Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 1

We have to recruit more users. Thats the most important thing for a project with only three people. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 10:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a note to the talk page of the rugby union main article but nobody has bitten.GordyB 14:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I invited Dale Arnett, Duncharris, Kwekubo, Stormie, Historian, PaddyBriggs, Saint-djc to join the project as they are some of the main contributors to the rugby union pages. Hopefully some of them will do so.GordyB 11:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I recall BlackJack and GeorgeWilliams vandalising Rugby League pages because of their anti-League beliefs and support of "the true rugby". I haven't done that much on Wikipedia yet when it comes to rugby. I'll probably start when the season in the southern hemisphere begins. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 11:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Trust me. I haven't forgotten that. AFAIK they have not been very active in creating rugby union pages either.GordyB 13:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in! --Stormie 21:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've sent messages to quite a few other Wikipedians who seem to have more than a casual interest in rugby union. We now have 9 members which is a big improvement. Can other members send similar invites to anyone they think might be interested (obviously check their talk page to make sure that nobody else has invited them)?GordyB 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I may as well join, I'm Rugby Union Fan, But New to Wikipedia, Will help as much as I can. Stabilo boss 15:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

G'day i made afew rugby pages and then i discovered you guys, thought i should join up Soundabuser 01:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

All the more welcome.GordyB 13:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Regional Templates

None for Pacific teams (added GordyB 21:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)), Ireland and Europe as a whole

There is one for European club competitions as a whole {{Rugby European Rugby Cup links}}. It could be expanded to include links to the 6N and national teams in a similar way to SANZAR links.GordyB 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I might try that over the weekend. How about adding the Celtic League to it aswell?? We really need to Standardise some of the Templates, but I'm still learning wiki-code, I'm more of a Graphics Man. Stabilo boss 17:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You really don't need to know wikicode. I think virtually all these templates are cannibalised from each other which is why they have a similar look. If you go to the SANZAR links and edit it, you can copy and paste the code into a word file. Then all you need to do is replace each link with the appropriate European one.GordyB 20:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

{{Rugby European Rugby Cup links}} Hows that for you?? Just a quick Edit before I go Watch Scotland Beat England (I hope) Just realised I should've probably started a {{European Rugby Competitions}} Template :( Stabilo boss 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

International team template

I started the template Template:National_rugby_team. Feel free to edit it and so on. Forever young 10:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Added to templates section.GordyB 10:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it! --Stormie 21:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it too but keeping it up to date could be tricky. Especially the IRB ranking.GordyB 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• I also like it, but reckon keeping the captain up to date will also be a challenge. Shouldn't we include the contact details of the union? Having said that shouldn't it be "union" instead of "association"? Nelson50 11:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Defo should be 'Union'.GordyB 12:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • I have updated this infobox to reinclude team colours before they were unilaterally removed by Cvene64. I also included optional parameters such as most caps, leading points scorer, coach and captain. I also changed it to union instead of association as Nelson50 suggested. I have implemented this template on some of the bigger team pages. What do you think? --Bob 14:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like the changes. The uniforms look relatively poor or is redundant as some teams already have jersey/badge/strip text and/or images. Also, having things like most caps, even if they are optional will lead to inconsistency among the articles. Cvene64 15:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition, it would be best if the infobox was not so long that it cuts through the whole text. Most caps and so on should be excluded as well as they would be a burden to update - something that has been previously discussed about the infobox. Cvene64 15:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ireland national rugby union team

I've added this template to Ireland national rugby union team. I don't have all of the details, so there are things left blank...please help edit it. Cheers,

Rowlan 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I completed it with the appropriate info. I added the website rugbydata.com to the resoures section on this page. Its great in providing most of the info that will be needed for these infoboxes. Forever young 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Thanks for the work. The page looks loads better! Rowlan 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Player Infobox Template

Is there any concensus on an infobox template to use for player pages ? {{Infobox Rugby Player}} appears to be unused at the moment. Rugby league have {{Rugby league player infobox}} which appears to be usable. The only union template I've found that is used is {{Infobox allblack}} eg. Andy Dalton. There are some players with infoboxes on their pages, but they all seem to be coded on the page instead of using a template, eg. Lewis Moody, Josh Lewsey, Tom Voyce, Julian White, Corey Flynn, Christian Cullen, Jerry Collins, Daniel Carter (rugby player), Olivier Magne, Jonah Lomu , Jonny Wilkinson. KeithW 12:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the league one, which is very similar to the football one. We should create our ow, even if if is the same code as the league one, purely because it would be weird to have a league template on all teh union articles, also a few things could be changed. But we should definantly use that football/league style, and standardise it as the only player template. Cvene64 14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that all players should have a standard infobox, with the colours around the player being different to reflect the country for which that player plays, ie black for New Zealand, white for England, gold for Aus. etc. This could be included by using a meta template and would require no manual input of colours, just the players national team. --Bob 18:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just canabalised the Template:Infobox allblack into a new infobox Template:Rugger for a new players infobox. The name can be changed (I just wanted to play with a box using a name that noone else would be using). It uses meta templates to colour the headings for the player in the colours used by their countries. ie. black and white for the all blacks, red and white for England, blue and white for Scotland etc etc. You can see two examples in my sandbox and one at Chris Paterson and another at George Gregan. Could this be extended across all player articles? --Bob 18:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What colour does the template use when a player has not played internationally ? Can the 'Other Infomation' heading disappear if there is no other infomation entered ? How would you put information into the infobox about a players career ? The {{Rugby league player infobox}} template allows a brief summary within the infobox (see Danny Grewcock) and it's probably more relevant than the spouse/children details currently shown on the George Gregan page. KeithW 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is definantly what we need, but I don't think we should have different colours for a nationality, only because as Keith said, some players have not played internationals, as well as some players that have played for more than one (e.g. Australia/Argentina Australia/Sth Africa Australia/Lions are some combinations I remember). I think we should try and use the template, but use the one colour that {{Rugby league player infobox}} does, so its like standard. In addition, if we use the same design as {{Rugby league player infobox}} which is the same as the soccer one, we will avoid potential arguments over Wendell Sailor, Lote Tuqiri and Mat Rogers, as well as those that have gone from union to league. Cheers. Cvene64 12:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I created the Rugby player infobox recently for the purpose of being used on both league and union pages. We could probably have some sort of variable code on the template that then specifies whether or not the player is from league or union if you want to show some sort of difference. I think it'd just be easier to use the above infobox given that some players have shifted between codes, so it would work quite well. What do you think? --mdmanser 09:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

When the player hasn't played internationally, Template:Rugger currently defaults to black lettering on white. The other information doesn't disappear currently, but a slight modif could make that happen very easily. I will work on that today. For those that have gone from union to league, or vice versa, I could introduce more variables so that the infobox divides again for the other code. --Bob 14:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the different colour schemes and have added in details pertaining to Rugby league and 7's. Both are optional parameters. --Bob 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob, you have done a fantastic job with the rugby templates. I have got a few suggestions if anyone has any more opinions on what can be changed. Looking a George Gregan, which is a pretty comprehensive bio, I think the template's length needs to ber reduced a fair bit. I think the Other information section should be taken out, to reduce size, but also because having occupation as Professional rugby union footballer is not really needed, and family/school information should be in the article. I think the Rugby Union Career should be taken out, with blue headings put in in the form of Professional teams, and National team, with the position moved into the first section. I think we should adopt the same style as league and soccer for the Seasons-Team-Caps(Points), as opposed to the current style, which has Years Club Caps (points) a few times, I think it may not be needed at all, as it is pretty straightforward. Also, I don't think a current club text is needed, as the Years section says the same thng. Hmmm...I also not sure if Randwick should be at the top, as some people might thik that is his 'main' team, when they should be seeing Brumbies. I dunno, I guess its pretty complicated with clubs/prov.sides/Super Rugby, so we also need to make sure a non-rugby fan will understand..CheersCvene64 13:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. To reply to your valid points:

• The other information box is there as other info is important. For example, the Occupation parameter, I feel, is required, as some players, even after the era of prfessionalism in rugby union, still had other professions. One only needs to look at Thierry Lacroix, Serge Betsen or Rob Wainwright for examples. Also, for those that are retired, they now have other occupations for the most part, such as CEO of companies or rugby commentators etc. For those that are current professional players, sure, you could leave it out, as it is an optional parameter.
• This leads me to the position question. When players have played two codes, they may have played in different positions in the two codes. This is why I have placed it as is. This is also the reason that rugby union career heading is in place, so that for the dual codists, a distinction may be made. An example is found at my User:Grcampbell/Sandbox. (or Keith Smith KeithW 07:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC))
• I feel that years is a better indication of a players time at a club as a player may leave or join a club during a season, thus more accurate. However, if people think that we should leave the first two titles out altogether, I wouldn't be against that, but the headings for caps and points should be there as we shouldn't assume straight forwardness and non-rugby players may not know what that means.
• I could take out the currentclub parameter for the reasons you stated. Let me play with it again. --Bob 18:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've played with it some and removed the years/team stuff. However, I left in the caps(points) header, though it should show up just once per career box depending on usage.

Okay, I understand it all now, it looks great Bob. Thanks a lot for taking the time to create one as well. Good work. Cvene64 08:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the changes to the template. Is it possible to move the brackets round the points to the template so they are not repeated on every page? KeithW 07:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how to do that with the current format. I tried something, and I saw that you also tried the same thing later on. The problem is the delimited lists. The only conceivable way to do it would be to introduce optional parameters for every team, such as nationalteam1, nationalteam2 and proclub1, proclub2, proclub3 etc. but that would clunk the coding up further and it is already pretty clunky with the current density of info. I moved the caps(points) to seperate columns because the formatting didn't look nice when the data was there for more than 1 club. It looks better now methinks. --Bob 15:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think we should use something a bit smaller and more compact. Like that on Matt Giteaus page. Narrasawa (talk · contribs).

All data is optional in the current format, and the template is actually smaller that that currently on Matt's page (though that will be replaced). --Bob 15:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry mate, that looks a lot cleaner. The one I saw must not have been filled in correctly, as the blank fields had expanded it to a wider angle. But the new one on Matt's page looks very sharpe indeed ThanksNarrasawa 10:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Team Templates

• Maybe We Should Decide on a Template that Encompasses all Teams, with a Club, Heineken Cup, and a National Team Variation of the Template.

I'd Reccomend Beginning with the 6 nations. As its that time of Year. Then moving onto Tri-Nations before thier Season Starts then Filling in the Lesser World Nations, (Japan, Canada, Argentina etc.)Stabilo boss 16:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea, Stade Français needs a template badly. I do not know how to create templates of that magnitude, though.

Rowlan 14:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is a simple team template {{Infobox_esl_club}} that is being shared between Rugby League and Union teams. Is that the kind of thing you were looking for ? KeithW 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mob Football

• I have started a page on Mob Football. This game would be the predecesor of both Rugby Football and Association Football. If any of you could help edit and transform it I would be appreciative. There is a page for Royal Shrovetide Football, which is a existing form of Mob Football but it should not be the sole source of information. I think it is vital for we rugby union addicts to stake our claim, and help shape this article. It is from the rules that were later created to solidify a single code that we begin the evolution of our current game.

Rowlan 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is also an article on Mediæval football. Much of the information on that page could also be relevant. Not sure whether the two subjects are different enough to warrant separate articles. Perhaps they should be merged?GordyB 10:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• A merger is not a bad idea. Is this all stuff that should be under the general topic of Football? I don't think so. Mediæval Football is a form of Mob Football which has ancient roots extending back before the Mediæval times. Any suggestions to a logical approach on this subject?

Rowlan 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think 'Mob football' is the better title. Mediaeval football played today sounds like contradiction in terms. In terms of categorisation I think it should be in the categories of those sports that it could be argued to be ancestral to. The Rugby cat (as opposed to either the union or league cats), Gaelic football, Australian football, Soccer, American football, Canadian football, Traditional football and Football.GordyB 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's almost like we need a family tree or something for Football.

For Example: Football-Rugby-American Football-Canadian Football

A logical explanation of the evolution of the game. Seeing as this sort of Sport (those being played on foot with a ball) are the largest grossing, largest fan based sports (even basketball comes from a rugby player) I think this needs serious attention.

Rowlan 14:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores ^Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

When you say 'no copyright problems' do you mean 'no known copyright problems' or 'can you guarantee that there are no copywrite problems?'.GordyB 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No known copyright problems. :) If there are great articles with copyright problems, still let us know (as they should be fixed either way). Gflores ^Talk 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest.

• All Blacks
• Rugby union - needs two sections merging, will get round to it
• England national rugby union team - needs a little tidying up
• Wales national rugby union team
• Super 14
• Rugby union positions

GordyB 12:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also Jonny Wilkinson.GordyB 14:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Keep them coming! :) Gflores ^Talk 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How about Jonah Lomu--GringoInChile 17:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

An Issue that Pisses Me Off

• Why must all the Rugby Union articles say "Rugby Union"? Since when does anyone refer to the National Irish Rugby Squad as the Irish National Rugby Union Team? I sure don't, no one I know does either! Anyone I know that is into league calls Rugby Leage "league." Rugby is rugby union and League is rugby league. It's simple, it's standard, it's understood. Please, someone agree with me. This is a sensless argument, and it leads to sensless article titles.

Rowlan 02:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)!

In Ireland or the US I'm sure few people worry about the distinction between union and league. 'Rugby' in most parts of the world means 'rugby union' but this is not universal. It's rather similar to the soccer versus football debate. In much of Northern England where 'rugby' could mean either code, in some parts e.g. Wigan it definitely means league. I spend quite a lot of time correcting 'rugby' to 'rugby league' on the league pages as well.

You can interpret different Wiki protocols to give different answers. 'Rugby' on a union page could only be interpreted as meaning 'rugby union' but I think Wiki protocols also say that terms should be as clear as possible which means 'rugby union' and 'rugby league' respectively. Titles are definitely a case where clarity is vital.

The important thing is that the pages should be written for someone who does not necessarily know that there are two different sports called 'rugby' or may come from a part of the word where 'rugby' does not necessarily mean 'rugby union'.GordyB 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at this. Wikipedia:Naming conventions.

It doesn't give a definitive answer. It says that we should use the name that most English speakers would recognise (that would be 'rugby') but also says that names should have the minimum of ambiguity (that would be 'rugby union') and be for non specialists ('rugby union').

Most of the articles were named long before I joined Wikipedia and I've only moved one to a 'rugby union' name. From experience I know that if you were to put up any of these article for renaming you'd get heavily outvoted. I've put several cats up for renaming and it was non-controversial.

Unfortunately on Wiki one does not always get one's own way.GordyB 14:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

...But, I do have to offer this one point. The National Team that represents Ireland and/or the United States (since these are the two examples you list) are not properly refered to as the Ireland National Rugby Union Team. I believe there must be a better system devised such as Rugby Union: Ireland National Team.

by the way, did anyone watch the Ireland v Italy 6 Nations match? We had a bit of luck in that one.

Rowlan 20:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a fair bet that all the European based Wikipedians saw it. Italy get better every year, if they beat Ireland next year I will not be suprised.

As for your suggestion. I suspect that there is a standard naming system for all the sports teams e.g. England national rugby union team is analagous to England national cricket team, England national football team and England national rugby league team.

Personally I find the 'national' word unnecessary as England, France, Ireland etc are obviously nations.GordyB 20:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

While we are on the subject of unnecessarily long titles, can anyone think of a reason why Rugby Union Six Nations Championship needs to be called this? It's not like there are any other articles called Six Nations Championship. All there is, is an automatic redirect page.

Unless anyone can think of a good reason why I should not change the title that's what I will do.GordyB 13:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How About "The Six Nations" :) what most Irish People Call it. I know its a Pain but really the Naming Conventions are there for a reason. I think we should work on Content before going moving pages. Stabilo boss 17:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think 'The Six nations' can refer to other things, for example there was a confederation of North American tribes called 'The Six nations'.GordyB 13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is worth noting that any consensus agreed to on this page is likely to be heavily biased towards rugby union. Rugby Union is called rugby union and rugby league is called rugby league. These are their names and Wikipedia should address them correctly. Wkipedia should not address things by regional names or common slang terms as this would lead to rugby league being called football for Austalians and vacuum cleaners being called Hoovers. The only time that changes in name should be permitted are when the changed name is so overwhelmingly used that it would cause confusionnot to use it e.g association football being known as football. With Rugby this is not the case. Rugby Union cannot claim sole rights to the word rugby. Rugby league is sometimes referred to as rugby and one refers to the rugby ball in both codes without implying that it belongs to union. The idea of referring to rugby union as rugby is often seen as a way of insulting rugby league by suggesting that rugby union is the only form of the game or that rugby league is unimportant. The fact that the media often drop the word union does not mean that wikipedia should follow suit.(The Next Biggish Thing 12:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

An issue that pisses me off

Can someone please explain why the Rugby World Cup, as the tournament is known, is not on a page titled Rugby World Cup. We shouldnt have to bow to the 'leaguies', just because they also have a 'world cup' with teams such as Lebanon which is almost exclusively made up of Sydney players of lebanese extraction, for example. Soundabuser 05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that is a fair point, nobody really refers to it as the Rugby Union World Cup, whereas the league version is known as the Rugby League World Cup. Perhaps we should remove the disambiguation page, move the text on Rugby Union World Cup and create a note on the top of the page referring people to the league cup. Is this a reasonable solution? mdmanser 05:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above. But 'Rugby Union World Cup should remain a redirect just in case. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 06:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the Rugby Union World Cup article is so called. I suspect that it has nothing to do with rugby league supporters. I haven't got any objections to it being moved to 'Rugby World Cup', in fact I think it should be moved as that is the title of the competition.GordyB 12:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Template for Irish Rugby Supporters, which should be everyone!

"Ireland, Ireland!"
This user supports IRISH RUGBY

{{User:UBX/IRFU}}

Use it. Love it.

Rowlan 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There are other such templates at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Rugby Union. You may wish to add the Ireland one to the list. Unfortunately there are as yet no Northern Hemipshere club side userboxes.GordyB 14:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Rugby Portal?

I just learned of Portals today. Sadly, there is no Rugby Portal. Why not?!

Rowlan 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

For some reason sports pages are generally a long way behind academic pages. There's still a lot of pages that need to be created that haven't been created. It just didn't seem like a priority. Also until recently there was no project, if I had made one it'd just have been my ideas rather than any kind of group consensus.GordyB 20:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Introducing the Portal:Rugby

Yes, you read the heading corrently. I've started the Rugby Portal on Wikipedia. You all now have the first opportunities to shape the future of this great tool. I have left it to be open to Union & League alike, but I no nothing of League, and most of my contacts are with Union, so it may be a bit biased at the moment. If you wish to creat a sub-portal for union that might be a good idea.

Rowlan 02:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is already a discussion as to whether or not there should be one unified portal for both codes or separate portals for each. If you have an opinion please post it here Portal talk:Rugby so that the discussion doesn't get disjounted.GordyB

Yes. Personally I would not cross the road to watch a game of League, but I have been influenced by an article in Independent on Sunday 5 February 2006 entitled "Two code and one identity add up to great opportunity" by Mark Evans about the new Harlequins rugby league team. If developments like this are to be discussed and documented fairly we need to keep the two codes in the same area. -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Have the writers of that article ever heard of Leeds? Harlequins are two different clubs that share a name and a stadium, Leeds Rhinos and Tykes are owned by the same company and have shared players.GordyB 19:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to read the article in full, but it wouldn't allow me without signing up or something. Anyway, this theme is what the Portal:Rugby is all about. I think we'll see more of this sort of thing happening in the future. As GordyB pointed out, Leeds also have the same sort of thing going on. It's smart for an organization to grasp both markets. Also, as proffesionalism devolops and continues in RU, I think RL & RU players will go towards the money. Who knows what Rugby (in either form) will look like in 100 years. They are constantly ammending rules, ect...

Rowlan 18:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

French Clubs LNR Top 14

I am trying to unify the Top 14 French clubs. I have applied a team template to Stade Français & ASM Clermont Auvergne. I don't know all the details, though, for these clubs. Please take a look and help out.

Cheers,

Rowlan 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the data you would need is on the French page. For example the Stade Toulousain page in French lists the 'club president' which is probably the same thing as chairman.GordyB 12:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the fortnight

• I have made a fortnightly collabortation which can be found here:Portal:Rugby Union/Collaboration of the fortnight.--Hamedog^Talk|@ 02:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

National teams-infobox...

Should we put in captain/coach in these boxes? It will be hard to keep them updated and so on, and we might not even be able to find them for some sides.

Should we put the info in where we can, or just exclude it altogether to make it consistant? Thoughts? Cvene64 09:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Best to put it in for the major teams and leave out for the minnows. I doubt that anybody has the time to keep the captain / manager of Georgia (for example) up to date.GordyB 14:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the Template:National_rugby_team to include optional parameters such as captain, top scorer, most caps, coach etc. It also includes team colours, which can be made an optional thing if people think that this detracts. However, as the other major sport on Wikipedia (football/soccer) shows this, and it brings more details that some articles were including in the text without pictures, or with the football kit template in its own wee box, I think that it should be included, and won't be that difficult to maintain. --Bob 15:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling Munster Folk,

I've Added a Shannon Page. I'm going to try and get my own old club Skerries done in the Near future, However Shannon Needs a lot of Work and as I'm a Fingallian, I should probably leave it to someone from Limerick to Correct the Many Errors and Missing Info.

Rgds

Stabilo boss 20:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone Actively Playing Rugby?

Okay...Are any of we Wikipedians active Rugby Players? I am (St. Louis Bombers Rugby Football Club). I just got through playing Khofield RFC and feel like I got the ____ beat out of me. I should've spent more time on fitness and less time on Wiki. Rowlan 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I play currently in two comps, Phoenix7 05:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Rugby union in X

I've started a new article Rugby union in England, at present it is extremely ropey. There are already Rugby union in Wales and Rugby union in Scotland though they could do with a revamp. The idea is to create a main page for each major nation and cover the history and culture of the game that is specific to that country. There are some very good pages on rugby league that show what I hope we can do i.e. Rugby league in Australia, Rugby league in New Zealand, Rugby league in England, Rugby league in France.

The following articles IMO should be priority creations Rugby union in Australia, Rugby union in New Zealand, Rugby union in South Africa, Rugby union in France and Rugby union in Ireland.GordyB 23:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooops Rugby union in Australia does already exist but it could do with a reformat.GordyB 23:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a Rugby union in New Zealand page in my sandbox. I know I'll probably be shot or at least open a can of worms here but do you think that referring to the game as rugby in this article would be OK? The official website allblacks.com uses rugby, the organising body is NZRugby, the media in NZ refer to it as rugby. It just seems wrong to be writing rugby union all the time when to Kiwis it is just plain old rugby. What do you guys think?? Soundabuser 00:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to check this, but if you use New Zealand English as you should in that particular article then maybe you will be ok. I know that when anyone here (NZ) says rugby they mean rugby union. Having lived here my whole life I still have to adjust to foreigners refering to it as rugby union. You may want to double check with a New Zealand dictionary though, and read the wiki guidelines regarding such problems. The only thing I'd recommend is that you state somewhere in the introduction that rugby union is commonly known as rugby in New Zealand (which is 100% true). (Shudda ^talk 06:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

I've perhaps been a little overzealous in the past about correcting 'rugby' to 'rugby union'. As long as it is clear that the article is about rugby union, it is okay to use 'rugby'. I might change some of the 'rugbys' to make this a bit more clear.GordyB 09:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup XXXX

The article pages on the individual rugby world cups are, I believe, wrongly titled. They should be Rugby World Cup XXXX instead of XXXX Rugby World Cup (where XXXX represents the year). Would there be objections if I move all to Rugby World Cup XXXX? --Bob 01:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the general deal in wikipedia is that the year of the event goes first (probably for the sake of categories and so on). I believe all the FIFA WCs were named FIFA World Cup XXXX, but were recently all moved to XXXX FIFA World Cup due to the naming conventions. Also - the majority of sporting articles are named like this; 2006 NFL season, 2006 Super 14 season, 2005-06 Heineken Cup. So I'm not sure about the change..Cvene64 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I agree. You may want to wait out for other peoples' opinions though, but yeah I say move. Cvene64 01:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on other folks input on this. --Bob 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(numbers_and_dates)#Articles_on_events seems to say that Rugby World Cup (XXXX) , XXXX Rugby World Cup or Rugby World Cup, XXXX is acceptable. KeithW 12:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong Sevens

Request for help please.

I am following the examples as set out by Six Nations Championship and the National Provincial Championship as well as other tournaments in both rugby and assoc. football that refer to the tournament/league title sponsor in the opening phrase. In this article, I have tried to follow this protocol by including the title sponsors in the opening phrase as well as the tournament logo:

The Hong Kong Sevens (香港七人欖球賽) (referred to as Cathay Pacific/Credit Suisse Hong Kong Sevens for sponsorship reasons) is considered the premier tournament on the World Sevens Series in rugby union.

However, this is consistently being deleted by an anon user posting under the IP address: 147.8.210.141 as he or she believes that the tournament title sponsors have no relevance in the article. I have posted information regarding this on the relevant talk page, but the user disregards this for reasons I am not aware of. Do I continue to include the title sponsors or not? --Bob 01:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would keep it hey, I don't know what that persons' agenda is, but the main sponsors of the tournament are very important in my opinion. Cvene64 05:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Welsh infoboxes

Hello folks,

The ad hoc infoboxes on the Welsh rugby team articles (such as Ospreys (rugby union)) are not very informative and rather ugly - it would be nice if we could use a standard infobox template for them instead.

I've just added a feature to {{Rugby Team infobox}} which adds the Welsh Rugby Regions image if the union is the WRU. User:Hairy Dude/Template:Rugby Team infobox is the modified version, and User:Hairy Dude/Template:Rugby Team infobox test is a demonstration of it with Ospreys. If you like it, please copy my changes into the template in the main namespace and use it rather than my subpage.

I tried to make it a bordered infobox (cos they're prettier), but {{Football kit}} looks awful with it and I couldn't fix that due to some annoying misfeatures of MediaWiki.

Hairy Dude 23:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that looks heaps better. I have always been concerned that the Welsh team box was so different to everyone elses, but I never bothered to say anything, but yeah, that looks great. In relation to the template, I think (chairman) should be made an optional feature, as its not universal to all clubs/sides. I think we should try and standardise all the clubs/teams with the same infobox. Iam not familiar with the kit template though, so if anyone wants to have a go with all the Super 14 teams, that would be great. Cvene64 05:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There are only 4 teams which the "regional map" would apply to, but 270+ that it wouldn't. I'm not comfortable with this "regional" nonsense being plastered all over pages about historic teams just because they are affiliated with the WRU. Owain (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess its not a good idea to have that map on any template with WRU then. Maybe the map should just be manually inserted into the page where the description of their reigon/feederclubs/stadium is, though it would be nice if they had their own maps (ie map is blank except for the shaded Cardiff reigon). But we should start inserting these new infoboxes in now. Cvene64 07:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Current infoboxes applied to club teams include: {{Rugby Team infobox}}, a {{Infobox esl club}}, {{Super_14_team}}, and the horribly garish manual box for the welsh sides. These all, in my opinion, need to be consolidated and one single template applied to all clubs across the board. I also believe that the garish map used in the Welsh boxes not be included in the new box, but be placed within the article itself. The box started by Stabilo boss({{Rugby Team infobox}}) be the one that we expand upon. We could make the template esoteric so that information specific to different countries and tournaments such as the super 14 or the heineken cup also be included, but in a way that different infoboxes are not required and that all are uniform. What do you think? --Bob 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, Hang on while I look up Esoteric in Wiktionary!?.... I only Robbed it from a Soccer Template. It is very simple and very generic for a reason. A standard info box is the best option for all Clubs, Having different Infoboxes for Each Union/Competition/Code etc defeats the purpose of having a Standardised template. I'm not sure how to Edit it so that if you leave say "nicknames" blank, the nickname field won't show up on the Page. Maybe a more experienced wikipedian like GordyB could do it?

Stabilo boss 08:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

All Blacks infobox

It seems certain articles on All Blacks like Richie McCaw have an All Black infobox. Shouldn't articles on all international rugby players have the same infobox. Current Southern Hemishpere players infoboxes should add Super 14 and provincial team information as they play in these formats. Eastpaw 12.54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that all players should have a standard infobox, with the colours around the player being different to reflect the country for which that player plays, ie black for New Zealand, white for England, gold for Aus. etc. This could be included by using a meta template and would require no manual input of colours, just the players national team. --Bob 18:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just canabalised the Template:Infobox allblack into a new infobox Template:Rugger for a new players infobox. The name can be changed (I just wanted to play with a box using a name that noone else would be using). It uses meta templates to colour the headings for the player in the colours used by their countries. ie. black and white for the all blacks, red and white for England, blue and white for Scotland etc etc. You can see two examples in my sandbox and one at Chris Paterson and another at George Gregan. Could this be extended across all player articles? --Bob 18:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week - World Cup

Hey everyone, Rugby World Cup is nominated there for teh Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week. Please vote support so it can be chosen, and we can get it to FA status. Cheers. Cvene64 06:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WPCD

It would be nice if someone could add half a dozen central rugby articles to WPCD by adding {{WPCD}} to the talk pages --BozMo talk 12:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I might but I have no idea what WPCD means. It might help me if I knew.GordyB 12:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Police mistake rugby match for mass fight

Not sure where else to put this, but in the future perhapse someone can find a way to weave it into an article about how the popularity of Rugby is spreading in south eastern Europe. The Independent 13 June, 2006, page 19, in their "European news in brief" reported

Moscow Russians playing rugby were arrested by police who mistook the match for a mass brawl. "We got a call saying that there was a fight involving a lot of people on some waste ground just outside town," said a police spokesman in the southern city of Rostov-on-Don. Nearly 100 players and supporters were taken to the police station but were later released without a charge.

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It could go in Rugby union in Russia, once it is created of course. Cvene64 09:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Boston Police Department showed up in full riot gear at a rugby match at Boston College High School in 1998 when a concerned parent who'd obviously never seen the game called in and reported a bunch of young men beating the living daylights out of eachother. Just goes to show the limited experience some parts of the world have with rugby hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 09:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is not clear which code was being talked about. Russia does play rugby league and has beaten representative teams from England.GordyB 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Participants

Why is it that the fine people participating in this WikiProject seem to come from either the British Isles or Australasia? (sure this is the english language wikipedia and rugby is a dominant sport it those regions)

- That's not all true; there's at least 3 Americans judging by which nations they support.

A problem

I'm not too sure about this - but there may be a (potential) problem with the wiki-linking between Rugby union/Rugby football on various Wikipedias. It all comes back to the problem of union being an unknown term to many people, and thus, Rugby union in just rugby in many places (I'm not talking about NZ/Wales)...anyway..on June 27 a bot removed 3/4 of language links on the Rugby union page, and they are now just on the Rugby football. I'm not exactly sure about this, but I think at least of half of them do not make a distiction between RU/RF, with some pages which are linked as "Rugby Football", as far as I can see, are about Rugby union, with a mention of League/Sevens...For example, some RF pages, when give a rundown of positions, use RU numbers, and other RF pages have Rugby (Union) World Cup results, yet these are not listed as a language on the Rugby union page...What should be done here? Cvene64 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup

Rugby World Cup currently has a Feature article nomination, please make comments/support in its section. Cvene64 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Newport Gwent Dragons

Can somebody look at this ugly infobox? Circeus 00:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/To do

Started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/To do page. Please contribute articles/participate in. Cheers. Cvene64 14:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland

There are lots of minor edit wars going on over which flag should represent Ireland in the context of rugby union.

I'm just hoping that we could get some consensus.

a) Some people are using the tricolour to represent all of Ireland and even putting it in front of Northern Irish players. Not very appropriate. I don't think anybody would take offence if a union jack was put before all Lions players even ones from the RoI.

b) Another convention is to use the tricolour for RoI things and the NI flag for NI things. This leads to some messy situations as Ulster rugby are technically a cross-border organisation, it also does not make sense to put Ulster in a different category from Munster. Also the NI flag looks like an English flag when minuaturised.

c) The St Pats cross is also being used in some places. This is also widely used in Wiki to represent the island of Ireland so at least it would be consistant.

d) The four province flag is also used (and is listed for use on the project page) but it looks a mess when minaturised.

e) A shamrock could be used, it does after all apppear on the Ireland jersey.

Views?GordyB 15:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have always though we should create our own, and do something similar to what they use during test match coverage, which is, as far as I know, just a white background with the Irish rugby logo, but since we can't use that, we should just have a white flag, white a basic green shamrock. The main reason for this I guess, is because more people will know it is Ireland, whereras that provinces flag, I'm guessing, not to many people would straight away know its Ireland.Cvene64 01:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree a) and b) are inappropriate. Out of the remainder, e) I think is preferable, as it is used on the jersey, otherwise c). KeithW 07:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with using the shamrock, as it's the logo of IRFU hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 07:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The four province flag, as it is the flag that represents the entire island, and is also used by the IRFU in official context outside of Ireland. Also, if we use the logo of the IRFU, it cannot be used in templates. --Bob 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the IRFU hardly have copyright on shamrocks, their specific shamrock fair enough but the RFU can't prevent people from using red roses and the SRU can't prevent people using thistles. I'll count the votes c) GordyB d) Bob (aka Grcampbell) e) Cvene64, KeithW & Hoopydink. GordyB 22:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go with the Shamrock idea. The four province flag is confusing at first glance. Ronan.evans 01:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Shamrock! BTW, I created one for the Pacific Islanders, using their logo. Is that okay, seeing as they don't have a flag?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't as you can't use logos in templates --Bob 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Shamrocks are the popular choice. The Pacific Islanders are a bit more tricky, whilst the IRFU hardly invented the shamrock and it has been used in Ireland for centuries I doubt the same could be said of any Pacific Islander logo.GordyB 11:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the image from the Shamrock article. I'm going to add it to the appropriate pages unless anybody comes up with a better image. GordyB 20:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately The IRFU Standard (A Flag with the IRFU Logo) is what should be used, but Fair Use again means we can't. The Current Shamrock Image isn't the best so I may try and do one up myself. The original IRFU logo (A Shield with a Bunch of Shamrock) may be the Best option as it is not Copyright, in fact the current logo was developed because the IRFU and FAI symbol were the Same, leading to the two sports developing new logo's in the 1980's.
Stabilo boss 09:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created a crappy flag like image, that sort of resembles what they use on television. Though I would trial it out. Cvene64 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO it is an improvement.GordyB 12:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, that's a big improvement. Secondly, if there are no copyright issues with the official logo, why not just use that? hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There are copyright issues. We are entitled to fair use which means we can use their logo on pages that directly relate to them i.e. the IRFU page and arguably the national team page as well. Other usage would be breaking copyright. Stabilo boss says that their previous logo is not copyright, if this is the case then this would be the ideal solution.GordyB 13:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok. It would be ideal if we could use the previous logo. If not, I don't think the flag image is that bad at all. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes but the Problem is I can't find any pictures of it. I will try and Get an Old Rugby picture from the 80's or so and Copy the Logo, I assume (as with Many Teams in recent times) that the Reason it had to be changed was because the Designer or owner of the Artwork could not be Identified or the Badge or elements of it were in Common usage (Chelsea, Arsenal FC. Dublin GAA. etc. had this problem as did the Irish Provincial sides.) As far as I know the IRFU flag is Green with the Logo on it in Negative colours (white and green). Stabilo boss 14:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The IRFU flag used at the World Cup and in the EA games is here: [1] I think we should use that instead of the white one. 87.5.127.169 19:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Question i have created an svg flag replica of the one used by the IRFU to represent ireland, one with the logo another without, but how can the logo be used at the start of the article and not in the flag?, i think we should just use the actual flag i dont think it is a major deal any thoughts Caomhan27 07:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Used appropriately we can claim "fair use", otherwise we cannot. Wikipedia takes this kind of thing very seriously.GordyB 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok Gordy But im sure there would be no objections to its use in an article about Irish Rugby and would that not also fit the fair use rationale the same as the the use of its logo at the start? Caomhan27 17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

is everyone happy with this version until the fair use rationale can be sorted

File:Irelands Rugby Flag.svg

the IRFU have no rights on the arms of the provinces nor on the shamrock used? Caomhan27 18:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The IRFU have no rights on a generic shamrock symbol which is what we use. The IRFU flag can be used on articles that are directly about the IRFU (I suggest this means the IRFU and the national team only), provided it is at the top of the article and it is a low resolution version. It cannot be used in other circumstances without permission from the IRFU.GordyB 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok so the exact replica flag is a bit dodgy (you could include players and coaches contracted to the IRFU?) I suggest that the nearest equivalent to the factual flag be used i.e the one on the right as the IRFU have no rights to its componants you ok with that gordy Caomhan27 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A very close replica would still controvene copyright law. We had a ball manufacturer threaten to sue Wikipedia over a ball that looked vaguely similar to one of theirs. It's also not really for me to agree to any change of icon. If we do change then it needs to be a consensus or at least majority decision.GordyB 21:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see where your coming from, however they themselves have no right to the anything other than their specific logo that is placed in the middle of the flag/picture, and no rights to the image of a shamrock (generic one)either other than the one used to make up the logo. would you agree with the new version for starters? Caomhan27 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They do have rights to the specific arrangement of the items however. It's akin to saying that even though the letters a-z aren't copyright, works of literature are copyright. Middle C isn't copyright but pieces of music are.GordyB 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

cant agree there they have no rights to the "images of the provinces" of ireland no matter what way they arrange them, the letters or musical note analogy does not work because it does not refer to a completed work ala a provincial flag, its like saying the colour yellow and red are not copyright but when a flag is created using them it is, which would be correct but in this case the work has already been created not by them and they are using it, if you were to compare ot to music, the image of the flag of connacht is a finished piece already Caomhan27 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "I don't agree" type discussion. Copyright law is as it is, whether you agree with it or not. The image belongs to the IRFU and we cannot use it without permission. Ask a lawyer if you want.GordyB 08:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

take a chill pill gordy it is a discussion nothing more seeing as neither of us are experts on the matter (well i dont claim to be ), i agreed that the image with the IRFU logo on it would be unacceptable, but without it the image is merely the four individual provincial flags on a green background (maybe/maybe not plus a generic shamrock in the middle) i was simply trying to logically explain why i think the IRFU have no rights to the image shown as it is without the their logo why? the IRFU have no claim on the four provinces flag which can and has been arranged many ways if you were to put four england flags on a colour background could you claim the rights to that? Caomhan27 00:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes.13:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rugby Videogames

Maybe it's a good idea to add a headline about rugby video games somewhere to this project. I've created the page for Rugby 06 which I think should be added somewhere here? Or has it allready been added and I just missed it? But nevertheless I think more videogames should be added in this project :-) --Jort227 18:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Want to help, but...

Hi everyone. This might sound like a silly question or something, but I feel I have to ask anyway. So I hope you can help me out. I would like to participate in this particular WikiProject. The only thing I'm having a problem with, is how can I help? I mean, I did read the "how to help" stuff, but I still am not really sure. I mean, how should I see this project thing? I don't see a list of all the pages that have Rugby Union as subject anywhere, or pages with lots of information about several different subjects... Or isn't that at all what this (or any) project is about? To make a good list of all the Rugby Union pages. Well I hope you don't think this is a silly question, and i'm hoping you guys can help me out. Thanks --Jort227 20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea is to improve the content of the pages. What I do is target a specific article and then google search for data that could be added to the article. Who won the test matches on the 81 Springbok tour for example, it's quite difficult to find the results of the game. Or I try to link articles on similar subjects together or try to introduce some order in the category system.GordyB 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Collaboration of the fortnight

Is this going to die or not. We really need more people to help out. I know I haven't done much editing, and I am sure you all have reasons, but unless we get more people editing International Rugby Board and other future articles, this may die sooner rather than latter.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 14:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tri Nations

I really think that Rugby Union Tri Nations should be at Tri Nations, with a link at the top of the article to Rugby League Tri-Nations. A google of Tri Nations brings up mainly rugby union articles, with a league website making its first appearance three pages in. Also, the fact that the union competition was around first, and has over twice the attendence averages, I think it is the more notable of the two. Cvene64 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Put it up on requested moves and see what the consensus is.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support Rugby Union Tri Nations moving to Tri Nations with the link to the Rugby League equivalent at the top of the page, as Cvene64 suggested. The union competition is far more popular than it's league counterpart. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think league is the problem. It was suggested that Six nations championship should be just 'Six nations' but 'six nations' is used for a number of other things such as a federation of North American tribes. Before you put it up for renaming, it's probably best to check that 'tri nations' is not used by anybody else other than SANZAR or IRFL. If there are sufficient other uses then it may need to be a disambiguation page.GordyB 12:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I googled it, 90%+ of the hits are about the SANZAR competition and only a few about the league equivalent or the Pacific tri-nations. No other 'tri nations' turned up. The league competition probably will get renamed anyway as there are plans to include France or even (less likely) a Pacifika team.GordyB 12:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well we can probably move it. As from what I can see, most people going to the page would be looking for the union tournament, and since there is only the one other meaning, there probably isnt the need for a disambiguation page. Cvene64 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether 'tri nations series' is the official name of the tournament. The opening paragraph seems to imply this.GordyB 11:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that 'tri nations series' was written because that was the name of the page at the time. It isnt the name, but would be commonly used in commentry and so on I would guess. Cvene64 05:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

On the Six Nations, I think we should fight for that one, as basically 99% of people going there are looking for the championship. For other uses see Six Nations (disambiguation) could be applied at the top. Though this article has a few possible meanings, I think we easily have a solid rationale to claim the page..Cvene64 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See here

• Requested move for Tri Nations. I think it is pretty fair. Please contribute to the discussion. Cvene64

Daniel Carter (rugby player)

• Don't you think we have a good claim to this, which is probably in a similar circumstance to Tri Nations at the moment.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 12:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, thats weird because Dan Carter was the third page I wanted to petition to have moved (along with 3n and 6n), you read my mind Hamedog! I just googled it, and whilst the All Black is coming up the most, we may need some more evidence before putting up a request. Cheers. We should improve his page a lot as well. Cvene64 12:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I met Dan on Sunday at the Intercontinetial Hotel in Wellington!--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 12:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just doing some stuff on google and "Dan Carter rugby" has more search results than "Daniel Carter rugby". Should we page move?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 12:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Changing the WP:RU page

Modeling after cricket, if you don't like it, revert me.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Feel free to help at User:Hamedog/Sandbox--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 08:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What y'all think????--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a change in the layout is in order but certainly not the cricket lay-out. Most of our page went missing after the change. For example, all of the news was gone. I really enjoy the news section as it keeps everyone up to date on what people are working on. Also, I didn't see the members list anywhere either. Lastly, during the change, tons of cricket stuff got left in hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 09:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Then change it, and the members and in the participants page.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I love it. A fresh change is always good. Though if Hoopy doesnt like it, just make some changes until we are all happy! Cheers. Cvene64 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My only issue was that the original change was without the recreation of most of our sections and had numerous cricket references all over the place hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of American football and rugby

There was a red link on the American football page so I knocked up an article. In retrospect I think I should have created separate league and union articles. However, though union and league are very different games they look fairly similar when compared to American football. When the two games do differ significantly league tends to be like American football in any case. What do others think? Should I split the articles?GordyB 08:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, as union and league are completely different sports and it could get confusing as American society has very little knowledge of either. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

They're useful articles, but they're probably borderline OR. I'd be surprised if no magazine or book has done something like this before, the job will be finding some references. --Mako 06:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of the referencing could taken from the rules themselves. The RFU and NFL have rulebooks available online. I don't think you need to find an internet article to say that American football has a system of downs whereas rugby union uses unlimited tackle. The laws / rules say so.

I've done more work on the league article than the union one at the momement. At some point I will start a Comparison of rugby league and rugby union article but I need to have a lot of free time to do it as it is sure to get vandalised frequently and there will undoubtedly be a lot of POV edit wars.GordyB 21:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

World Cup/tours templates

A few templates have been created for various squads (England 2003, 1999) and (Lions 2005). I think we should aim to create all the world cup and Lions tours squad templates. It looks great and (in my opinion) will encourage further editing. However, things could get crowded if we do every Tri Nations and Six Nations squads, so maybe just leave it to WCs and Lions Tours, and I guess, some other things that are outstandingly notable (i.e NZ Invincibles/or something like that)...Cheers. Cvene64 14:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to help, use Template:World Cup squad. See Template:England Squad 2003 World Cup. If you need help with colours/flags, soccer templates for the nation should be suitable. Also, we should keep the naming conventions standard, ie, Template:Australia Squad 2003 World Cup. rwc2003 has all the team listings for 2003 and CNN has all the 1999 team listings. Lions squads are fairly easy to find on the web. Any earlier than 1999 WC squads may take some time to find. Cvene64 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea, and one that I would support in creating/managing. However, the football variants are currently up for deletion. What I would say is that if we were to do this, make them collapsable boxes so that they don't become obtrusive. I would also remove the numbers as they are irrelevant for rugby. Do we want to include the flags and do we want different colours for each side as is the case for the football boxes, or do you want a uniform colour? Also, in the case of the Lions tours, do you want to include players that were called to the tours once they had left, or do you want to include just the initially named players? --Bob 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created Template:National rugby squad for use in these templates. I have modified the Template:England Squad 2003 World Cup so one can see how it looks. It works in an identical fashion to the previous template used, it just includes the v.d.e. and hide/show buttons. It also uses • instead of | and doesn't have numbers. Could this be used instead? --Bob 22:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping you would get on board Bob! Your template looks a lot more stylish, and hide/show are a great idea, as someone like Wilko has about three of them. With soccer, I think it was actually the soccer users that wanted them gone, not general Wikipedians putting it up for deletion, so I think if we are all in agreement on using them, it should be fine. Also, I think I used different templates for the English squad and the Lions tour, as Lions had a larger touring party, and I have no idea how to make Places optional, do you kinda know what I mean? Say, you make your template have 60 places, but only 20 of them are non-optional, as well as coach, the other 40, if not used, then won't come up as an error...? On flags/colours, I don't really mind, the colours look good, but I guess it would look neater if they were all white, with the respective flags, I'm not sure. Cvene64 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, you see Template:England Squad 1999 World Cup how Worsley/Woodward are on the last line, is there anyway to allign the whole squad in the centre, so names on the last line are not on the left? Cvene64 06:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you try and do it for Template:Rugby Union World Cup as well? Cheers Cvene64 06:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have currently made it so that there are 59 optional places. However, I was thinking, should we divide it into backs and forwards like newspapers do? If we did this, I could then place the coach on his own line at the bottom. Using the system of optional places means that we don't need two templates, just this one, slimlining the process significantly. If we are to use the new one I created, we could delete the other ones if people are in agreement so that there is less confusion. I like using the different colors for the different teams, and this is good for players who have played in two or more national representative teams. I don't see Worsley and Woodward showing up on the left I'm afraid.... however, I will put more limitations in to rectify any possible problem you are seeing. I took out the vde buttons as they were not working correctly, but I think I now know a way by which I can make them work correctly.--Bob 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have rearranged it so that the squads are listed by forwards/backs/coach. I don't know if this is any better. It could be reverted if it is generally thought that a simple list is better. Also, for the British Lions squads, would it be better to list by home union? --Bob 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that looks fantastic! Love the new version. As for the thing I said about Template:Rugby Union World Cup, it may just be my computer, so I'll check it out. But yeah, great job with the templates. I think one template is the way to go as well, the other one can be deleted. I don't really mind about the Lions, I guess we could play around with flags and so on as well. Nice job with the 03 Scotland squad as well, I'll try and do France, Australia and Wales etc over the coming days. Cheers. Cvene64 14:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have done 2003 templates for Wales, All Blacks, France, Wallabies, Ireland and South Africa. There are heaps more to do, so everyone should get involved. Cheers. Cvene64 12:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice job. I hope I won't step on anybodies toes, but I changed the colouring to that which I had already used for the other infoboxes. (Apart from the French one which I adapted the ru links to fit your colour scheme. --Bob 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone else want to help out with these? Australia and England are 100% done, and Scotland, Wales, France, New Zealand and Italy are close to finished. Cvene64 12:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions & New Zealand

We have a naming convention that country's teams are called Foo national rugby union team.

This is essentially lifted straight off the association football format.

Several teams have nicknames. There are people trying to move New Zealand national rugby union team to "All Blacks", despite this naming convention. Can you please express your views on the universality of such naming conventions at talk:New Zealand national rugby union team.

Thankyou — Dunc|☺ 10:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Who the fuck moved it? This morning it was at All Blacks--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 11:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Mate, you have moved it numerous times, without really discussing it at all. All rugby articles come under WP:RU, not WP:FOOTBALL, so pointing out association football's format is not a reason to change the article. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? This pretty much closes the debate. There are no official guidelines set out by WP:RU, it is just standard practice to have England at England national rugby union team and Italy at Italy national rugby union team, as opposed to English rugby team, and Italy (rugby team). If any other nations' nicknames were as well known as All Blacks, then they too would be at their appropriate page. All Blacks is by far the most common and popular name used for the team. Please stop changing it. Cvene64 12:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The move has been done before, and turned down, moved back to All Blacks, as it was decided that was to be the name of the article.Talk:New_Zealand_national_rugby_union_team#Naming_of_this_article. Cvene64 12:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be moved to New Zealand national rugby union team as all other national sides are labeled similarly. Th argument that the official name of the side is the All Blacks is a moot point, as in programs, official tour notices and, indeed, at the Rugby World Cup, the term All Blacks is not used to represent the side. --Bob 21:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What are all these supposed to be

London Wasps says that it used to be called the "Wasps FC" or "Wasps Football Club" but Wasps R.F.C. says it was the former name and the official site says "Wasps RUFC". Then there is Wasps FC and Wasps football club, which both look as if they are the same thing with the first looking as if it's the correct name. Can someone who knows sort this out. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The third and fourth are the amateur team as distinct from the pro team; one of these should go, preferably the fourth. The second (Wasps R.F.C.) should be changed to a redirect. The history section of London Wasps should be altered to reflect the RFC name as being the original one.GordyB 14:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The name update at "London Wasps" is done and "Wasps football club " redirects to "Wasps FC" and "Wasps R.F.C." redirects to "London Wasps". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

IRB Templates

I've noticed that there are lots of national union templates (Second tier unions, third tier European unions, etc.), and I was wondering if we should just use the all-inclusive IRB Unions template. If not, could someone explain how we decide which templates to place on articles, as there are unions that are included in multiple templates? hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hoopydink, I have put back the old templates on the articles, as the IRB Unions template is for all the nation pages, but not the Rugby union in... pages, rather Australian Rugby Union, not Rugby union in Australia. Nations in general, not their unions, are graded as either 1, 2 or 3 tier by the IRB. Hope that explains it. Cheers. Cvene64 06:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot for explaining! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Rugby union in Northern Ireland

I have nominated the above category for deletion as rugby union is an all-Ireland sport and in my view it is nonsense to split categories into RoI and NI subcats. If you want to vote then follow link.GordyB 13:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

George Smith (rugby player)

Hi, I'm not sure where to put this information but I'd like to bring everyone's attention to how rubbish the George Smith (rugby player) article is. If there is a project participant out there with more knowledge of him then me, or with some useful references could they please do something to fix up that page. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Rugby in USA cities

Guys, Iam a little worried about the mentioning of rugby in various American cities, or their sub sport articles. Some wikipedians added stuff about respective AMNRL clubs, which is good, but I think it is misleading to say something like (using Boston as an example): Boston is represented by both codes or rugby, by Boston RFC in the Super League, and the Braves in the AMNRL. This is kind of annoying, as then, the unassuming reader could walk away thinking that rugby football is in the same shape as Australia (50/50 league/union or whatever). A statement like above aplies that

• a) The Braves are the only league team in Boston, true
• b) RFC are the only union team in Boston, wrong

League actually only has the one team in Boston, whereas union could have (guessing) around 50 teams in the area, ranging from semi-pro, amateur, mens, womens, youth and college...

I dunno, I'm kind of inclined not to go around changing a whole lot of it, as I dont want to appear to be anti-league, but as it stands, I feel union has been brought down to leagues' level in the overall scheme of US articles, which really isnt fair. Also, the mentioning of US league internationals and all that other stuff, to me, gives the impression that league is more popular in the states, purely because people have gone and written about it. I think if rugby football is going to be in these articles, they should tell the whole story.Cvene64 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just add the fact that other rugby union clubs exist.GordyB 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I guess its that simple. But if I try and even things out, it usually gets rolled back or deleted, as a lot of people dont want too much rugby on the city pages, so it remains as 50/50 representation, or thereabouts. Cvene64 22:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is little rugby union played in the US and very little rugby league played. From the perspective of most Americans that probably counts as about the same. You could add something like Boston RFC are the main or principal rugby union team.GordyB 13:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Russian Super League

The Russian Super League is the only professional league in the world without article. I don't know much about it than in Rugby union in Russia. But this is a big hole considering recent articles about the Top League. Rugby in Russia is really growing faster than any other country. We must understand it to readers with more complete articles. But language is a huge obtacle. Do you know Russian contributors ? Stasm 15:46 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the Russian league is professional, if Italy does not have a fully-professional league then Russia almost certainly does not.GordyB 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Russian Superleague is fully professional, the seven teams are financed by the same and only big sponsor. There is more professional players in Russia than in Scotland. The problem is that nobody know that. Stasm 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have a hard time believing that Russia does not have a professional league. They are ranked 19th in the world as of 28 August. If someone creates the article, I'll do my best to add information (I don't know anything about the league, but I could add a table or search around Google). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Much lower than Argentina who do not have a pro league. Nor do Italy, Romania, Georgia, Portugal etc. Scotland, Wales and Ireland can manage only 11 pro teams between them and two of those are permanently threatened with being closed down. 'Professional' does not mean 'receives payment', it means full-time and with no other regular employment. There are a lot of claims in the article that need sourcing because they are difficult to believe. 10,000 attendence for a derby game is possible I suppose but it is well above the average attendence for a lot of famous clubs in Europe.GordyB 21:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Gordy, as much of a suprise it may be, the RSL actually is 100% pro. I have tried to find info/results on it, but attempting to read Russsian is very hard. But yes, we really need an article asap.Cvene64 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Rugby Union Tri Nations

I have put in a requested move for the above article to be returned to its original name Tri Nations Series. Anybody wishing to vote can do so here.GordyB 14:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Queensland Premier Rugby

Hi all. I recently expanded the QPL page and created alot of the teams, but at the moment they mostly all look like 'stubs'. If anyone wants to help with writing history/notable player sections on them, then please do, because they are very short atm. A history section is also needed on the actual QPL page itself as well. I would also think we need to create the Victorian and WA club competitions as well.Narrasawa 10:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Now that the new templates have been in for a while now (the hide/expand ones), I reckon that not all templates should work like this. I think the main templates should be kept in a solid form, whereas the lesser important ones should be hidden.

I.e:

Say we are on the Crusaders page;

• • A Super 14 template, with all the teams andrelevent Super 14 info should not be hidden
  • But templates lie Rugby union in New Zealand can be hidden...

Thoughts? Cvene64 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can get them to work like that (show for some pages and hide for others), go for it, but I don't think it is possible (at least I haven't a clue how to make that work). However, I do think the current setup is cleaner, especially for pages with three or more footer templates. --Bob 16:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Regional Associations and Tournaments

FIRA - Association of European Rugby and Confederation of African Rugby the only one Regional Association with an article. And the IRB article, they're not even mention !! It doesn't make sense. We really need to focus on expanding CAR and FIRA - Association of European Rugby, and creating Asian Rugby Football Union, Federation of Oceania Rugby Union, NAWIRA, CONSUR. These Regional Associations are also ruling Regional Tournaments. European Nations Cup (rugby union) need to be a little expanded. Africa Cup needs a lot more. The 36 years old [[ARFU Asian Rugby Championship |Asian Championship]], the Asian Nations Series, Oceania Cup, South American Championship and even the major Pan American Championship doesn't exist at all. User:Stasm 20:12 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very difficult to find information about these tournaments on the internet. English magazines also tend to be extremely parochial (in sharp contrast to the rugby league equivalent), from reading English media one would think that rugby union was largely a British / Irish sport with some outpost activity in New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. I have never read anything on most of the tournaments you mention.GordyB 13:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Gordy's right. Its pretty hard to dig up info on these tournaments. I started the African Cup one because I found it on the French wiki. Having said that, I would love to help create them if you know of any info/websites/results we can refer to? If not, your best bet is to maybe check out some forums and ask around for some info on these type of things, and someone usually knows something. But yeah, I would definantly work on them if I could. Cvene64 13:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For some reason French rugby is much less parochial. Even though French wiki is generally much less developed than the English one much of the info on the European Nations Cup seems to have come from the French wiki.GordyB 13:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I know many sites and forum where these information are available. I believe you too. There is www.rugbyinternational.net, the very complete fira-aer forum, the IRB forum. I will begin to expand Africa Cup and create Pan American Championship. I don't know much of the Regional Associations except they rule the tournaments I cited. Stasm 19:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Check out Soviet Championship, Soviet Cup and Georgia Championship. They are pretty basic, and could use some more work. Ruggerman 04:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Rugby union at the Summer Olympics

Does anyone think this page can be improved anymore? I think we should take it to the FAC, I would be quite confident it would pass now. I really cannot think of anything more that could be added..? Thoughts? Cvene64 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Content looks ok, but it needs a copyedit. The opening sentence, for example, has a redundancy. --Bob 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks very good. A couple more images might make it better though. - Shudda ^talk 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

Have added more info to the assessment area of WikiProject Rugby Union. Please have a look at it, it's not complete yet, esp regarding being more specific on importance criteria. I've started some basic importance criteria it's the talk page. - Shudda ^talk 12:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have more or less completed the assessment page now. Finally figured out how to have a log of assessments maintained by a bot. If anyone wishes to assist please read the talk page page, esp regarding importance criteria. The importance ratings are a measure of how important the articles are to the project, so project members can prioritise what articles to work on. It's only mean't to reflect what articles the average browser would most likely read within the subject. - Shudda ^talk 01:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hamedog is gone

Just so you know, User:Hamedog has left Wikipedia. Enraged by an event on his talk page and IRC.

Perhaps he will be back. He got me a couple of times with his 'new message' thing. Some people seems to be taking this rather too seriously.GordyB 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I am back. Which side did take it too seriously?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you didnt leave. I think Gordy is saying that the people fussing over it are taking it too seriously. I think the message is great, and got me a few times also. I don't know why some people care if it is there. Anyway, good to see you stayed! Cvene64 07:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)