Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RU)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Rugby Union announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss
Announcements and News

Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
Requests for comments

Request for review: Limassol Crusaders


Current Collaboration - None

Requested articles

Aled GravelleClive Stuart-SmithFrancisco Bosch (rugby player)Leon LubbePierre DospitalList of International Expatriate Social Rugby Teams2006 in rugby unionJean François ImbernonDurban CrusadersMarius SchoemanChristian DarrouyGeorge ScrimshawList of Samoa national rugby union playersFaatoina Autagavaia ... more

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

WikiProject Rugby union (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Upcoming and recent fixtures[edit]

I propose removing from the WP:RU Style Guide the section that says national team pages should not include sections on upcoming and recent fixtures. I don't think it reflects the consensus of this WikiProject. This section mentions that "consensus has been reached between the project members" that they should be removed, but I don't think such consensus exists. The section cites this discussion as evidence of consensus. The supposed "consensus" is a proposal from one editor that they be removed, a second proposal from a second editor regarding a different way of presenting the information, and then further discussion about the second proposal with no meaningful discussion of the original proposal regarding removal. Several national rugby union teams have these sections, and I find them informative. Additionally, these sections are in many national football team articles, further suggesting that these sections do not violate Wikipedia principles. Barryjjoyce (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but this has been the case for a long time. We aren't a news site (WP:NOTNEWS) or guide for upcoming events. As well, there may be several national team articles that still include these lists, but those that have gone through the Featured article process (England, France, New Zealand and Wales) do not have them, nor did they during WP:FAC. In fact I'm not sure of any FA-quality sports team articles that include a list of recent and upcoming fixtures, although I haven't checked them all, so this may say something about the Wikipedia-wide view on such things. Also, this talkpage here is a bit quiet. I'm not sure how many people would even have noticed your post. If you want to bring this up and over-turn the current convention, I'd take it to WT:RU and you may find a few more editors active there. -- Shudde talk 03:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Shudde: I am aware of at least three national rugby team articles that have sections on recent fixtures; this indicates a lack of consensus that these sections should be prohibited. And it's a rather weak argument to say that their absence from four national rugby team articles with FA status reflects a consensus that they must be prohibited for all national rugby team articles. Further, these sections do not violate any wider Wikipedia principles. There are at least two association football (soccer) national team articles (Croatia and El Salvador) that have Good Article status that contain these sections.
I don't understand what exactly about these sections trouble you. If you spell out what aspects of them bother you most, and what aspects if any you can live with, we may be able to come up with a sensible compromise together. Barryjjoyce (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll post a more detail reply when I have a bit more time. However WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not establish that there is somehow a consensus allowing these sections. Those that currently have them should have them removed. As for the FAC examples, it just establishes that the wide variety of editors who reviewed those articles were quite happy with their layout and content (at the time of the FAC) so we should take that to be a wider-community endorsement of their structure -- this compares to a more local consensus established on an article talkpage, or here, for example. As for those two association football articles you have listed, neither had those sections when they were promoted (for El Salvador), or the last time their GA status was reviewed for Croatia) -- just because an editor has snuck in these sections since their review doesn't mean that it would be accepted when re-reviewed or re-nominated. Still haven't found an FA or GA quality sports team article that had these sections at the time of their promotion. Will add something more detailed later. -- Shudde talk 00:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I have misunderstood your points above, but it appears that you identify other articles to help prove your point, but when I do the same, you quickly duck behind OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your argument about what the FAC review process for four national team articles means for the wider set WP:RU articles is beyond puzzling, particularly since it seems that this issue was not discussed during the FAC review process for most of those articles; I don't see how any reasonable person can infer that a lack of discussion on a certain topic among a small group of editors binds the entire Wikiproject. The diff of the El Salvador GA article that you helpfully linked above seems to me to have had a section titled "Recent results and upcoming fixtures" at the time of GA review — can you take another look at that, because one of us is misreading that one. Returning to my original point at the top of this discussion, I don't see a consensus among rugby contributors supporting your viewpoint. In fact, I see from this edit history and the associated talk page comments that you recently lost this debate with two editors at the Canada national team article. Barryjjoyce (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A couple of points. I'm not saying because some random articles don't have the section that this means it should be omitted (OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I said that articles that have gone through a rigorous review process (FAC) don't have them. And I'm talking about all sport team FAs -- I just listed the rugby ones if anyone wants to check their specific FAC reviews. The recent discussion on the Canada team talkpage is hardly evidence that consensus has changed. Certainly doesn't displace a more centralised discussion -- there is no grandfather rule regarding consensus. As for the El Salvador example -- I made a mistake -- but that you've found only one GA (a process where there is only one reviewer btw -- hardly comparable to FAC) that has this section is pretty heartening to me. There must be hundreds of GA and FA team articles, and to only find one that has this section has to mean something. -- Shudde talk 05:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Shudde — You had mentioned triumphantly in your second-to-last post: "Still haven't found an FA or GA quality sports team article that had these sections at the time of their promotion." So I went and found one. And now that the facts don't support your position, you change your argument and claim that it doesn't matter. Quite slippery indeed.
If you do put weight on the views of the "wider-community" and the "Wikipedia-wide view", as you suggest above, these results & fixtures sections have been discussed approvingly here on the WP:FOOTY talk page. Furthermore, a check of the national football articles of the top 10 ranked teams shows they all have these sections. These national team pages were widely viewed (and widely edited) during the recent 2014 FIFA World Cup, so if there were something horribly unencyclopedic and violative of Wiki principles about these sections, I think folks would have noticed by now. The WP:FOOTY talk page discussion plus the practice of the football team articles indicates there is a consensus that these sections are fine. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Such sections in other articles exist, some even with good article status, as pointed out above. There's nothing in Wiki guidelines that prohibits it. The biggest argument against allow ing this is WP:NOTSTATSBOOK - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and articles should not be an excessive listing of statistics. However, I don't think listing a few recent and upcoming games is indiscriminate. Surely it's very WP:DISCRIMINATE. And to tell the truth, I find it particularly useful. I don't see the WP:HARM. 16:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Recent fixtures and upcoming fixtures should not be included in rugby team articles[edit]


There is consensus for the removal of lists of recent and upcoming fixtures from any articles that still include them as they are non-encyclopedic. (non-admin closure){{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 05:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We've had a long-standing convention against including these sections. But the last discussion was in 2007 (here). I propose that we remove, from any articles that still include them, lists of recent and upcoming fixtures. Further discussion and arguments why can be found below. -- Shudde talk 04:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


  1. Support as per points raised below. -- Shudde talk 04:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support as per most of the points raised below. Especially the fourth one "Including such sections would require constant updating" – why go to the trouble of adding something to an article when you know it will be removed in the near future (once it not deemed "recent" anymore, which is a vague enough timeframe as is)? Rather (as mentioned below), have a page such as those at Category:Lists of national rugby union team results and have a link from the rugby team article to that page. While I don't agree with the final point listed below, which is exactly a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (plus a bit waffley, if terms like "I'm not aware" and "imply" are used), but I agree with the remainder of the points. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. The bot sent me. Per points in discussion below. It's not encyclopedic. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not encyclopedic. More like news or commentary. Nelson50T 19:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


  1. Oppose — for the reasons stated in the other ongoing discussion on the WP:RU talk page. I'm not sure why a second parallel discussion was started on the topic, but in any case I don't think it's necessary to restate here the commentary from the other discussion. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Such sections in other articles exist, some even with good article status, as pointed out above. There's nothing in Wiki guidelines that prohibits it. The biggest argument against allowing this is WP:NOTSTATSBOOK - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and articles should not be an excessive listing of statistics. However, I don't think listing a few recent and upcoming games is indiscriminate. Surely it's very WP:DISCRIMINATE. And to tell the truth, I find it particularly useful. I don't see the WP:HARM. Perhaps there is a case for not including if there is a sub-article that lists recent and upcoming fixtures - but for many (if not most) national teams - there is no such article. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


I'll repeat a few of the points I've made before as to why I believe these sections should never be included in team articles.

  • Including such sections, that change frequently, is simply routine coverage (as per WP:ROUTINE) and as such have no place within the main article of a team. They are not encyclopaedic. Coverage of recent matches also seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS.
  • As per WP:UNDUE, these sections place undue emphasis on recent results; why are recent results more notable than earlier ones? This simply reinforces an already serious problem with systematic bias that we have where more recent events are emphasised at the expense of historical ones -- this is natural because contributors born a century ago are not editing Wikipedia -- but why exacerbate it. A summary of this kind of problem on Wikipedia can be found at WP:RECENT. All-time records, and competition records do not suffer from this problem, and can be found in most articles.
  • Wikipedia is not a guide or directory for upcoming sporting events. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Team articles already have squad lists that link to the most recent, or upcoming, matches (e.g. 2014 end-of-year rugby union internationals), or for domestic teams, the infobox has a link to the most recent season. Guides for when and where a team is playing next is not the role of an encyclopaedia, teams have websites and TV guides for that.
  • Including such sections would require constant updating, which is already a challenge as is.
  • Not having these sections does not prevent linking to, creation of, or maintenance of lists of results such as those found at Category:Lists of national rugby union team results.
  • I'm not aware of any sports team articles that have gone through the Featured article process including such sections. This does imply that he wider community finds these sections to be at worst unencyclopaedic, and at best unnecessary for a comprehensive and neutral article (rugby team FA's are: England, France, New Zealand, Wales and Crusaders).

Hopefully I've established that these sections violate policy, particularly WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. -- Shudde talk 04:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I was going to update {{Rugby union in}} as some of the unions are in the wrong tiers but this applies across the board where we use these groupings. To update the template I was going to use the WR bands however High Performance as we currently have it listed has a massive gulf in standards . I considered using 6 nations and Rugby Championship and then the rest but that feels like a bit of a WP:OR split. Some research here [1] further muddies the waters and claims the entire list is sort of made up and very fluid So without an official list, here is a best guess at what the IRB regards the categorisation as.

  1. Should we continue to use the defunct tier system?
  2. If we use bands should we create a split at High Performance?
  3. Should be use no grouping at all? Gnevin (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
As a suggestion you could split it into nations that have won the WC, nations that have reached the knock-out stage and nations that have never made it past the group stage. Calistemon (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see the point in having the tiers; I would suggest removing it. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Removed and updated Gnevin (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Lancashire Cup[edit]

I've put a requested move up on Lancashire Cup Rugby Union if anyone would like to comment, support or oppose. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Rugby Articles for deletion[edit]

@Mcmatter: has listed a number of articles for deletion related to Canadian rugby.

Also listed under Rugby Alberta are:

-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

He's also added an AfD for Ontario Rugby Union, although it didn't show up here because it wasn't part of the WikiProject for some reason. On top of that, he's bundled it with a Rugby League AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Rugby League Competition. Grande (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Rugby balls[edit]

Most of the references in Gilbert (sports equipment) need to be updated (possibly using ) -- PBS (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability: Governing bodies[edit]

As noted above at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Canadian_Rugby_Articles_for_deletion, one editor has proposed deleting many Canadian rugby articles. Several of these articles discuss regional governing bodies in Canada. The WP:RU Notability Guideline does not set forth any criteria regarding notability of governing bodies. If WP:RU members think a guideline on this would be helpful, feel free to proposed some suggested language. If nobody else volunteers, I may suggest some guidance. I already mentioned this idea to the editor in question, but he declined to initiate a conversation here. Barryjjoyce (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

See the following AfD's, each of which proposes deleting several articles, including one or more articles regarding governing bodies:

Pinging editors who have weighed in on these AfD's: McMatter ~ MacRùsgail ~ Margin1522 ~ talk nerdy to me ~ Grande ~ SkyGuy747

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

National team infoboxes[edit]

What do folks think about adding the following parameters to national rugby union team infoboxes?

  • current ranking
  • highest ranking (year)
  • lowest ranking (year)

I think many readers would find these informative. If you want to visualize what these might look like, the national football team infoboxes include these. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Currently rankings suffer from WP:RECENTISM , is England's current 3rd ranking important? Not really Gnevin (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd say a country's current ranking is more important than its highest and lowest rankings. We could update it every time the World Rugby rankings are updated. WP:RECENT doesn't really apply since it's not giving undue weight to recent events; the most recent info gets overwritten every time there's an update. – PeeJay 14:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I've no strong opinions either way Gnevin (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

John Robinson (sportsman)[edit]

Robinson was an early England international with four matches in 1893 and in 1902; he also played first-class cricket at Cambridge University. I can flesh out his cricket career from the various cricket databases. Can anyone help on the rugby side? Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Chris Smylie[edit]

Would someone please check recent edits at the above. I'm inclined to revert it all, but someone who understands the topic would be better. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)