Talk:Rugby union/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Webb Ellis myth

Although I'm sure Webb Ellis was a gentleman player (peace be upon him), isn't it about time we admitted that he isn't the founder of the game, and that the source for his story is rather dubious. True, rugby may have been codified at Rugby School, but its roots are far deeper, and hardly go back to one man. In fact, the ancestors of rugby can be found all over Europe, and beyond. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do state that the story is doubtful, but maybe we should be stronger and just state that there is no known evidence of any of the facts being true. We must mention it, as the world believes it. Make the changes, lets see what it looks like. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we just go with whatever the most reliable sources say? For me, sentences like "there is no known evidence of any of the facts being true" are not encyclopedic at all. We should include the well-known Webb Ellis version, and if it has been reliably exposed as a crock of shit, we should explain that, with proper references. --hippo43 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the important thing here is that rugby was codified at Rugby School, from pre-existing football. The evidence is damning. The first account of Webb Ellis doing this is decades later, Old Rugbeians of the time didn't particularly notice him, and carrying the ball was normal in old forms of football, despite the way soccer fans have managed to revise history. (Huw Richards compares this to the origin myth of baseball, which has fairly obvious English origins, but got given an American origin myth) Webb Ellis is a cute story, but that's it. --MacRusgail (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right. Whatever we include, it needs to be referenced. I don't know what good sources have been published on this. The Webb Ellis stuff should be included, as it is such a widely peddled and believed story. (Just as baseball covers the Abner Doubleday nonsense) If reliable sources have thoroughly debunked it, it should be made clear that it is a pile of crap, and the correct version explained. If anyone can produce a good, referenced version, go ahead. --hippo43 (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there's one reason to mention him, it's the world cup which bears his name. However, the running with the ball claims are misleading, since they suggest that the kicking game which became soccer was the original form of football, whereas it bore more resemblance to rugby and gridiron.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Disgrace!

Just did a search of this article. The words "ruck" and "maul" are not used once! What the... 58.170.21.205 (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nore for that matter are the words "scrum", "lineout" or "pass". Perhaps (instead of documenting its apparent - non existent - spread to Asia) a brief description of the game itself would be a worthy addition to this article! 58.170.21.205 (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of the focus of this article is missplaced, but if you want more information about how rufby works, see Playing rugby union. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to remedy such issues. Article also needs mention of defunct rules, such as "mark", which was still in existence when I was playing.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tri-Nations "Generally considered the top international competition outside the world cup."

This - "It is generally considered in the southern hemisphere to be the top international competition outside the World Cup, since the teams competing in it are the regular holders of the international ranking top spots." statement seems to be a bit POV. The first two references are to the same press release with the statement "arguably the toughest international competition." - press releases generally will big up there case. The reference from the UAR president is again a press release announcing Argentina joining an expanded four nations competition - he is hardly going to say anything else. The references given do not in any way back up the statement "generally considered". noq (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Are southern hemisphere references any less reliable than NH ones? If I were to start comparing the geographical "balance" of references in articles, very few would remain standing. If the statement is considered untrue, provide references to the contrary Sahmejil (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not discuss it here first instead of reverting with a "so what?" The "so what" as noq points out, is that all your quotes are from less-than-impartial sources. Their "reliability" is irrelevant; what matters is that you are citing personal opinions in support of a personal opinion. If you can come up with a reliable NH quote that supports this, then fine. Until then, it is factually correct -- and NPOV -- to say that this is a SH opinion.--13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The "so what" was in response to the arrogance of demanding a NH quote to please NH editors - talk about POV... But back to the issue at hand - Is anyone involved in the rugby world seriously disputing the actual point being made? The invitation for references to the contrary is still open. As I see it, until there are reliable ref's that differ from the ones already given, there is more support for the "It is generally considered to be the top international competition outside the World Cup" statement.Sahmejil (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In order to establish "generally considered" to be true you would need to cite multiple reliable 3rd party sources ideally from all parts of the rugby world. If you only cite people with a vested interest in promoting the competition that is not "generally considered". noq (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with the word top either. It's a bit vague and could have several meanings. Do we mean the most important? FruitMonkey (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That would not be the intended meaning. Something along the lines of most "highly respected", or "high level" or "tough" or whatever the PC word would be for a competition amongst the highest-ranked teamsSahmejil (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't arrogant to request that you provide a balanced set of citations to support your comment. Nor is it relevant whether an editor is from the NH or SH. It doesn't matter whether I dispute the actual point being made. What matters is whether you can support it with a balanced set of citations. Ad hominem attacks on other editors do little to promote your argument.--Jimmy Pitt (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• A statement was made and citations provided. The only criticisms thereof has been their geographical location - not a valid exclusion criterion, and excludes half the planet. It is indeed ad hominem to assume all SH sources are partial, especially since their "balance" is a subjective judgement in the eye of the beholder. We require 3rd party citations, which were given: A national rugby union president, national captain of an unrelated sport and a published journalist.
• Do we seriously want to set the precedent where editors can go throw out half of an article because they feel it doesn't cite enough sources from their part of the world? The partiality of a source is reason for a revert, not its location. That's why it does "matter whether the actual point being made is being disputed or not". I have not heard one argument saying/citing that the statement is actually wrong, only beurocratic procedural concerns.
• If a cited fact is being disputed, it is only reasonable to expect references to the contrary. I am unaware of any. Otherwise anything can be reverted for any reason.
• No attacks were made. The intention was not to convey that message.

Here are more (mostly NH) sources that make the same point, although not all are fit for actual citation. The "generally considered" point is clear though. In the future it will probably not be the case anymore, but at the moment the pendulum has swung to the SH side:

"Tri-Nations dominance" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/nov/25/autumn-internationals-englandrugbyunionteam

http://www.sportingo.com/rugby-union/a9706_why-johnsons-england-elite-can-never-challenge-might-all-blacks-springboks-wallabies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/6987304.stm

"Saturday’s Tri-Nations decider between the best two sides on the planet would invariably make domestic matters pale for the moment." - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2009/0915/1224254554735.html

http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/hi/talking_point/485086.stm

http://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090705230507AAV5qgR

http://www.therugbyblog.co.uk/southern-hemisphere-still-on-top

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Rugby-Playing-catch-world-s-best-teams/article-525510-detail/article.html

http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5138-rugby-a-modernday-colonial-uprising

Sahmejil (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, none of the reliable sources provided above (I didn't read the blogs/yahoo answers etc) actually state that the Tri-Nations is "generally considered" (or even "considered") any such thing. There is no question that the teams involved in the 3N are currently the best teams in the world, but the sources provided so far don't support any such claim about the tournament itself. It would be very easy to find a bunch of sources eulogising the Six Nations as the greatest rugby competition going. If we want to make a statement like this about any competition, we would need to find multiple independent sources from around the world (not just local to the relevant event) which make this specific point - that the event is generally considered the toughest etc. It is not sufficient to cite a number of individuals who state that they themselves consider the tournament to be the best. In the absence of such sources a statement like this is blatant OR. --hippo43 (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence from the text as the sources cited did not support it. There were 4 sources given, basically two quotes supplied via two sources each. The quote from the Proteas said "arguably the toughest international competition outside of the World Cup". One cricket bloke saying "arguably..." ≠ "generally considered". The quote from Argentina referred to the new 4N being "the best competition in world Rugby in 2012" (emphasis mine). (There is no mention of the World Cup in his statement - presumably the dude from Argentina thinks it is a better competition than the World Cup!) The clause "since the teams competing in it are the regular holders of the international ranking top spots" is pure OR. --hippo43 (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"A statement was made and citations provided. The only criticisms thereof has been their geographical location" - Read what I said. The criticism was not of the location they were made from but of the partiality of the people quoted. I also said that for generally considered to be valid it needed wide citations. As User:Hippo43 stated above you could also see opinions stated for and against the 6 nations being "stronger". The Tri-nations is best argument is inherently subjective just as a 6 nations is best argument would be. Neither should be given prominence. noq (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a variety of reliable sources saying that, either the Tri Nations is not the premier international competition, or that another tournament is, would definately bring this debate about "generally considered" to a swift end. That counterargument is however still lacking.Sahmejil (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As has already been said several times it is possible to find references that indicate that both SH and NH competitions are somehow 'best' or 'strongest'. (Probably all highly subjective and POV, and depending on location.)

It is highly unlikely that there are sources that state a negative, as you seem to be asking for. The 'general' consensus of opinion here seems to be that neither should be included. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 09:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sahmejil, the counter-argument you suggest is not necessary, as the argument for the 3N being "generally considered..." is not yet supported by sources. --hippo43 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, my edit summary was chopped off in the midst of the edit warring, but isn't particularly important anyhow :). The statement "Generally considered the top international competition outside the world cup" is not a good one, as it's too ambiguous, and shouldn't be in the article. It's quite obvious the Tri-Nations is the strongest international competition (and that includes the World Cup) since it includes, and only includes, teams ranked 1, 2 and 3. If this is what is meant by "top", and this is seen as a worthwhile addition, then rather use the less ambiguous term, which can be easily sourced. The reason for reverting for one of the edits, that the sources were all from the southern hemisphere, is of course irrelevant. What matters is that they're reliable, and accurately cited. Greenman (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of references

I have repeatedly tried to put references onto various basic items of information, such as equipment, rules, and the dimensions of rugby pitches, but people keep on removing them. Please desist! All that will happen is that people will put "citation needed" tags on them.

Surely the point is to improve this article (which has few inline references) rather than to keep it as it is. I have gone to a lot of trouble to try and source some of this information. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed some from the lead, where they were not on contentious points and just uglied everything up, and where many of them were duplicates of IRB references. I'm sure somewhere in the MoS there is a guideline that the lead should not be stacked with footnotes.

I also removed some later ones which were simply unnecessary (such as for 'Rugby union is played between two teams'!). It's great that you have gone to a lot of trouble, and I really do like the Influence on Other Sports section that you added, but going to a lot of trouble doesn't mean that everything you added has to stay. --hippo43 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We just need to keep talking to explain things to each other, as this article is coming on strongly. There is a rule (or guideline) that states there should be no references in either infoboxes or the lead as these should be summaries of the article in a nutshell, and therefore all information will be found in slightly more detail later on the article. Winston Churchill is a good example. But as this is not the finished article, it would be good to keep people's references if well researched and neutral as they could be moved with the information later on. I think the work recently has been a huge step forward.FruitMonkey (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The reason I put the two teams bit in, is simply because we have to assume readers have little or no knowledge of the sport. It's a minor point anyway. Some people who are ignorant of rugby might think that it is played between individuals, or even multiple teams/temporary alliances, such as tag wrestling (God help us!)

The stuff on the GAA needs to be clarified, especially as it's mainly one of antagonism, but I think it's important to remind people that the similarities with American football are not coincidental. Also, rugby league and rugby union have been a constant influence on one another, whether or not they got along! --MacRusgail (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. FM, I agree about the summary. I want to provide a decent summary of the complicated rules, but try to make it shorter than the "playing RU" article!

This is supposed to be a collaborative effort, so you must expect changes :} I've changed some references, to refer to the Laws and IRB regulations, which are freely available online and are both more accessible and more authoritative than "Stubbs" or "Midgeley". Also, where the info is not contentious, one citation per paragraph should usually suffice: it isn't necessary to provide a citation for every statement.-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another point, I would suggest that it is better to reference the print version of the IRB rules. I know from bitter experience that pages on the IRB site move or disappear without notice, much like any other websites. Print references will be more permanent.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The IRB occasionally changes the page names, but the information on the Laws has never, to my knowledge, "disappeared". Also, not everybody has access to the printed version, which in any case is not always up-to-date.-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

PS If we adopted that approach, we'd never cite any web references. And wikipedia would be much the poorer for it.-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've lost count the amount of times that material in articles of mine has been deleted, because it's "unreferenced". Why? Because the original references were on pages which are no longer at the addresses given! Printed references add a layer of permanence that simply isn't there in the Internet, where pages often last two years or less. Midgley and Stubbs are mainly there to back up basic points, but are easily accessible. I wouldn't use them, for say, history. Huw Richards is much better on that score. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the correct protocol in the case of a dead link was to flag the link, not delete material from the article: after all, some dead links are retrievable using the Wayback Machine. But I don't think that's a consideration with irb.com: the Laws have been there a lot longer than two years, though they do 'migrate' occasionally -- until I changed it this afternoon, the article referenced a "dead" link for the 2007 Laws. And as well as irb.com, they're also available on rugby365.com, and no doubt elsewhere. Using Midgeley and Stubbs to support general statements is admirable, but they're hardly needed to "support" the game's lawmakers.

Sorry, I see you've partly covered this below -- I must learn to type faster!-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the Gaelic football article. While its referencing is woefully inadequate and there are several other problems with it (such as the history section), I'm wondering if the formatting of the rules section might be a useful guide for RU. (I checked out the RL and American football pages as well, for a bit of inspiration, but got less out of them other than including a separate rules section, which I suppose we should have had long ago).--MacRusgail (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A nice layout. I notice that Gaelic football seems to lack subsidiary articles. One of the problems with this article is knowing where to draw the line between giving enough information to be intelligible and giving so much that the subsidiary articles (I'm thinking of History of rugby union and Playing rugby union) become superfluous. Plus, we already have the situation that this article and the subsidiary articles are slightly inconsistent: History of rugby union, for example, is more forthright in rejecting as myth the William Webb Ellis legend.--Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that's one of the GF article's weaknesses. There is a balance to be struck between the playing, and the history articles and the main one. The history article could be expanded almost indefinitely, the rules one could be expanded and improved a lot. I also intend to create some kind of rugby terminology article as well. However, one of the criticisms of RU is that it's too complex. I think this is exaggerated, but the rules section needs to be expanded. (For example, someone above was complaining above that "ruck" was barely mentioned in the old article, yet this is an integral part of the game.) Rugby jargon may be brief, but won't be obvious to lay people. We can't just introduce words such as "hooker", "touch judge" and "line out" without some explanation of what they are.

The Webb Ellis story is almost certainly myth (also misleading, because it implies a kind of soccer was being played at Rugby before him), but should be included as it's iconic.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose one of the things which can be said in favour of the IRB site is that it's going to be there as long as the Internet exists, IMHO, and so offers some stability that other sites don't. However, other rugby sites are uneven e.g. CAR's, or non-existent, e.g. CONSUR's.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think some people are getting carried away with a perceived need for citations. WP:CITE states that "sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". The IRB is the final authority on the laws of the game, and references to those laws do not, IMO, require any further support from sports compendiums compiled by non-experts.--Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, the work going on at the moment is great, but there is simply no need for all of these references. I have no objection to spelling out that rugby is played by two teams, but it does not need a reference, as it is in no way contentious. The entire Rules section could be dealt with with one citation - the IRB's laws! I've removed some of the unnecessary ones, and removed some duplicates. We certainly don't need two separate sources to confirm that the game turned professional in 1995, for example. I'd also try to avoid using Encarta where possible - as a tertiary source, it's not ideal. --hippo43 (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that one citation for the entire section is not good. Firstly, because people could insert false information (as they frequently do) into the section, and secondly, people could question individual statements within that section. Frankly, the references on this article (and many other rugby articles sadly) have been piss poor until recently. That's probably partially why the article failed FA checks, amongst other things. The third and fourth paragraphs have no references, despite containing important information.

Also, yes we do need more than one citation for the fact the game went professional in '95. Two or three would be ideal. This is normal practice on good Wikipedia articles. Overreliance on one source (with the possible exception of the IRB) is not good, and there are is even a tags for that problem. The IRB website isn't complete, and as I have said, it's also an electronic source, i.e. info on it keeps moving around.

However, by removing some of these citations, it's also upset the referencing at the end - see all the red links with "Cite error", as the same tag is used several times. If you're going to remove one reference, please ensure that you do not put out all the other references with the same tags.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't seriously suggesting we rely on one section for the rules section, but we can easily ref each paragraph with the relevant law/laws from the IRB.

I'm also not suggesting that we rely on one source throughout the article. I am saying that for non-contentious points, two references are unnecessary. For blindingly obvious points, a specific source is not needed for every sentence, never mind every clause.

I don't know how to avoid the problem of the reflist being messed up - sorry. --hippo43 (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I sorted out the refs again. The problem is that what might appear to be blindingly obvious to us, may not be so at all to some readers. In my view, we should assume that readers are coming to this "blind" - they might not know that the game is played on grass, or on a level playing field. They might think it's played on astroturf, or that the pitch has a camber. ("After all, the ball's weird, so why not the pitch"?!)--MacRusgail (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind keeping info which is blindingly obvious to us, but it doesn't always need a cite for every individual statement. I agree, for example, that the article should spell out that the game is played by two teams - i just don't think this really needs a reference. Some of these sections were getting really cluttered with footnotes, and weren't very easy on the eye.

And I guess you mean the playing field is supposed to be level? Try telling that to some of the places I've been. It's also not supposed to be covered in dog shit... --hippo43 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My own experience with dog turds was during a game of beach rugby! So I don't know if that counts. As for level pitches, I live in a fairly hilly part of the world, and have played on one or two which sloped so much that a bowling ball would have rolled off them. (I can imagine parts of NZ are similar) So yes, officially the pitch should be flat, and grassy, but in real life, in the lower levels of the game, you come across mud baths, ski slopes, dog toilets, goalposts and line markings which are anything but precise etc. In some parts of the world, I've read about trees in the middle of pitches, wild animals (not all of the cuddly kind) getting on the pitch etc, and I'm told that some of the black people in South Africa play on pitches covered in broken glass and worse.

Actually, one of the other things that springs to mind, which may not be obvious to "laymen" is that the bottom section of the H isn't used for anything at all, and unlike some other sports, there are no real goal keepers. (Fullback at a stretch maybe) --MacRusgail (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Rugby union culture" section

I removed this section for now, as I think it illustrates a problem with the article. It was entirely focused on the international game and its fsans, and did not represent rugby culture as experienced by the majority of amateur players and clubs. Most rugby around the world is played by amateur players, and virtually none of the article gives attention to the game in clubs and schools, instead focussing on World Cups, Tri Nations, international tours etc. I'm not sure how best to fix this, but the article somehow needs to address the sport as a whole - at the moment it could easily be titled Professional rugby union. Thoughts? --hippo43 (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is untrue... Hakas etc are practiced by many clubs in the Pacific regions, whether they're professional or not. Also it's not uncommon for Scottish touring sides to take kilts and pipers with them, again, whether or not they're professional. Likewise, many Welsh clubs have choirs as well.

As for the amateur side, and school side, it's not easy to know what to say about them. I did put in a few comments about TMOs not being used for lower level games, and that some amateur pitches don't conform exactly to the proper standards, but these have been removed.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is difficult to pitch, the history section should try to include other features, and should mention other countries and other aspects of the sport, such as Sevens. But the problem is that as you drop away from international rugby you water things down to an incredible level. If you are going to mention regions, which ones, then you drop down to club level which dilute even further. Maybe a section that states Domestic competitons, and reference each of the major leagues for the main countries, or even a table. It would allow people to move to rugby by country more easily. Also unlike many sports, rugby does have a history of producing invitational teams, like Crawshays and the Barbarains in the UK, and then invitational state, county and regional teams that faced tourists and the like. Maybe that could be addressed. I'm not really sure. Rugby also has a reputation of repect to the officials, which is not seen as much in games like soccer, baseball and tennis, but this isn't unique and probably does not have the same reach at lower levels of the game. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm explaining myself well here. I don't think the article should contain a bunch of stuff about the most well-known club leagues in each country, or about provincial teams, or 'invitation' sides - this is just more of the same. I'm not sure what you mean by "water things down to an incredible level".

MacR, hakas are indeed performed by clubs and schools etc, but their popularity, IMO, stems largely from the All Blacks' haka, and they are also widely performed by teams from New Zealand in almost all sports. Likewise, Scotland fans wearing kilts and pipers playing the national anthem is in no way specific to rugby, and indeed is arguably more common among football fans. I don't know if many Welsh clubs really do have choirs - I could be wrong, but I'm sceptical.

My problem with the current version is that rugby union is played by thousands of people around the world - 99%+ of whom are not professional or international players. The article currently contains no information on how many people play the game, how many clubs, how many women, how many children... It focusses almost exclusively on the most visible tip of the iceberg - the professional game. At the moment, it reads like RU is essentially a game played by professionals on TV for fans, when actually most rugby is played by amateur players, in schools and in clubs, run by volunteers. We need to be able to get that across in the article. --hippo43 (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly rugby songs are extremely widespread, from stuff like Sosban Fach in Wales, to the bawdy songs rugby teams sing, and which have earned them some notoreity. "Ruggers" in the States have a dubious reputation. But again, how far does one go? Include the orange pieces at half time or whether placekicks are done by hand, plastic stands or piles of sand?

You have a good point about the numbers, but I don't know where global figures are available. However, I suspect with most sports, the amateur aspect is the case, even in soccer, which is the biggest. Professional football is the tip of the iceberg too.

There probably should be something about rugby tours, which are a big part of the culture too.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Minimum age

What's the minimum age for playing in national teams? 88.134.62.19 (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Double meaning of "rugby union"

Almost all the articles on the provincial South African rugby unions erroneously links here (for instance the Boland "rugby union"). A seperate article is needed as that rugby union is a different concept. Graaf1 (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Summarize Changes to Laws/Scoring

I recommend adding a section describing how the Laws have changed, particularly in scoring and equipment. Tries have changed point values over the years, and shoulder pads are now allowed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.48.66 (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

At the top of the article there is a link to: Rugby union gameplay. You will find all that information there. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Playing area

This text was redacted (mostly) from hectare but might be useful to this article (or related ones):

Rugby Union is played in many Commonwealth countries and is also popular in, amongst others, France, Ireland, Italy and Argentina. The posts on an international rugby union field are placed on the goal line up to 100 metres apart. Behind the goal line is the dead-ball area (which is also a playing area). This area extends between 10 and 22 metres behind the goal line, giving a maximum length of 144 metres for the playing area. The maximum width of the pitch is 70 metres, giving a maximum playing area of 10,080 square metres or 1.008 hectares.

David Hollman (Talk) 07:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

FruitMonkey has reverted changes I made to the lead per WP:BRD.

My version is:

"Rugby union is a full contact team sport which originated in England in the early 19th century. One of the two codes of rugby football, it is played with an oval-shaped ball by two teams of fifteen players on a field up to (330 ft) long and 70 metres (230 ft) wide."

If we compare this to the current lead, I think it is an improvement in several ways (differences in italics):

"Rugby union, or simply rugby,"

Bit superfluous, and choppy stylistically.

"is a full contact team sport, a form of football which originated in England in the early 19th century. One of the [no number specified] codes of rugby football, it is based on running with the ball in hand."

Rather debateable statement, it also involves kicking, scrummaging, line-outs etc.

"It is played with an oval-shaped ball, [number on each team not specified]

outdoors on a level field, usually with a grass surface,"

This seems to be stating the obvious: what does 'on a level field' mean? What sports are played on a sloping field? The adjacent photo makes it clear anyway. And 'usually with a grass surface' should surely be 'always'?

"up to 100 metres (330 ft) long and 70 metres (230 ft) wide. On each goal line are H-shaped goal posts."

Again, a bit superfluous for the lead and is explained elsewhere.

What do other people think? Haldraper (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with stating other recognised names for the sport in the lead, American football and association football do the same.

The statement for 'ball in hand' states 'based on', it does not state exclusively. In the same way that that football states that the game is 'typically use their feet'. It is one of the main rules that historically separates it from other football sports and would be one of the first things that someone mentions when describing rugby union. Rather than reducing I feel that it could be increased, to the ball being 'carried or kicked'.

'level playing field' I agree is superfluous, but we cannot accept photographs to make a point. Some users may be using a graphic free version or be visually impaired and using text recognition software.

We can not use always on a grass free surface if we accept there are only two codes of rugby. Where does the likes of beach rugby fall? If beach rugby falls under the code of RU then we can't state always. If it is a separate code then we can't state league and union as the only two codes. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

FruitMonkey, I accept the weight of a lot of your points but on the last one, beach rugby is clearly not a separate code any more than beach football or cricket are separate sports. In fact, there is no real need to specify that the game is played on a level or grass surface.

Their distinctive features - 13/15 a side, play the ball/rucks etc - make league and union separate codes while beach rugby, rugby sevens etc are merely variants of them. Haldraper (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fan sites and news

While I agree that we should exercise some control over "fan sites", it is throwing the baby out with the bath water to remove links to Planet Rugby, Rugby Heaven, the BBC and other respectable sites that provide balanced news and commentary on rugby matters. Perhaps we should remove "fan sites" from the header? Jimmy Pitt talk 12:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If we can have an agreed non-bias list with hidden commentary that all additional sites must be agreed on the message board or will be deleted immediately, then I would be happy with that. But then other articles tend not to have news sites, Association football and American football to name but two. Which sites do people suggest keeping? FruitMonkey (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Taking the entire "External links" section, I'd suggest the following:

• Official -- leave as is.
• Resources -- keep Rugby Data, remove the others (RugbyRugby is inaccurate, some of the others are promotional, or are effectively Wikipedia mirrors), add link to scrum.com's statsguru page
• News (remove "fan sites") -- keep Planet Rugby, Rugby Heaven, Rugby Week, Rugby News, scrum.com, L'Equipe (I'm not totally convinced about this one) and BBC, which, between them, give a reasonably balanced (albeit not ideal) coverage of the world game. Of the others, those dealing primarily with one country (eg Canada, SA, Australia) could be transferred to the relevant country page). Rugby Dirt I'd drop altogether, Ultimate Sevens could be moved to the page on Sevens.

After that, as you suggest, a hidden note could request discussion here before anything further is added (or, indeed, removed!). Jimmy Pitt talk 14:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I would drop a few more of the news sites too, many either repeat the same news or are not global enough. My pick would be to retain the Planet Rugby and Scrum.com sites. That would leave a total of four external links. I would then remove the headings and write a better explanation of what each site links to. AIRcorn (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I too would try to keep the news sites to a minimum. Scrum.com appears neutral and has a good player database and I am happy too with Planet Rugby. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

L'Equipe might be more appropriate on the French-language Wikipedia. I think each remaining site needs a justification on this talk page.-gadfium 05:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

On the principle of "be bold", I've reduced External links to just four, which is further than I personally would have chosen to go but is, I think, in line with the general view here. I'm not sure that Rugby Data has anything that scrum.com doesn't, so that could also go if people so wish. I've also added a hidden note requesting discussion here before anything further is added, though that's intended to be for the future, not to deter further tweaking of the list by those taking part in the current discussion. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tightheadprop Hi I have re-added Rugbyweek to the links as they have video too and video is part of the new technology. Not sure how i comment so I did it here. Scrum and Planet rugby are similar but neither has video in the way that rugbyweek.com does. Tighthead prop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TightheadProp (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it has video does not make it more notable as this is an encyclopedia and not a 'what's on' guide or a body entertainment links. This has already been discussed above and several editors came together to agree that it should be removed. Therefore I will again remove unless you can gain a concensus to add it back, and I will then be happy to let it stay. It will also add weight to your argument to get involved in other areas of the project, as so far all your edits have been to add this external link to the page, thus it appears like spamming. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fruitmonkey it is a but silly to have a site like rugbydata which when I looked is no longer being updated and to have a global rugby site like rugbyweek not there. There is not one video/news site in the list so I feel that a video site should be there. Video is vastly different from news. Encylopedias and wikipedia use images to show examples and record facts and video is moving pictures. Again why have rugbydata there? If you want a stats site put in pickandgo.info which is updated every week and rugbydata hasn't been updated since November last year. Wikipedia should be current. TightheadProp —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

On the rugby union article it states above External Links when you edit it, <!- Please discuss on the article talk page before adding any further links here ->. That comment was place there to prevent the continual addition of external sites to the article which was out of control. A cull was decided upon. It may have been right, it may have been wrong. To overturn that you will need to reopen that discussion on the rugby talk page. If you get a couple of people to agree with you then it can be returned. As for the problems with other sites, then that is probably an argument to remove them, not reinstate another. Also a site being out of date is not a terrible problem for Wikipedia if it still generates good information. Personally I will very rarely edit any rugby articles that are current, I tend to deal with dead players and all my books are pretty much out of date. As long as they are encyclopedic. Good luck with your quest. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fruitmonkey I did put a note in here to discuss my adding the link and no one responded and the link was deleted. So I feel that a video site should be put in and I feel that since it this one is (in my opinion) the best it should be added. Lets debate this. (TightheadProp (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

GA Status

If there is one article this project needs as GA status is the page on rugby union itself. I have put the article forward for GA status. If it fails on the first sweep then we will be given focus on where we will need to improve. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Traditional playing areas

"Japan, also a country with many registered players, will host the 2019 World Cup.[41] It will be the first country outside of traditional playing areas to host the event,"

I have to say I never like the use of "traditional" in this context. Japan has been playing rugby for over a century, and at university level since the early 20th. So how can we say it's not "traditional"? It may not be a former British colony - or France - but I would say it's as much a traditional rugby nation as Italy, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji or Canada. And it's got at least 100,000 players if I recall.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have altered it, and hope it will stay altered. It is not appropriate language for an article like this. Japan is a major rugby nation, and has at least a hundred thousand registered players.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Japan was subject to a strong British influence during the nineteenth century, which is why they entered the First World War on Britain's side. It is also why they drive on the left, and why they use the British form for company names, e.g. 'Co. Ltd'. Britain also started Japan's first modern industries, which may account for this last fact. I suspect they also had a lot to do with founding the first western-style Japanese universities, so rugby is almost certain to have been played at many of them. Later sporting influences were mainly post WW II, which after the American occupation of Japan led to the introduction of American Football and Baseball.

Perhaps surprisingly given Imperial Japan's behaviour in 1941-1945 and the Allied experience of them during that period, Britain and Japan had had fairly close and friendly ties up to around the time when the Japanese militarists took over governing Japan during the 1930s and then decided to run amok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please attack my edits

For god's sake, will someone please argue the mass edits I have been making. I am in no way the voice of rugby union and would like to see some agressive edits or discussions towards the recent changes I have made. Wikipedia is a community and needs to be discussed en-mass, please argue against the changes I have made. Thank you for your support. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do. From a cursory glance I feel that the Positions and Laws sections needs to be trimmed. Personally I would have a Gameplay section before the History explaining the key concepts early in a way non-rugby followers could understand and then a separate section on laws. Would also merge Womens International Rugby into Womens Rugby. There is a sea of blue under Global Reach, although I am not sure the best way to address this (or if it really should be addressed). Thats just from a quick look, I will comment/edit more as I have time. AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Aircorn. I too agree that the Positions and Laws need to be trimmed. I think they need to be included, but to more contained. Could you expand your ideas regarding gameplay, it sounds interesting. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of Association football#Gameplay (although I think it has far too much detail). It might be a good idea to assume that readers are not overly familiar with the game, so a simple paragraph explaining the general objectives early in the article could be useful. I would keep it pretty basic (i.e Rugby union is a contact sport that consists of two teams of fifteen players. The objective is to obtain more points than the opposition through scoring trys or kicking goals. A try is scored when ...) I would leave details about scrums, lineouts, rucks, mauls and tackles/breakdowns for later on in the article though. AIRcorn (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections I would be willing to create this section. AIRcorn (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. The rules are helpful to explain individual criteria to the sport, but are very dry and do not give an overall understanding of how the game is played. I think it will be a helpful and worthy addition. I'm going to have a little look at the stats.FruitMonkey (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Global reach

I think the lead (and the article) needs to state the reach of the sport in more blunt information. I think viewing figures for the World Cup are needed, and any countries that see RU as their national sport should be included. As far as I am aware only Wales and NZ regard rugby union as their de facto national sport. Does anyone know of any other countries, no matter how small, who see rugby as their national sport? FruitMonkey (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Georgia [1] AIRcorn (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rugby union/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 01:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I will be working on this review. It will take some time given the broad scope of the article.

Well written

The lead has some text that does not appear to match the body of the article. One example: The article starts off as saying that the sport is also sometimes called rugby. This is not addressed near the top of the article, and variations do not mention this issue as clearly as it is implied in the lead. I'd suggest at some point discussing this, possibly in the variations section with a reference to rugby league, how they both share the word rugby in the title but that sport is more often called league instead. If not there, make it more clear in history section, in a footnote that says that rugny union and rugby are used interchangable in the article or some place else. Find a source that says the sport is often called rugby. --LauraHale (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a difficulty. As rugby union is not 'sometimes' called rugby, it is more likely called rugby 95% of the time. Thus Rugby World Cup, watched by an audience of 4.2 billion without confusion. It is so common in fact that to find a cite that states that rugby union is just called rugby is difficult. The sport of rugby league is a different beast from union, it split from rugby union in 1895 and this is the reason why the term rugby union is used, only as a differentiating title. If the split never occured then the title rugby union would probably not exist today and this discussion wuld not be happening. I'll dig deeper. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Addressed. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. :) The name issue isn't that big of one, but for some related articles, they have whole sections on naming. Good integration on that and i fit was there before and I didn't see it, my bad. I mostly did a skim and went ZOMG! LACK OF SOURCES! :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

List incorporation could be fixed, especially as it pertains to variants. --LauraHale (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In the external links section, the links to other WMF projects may need tweaking. The search result on wikiquotes is very messy. Perhaps get that to link directly to a rugby union quote page instead? --LauraHale (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Touch line is a disambig. Needs to be not that. --LauraHale (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Help, I can't find it. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambig checker. Might have been fixed by an IP address already. --LauraHale (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done It was line out and not Touch line. Thanks. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well written revisit

Name issue has two sources. List incorporation appears cleared up in areas I had concern, like the variants section. Not sure how to clean up that sister project one, so will just ignore it. My bad on getting the disambiguation wrong, but yay! Fixed. Pass on this section assuming not major rewrites are needed as a result of citation issues. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

Teams and team structures has sections that are unsourced. They include:

• Front row

 Done Cited. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Second row

 Done Cited. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Back row (some sourced. Not all)

 Done Cited. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Laws has unsourced sections:

• The playing field

 Done Cited. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Scrum

 Done Cited. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Officials and offences

 Done Cited. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs in Equipment are unsourced. :  Done Cited. Governing bodies is almost entirely unsourced. :  Done Cited. Global reach has paragraphs with out sourced. All global reach paragraphs have multiple sources  Done Cited. Women's rugby union also has sourcing problems.  Done Cited. Major international competitions has a major problem with lack of sources.  Done Cited. Rugby Tours has zero sources.  Done Cited. Women's international rugby is missing sources.  Done Cited. Variants is missing sources. :  Done Cited.

The lack of missing sources is a huge issue. An article nominated for good should be completely sourced at the time of nomination. I would put first efforts into immediately fixing this. I will make additional comments, but if it does not look like work is being put into improving sources over the next week to ten days, I'll quick fail it. Once sources have been added, a more thorough review of the text can be done. ---LauraHale (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead links:

• The Amateur Era (info) [rfu.com]. accessdate=6 February 2010.

 Done Dead link deleted. Second source already in place to back up the information. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Pumas will stay crouched until 2010 (info) [rugbyrugby.com] accessdate=11 October 2007 date=13 August 2007 publisher=RugbyRugby.com

 Done Found the same article, but now hosted by another site. Repaired. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• laws (info) [irb.com] 404 Dead since 2010-10-04

 Done Hyperlinked text to external cite. Removed. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Intro EN (info) [irblaws.com] accessdate=6 February 2010 404 Dead since 2011-05-03; WebCite archive avalible

 Done Dead link deleted. Second source already in place to back up the information. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Protect Your Assets: Mouthguards (info) [coachingtoolbox.co.nz] accessdate=30 May 2010 404 Dead since 2011-05-03

 Done New location of page found and relinked. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sir Tasker Watkins statue unveiled (info) [wru.co.uk] accessdate=28 August 2011 date=15 November 2009 work=Welsh Rugby Union 404 Not Found

 Done Found a similar news story that completed the cite on the BBC. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

These links need to be removed and replaced with non-dead links. (This should have been taken care of before nomination.) --LauraHale (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable revisited

Footnotes and references combined:

"Of the touring 1905 New Zealand team, J.B.G. Thomas in his 1954 book On Tour wrote "When they arrived in this country [Britain] they were regarded as an unknown quantity, but it was not anticipated that they would give the stronger British teams a great deal of opposition. The result of the very first match against Devon was regarded as a foregone conclusion by most British followers."" That is currently citation number 19. Can this be put in as separate footnote or formatted using a note (see Help:Footnotes for how to do notes or Wikipedia:FNNR#Notes_and_References) or abuse of the quote field in Template:Cite book? Citation 48 which reads "Although the dimensions of the field have been converted to the metric system, some commentators still use the old imperial measures when referring to specific laws." has similar issues, except this one is technically uncited. Assuming it is the previous source… you might want to try something like:

{{#tag:ref |FOOTNOTE TEXT.<ref name="REF"/>|group="note"}}

The above is how you create footnotes with citations. Reference 180 that says ""Statsguru / Test matches / Team records: Lithuania, matches between 4 June 2006 and 8 May 2010, sorted by ascending match date". ESPN Scrum. SFMS Limited. Retrieved 6 May 2011. The dates were deliberately chosen to bookend Lithuania's 18-match winning streak." has that issue of looking like it could be a footnote or a reference. Needs to be cleaned up. This: "In the first century of rugby union's history the IRB only recognised matches with international status if both teams in a match came from a small pool of countries: Australia, British Lions, England, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa and Wales. Griffiths, John The Pheonix Book of International Rugby (1987) p. ix" is reference 141. It has the same issues as referenced above with [14].

Printed references

This is a major PITA clean up in the extreme. There are lot of book references used. Example: Godwin (1981) p.160. There is nothing wrong with these. They just need have one of two things done to them: They need to be manually converted over to full {{cite book}} references, with the page numbers differing. The other option is to the citation style outlined at Wikipedia:Citation_templates#Harvard_reference_and_shortened_footnote_examples, where you can leave just the author and the page number, but toss that in a {{harvnb|LASTNAME OF AUTHOR|YEAR|PAGE}} so it links to the appropriate section in the print references section. (I've added the code there to make them link there, if the Harvb references is added.) In any case, one option or the other needs to be done for all print references that currently list author, year, page number with out the full citation and not linking (clickable linking to something in the printed reference section. --LauraHale (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And huh, I did that and now the they are linked but many of those do not appear be properly linked. They include:

[39] ^ Bompa and Claro (2008), p. 62. [40] ^ Brown, Guthrie and Growden (2010). ^ Stubbs, Ray,(2009) p. 115

List of ones that need linking or full cites includes:

^ Marshall (1951), p. 13 ^ Marshall (1951), pp. 13–14 ^ Godwin (1981) p.9 ^ a b c d e Godwin (1981), p. 10 ^ Godwin (1981), p. 12 ^ a b Godwin (1981), p. 18 ^ Godwin (1981), p. 19 ^ Godwin (1981), p. 22 ^ Stubbs (2009), p. 118 ^ Midgley (1979), p. 394 ^ a b c Godwin (1981) p.11 ^ Godwin (1981) p.74 ^ Godwin (1981) p.174 ^ Godwin (1981) p.160 ^ Godwin (1981) p.43 ^ Dine (2001) Chapter 4, French Rugby in the Wilderness pp.79–94 ^ Godwin (1981) p.148 ^ Godwin (1981) p.130 ^ Godwin (1981) p.48 ^ Godwin (1981) p.166 ^ Godwin (1981) p.92 ^ Godwin (1981) p.152 ^ Godwin (1981) pp. 112–113 ^ Godwin (1981) p.105 ^ Bath (1997), p. 77 ^ a b c d "Rugby football" in Encyclopedia Canadiana, p. 110

That should be pretty complete. If you can't find the full source to build complete citations, and I'm assuming good faith these are accurate, then alternative sources could be used. Probably easiest to try to convert them over. --LauraHale (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done All written sources (which are all listed in the bibliography), have been given full cites. One I was unhappy with was able to be replaced with a web source, and another was incorrectly sourced and I replaced it again with an online source. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The done comment was just for the unlinked book pages? (Still some problems with footnote texts, and some of the linked pages not properly linking to the bottom OR those linked ones being reformatted.) Anyway, once the citations are cleared up, I'll do a check of sources, just to makes sure that most of the web ones match the text, and should be good to pass. --LauraHale (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got a handle on the harv links, hopefully that is all the book cites done and linked. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tried out the links and they all appear to work. w00t w00t! :) I went through to make sure everything was cited, and there are a couple of places lacking them. :( I've tagged them in the article. This information needs to be either cited or removed. Once those tags are cleared up and I do a random quick verification of sources to make sure the text is supported by the facts in the source, we should be good to pass. Not perfect and I'd definitely do a Peer Review before going further, but a major improvement over what it was, and appears to meet all the GA criteria. --LauraHale (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And on a related note, if the Harvb option is the one that goes, then existing book sources like "Else, David (2007). British language & culture (2nd ed.). Lonely Planet. p. 97. ISBN 186450286X." would need to be formatted similar. All print book sources should be treated the same for the sake of consistency. (And this will probably be one of those BFDs if there is ever an attempt to take this to WP:FAC. --LauraHale (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As the citations are all fixed, I'm doing a random check to make sure the citations support the text. If all goes well, should pass it in the next hour or so. If not, then I'll comment to say what needs work. If it is a minor tweak, I'll fix and then pass. --LauraHale (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Broad in Coverage

The article addresses the main aspects of the topic. Topic headings are good. Breakdown of content is logical. No obvious sections are missing.--LauraHale (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And whoops. Yeah. Missed it. The major thing missing: Demographic information and total number of players. This is standard information for the sport information box and should be included somewhere in the article. Perhaps stick this main aspect in its own category heading or in the around the world and/or variants section. --LauraHale (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done The rough number of over five million players is referenced in the cites in the statistics sub section. The more precise number of players, plus the number of clubs I'm having difficulty citing as it comes from here, whereby I totaled every single union who presented date to the IRB. The difficulty is that this needed 117 cites to compile the data. Can it be taken in good faith to link to this article as referenced proof? FruitMonkey (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, the article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The problem is that this is sometimes done using lists, which does not fit with summary style. In other cases, things do not match or need to be longer.

• Statistics and records is too short, has content that does not match with the broad topic heading.

 Done Extended with its global television reach, number of world players, highest scores, etc. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Rugby within international tournaments I would have several see mains listed in the top section, or make each section longer as currently, it is really, really choppy to read and looks like a bunch of one liners that do not do a good job quickly summarising daughter articles.

 Done Unchopped and brought together. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Variants is a list. I'd add a bit more information, making each bullet point into a paragraph. It does not seem completely unreasonable to assume people would land on this page looking for information on rugby sevens and touch rugby. More information would help the coverage be broader.

 Done Some more textual (is that a word?) input into this section. No longer a list. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Major fixes would be combining subject headings to be less choppy and do a better job of summary style. --LauraHale (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Broad in coverage revisit

I think things look pretty good here. There are minor things I might like to see if this was to go forward, like making the global section a bit more contemporary, as opposed to being historical… but I'm more of a sport historian type person than a sport performance, so that could be my own bias. Statistics section isn't fantastic but I think it is good enough for a good article on a topic that is this broad. (If taken to FAC, it would probably require a massive rewrite.) The variants section is much more improved, broader and has more necessary detail. Otherwise, subject headings appear to be in line with other sports and appear to adequately cover the topic. --LauraHale (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

There are no obvious bias problems that I can see with the article at this time. No particular region gets excessive coverage in terms of favouring one nation over another for examples, statistics and major events. --LauraHale (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Stable

The article appears to be stable. There are no major conflicts on the talk page. Vandalism in the page's history appears to be normal, given the broad scope of the article and does not appear to be related to inherent issues of insability in the article. --LauraHale (talk)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Images should be right align, left align, right align… with altering alignment. Lack of doing this is causing some image stacking so images aren't illustrating the right section. Images are not required to, but should have alt tags for those using screen readers. --LauraHale (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have added an alt title to most images, the rugby pitch and positions are very difficult to do justice too, and have tried my best to alternate the images left to right. Not sure if the alt descriptions actually do the pictures justice though? FruitMonkey (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now. So this issue is fine. I also really appreciate putting in the alt tags, even though technically not required. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

All images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. --LauraHale (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

All images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. --LauraHale (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The picture placement is much better. :) And thanks for adding the alt text. It isn't technically required for a GA but it is good to have. The picture stacking problem is much less worse now than it was. --LauraHale (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images revisited

This issue is good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Touch Line

This was added to the review as a comment before the review started so I am moving it here for consideration. AIRcorn (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment you may consider. In the section playing field the "White Border Line" is considered out when touched. i.e. why it is called a "touch line". This is different to soccer where the line is still in play. 196.44.183.58 (talk)

Rugby union known as Union?

The first cite that has been used recently to validate that rugby union is commonly known as union does not wash. The cite is weak and is a blog; it is not good enough and is one person's view point. The second cite only uses the term "union" to refer to rugby union on one occasion and that is a direct compare between Union and League. In which case you could say that 'when discussing both rugby league and rugby union, the shortened form of union and league are sometimes used to avoid confusion'. All other mentions of 'Union' on the page refer to the Union, which is a completely different thing as they are generally refering to the IRFU. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've heard it referred to as such. The name "union" though in this context is nearly always to distinguish it from "league". --MacRusgail (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ditch the Webb Ellis myth will you?

"The origin of rugby football is reputed to be an incident during a game of English school football at Rugby School in 1823 when William Webb-Ellis is said to have picked up the ball and run with it.[3] Although the evidence for the story is doubtful,[4] it was immortalised at the school with a plaque unveiled in 1895.[5] Despite the anecdotal nature of the sport's origin, the Rugby World Cup trophy is named after him. Rugby football stems from the form of game played at Rugby School, which former pupils then introduced to their subsequent university. Old Rugbeian Albert Pell, a student at Cambridge, is credited with having formed the first 'football' team.[6] During this early period different schools used different rules, with former pupils from Rugby and Eton attempting to carry their preferred rules through to their universities.[7]"

Erm no. Rugby School codified a pre-existing game that had been played throughout Europe. The Webb Ellis story is a total myth, why are we still propagating it? --MacRusgail (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't believe we are propagating it. We have stated it is very doubtful, but if we didn't mention him, it would be re-entered on a regular basis. With Rugby School, that is a certain. We have mentioned that there were variants of 'football' being played but the sport of rugby stems from the codified sport drawn up by Rugby School and then modified by the Universities. The 'codified' is the important bit, as it is their base rules that were then adopted. I'll link in 'English public school football games' if that adds clarity.FruitMonkey (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should really be mentioning medieval football - albeit briefly. Since soccer claims football's pre-codification history as its own, why can't rugby? Rugby's far more similar to these football games than soccer ever was. We should reclaim this heritage - scrummages, carrying, rucks and all...--MacRusgail (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point, 'football' was a term for all games played on foot, not with the foot as many now believe. A term used to differentiate between games played on horseback. You look back at all the medieval village sports and they are all about running with the ball in hand, mass scrummages, ripping the ball from hand and physical 'contact'. Far more linked to rugby than soccer. Maybe an opening sentence to the tradition of team sports in Europe whereby villages would compete in a running, combative ball game during festive periods. It does show that the game was born not of the universities, just organised buy them. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Definition of a maul.

The definition of a maul is wrong. The error comes from the reference source (ESPN's rugby glossary) rather than from whoever edited the Wikipedia page. According to ESPN, a maul can be formed by any combination of three players. However, the actual laws of the game (http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=17) define it as being formed by: 1. the ball carrier 2. at least one other player from his own team 3. at least one player from the opposition.

According to ESPN's definition, a full back and his two wingers could be hugging each other 100m away from the ball, and this would be a maul. This is plainly incorrect!

86.43.179.77 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Europe NPOV section

The section on Europe is extremely NPOV and pushes an agenda of Anglo-sphere V Europe that doesn't exist.

• The spread of rugby union in Europe has been sporadic.

The spread seems to be quite even , with German union forming before the French and Italian for example . The growth in players, clubs and playing standard outside the big 6 has been sporadic

• Historically, due to the lack of international games between the British and Irish home teams

Internationals don't grow the domestic game

• who were more interested in facing the Southern Hemisphere giants of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa

could be written as more interested in facing the Southern Hemisphere to whom they are on a par with than hammering the Dutch off the field by a record 200 points

• the rest of Europe were forced to create a 'second tier' of international rugby matches

Who forced them and how , held at gun point?

• France became the only European team from the top tier to regularly play the other European countries

Because playing against yourself gets a bit boring Gnevin (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Slapping an NPOV tag and then walking away (which you initially did) is not how to deal with these concerns. I also fail to see how an NPOV tag is even relevant here? You're accusing editors of "pushing an agenda" (your words), which is a pretty bad faith thing to say. So maybe a more detailed discussion here is warranted before we start adding distracting (and possibly misleading) tags all over the place. Some of your concerns are just odd. I'd also love to see some sources on this, you've provided none. "France became the only European team from the top tier to regularly play the other European countries" -- this isn't controversial, France were excluded from the Five Nations so played more against non-Home Union sides. They also founded the FIRA as an alternative to the IRFB (which only consisted of the four Home Unions). There was definitely a British Empire bias in the running of the international game. When talking about expanding the IRFB, South Africa "... feared that the inclusion of France would lead eventually to the inclusion of other countries that would undermine the imperial fabric of the game." Another quote from the same article "South Africa also viewed the prospect of an expanded IRFB as ‘very dangerous’ if it also opened the way for ‘continental’ representation. For them, and notwithstanding the increasing Afrikaner dominance of the game, rugby was British and imperial and not even a shared wartime sacrifice could allow for the inclusion of France." [2] There was definitely a British bias in the administration of the game. Regardless, if you think this section should be rewritten maybe propose an alternative, with references. I'm sure it could be improved, and would love to see some detailed suggestions. -- Shudde ^talk 03:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Made a few changes, hope it clears this up Gnevin (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of referenced content

An anon User talk:2001:8003:4401:7F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F insists on removing information on the influence of rugby union on Australian rules football from the article – despite the fact this material is well sourced. The section that keeps being removed is:

The primary influence on early Australian rules football was rugby football and other games originating in English public schools. Tom Wills, who is recognised as one of the pioneers of Australian football, also attended Rugby School.

Keep an eye on this. I'm not keen on engaging in an edit war, but if the anon continues to remove the information, they should be blocked, or the page semi-protected. – Shudde ^talk 10:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have delved into a lot of histories of Australian rules football through my research for the Tom Wills article, and I can say that it is beyond doubt among professional sports historians that rugby football was the main influence on Australian rules football. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I know! It's not at all controversial to say that rugby was an influence on the sport. Another user reinserted the material, so if there are further reverts I suppose we go to the 3RR Noticeboard. Hopefully it stops though. – Shudde ^talk 10:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The anon has just posted on my Talk—with no heading and unsigned—so I removed it. I had already posted 3RR warning on their Talk. Indications are that this is a newcomer.
This is the anon's post copy 'n' pasted:
"Hi there are no facts in writing that prove Australian rules football has influences from Rugby football or any other sports, any writings on the matter are written as theories. Please write back so we can reach a mutual ground instead of just re adding the content."
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources support maintaining the material. That Australian rules has been influenced by other codes is pretty much beyond debate, and that rugby was one of the more influential isn't controversial. That AFL was just invented out of the ether is a myth, but it still persists. – Shudde ^talk 10:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

All of the sources on the matter are written as theories not as fact, there is no proof that Australian rules football was influenced by Rugby union or any other sport. The content shouldn't be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4401:7F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"All my research points to Tom Wills having been almost solely influenced by his experience at Rugby School, with two other factors having an effect—the physical environment of Melbourne's parklands and the rules of other English Public School football games". That is Tom's biographer, Greg de Moore (First Wild Man of Australian Sport, p. 323). Sounds pretty definitive to me. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That book isn't written by Tom Wills, it is written by someone else, all his information are theories. There are theories that say the sport had influences from other sports but they are just that theories and are written as such. Until someone can provide a reference that proves it was influenced, not a opinion written as a theory it shouldn't be in the article. 2001:8003:4401:7F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom Wills and the other founders wrote quite a lot on what shaped their thinking, and the primary sources show that football at English public schools was their starting point. Two decades of thorough research by numerous academics lays this out. Sport is an evolutionary tree, and Australian rules football isn't a lone branch that grew out of thin air. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Still you have no proof, there isn't any because it isn't true, but until someone provides a reference that proves that claim, not theories written as such like there is now it shouldn't be in the article.2001:8003:4401:7F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We're after verifiability not truth. The material is well sourced. You've provided no evidence for your view and have demanded further evidence on top of that already provided (which is completely adequate) for the material you've unilaterally removed. A consensus has been reached and you've decided to edit war rather than accept it. Maybe you should instead try and discuss contentious edits before making them -- this is a collaborative project, it is not about winning. Sometimes you have to accept that most people disagree with you and move on to more productive things. -- Shudde ^talk 08:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

New IP, same problem 203.206.208.112 (talk · contribs). Please keep an eye out. -- Shudde ^talk 08:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still at it. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

... and 2001:8003:441d:9701:223:32ff:fe9e:4b9f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest on the list. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Influences on Australian rules football

It states in the article that Rugby union and other English public school games had influence on Australian rules football. There are theories that this might of occurred but it has never been proved. And all of the references for it don't state how it is proved. Therefore it should be stated as there are theories for this case, or it shouldn't be stated at all.2001:8003:441D:9701:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been doing this for close to a year now without bringing forth any evidence to back up your view. How exactly do you think Australian rules football came into being? The evidence for rugby football's influence on the game is abundantly clear and the sources used are perfectly reliable. If you want direct quotes then here's one from T. S. Marshall, a pioneer who played in the first matches and was the inaugural president of the Victorian Football Association: "The present generation of footballers is doubtless unaware that we are entirely indebted to Rugby for the introduction of football to Victoria, and that although the two games are now widely divergent, it must be conceded that the matrix of the Victorian game was Rugby." ('Rise and Progress of the Australian Game', Sporting Globe, 21/8/1937) - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the proof in that statement? That's just someone stating a opinion, no where in there does it state proof. And same goes for all the other references, no where does it state proof. You want proof? When Tom Willis the main inventor of Australian rules football and the other inventors were were writing the rules at one point nearly all of the other inventors decide that they should just play Rugby rules. Tom Wills then said and I quote No we shall have our own game, reference (100 years of Australian football Book) How did Australian rules football come into being? it was invented. Your opinion that Australian rules football was mainly influenced by Rugby, and the matrix of Australian rules football is Rugby is simply not true. There is not one aspect of Australian rules football that you could point to and say that came from Rugby, there completely different sports.2001:8003:441D:9701:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that no amount of evidence will satisfy you, so I really don't see the point in continuing. And it's spelt "Wills". - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that you couldn't answer my questions, and you know you are wrong.2001:8003:441D:9701:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Echoing Shudde's comment above from almost a year ago, this page should be semi-protected to prevent this guy from edit warring under his various IPs. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree on semi protecting this however, after all this time I'm still shocked at any link between Aussie Rules and Rugby. If people are clearly disputing and link between the two there should be some consensus simply because the two relate.