Template talk:Rugby union stadium

Switch conversion done

Rugbyfan22, I've converted the template to be switchable and hopefully avoid the plethora of wrapping templates. This one was easy compared to {{rut}}! I haven't converted any article-space uses yet, figured I'd let you have a look-over just so that you can make sure I didn't miss something obvious. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Rus Danie Craven Stadium}} and a few others contain |sc=. I haven't looked into why. Many others contain |ol=, which appears to have been removed from the template a while ago. The pages in Category:Pages using rugby union stadium template with unknown parameters are sorted by the first unsupported parameter that is encountered in the article, but some Rus templates may use more than one unsupported parameter. If |ol= is not needed, it might be worth a quick run through the Rus templates to remove it so that other unsupported templates can be highlighted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably won't get a chance to look at detail until the weekend, but will add it to my list. Will make sure there's no obvious redirects either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

|ol= and |sc= are not, and as near as I can tell never, used in this template, so it's no great loss to ignore them. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?

Any opposition to changing this to {{rugby union stadium}} for increased clarity? {{rus}} would still be usable as a template redirect, but I've been trying to get the template space more user-friendly by expanding abbreviated names like this. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving this template to a more comprehensible name, following the pattern of template renamings like {{tlx}}. Definitely leave a redirect because it is much easier to type and people are used to it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with the name change, Rus can be confusing for a non-rugby union fan or even rugby union editors who don't use them regularly. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this template, incl when a stadium name changes due to sponsorship changes, and adding "subst" or not

Requesting input from Rugbyfan22, Jonesey95, Primefac and others on a subject of a discussion I've been having with PeeJay on his talk page, before it escalates into more unfriendliness from both sides and childish "revenge" edits. The cause of the discussion is a massive amount of changes made by PeeJay to articles relating to the NPC, Heartland Championship and the Ranfurly Shield, without discussing the changes with considerable impact on the talk pages first and often lumping them all together in very extensive edits without an appropriate edit summary. Although not entirely happy with changing all instances of {{rugbybox collapsible}} to {{rugbybox}} (not collapsed), because a long list of match results with scorers creates a diarrhoea of words that is hard to read for people with dyslexia, I can see that the change may be necessary for readers with mobile devices (depending on operating system), so I'm accepting change. Also the removal of icons with the provincial (NPC) team colours – while deplorable from a historic viewpoint – is something I'm not contesting. I'm willing to be flexible.

However, the removal – without prior discussion – of the Template:Rugby union team ({{rut}}) and Template:Rugby union stadium ({{rus}}) is something I would like to bring to your attention, as PeeJay seems to be relitigating the use of these templates, after bringing up his arguments before on the talk page of the rut template here.

1. First of all, PeeJay is of the opnion that templates should not be used as replacements for simple links. IMO, that's exactly what the {{rus}} and {{rut}} templates are for and the extensive use of these templates shows that many editors agree with that use.

2. Second, PeeJay is against the use of the {{rus}} template for stadium name changes as a result of changes in stadium sponsorship. He's of the opinion that the original "unsponsored" names should be used. IMO the template is exactly intended for usage in these situations of sponsorship changes. It's literally mentioned in the template's description! Also, sticking to the unsponsored name where that name hasn't been used for years and the sponsored names are used in competition draws, media articles and countless other sources during the relevant rugby season, makes that unsponsored name unsupported by referenced sources and, therefore, unverifiable (in violation of WP:PROVEIT). It's also unnecessary, because the use of the {{rus}} template with new stadium names in case of sponsorship changes, does keep the connection with the stadium's unsponsored name through the link to the article about that stadium, which should include a description of the name changes that the stadium has had over time.

3. The third point of difference is a more technical point. PeeJay is of the opinion that editors should add {{subst:}} to the start of the template before saving the article if editors use the template to replace a "simple link". IMO that isn't necessary at all. First of all, if a new stadium name is added to the {{rus}} template, the instances where the template has been used with an old name still work perfectly as long as those old names haven't been removed from the template (they shouldn't). I'd like to hear from someone with more technical (coding) knowledge whether {{subst:}} should or should not be added when using the {{rus}} template (or {{rut}} template for that matter).

A practical example: an old sponsorship name for Rugby League Park is Orangetheory Stadium, Christchurch. Due to sponsorship changes, the stadium is now called Apollo Projects Stadium, Christchurch. As you can see, both uses of the template (unilaterally removed by PeeJay from many articles) work perfectly fine without adding {{subst:}}, and link to the article about Rugby League Park as they should. If {{subst:}} has to be added each time the {{rus}} template is being used, I'd be interested in getting an explanation for it.

The points raised in relation to the {{rus}} template are also relevant to the {{rut}} template. Looking forward to your comments. Ruggalicious (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you ask for feedback by posting a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, which appears to be pretty active. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed before, I like using the {{rut}} templates, especially for NPC teams as they are far easier to use than typing out the full team names, especially when used frequently. Local consensus since I've been editing southern hemisphere rugby union articles has been for the use of the {{rus}} templates and use of sponsored names as they tend to be the common names of the stadiums. Over the years I've never in the press seen Rugby League Park called Rugby League Park, always the respective sponsored name and similar for other stadia. I appreciate this is different from northern hemisphere sides, where stadia tend to have more formal names, and then occasional sponsorship that isn't widely used my the media etc. On point 3 I'm no expert on coding, but see no issue with adding {{subst:}} before or not. Both {{rut}} and {{rus}} are designed to work without having to add it as you can add new names and teams to the templates easily, but I suppose it's an added layer of protections as such, if someone edits/removes the templates. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, sure, thanks for finishing the conversation on my talk page before starting this one. Really good wikiquette there. Anyway, I don't care which name is used for a stadium as long as we're not using templates to perform the function of a simple link. If typing out [[Rugby League Park]] is harder than typing out {{rus|Rugby League Park}} then I don't know what to do. Even typing [[Canterbury (National Provincial Championship)|Canterbury]] isn't really that hard, and you only have to do it once (Ctrl+C, anyone?). Anyway, this whole discussion shows a bit of a lack of understanding of my criticism of these templates. I'll expand on this when I get home from holiday; in the meantime, I'd love to hear what arguments anyone can come up with in favour of these templates because I certainly can't think of any reason to use a template in place of a simple link. – Pee Jay 09:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding I certainly can't think of any reason to use a template in place of a simple link - compare {{rut|Lions}} to [[Lions (United Rugby Championship)|Lions]], which both display as Lions. In three characters I have done what you would do in twenty three. Now, your Rugby League Park example is a case where it is easier to type the link (as they're the same), but picking the most trivial example as a reason why we should not use the template at all misses the point almost as much as someone who says we must always use the template. I haven't yet read through Ruggalicious' wall of text so I too will likely revisit this discussion as more comments come in, but I did want to at least reply to that statement. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, what I'm saying is that using a template in place of a simple link is not what templates are meant for. Everyone is acting as though typing [[Bay of Plenty (National Provincial Championship)|Bay of Plenty]] is such a hardship, but we have tools at the top of the edit panes to help with this. – Pee Jay 11:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

shrugs. If you think it should be deleted, feel free to nominate it for deletion. I don't really have any opinion on the matter, mostly because there are reasonable arguments for and against. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think these templates should be deleted, especially if people find them to be useful shortcuts; my argument is that they should be subst’ed into the article when the edit is saved. Transcluding dozens of templates every time an article is loaded seems pretty ridiculous. – Pee Jay 08:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You now say that you don't think these templates should be deleted? You say that after you've been deleting them from dozens of pages, replacing them with the wrong links? It's hard to take that seriously. Ruggalicious (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between deleting a template (i.e. the actual Template:rugby union stadium) and removing transclusions from articles. I know it's pedantic, but we should make sure we're all discussing the same thing. Primefac (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay has literally deleted {{rus}} templates from many pages the past few weeks. Ruggalicious (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was looking to clarify, you are referring to "deletion" as "the removal of text from a page", and I am referring to deletion as "removing the template from the site". so PeeJay does not want to "delete" the templates, just "remove" usage in the article space. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The template clearly serves a function in speeding up your ability to edit, but it shouldn't be present in any articles once they're saved (hence the subst'ing). – Pee Jay 13:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that we have determined the jargon to be used and have established that it's perfectly fine to use the {{rut}} and {{rus}} templates in articles as they make editing quicker and easier, can we please go back to the main issue? That main issue being that {{rut}} and {{rus}} templates have been removed from (the source code of) many articles (without prior discussion) and that many pages now contain the wrong stadium names? I have yet to see a convincing reason why the {{rut}} and {{rus}} templates should contain "subst:" in their code (using the word "ridiculous" for transclusion of the templates in these articles doesn't quite cut it as a good reason), but I'm flexible if someone convinces me it's absolutely necessary. Don't let this coding issue detract from the fundamental issue here though and that is that the correct stadium names should appear in these articles. Obviously, we could simply "undo" PeeJay's edits (including later edits), but that would also revert minor, but sometimes useful, edits that he has lumped in with these incorrect edits that must be undone. PeeJay, since you made the mistakes, are you going to change the stadium names back to the ones that were used in the articles before you replaced them? That would be much appreciated! Ruggalicious (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using a template in place of a link is ridiculous. You can use it as a shortcut when creating the article if you want, but leaving a template in place without substing it makes no sense. I feel like your objection to this suggests that you don't understand how templates work and what it means to subst them. Anyway, the stadium names I changed the articles to aren't "wrong"; they are the correct unsponsored names those stadiums are known by. Various sources will confirm this. If you want to pipe the links to use the sponsored names, that's up to you, but my edits were not wrong. – Pee Jay 13:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there someone who can just give a normal reply to my request for an explanation as to why the {{rut}} and {{rus}} templates should contain "subst:" in their code? As I wrote before, I'm flexible and I have no objection to doing this at all, if someone can explain to me why this is really necessary.

As to the use of stadium names, sometimes things just work differently outside Europe. Using sponsored names (where stadiums have one) instead of the unsponsored names is the norm in Southern Hemisphere rugby competitions (possibly also in North American sports competitions). If you tell a rugby fan from Wellington that a certain rugby match is held at Wellington Regional Stadium, they'll ask you where that is because they don't know that that's the unsponsored name of Sky Stadium. You'll even get more problems with stadiums like Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin or Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane. That's because the unsponsored names are rarely used nowadays. Sure, if you look hard enough you'll find sources mentioning the unsponsored names, but that doesn't mean that those sources are relevant to an article about a specific season of a particular rugby competition. It may be more relevant to the article about that stadium. For articles about a specific season of a particular rugby competition to be verifiable, they should use the stadium name that is used in the competition draw or sources like articles about specific matches, season previews etc. In Southern Hemisphere competitions that will normally be the sponsored stadium name. Ruggalicious (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that PeeJay is making is that, while typing {{rus|AAMI Park}} is shorter than typing [[Melbourne Rectangular Stadium|AAMI Park]], [[Melbourne]], subst'ing that value means there is no more need for the template (i.e. it becomes a convenience template). There is also the secondary argument that if a name of a stadium changes, the original name from the time of posting will be accurate; to kind-of make up an example, we wouldn't want an article from the 2015 season of Scottish Rugby to reference "Scottish Gas Murrayfield Stadium" because at the time it was named "BT Murrayfield". On the other hand, using the template will ensure that the name will be the most current/accurate name, which is good for general articles not specific to a particular season. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a template to make the link say what you want it to say. I've already said that if you want to use the contemporary sponsored name for any given stadium, it makes no odds to me. The point is that templates are good for when you want to make changes to a lot of articles at once while only having to make one edit. That's not what's happening here. This is literally just you saying "it's easier for me to type fewer characters". Take a look at this change I made to the Super Rugby Trans-Tasman article yesterday; it proves there's no need to use templates to have the links appear the way you want them. – Pee Jay 14:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]