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 GainLine (talk | contribs) at 10:27, 24 June 2011 (→‎Notability guidelines for players: looks good). 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

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(56 more...)

Proposed deletions

Templates for discussion

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles for creation

Request for review: Limassol Crusaders

Collaboration

Current Collaboration - None
Nominations

Requested articles

more

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

WikiProject iconRugby union Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


John Hipwell

Someone's created a new article on John Hipwell, the Australian scrum-half, but it looks very much as if it's been lifted straight from http://www.rugby.com.au/qantas_wallabies/wallaby_hall_of_fame/john_hipwell_oam,49729.html. I'm not sure how to deal with this - I've marked the article talk page but not sure how to proceed from there. Can someone help? Thanks --Bcp67 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I copy-edited and deleted/rephrased some of the sentences. Also added in the above site as a reference at the end of each paragraph. It would be good if someone had another source we could use (I did a quick google search and found very little). Still some close paraphrasing, but should be better. As for copy violations: direct copy pastes can be tagged for speedy deletions with this tag {{db-copyvio|url=''source URL''}}, however if other editors have since edited the article or the copy edit is only in a few sections it is better to either remove or fix the violation. AIRcorn (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I've done a little work on it myself today. I thought the article was worth keeping as Hipwell is a significant figure in Australian RU and deserves a decent article. I've also posted a note on the original author's talk page as he created another article lifted from the same place. Thanks again.--Bcp67 (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Campese

Hello gentlemen, I'd like to signal this entry into that article's talk page. I guess the source issue (not to mention the rest), remained opened for about 4 yrs, is becoming unsustainable for an article of such importance. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 19:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have left my comments on the page. Campese is one of the greatest rugby players ever, and it's sad to see the article neglected.
I will propose it for collaboration of the fortnight--MacRusgail (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Rugby union in Yugoslavia

For some time now I've been working on articles on rugby union in various Iron Curtain/Eastern Bloc countries. Or rather, I've been sitting on some of them... here is one of the first ones, about the sport in the old Yugoslavia. I'd appreciate it if a few people would cast an eye over it, and check it for style, grammar etc.

I found this amusing quote in an article by Chris Thau - "one of the FIRA nightmares... is to have Yugoslavia playing Bulgaria refereed by a Soviet." Hmm...

Obviously, Romania, Georgia, and to a lesser extent Russia, have done moderately well since the fall of European Communism, but there is little info on the subject in English, because for the most part these teams have never amounted to much. I have tried hard to track down sources, but it's murder getting hold of them! Thanks. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One day the then-Captain Massimo Giovanelli told about an after match Soviet Union-Italy : the weather was so cold that there were about 1 metre of snow on the ground, and both teams had a party in which they drank basically vodka. Next morning they could barely get to airport, he said... :-) -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 18:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of third-tier national players

I would like to post the question whether national team players from third-tier nations are notable? The rules on this don't seem to be to clear. I'm specifically taking about players that have appeared for Germany in the European Nations Cup in the past couple of years, but really, it applies to any nation competing at official level. Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (sports), it speaks mostly of professional sporst people, which would rule out rugby union players for the most part of the games history. But it does say "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics", which is, for the European nations example, the ENC. Whats the general thoughts within the project? Calistemon (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those that have been capped for their country are notable. Pro or Am. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes but their inclusion may not be warranted. If a 3rd-tier player has or is playing for a top rated rugby club in europe, japan, north america, argentina or in the sanzar and pacific rim, then they can have an article but if they have only ever been capped once or only a handful of times without any "trivia" (personal or country related milestone), then i don't think they should be listed. I think 3rd tier teams in the top 50 deserve to have articles for some of their top players but not all..it all depends on their achievements ..Stemoc (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a difficult to follow notability criteria. How many caps does a player have to have to qualify? 5, 10, 15? Whats the definition of "Achievment"? I think, a guideline will have to be more definete then that, and already is, by the looks of the Project page. Calistemon (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a few who are: Serge Blanco (Venezuela), Jamie Heaslip (Israel), Tim Visser (Holland), Alexander Obolensky (Russia), John Raphael (sportsman) (Belgium), Boumedienne Allam (Algeria), Abdelatif Benazzi (Morocco). In fact if one goes through the rolls of Tier 3 nations, you'll find the so called "traditional" nations have been pinching players from them for decades! Which is probably partly why they've been so weak... Some such as Max Brito (Senegal and Cote D'Ivoire), Albert Speer (German) and Javier Bardem (Spanish) are notable for reasons other than their playing quality.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby related AFD

This deletion debate will be of interest to this wikiproject as Wilson was an England international: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Edward Wilson Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at this article and the deletion page. There is absolutely no reason why he should be deleted. He's more notable than some of the "reality" TV stars infesting wikipedia!--MacRusgail (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union

This a call to help improve the History of rugby union article. Areas that contributors feel are under-represented are detailed in the talk page here (they include development of rugby in nations such as South America, Japan, Continental Europe etc; history and origins of FIRA; Argentina's breakthrough in the last World Cup; "notable tours" outside of British Lions, and SANZAR tours; Sevens development).Kwib (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up here. I have expressed my concerns over there. It needs some more good pictures too.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England rugby union try record progression

I have just created a list article titled England rugby union try record progression. Having started to renovate the Cyril Lowe article, who held the record for over 60 years, I began wondering who Lowe replaced as record holder, and I thought I would wrap up the results of my research into an article. As a list it is quite detailed and having added a rather lengthy introduction it occurs to me that it could be a candidate to be improved further to attain Featured List status. If anyone has the time to have a look at the article, and perhaps improve the references, improve the prose, and help weed out any mistakes (each time I go back to it I find errors) it would be most welcome.

On a related note, looking at this try scoring record has taken me through a large scope of rugby history and it has been illuminating on a number of levels. For example, it amazes me that the Championship record Cyril Lowe and Ian Smith (of Scotland) jointly hold for the tries scored in a single championship still stands given the increased proliferation of tries and indeed the increase in matches played in the now Six Nations.Kwib (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting piece. I think it needs breaking up a bit but it's not easy to find natural points to split into sections. I'll fix a couple of bits and pieces which I've seen in it. Good stuff. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the merged cells the sorting function doesn't work. Nice article though. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the breaking up of the introduction. It is much more reader friendly now. I also see the issue on the sorting function. I wonder if the function sould be removed, or if the cells should be demerged.Kwib (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think being able to sort the table adds much value to it and if the cells were unmerged I don't think it would look as good. Just my opinion anyway. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting list this, but my one criticism is that the same names are repeated so often. Maybe the long list of Cyril Lowe and Rory Underwood's entries could be turned into a single personal entries, for example.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lennox Rugby club

I notice that "Lennox" turns up as an early rugby club. Now Lennox is a Scottish placename (round the south end of Loch Lomond), much like Rosslyn, but Rosslyn Park is very much an English rugby club. Have we got the same here? I can't find anything on Lennox RFC to comment, but they did contribute some early members of the British isles team, such as Crowther.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the team or of a Lennox in England. Lennox is very much a Scots name. A lot of the early Scots team were "FP" - former pupils. I'm wondering whether there is a Lennox school somewhere in Scotland.GordyB (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Lennox was almost certainly an English club and may have been a Surrey or London based club. H E Steed, known for polling clubs in the RFU in 1893 to gain proxies against professionalism during the events leading to the split into League and Union, is mentioned as being of Lennox FC. He went to Tonbridge, was later Honorary Secretary of the Surrey Eugby Football Union.Kwib (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Surrey rugby's official site - The Surrey Cup was first played for in 1891 and won by the long-gone Lennox FC.
A little more digging, in particular in "Rugby union football" by Philip Christian William Trevor, reveals that their ground was that of the London Athletic Club, situated in the Fulham Road, Chelsea. From British History online, I believe that this ground was none other than Stamford Bridge, Fulham. The original grounds were closed after the last athletics meeting on 24 September 1904, "and a new and larger track was made, partly on the same site, with a banked track for cycling and seating accommodation for 10,000 people. The new area of seventeen acres was still known as Stamford Bridge, and the L.A.C. opened with a meeting on 10 May 1905. During the winter months the ground is used by the Chelsea Football Club."
A review of Surrey rugby's past presidents reveals that Lennox had three presidents: T S T Tregallas from 1903 to 1905; H E Steed from 1905 to 1907 and R A Sawyer from 1913-1920. None after that date. Perhaps Lennox succumbed to the aftermath of the First World War, potentially due to a lack of able bodied players..Kwib (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is some excellent research. I thought it probably was an English team with a Scottish name (there was also an English team called Lausanne), much like Rosslyn Park. I have been able to dig up almost nothing on them.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC) p.s. Maybe Lennox succumbed to that very "Scottish" rugby club fate, i.e. merger![reply]


Having found some more information (in one of my favourite books - Dick Tyson's London's Oldest Rugby Clubs) I have created an article on Lennox Football Club, consolidating the pieces.Kwib (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff Kwib, thanks for doing this.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of comment on talkpage -

Created some redirects for this article. It turns out that there was a Scottish soccer club by this name - see 1875–76 Scottish Cup - but my view is that this is probably the more important one. Lennox (A)FC doesn't seem to have done so well, let alone produce internationals.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super 12 champions FLRC

I have nominated List of Super 12 champions 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons

Hi, I removed the flagicon from Lewis Moody and Ben Foden's infobox. Foden's got reverted and a reply saying it's common practise amongst Rugby union articles. I was going by the guideline of MOS:FLAG which suggests that flagicons shouldn't be used in infoboxes, as it is in association football article. Is it acceptable to use them to indicate nationality in infoboxes then or does this need to be addressed? Thanks, --Jimbo[online] 09:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always delete flags when I see them in infoboxes. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for merge?

Given that Super Rugby covers the Super 12, Super 14 and the current 15-team format, can List of Super 12 champions and Super 14 champions now be merged? I'm happy to do the work myself, I just need the green light before I can do it. —WFC— 18:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This makes absolute sense and would also help deal with the issues raised in the section List of Super 12 champions FLRC above.Kwib (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Obviously the merge will be a bit more complicated than a simple cut and paste at the bottom of the page, but I'll get onto it. —WFC— 22:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge completed. I'd be grateful for any help members of this project could provide with the prose though. I'm terrible at leads, even on subjects I'm very familiar with. —WFC— 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I'm getting along quite nicely with List of Super Rugby champions, but would be grateful if someone could help source and/or otherwise improve the opening paragraph. It's one of those situations where the information is pretty easy to find, but harder to find in reliable sources. Ironically I struck gold for a baseball list yesterday (a sport I've only ever watched on TV), yet in a rugby list (a sport I actually watch live on a semi-regular basis), I've drawn a blank. Most of the ones that previously verified the content are dead, and I don't have the book so I can't say with certainty what it references. Thanks in advance, —WFC— 04:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go. Refs aren't the most reliable in the world, but as it is pretty uncontroversial stuff I don't think anyone will complain. AIRcorn (talk)

Possibly Silly Question

Why are there two projects for Rugby? Many other sports' projects have multiple sports, like skiing and kayaking, have multiple sports within them. Why does Rugby require two projects? JimCubb (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption is that you are referring to a project for Rugby Union and another for Rugby League. There are no doubt many reasons that could be proferred, least of which being that the sports are deemed entirely separate and are governed by different bodies that are separate from one another worldwide nationally and on a global governance basis. That they have the same origin is true enough, but then so does Association football (soccer) (football using association rules) and rugby (football based on rugby school rules), and they only split in 1863. I doubt we would consider merging them. Add to the mix American football (various origins are given as rugby and football (soccer), Australian rules football as well as many others that have their origins in the same sport and the idea of merging all of these into a football banner becomes extremely unwieldy.Kwib (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too much bad blood as well. Some people from one code have a very strong opinions about "the other rugby". It's easier this way.GordyB (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the OP is an American. No offence to him, but he may not be aware of the split.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broughton - a mini hotbed of rugby - and Kevin O'Brien in the Rest of the World XV

Some research into early rugby internationals led me to look at the Broughton club (the original 1869 club) and what appears to have been a hot bed of rugby in Broughton itself. I have been distracted from my original work to write articles on Broughton RUFC, Broughton Park RUFC (1882) and to correct some stuff in the Broughton Rangers (1877) articles - if for nothing more than to add some clarity to the distinct clubs of the area. I then did some work on the Broughton Park players essentially creating articles slightly bigger than stubs (Tony Neary I haven't touched much but this does need some work; Barry Jackson created, Mike Leadbetter created, Tony Bond created; and Kevin O'Brien created).

What I am leading to in a convoluted way is a question about Kevin O'Brien. Apparently he played in a Rest of the World team but I do not know which one....does anyone know more about this?Kwib (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He played against Argentina 9 August 1980. Here is a link to the team list. --Bob (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.Kwib (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the World XV article with details of this match, and as an aside expanded the articles of some of teh players.Kwib (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, have a look at this Broughton,_Greater_Manchester#Sport - usual soccer bias. Don't they undertand that other sports exist and are enjoyed by millions of people?--MacRusgail (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly they do but don't necessarily know very much about those other sports. I don't know about RU but the Broughton area was very important in RL at one time but this has dwindled away to virtually no RL at all. No reason to presume that modern residents of Broughton would know about the relative importance of rugby in their area at one time.GordyB (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I have updated the page for a little more clarity. To be honest I had not paid much heed to the Football tag, because I am so used to referring to rugby as football.Kwib (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking much better. Strange how these places come and go...--MacRusgail (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons

In the national squad templates, there is a field for club/province that shows a flag for the club/province and the name of the club/province, i.e. Ireland Ulster. If you click on the flag, you are directed to the article for the island of Ireland. Would it not be better if, when you clicked on the flag, you are linked to the union/federation under which the team plays, in this case, the Irish Rugby Football Union? Another example would be France AS Monaco Rugby, if and when that would exist. The team is Monégasque, yet plays in French tournaments and would have the French flag linking to France. In the new protocol that I am proposing, the embedded link would take you to the French Rugby Federation. Similar case for Scotland Berwick RFC. The team is based in England yet play in the Scottish league system and are affiliated to the Scottish Rugby Union.

Note, this is not a discussion about the appearance of flags in these tables, that has been discussed elsewhere. --Bob (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is the Monegasque team tends to play as a national side. This could cause some consternation - Gibraltarian teams play in Spanish leagues, though Gibs don't like being called Spanish at all. Even with Berwick-upon-Tweed there's a problem, since Berwiok north of the Tweed has long been considered Scottish by many people (Berwickshire is in Scotland) for various reasons. (Though Berwick RFC's ground is in Tweedmouth, which is England proper!)--MacRusgail (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob's proposal would simplify matters. If Berwick RFC are affiliated to the SRU then it would be easier to use a Saltire and link to the SRU than argue endlessly over whether Berwick is English or Scottish (and similar arguments over the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Cornwall etc).GordyB (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should link to the national side and infact per {{ru|Ireland}} it should do nothing but give a link to the national team  Ireland Gnevin (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Gnevin: {{flagicon}} has an embedded link within the flag to the country article (or in the case of Ireland, the island article. Hover your mouse over the examples I gave above. --Bob (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of how it works Gnevin (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berwick RFC is affiliated to the SRU (and is/was to the RFU), however, due to geography it's much easier for them to fulfil fixtures against clubs in the Scottish Borders than many parts of England, which are further away. I think despite their affiliation (and other factors), the fact that they tend to play in Scottish competitions means that I'd use the St Andrew's cross. FWIW, they have provided at least one Scotland cap, and possibly English caps in the past.

London Scottish, on the other hand, is definitely affiliated to both unions. I have included them under the Scottish team category, but as far as flags go, such a club should probably use a St George's cross, because it plays in English leagues.

As for the Irish issue, surely that has been resolved by now...--MacRusgail (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under 18 national team articles missing

The 2011 European Under-18 Rugby Union Championship kicks off in a couple of days and I created the article for it today. For the first time in the (short) history of the European Under-18 Rugby Union Championship, all four home nations are competing in the tournament. However, the Wales article could use some updating, the Ireland one is only a redirect and the England and Scotland ones don't even exist, to say nothing of the lesser rugby nations. Anybody from those countries interested to fill these gaps, even if its only a basic article? Calistemon (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is finding reference material for such teams. In the case of the Scottish teams, there are U-21, U-18, U-16, Universities, Amateur and B national sides, but their exploits are not well recorded.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock family

There was a recent article about Ralph Hancock (cricketer). Check out his relatives, it might be worth mentioning the information in the other articles.

I would do it, but just in a hurry just now... my lunch break's over! -MacRusgail (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Bader

Someone keeps on removing the rugby information from this page, please see its talk page for details.-MacRusgail (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a printed source (not a website, which is too scary for many) which backs up the fact that he had a decent sporting career before his accident and credits him with the possibility of an England cap. Nice to see cogent arguments being advanced there, like "it happened long ago so none of us can know anything about it"....--Bcp67 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I understand that excuse from bitter experience, but it's no good for an encyclopedia! Very debatable whether or not he would have got an England cap in the end-up, but he was close. There have been plenty of odd inclusions and omissions in national teams. So, granted, it's a "what-if", but he's still significant in terms of playing for "Quins". More frustratingly, one of them claimed he hadn't played rugby (union) professionally despite living in the mid-20th century. I also went over to WP Cricket to ask their help here.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican major rugby league

I just came accross an edit to Mexican major rugby league unlinking a deleted article. Further investigation reveals a (what appears) a real league with some very poorly written linked club articles where I expect more than just the one to have been deleted. No idea about notability and if this is union or leage so I crossposted to the other WP. Agathoclea (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like its ours rather than theirs - the competition is apparently administered by the Mexican Rugby Union.--Bcp67 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

With the magners league due to be no more, I think we shouldn't be naming articles based on what always turns out to be short term names based on sponsorship. Any opinions? Gnevin (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, but what to call it? It can't really be called the Celtic League anymore since the entry of Italian teams. Like you, no doubt, I shall be referring to "Lansdowne Road" as well, instead of the Aviva Stadium.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with the principle - I'm involved a fair bit with the horse racing project where we come across the same issue. Generally there we'd change the title to a different sponsored title only if the race has only ever been known by a sponsored title, e.g. this Saturday's Bet365 Gold Cup, created in the 50s as the Whitbread Gold Cup and known only by various sponsored titles ever since. Other race articles usually keep the "registered title" with appropriate redirects or piped links from other articles. Uusally sports competitions have an official legal name (follow the link to football's Ryman League and you will be taken to its legal name of the Isthmian League) and according to the competition website the Magners is administered by Celtic Rugby Ltd - is there a case for renaming the article as the Celtic League, notwithstanding the Italian involvement?--Bcp67 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The convention is to use the name that is most common in Anglophone media. I'd suggest that Magners league is still the name that most people would recognise / use.GordyB (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I confess some bias, but think the CL name is much better than Magners L. It is still widely known as the CL. And who speaks of "the RBS Six Nations"? It's the plain 6N to one and all! What about the Heineken Cup, though, what's the proper name? European Championship? (Off the top of my head admittedly).
The Heineken Cup is actually the European Rugby Cup. However, this is confusing, as this is also the name of the organisation that runs both the Heineken Cup and the European Challenge Cup. – PeeJay 21:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The examples provide free advertising too. I think this runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, which has never been a profitable organisation. I recently renamed Soda and candy eruption from "Diet Coke and Mentos eruption", since I thought that it violated our rules against advertising. (Since other similar products could be used for the same effect.) On a sadder note, I gather Magners is going down the pan just now - it probably overexpanded - I just feel sorry for all the folk who will lose their jobs as a result. That probably explains the withdrawal of sponsorship.-MacRusgail (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Magners is still run and controlled by Celtic Rugby even with the Italians so Celtic League would work. Gordy the trouble with that convention is that 1998–99 Allied Dunbar Premiership was the common name at the time but now I'd suggest the common name is 1998–99 English Premiership (rugby union)Gnevin (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia actually have a policy against advertising? Surely if something is commonly known by a particular name, we should use that name, regardless of whether or not that name is a brand. – PeeJay 21:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wiki does have a policy against advertising. As you know, none of us get paid, and give of our own time voluntarily. We are workers for a non-profit. Although certain parties have tried to bring advertising on to Wiki, it's never happened officially. Sadly these days, free advertising seems to be rampant, with the government, schools etc all providing it but getting little in return. However, one of the best reasons, is as GNevin says... these sponsorship deals change all the time and are hard to keep up with._-MacRusgail (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia has a policy against advertising, can you please link me to it? I can't find it. BTW, simply mentioning a brand name is not really advertising. If that were true, we shouldn't have any articles about anything that can be bought in a shop. – PeeJay 12:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Advert amongst others. The BBC isn't supposed to mention brand names, but that is also violated in various ways, e.g. product placement in films.-MacRusgail (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That page doesn't seem to say anything about prohibiting advertising, only that articles are not supposed to be overly supportive of any particular product. Mentioning a rugby competition by its sponsored name doesn't seem to break that rule. – PeeJay 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Peejay 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC), rejustified) I think the use of these names is a grey area (like advertising on the Beeb). I think we should endeavour to use traditional names, and/or non-commercial ones as much as possible. It is hard enough keeping stuff up to date as it is. Sponsors come and go.-MacRusgail (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an area on which we agree. I've opened at least two RM discussions to get Heineken Cup moved to European Rugby Cup and Magners League to Celtic League (rugby union), and with Magners dropping out as sponsors of the latter, I think there's considerable weight to that argument now. – PeeJay 13:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll back you up on these. If I get there in time (they tend to close before I go to them!)--MacRusgail (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant I've opened RM discussions on them in the past, not now. I could re-open discussions on those, but I have a distinct feeling it'd get shouted down again. – PeeJay 23:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening this, we now have the Rabobank Pro 12 league, catchy no? Anyway User:Nouse4aname has moved a large number of Rugby articles claiming WP:COMMONNAME, which is fair enough. I think we need to settle this once and for all. Too me the options are

  1. Parent article and the year by year article reflect the then sponsor so Aviva Premiership and 2010–11 Aviva Premiership
  2. Parent article at generic name and then year by year by sponsor so English Premiership (rugby union) and 2010–11 Aviva Premiership
  3. Parent article at generic name and then year by generic too so English Premiership (rugby union) and 2010–11 English Premiership Gnevin (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favour of option 3 personally with redirects as needed Gnevin (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't just merely "move a bunch of articles", but instead I restored the articles to their original locations as there was no clear consensus for them having been moved to generic titles. We need to put opinions to one side and look at policy and guideline. Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the common name for all articles - sponsored or not. For the main articles, this will be the generic title, but for individual seasons, the common name is invariably the sponsored name, and this is rightly where individual seasons belong. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the rabobank pro whatever, I very much doubt this will be the common name, which will likely be 2011-12 Pro12 or similar, but until we can get an idea of what the common name is, the full title seems logical at this point. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning your moves, I just referenced them as back ground information Gnevin (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I was just clarifying my motives behind these moves as a particular user seems intent on painting me as disruptive and sinister with only bad intentions in every edit I make. Due to the total lack of respect I feel I have been shown by this user, and following a recent lack of enthusiasm for the project anyway, I will no longer be participating any further. So name the articles what you like, I really couldn't care less. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3. --Bob (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby clubs nominated for deletion

The following articles: Fishguard and Goodwick RFC, Neyland RFC, Pembroke Dock Harlequins RFC, Pembroke RFC, St. Davids RFC and Tenby United RFC have recently been nominated for deletion. I don't believe it has been listed on this project so I'm flagging it here. Any discussion will be appreciated as at present the only discussion is coming from myslef and one other person (who is losing their temper). Cheers, FruitMonkey (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A direct link to the AfD page would help other Wikipedians post their opinion.GordyB (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishguard and Goodwick RFC. Calistemon (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have put my opinion up. Okay, not the most notable teams in Wales, but there seems to be a misunderstanding about the amateur status of much of RU even today. More surprisingly, the anti-amateur angle appears to be coming from a Welshman!!! --MacRusgail (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian rugby union players

Formerplayer1991 has created the following articles on Serbian rugby union players : Milan Orlovic, Marko Kapor, Miladin Zivanov, Milan Rastovac, Srdjan Nikolic, Marko Vukovic & Predrag Vranes

Can someone from the project look at them and see if they meet WP:NSPORTS#Rugby_union.

Thanks

Mtking (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to assume that they are not and should be nominated for delete ? Mtking (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My belief is that they do not meet notability guidelines. They do not play in a major league, have no international experience and no further reason given for their notability. Nominate for deletion. FruitMonkey (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As Milan Rastovac has 72 caps for Serbia he meets the guideline. As they stand the rest don't. AIRcorn (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Milan Orlovic has 21 caps, Marko Kapor has 68 caps, Miladin Zivanov has 29 Serbian caps [1] --Bob (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heineken Cup (Cup)

Anyone fancy writing an article on the Cup its self? From what I can tell there have been a number of Cups awarded down the years Gnevin (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources available, I'm sure someone will take up the mantle. However, I would suggest Heineken Cup (trophy) as a better title. – PeeJay 20:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Peejay, "trophy" is unambiguous.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of rugby union incidents up for deletion

Discuss here please - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rugby union incidents--MacRusgail (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Rugby Union biography

I have opened a discussion topic on the talk page of this infobox template. Contributions would be useful in determining the direction I take with this template. – PeeJay 20:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Heineken Cup Final up for deletion

If you have any comments please leave here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Heineken Cup Final --Bob (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sport honours

Template:Sport honours has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —WFC— 21:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown England players project

Within the listing of Engalnd players, derived from data from espn scrum.com, there are a number of players about which there is little biographical detail to the extent that only their initials were listed. This intrigued me, because the information at scrum.com normally has the forenames and a birth date. I made it a little mission to look further into these players and have been returning to this mini-project on a number of occassions. I have made some progress, but there are still gaps and I thought that highlighting it to the wider community might help fill those gaps. I have listed the players here: User:Kwib/Unknown England players project. If anyone has information and can jump in, that would be excellent.

I have also done the same thing for a number of early Scotland players, but have not been as structured, yet. I am sure this phenomenon occurs in all the major rugby nations player rolls.Kwib (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that among these players I think I have identified the first Australian, first South African and first Welshman to play international rugby. Might be wrong but I am fairly confident.Kwib (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines for players

Hi all. Just some advice that Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Rugby union has been read by at least one editor as stating that International rugby players in the pre-professional era can never satisfy the guideline and therefore WP:GNG must be strictly applied (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hirschberg). This seems to me to be an absurd and tendentious reading but perhaps some clarification is needed. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the offending statement. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And it was put back in due to a lack of edit summary explanation. A link to a show of consensus here would be useful. The problems I see with the current wording is that the whole page section is titled "professional sportspeople", so the applicabilty of the guidelines to amateurs pre 1990 should be explicitly stated (at all levels or only Test players?) and there is no definition of "first class" matches. The-Pope (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it again and opened up a debate on the talk page. The amateur thing rears it head on a regular basis. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely WP:ATHLETE applies here? If a player played at a time when there was no professional game, then as long as he played at the highest amateur level (e.g. full internationals, highest league in any country, highest cup competition in any country, etc.), that would confer notability. – PeeJay 07:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see this is being tackled (sorry) and to see FruitMonkey's edit. I too read the AfD in question, metaphorically threw my hands up in despair and made a note to come back to it later on. By that time, thankfully, the issue had been resolved, albeit in a rather unsatisfactory way, but it seems to me that part of the problem here is how the article is laid out. My personal view is that the guideline should be read so that both the professional and amateur standards are sub-categories of the 'notability guidelines on sportspersons', but that's not really what the headings indicate. If my interpretation does in fact represent the consensus, then perhaps someone should reset the headings. Otherwise, unfortunately, it seems there are editors who will stick by what they see as the letter of the law if that's what suits them at a particular moment. I'd also suggest that it wouldn't be unreasonable to state explicitly that any amateur who happens to meet the standards normally expected of a professional sportsperson (as was the case with Hirschberg) is automatically considered notable. Anyway, for whatever it's worth, here's my view of how the hierarchy of headings should actually be interpreted (with a minor rewrite of the heading for point 4 in this list):
1 Applicable policies and guidelines
2 Basic criteria
3 Notability guidelines on sports persons
3.1 Generally acceptable standards
3.2.1 Professional sports persons
3.2.2 Amateur sports persons
4 Notability guidelines on games and organisations
5 Notes.
BlueThird (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is as it appears now:

A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has either:
  1. Appeared in at least one test match, sevens competition, or fully professional domestic rugby competition, as player, referee, coach, or administrator, or,
  2. Appeared in at least one first class rugby union match.
Players from the early days of rugby cannot meet these criteria, as they pre-date the era of first-class rugby, and must therefore pass WP:GNG.

I suggest rewording as follows:

A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has:
  1. played in, coached or administered a (now) first or second tier test nation since 1871 or,
  2. played in, coached or administered a third tier test nation during an appearance at the men's rugby world cup finals or,
  3. refereed a first or second tier nation test match since 1871 or match at the rugby world cup finals or,
  4. played in, coached or administered a team, or refereed in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,
  5. played in, coached, administered or refereed at the IRB Sevens World Series, Rugby World Cup Sevens finals, Commonwealth Games, Olympics or Women's Rugby World Cup finals
Notes: Players who do not meet the above parameters must also pass WP:GNG. The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status. A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

Comments? --Bob (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but as it will still be undera professional sports heading, and Bluethird's suggested split is unlikely to be implemented due to the huge duplication issues it will cause, the application to both am and prof should be explicitly stated. Is there a relevant article/section to link to about the forced amateur requirements historically? The-Pope (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The best article I have seen on the matter is History of rugby union.
In response to The-Pope, I have adjusted the Notes section and point 4. as follows with adjustments in bold italics (the adjustment is in italics which will be removed later).
4. played in, coached or administered a team, or refereed in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,
Notes: The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status. Players who do not meet the above parameters must also pass WP:GNG. A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.
Do these changes nulify any potential problems? --Bob (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just one question about the tier-one and tier two nations. Before the Second World War, the rugby scene was much smaller and there really was only two tiers, with the four/five nations, Aus, NZ and SA in the first and everybody else in the second (Germany, Italy, Spain). How does that tie in? Secondly, the new rule would make virtually all players in, for exapmle, Category:Germany international rugby union players, Category:Belgian rugby union players or Category:Serbian rugby union players non-notable and therefore ready for deletion while before the fact that they all played at least one test match caused them to pass. Personally, I would find this a bit upsetting. Calistemon (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relating to tier one, two and three, that it why I included the (now). All players that represented these countries deemed notable regardless of when the match occurred re professional and amateur periods. Regarding the players that represent third tier nations who do not play professionally, yes, they probably will be deleted as they would be deemed non-notable, but not all players in those categories would fail the criteria above (66% of the Belgians would remain for example). I have personally contributed to a number of the articles (and categories) that would be deleted as I was unaware that the criteria for rugby union players is listed under Professional sports persons at Wikipedia:ATHLETE. Thus, only players playing professionally for their national team are currently considered notable as written. No mention of amateur status side is made. The nutshell statement at the top of WP:ATHLETE is An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The players for Serbia, Germany and the like are not playing at the highest level and have not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Bob (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Women's Rugby World Cup finals should be added to point 5. AIRcorn (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and done. --Bob (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your sentence "Players who do not meet the above parameters must also pass WP:GNG." I don't think you can/should put this in there as players still have to meet GNG even if they meet any of the specific criteria for any sport. This is spelled out clearly in NSPORTS in a number of places so probably doesn't have to be reiterated here, and the current wording implies those who meet the criteria are notable without meeting GNG which isn't true. Otherwise I have no opinion since I know little of the sport. -DJSasso (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Will delete offending statement. --Bob (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree that Bob's revised list is a significant improvement. In response to The-Pope, I don't quite see why there would be any need for duplication with the heading structure I've suggested. In any case, thinking again, a single unified list might be better still, with the three amateur categories brought into a single list:

3 Notability guidelines on sports persons
3.1 Generally acceptable standards
3.2 Individual sports
4 Notability guidelines on games and organisations

BlueThird (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To establish a waterproof guidline is a great idea but I'm just not comfortable with the empathis on professionalism, especially in a sport like union where amateurism was and, in a lot of places still is held in high esteem. With the new guidline, a third divison football (soocer) player in Germany, England or Italy with one league appearance would be deemed notable because the league is fully professional while a Serbian international like Milan Rastovac with 72 caps for his country, many of those no doubt achieved in World Cup qualifiers and ENC matches is non-notable because he plays the game for the love of it rather then the money. Maybe its only me that feels so but do we have our values quite right there? Calistemon (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is on the right track, but have a few more comments. I am not overly familiar with the tier system, but a quick look seems to suggest that nations can be promoted. Georgia and Namibia are said to be tier 2 here,[2] but wikipedia classifies them as tier 3 (Russia has been promoted too I believe). While it probably won't be an issue if teams are only promoted, if nations are demoted to tier 3 a lot of players who were notable under these guidelines as written would suddenly not be. Maybe point 1 should be reworded to something like played in, coached or administered a nation that has at some point since ???? [whatever date the three tier system came in] been classified as first or second tier or, to cover such an eventuality. I don't think the year 1871 is needed as it starts off saying A Rugby Union person and if they were involved before 1871 it would not have been with Rugby union. Maybe point 2 (and the other related ones) should not use "finals" so no one could potentially misunderstand and think that they have to actually get to the finals at the tournament. AIRcorn (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tier issue should not be a problem, as if a nation is demoted to tier 3, those players, etc who were involved during the tier 2 period would still be notable, they would not become not notable all of a sudden. Otherwise all defunct teams would be not notable; it is the period of time when they were notable we should concentrate on not 'where are they today'. Also there was rugby 'union' before 1871, it was just the first national union and international matches that began on that date. WikiProject: Rugby union is interested in all players, officials and clubs going back to when it was just 'football' and there were no official codes, like association, rugby or league. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would just like to add my 2c to this, firstly in points 1 & 2 can "played in" be changed to "played for" as it reads better and remove IRB Sevens World Series in point 5 as I don't think just playing in that is any indication in and of it's self the player would have recived enough coverage to pass WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should probably not use (now) as that implies 'where are they today'. The Woman's rugby world cup might need tweaking too. It needs to be included as its the top women's competition, but I am not sure how many of the lower teams would have notable enough players. AIRcorn (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten:

A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has:
  1. played for, coached or administered one of the first or second tier test nations at any time(see Note 1) or a third tier test nation during an appearance at the men's rugby world cup(see Note 2) or,
  2. refereed a first or second tier nation test match since 1871 or match at the men's rugby world cup finals or,
  3. played for, coached or administered a team, or refereed in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,
  4. played for, coached, administered a team or refereed at the Rugby World Cup Sevens, Commonwealth Games, Olympics or the semi-finals of the Women's Rugby World Cup.(see Note 3)

Note 1: Tier 1 and 2 nations for men are: Argentina, Australia, Canada, England, Fiji, France, Ireland, Japan, Italy, New Zealand, Romania, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Tonga, United States, and Wales. Women do not have tiered nations.
Note 2: Tier 3 nations that have played at the World cup are: Georgia (2003, 2007, 2011), Ivory Coast (1995), Namibia (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011), Portugal (2007), Spain (1999), Russia (2011), Uruguay (1999 and 2003), and Zimbabwe (1987 and 1991)
Note 3: Nations that have played at the Women's World cup at the semi-final level are: Australia, Canada, England, France, New Zealand, United States, and Wales,
Note 4: The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status.
Note 5: A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

Again, comments? --Bob (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, and thanks Mtking (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me GainLine ♠ ♥ 10:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1912 Wallabies to the USA

Just made a start on this less-than-stellar episode of Australian rugby history. As you can see I'm thin on tour match details and the touring squad must surely have been longer. Any help appreciated to flesh it out. -Sticks66

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union&oldid=435955290"