to the article. I would suggest it is deleted or updated.

the next section mentions that cups have had single and multiple hosts. We should mention that it is now official IRB policy to have 1 host only where possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.40.86 (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of teams

It says here that 24 teams have particpated in the RWC. It should be 25 (the 20 in this year's edition plus Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Portugal, Spain and Uruguay) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.226.93 (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2011

I am transating this page into sinhala. It is still under construction. I neeed to put a link to the sinhala page on this page.

Ishanika88 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the link? If you post it here someone can add it for you. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

2023 Rugby World Cup

I noticed that an article for the 2023 Rugby world Cup was created but was deleted at some point. There have been some new developments in regards to bids for that edition. Should the page be re-created? what are your thoughts? --MusicGeek101 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:William Webb Ellis Cup.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:William Webb Ellis Cup.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Webb Ellis Cup.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Webb Ellis Cup.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hosts II

Are the hosts the country or the union. i.e. for 2015 are the hosts a) England, the country or b) the RFU? --Bob247 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Inflated television viewership numbers

I see that data which serves as basis for the paragraph about the tournament's television audience comes from reports that, while being issued by separate firms, have been commissioned by the IRB.
It is well documented that audits whose authors have ties to sports governing bodies often feature inflated figures. Even FIFA World Cup audience numbers have similarly been debunked as much lower than officially stated.
Here is an article from a reputable NZ publication during the last WC in that country. It clearly casts doubts about the high numbers boasted by IRB and their partners.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10761073
I think this at least deserves a mention next to the "official" figures quoted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.107.169 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Australian Viewing Audience for 2003 Final - Media Coverage

The current comment "The 2003 tournament had a cumulative world television audience of 3.5 billion,[27] and the final, between Australia and England, became the most watched rugby union match in the history of Australian television.[28]" is underwhelming based on the source, it would be more informative to say most watched "football match of any code" instead of "rugby union match". This is especially significant in an Australian context given the competitiveness between Rugby and the other major football codes in Australia (Australian Rules, League and Soccer).