Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 19

Removing international players

Just by way of a heads up, an IP keeps removing sections relating to internationally capped players in various Club articles e.g. Bath. I keep reverting as I spot these, but some more eyes on this might be useful. Hamish59 (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with the IP. I don't want to be the guy who always says "This is how we do it at WP:FOOTY so that is how we should do it at WP:RU", but I really think a list of internationally capped players from each team is unnecessary. Think how the article could look years in the future, with hundreds of players per team having had international caps. Would we do this for all teams or just top-flight teams? If only top-flight teams, why set that arbitrary mark, especially due to the ever-changing nature of which teams are top-flight and even what the top flight actually is. IMO, this kind of list causes more issues than it's worth. – PeeJay 14:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
For what its worth I thought the same thing when looking at the above discussion. Some are already getting large and even including red links. My !vote would be to remove them. AIRcorn (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree too. But what's even worse, a number of these club articles have a "notable players" section which really should be eliminated unless inclusion criteria are supplied. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that these two issues "Notable players" and "former internationals" coincide as the main criteria for being a notable player seems to be international caps.

I agree with PeeJay regarding some articles getting very big / wall of names. London Scottish F.C. with their 220 capped players springs to mind. That said, no reason not to put them into a collapsed table: (This is very rough and ready, so please bear with me)

London Scottish have produced more than 220 Scottish international players which is more than any other club.

This format encourages editors to justify the inclusion of each player. I would think that any redlink is probably an indication that said player should not be included (add a commented entry?)

I note that there is nothing in the Style Guide regarding former international players either way. I also agree that "just because diveball does it..." is not a sufficient reason. So, I think we need a debate as to whether they should be included or not. If they are to be included, we need to generate criteria. I quite like the Scarlets approach - 20 caps - though there would be a bias against earlier players (more internationals played these days than, say 100 years ago.

Sorry, Lions beckons, I will finish this later. Hamish59 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm with everyone else on this. I think that these lists frequently add nothing to the article. It is a much better idea to create a separate list – such as list of XYZ club (or XYZ team) players. The information can be included there, and a link to the appropriate list added to the main article. Team articles have become incredibly listy, and a lot of rugby union articles have become bloated with lists that are of limited encyclopaedic value. It's like no one has read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. I'm also not a fan of conventions from WP:FOOTY being applied as well; what works for one sport may not work for another. - Shudde talk 11:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that this is WP:RU, not WP:FOOTY. Just because one project does it does not mean that a project dedicated to another sport should follow suit. Also in doing this, it makes it harder to apply WP:RU/N as international players in clubs articles might not be able to fit easily into normal text and it is much easier to work out notability if there is a list of international capped players. For example, Tunbridge Wells RFC might be hard to work in their former international players into the main body of text. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. How does this make it harder to judge notabiltiy. We should do that on sources, not what articles they are mentioned in. AIRcorn (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. If a player is notable, they will be mentioned. If you can't mention them naturally in prose, then they're probably not that notable in the long run. Too much emphasis is put on players meeting thresholds to determine their notability these days; I say, if they are mentioned in reliable sources, they're notable. Of course, this might put more emphasis on players who play in more media-centric countries, but that's the world we live in. – PeeJay 22:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Without wishing to be too radical, as long as each member of the "internationals" list has a reference, that's fine. What's worse is the "notable players" lists which have no inclusion criteria and no references. I will start eliminating these "lists" to the talkpages tomorrow as they are not appropriate without criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually prefer it the way it is now. It gives the article a bit of "colour" in terms that an average reader would probably find it interesting how many capped Samoans have played for a certain French club. I just wish we could do it for all teams. Yes further down the line it may seem a bit bulky but lets take into account that wikipedia gets upgraded every month or so by that time there may be an easier way to list them all.--Stemoc (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

New season?

At what point does the old season end and the new season begin? What I mean is: at what point do we consider 2013/14 to be the current season in, for example, the infobox for English Premiership (rugby union). Hamish59 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically, the old season ends on the day of the last fixture and the new season begins on the day of the first fixture. Anything in between is called the "off-season". – PeeJay 17:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
In the Northern Hemisphere the 2013/14 season starts in September 2013 and ends in June 2014. The Southern hemisphere starts January 2013 and end December 2013. Rugby.change (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Is that defined anywhere? – PeeJay 01:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The 2013/14 season starts in August 2013 in France... Hamish59 (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, people, I did not make myself clear enough. As an example, the infobox for English Premiership (rugby union) shows the Current season or competition: as 2012–13 English Premiership (rugby union). This is not strictly correct as the 12/13 season is now over (so not current). At some point, this will need to change to 2013–14 English Premiership (rugby union). The question is: when does it need to be changed? Hamish59 (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would change it in the week before the first pre-season matches. Until then it's the "off-season", so I wouldn't change it until then. - Shudde talk 10:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Test" or "test"?

Is there any sourceably correct way to use "Test" or "test" (as in "test match")? We are horribly inconsistent with our capitalisation. – PeeJay 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This has come up at an FAC in the past. Basically it doesn't matter as long as it's consistent within an article. - Shudde talk 02:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice if we could have consistency across the project though? – PeeJay 11:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Not really, just like we don't need to have consistency of national varieties of English. There are more than 10,000 rugby related article on wp:en – I'm not stressed if they are not all exactly the same. The main thing is that they are internally consistent. There is no need for a project-wide preference of one over another. - Shudde talk 11:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 mid-year rugby union tests

I assume if you follow this page, you've probably seen this already, but 2013 mid-year rugby union tests is currently at AfD. If you want to take part, the discussion is here. – PeeJay 16:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Rugby union match officials

Just wondering if someone familiar with refereeing and the laws of the game could have a look at my questions/comments at Talk:Rugby union match officials. Hack (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bloodgate#Nickname vs. name

Discussion about the use of the word Nickname. More opinions would he helpful Gnevin (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Stalled Featured List nomination

I nominated List of 1888–89 New Zealand Native football team matches as a Featured List nominee in mid-April, and haven't had very many comments. One of the featured delegates has mentioned that the nom has stalled, so I'm here to ask if anyone is willing to give the list a read through and offer their comments at the nomination page (here)? A few extra set of eyes would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. – Shudde talk 12:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


Personally, I much prefer template {{Infobox rugby union biography}} to {{Infobox rugby biography}}.

The main – and in my opinion, an incredibly important – problem with {{Infobox rugby biography}} is that you have to separate teams using a line break. As soon as the team name is too big to fit into the infobox and wraps to the next line, the problems start. I've come across hundreds of infoboxes where additional line breaks were added between the years/caps/points fields too to ensure the data lines up with a wrapped team name – which might work on the screen of the person that edited that, but the second that someone with a different screen resolution views the page, it might be different again. Now, this isn't just a display issue; it actually presents information inaccurately, which should surely be a big no-no. The only decent solution to this is to ensure that there is definitely no text wrapping going on in the team name, but I don't think it makes much sense to expect editors to always remember this and it is also not overly helpful to newbie editors, who might not understand the significance of this. A smaller by-problem with this is that it also makes the infobox more difficult to read when editing (i.e. to find out which years correspond to which team, appearances and points).

A simple change to the template – as per {{Infobox rugby union biography}} – completely removes this potential issue, since the teams/years/caps/points are all separate fields and, should wrapping occur (even by adding a line-break in), all the related fields will still be correctly displayed next to each other.

Secondly, I also don't really understand why there are so many different sections in {{Infobox rugby biography}} with regards to teams played for. It distinguishes between Provincial/State sides, Super Rugby and Professional clubs. When a player leaves a professional side in the southern hemisphere to join a professional side in the northern hemisphere, there are three separate sections affected; it really should just be one. In the northern hemisphere, the same club sides play in their domestic leagues as in the Heineken Cup. Players' appearances in those competitions aren't reported separately, why should it be for Super Rugby? In fact, for Super Rugby, it's easy to see the Super Rugby appearances anyway, since the teams are different in Super Rugby and domestic competition. If we're trying to homogenise infoboxes to cater for all different leagues, etc., the separate sections should be removed and it should be displayed in a way that can apply to all competitions in all countries, which is handled better by {{Infobox rugby union biography}}, in my opinion.

Thirdly – and this is a really small issue – in South Africa, our rugby tiers are basically international rugby, then Super Rugby, then the provincial tournaments (Currie Cup and Vodacom Cup) and then club rugby. However, the Vodacom Cup tournament is on during the same time as Super Rugby (and therefore mainly young players and reserves play in that). On top of that, the Varsity Cup competition is also going on at the same time which, as the name suggests, is a competition between universities. The universities are club sides, so it's regarded at a lower tier than the Vodacom Cup. Yet, it gets significantly more television and other media coverage, the standard of play is considered higher and some domestic teams would actually send some of their players en masse to go and play for their local university team rather than participate in the Vodacom Cup. Yet, appearances in the Vodacom Cup are regarded first class appearances for their team. For those reasons, a player's participation in the Varsity Cup is a noteworthy part of a player's career and should be listed in the infobox. The ru_amateuryears and ru_amateurclubs fields are ideal for this, but appearances and points fields are missing. This should be easily enough to add into the {{Infobox rugby biography}} template though. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In an ideal world I would like to cooperate with the league project to just have a single infobox. I think the club thing has come up before an got consensus for change, but it wasn/t able to be implemented. There are a lot of articles that will need updating. AIRcorn (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding formatting, use template:nowrap to deal with that – then you won't have any problems. Not sure what you're saying regarding Super rugby and domestic competition; in New Zealand at least, Super rugby and provincial rugby is played by completely different teams, so you need separate sections – if this isn't true for South African rugby, then something needs to be done about that, but separate Super Rugby and provincial sections is necessary, even if only for NZ rugby. It would be good to have a caps and appearances field for amateur clubs, this is not always notable, but in some cases certainly will be (such as the example you give). - Shudde talk 01:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, template:nowrap is the answer, but it's putting an unnecessary extra onus on the editor to stick that in, not doing that can cause serious problems and newbie editors won't necessarily know to do it. Why do you need separate sections for New Zealand teams (South African teams are exactly the same as New Zealand teams, by the way)? Players are simply playing for two teams at the same time – it can be indicated as such without putting them in separate sections. In Europe, the Heineken Cup and domestic competitions are played by the same teams. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I think we should treat all senior teams the same, whether they be professional clubs, franchises, provinces, regions or whatever. As long as they're professional, they should be treated the same, with their own lines in the same section of the infobox. If a player plays for two or more different teams concurrently, they merely have date ranges that overlap, as happens in cricket when a player plays for a county and for an IPL team. Simples. – PeeJay 12:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Re the nowrap template, it's not perfect, but it does fix the problem. The sections add value for the readers (despite being a bit of a pain for editors), because it tells them immediately if it's a provincial side, club side (either amateur or professional; they're clubs regardless), super rugby side (which is neither), or nationally representative side—all of which are quite different. If the super rugby and provincial teams were both provincial (in NZ they are not, I'm unsure about South Africa) then one of those section headers would be redundant. As it is, it's very helpful to readers, especially those that are unfamiliar with the teams in the infobox. - Shudde talk 06:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Re the nowrap temp, it does fix the problem, but why willingly use a template that causes it in the first place when there's no need? I agree re the value add you mention above, but at exactly the same time, it also causes as much, if not more confusion. The one section reads "Professional / senior sides" (it can't be amateur sides, like you said), the other reads "Provincial/State sides". If a reader unfamiliar with teams in the infobox saw that, I'm pretty sure their first conclusion would be that the provincial/state sides section then refers to some amateur representative side (or something like the State of Origin games). But they're not – the provincial sides are professional and completely on par with club sides in other parts of the world. I honestly think all the value loss having the different sections far outweigh the value add. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not sure about confusion. I think we have to be careful. Both you and PeeJay have mentioned professional sides like there are no biographies on players that played prior to 1995. I don't think there should be a distinction between professional and amateur; just club, provincial/county/state (i.e. domestic representative), super rugby, nationally representative. Can you give me an example of a confusing biography? It'd be good to an example of exactly what you're thinking of. - Shudde talk 08:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The {{Infobox rugby biography}} template says "Professional / senior clubs". The {{Infobox rugby union biography}} template says "Senior career", which encompasses games played for top-level clubs/provinces in both the amateur and professional era (another reason why I prefer the latter). As for an example, take the biography of any player that have played in several different league. Say Jaque Fourie – if you read from the top down, it says he played for "Professional / senior clubs" since 2011. This seems to imply he's been a professional player for the last two seasons. However, he's been playing professionally since 2002 for the Golden Lions. The Golden Lions is a fully professional team playing at the top level of the South African domestic league ... exactly the same as the Panasonic Wild Knights is a fully professional team playing at the top level of the Japenese domestic league. Why have different sections when the only real difference is terminology ("club" in countries like England, France, Japan, but "province" in New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland)? I think we should get rid of terms like "province" and "club" altogether. A club side in South Africa / New Zealand is at the 3rd tier domestically (behind Super Rugby and provincial rugby), whereas a club side in France / England is the very top tier. You also mentioned that provincial/county/state is "domestic representative" – that's not the case anymore, players don't represent their province, they are free to move between provinces and represent any province willing to make them an offer. In the current professional era, provinces are not representative at all anymore. Here are some examples:

I honestly think the infobox on the right give a far better general impression of his overall career than the other two. I removed sections like the national representation, both templates show this in a similar layout, I don't think there's any debate there. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

One thing, as per WP:YEAR you should use 2010–11 rather than 2010–2011. I actually think the one in the middle looks good – and will look better if WP:YEAR is adhered to. I certainly don't find it confusing. The overlapping time-scales of the third one is more confusing than the second, which reduces this confusion by distinguishing between clubs/provinces/super rugby. You may want to look at rewording the footnote, and "senior career" is not well defined (I think it may be "first-class career" in some countries; amateur club rugby can be considered senior, but not first-class). I like having Apps rather than Caps though, as Caps may not be awarded for all appearances. "Representative team caps and points" may also need to be reworded – does this refer just to international, or also provincial, state, and county? Anyway I think there are some things that should be altered in the template:Infobox rugby biography, but may be worth a more wide ranging discussion before any significant changes are made. I have some ideas for minor changes (such as from Caps to Apps), but any changes should prob involve decent community discussion and consensus, as the templates are transcluded in so many articles. Will have to revisit this again. - Shudde talk 10:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at the number of nowrap templates that was required to make the second one look good (and, quite frankly, correct). I honestly think that is a completely ridiculous amount of unnecessary overhead. That is easily the main reason why I think that template should be changed. I appreciate it's in use by a lot of articles, but I think it was definitely worth mentioning and debating on some major issues with it. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the Middle one as well, it can be reduced as someone mentioned above by using 11 instead of 2011 but what i would like ahcanged a bit is the "Caps (points)" section, i thin the term caps is used ONLY for international matches and this is club rugby so it should be replaced with either 'games' or 'matches' and to also change rhe 2nd part to (points)[tries] to list both the points scored by a player and the tries..generally in a team only one or 2 player would score points in terms of goals (flyhalf or their goal kicker), the rest of the team score tries for example if they have a centre that scored 10 tries, its idiotic to write (50) under points when he didn't actually score 50 points but 10 tries. Media will always say how many tries a player scored, not what it amounts too..I also prefer a rugby league format to the points section

The option to add (Pld/ T/ G/ DG /P) instead of the points section..--Stemoc (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You only need to use one nowrap - on the longest line. This will set the size of the box and the other lines will line up correctly. Having said that I agree with Stemoc and would prefer modifying the {{Infobox rugby biography}} template to support the currently used RL way of doing things. noq (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of the RL one; for a variety of reasons. At the moment template:Infobox rugby biography is used in 5338 articles. So we need to remember that – it's not exactly going anywhere. I'd suggest we keep any suggested changes to those that won't "break" the transcluded infoboxes: in fact, it is indefinitely protected for exactly this reason. - Shudde talk 11:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
That really doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve it. Some large-scale changes can be automated. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we go ahead with this? using the Rugby league format for writing the points section atleast. If we look through the articles of some of the Dual codes converts, like Lote Tuqiri, Israel Folau, Sonny Bill Williams, you would realise what importance the addition of (Pld/ T/ G/ DG /P) adds to the article. The last few days i have been going through rugby articles where the number of points scored by players is odd, such as 122 points by winger and as i have mentioned above, most of the rugby fans do not care how much points all the tries scored a rugby player accumulates to. That 122 points could be anything from 24 tries and a conversion or 20 tries and 11 conversions...please we REALLY REALLY need to fix this, as TheMightyPeanut said, it can be "automated".... I now literally add the number of Tries next to articles where a player has scored many tries such as "(260)52t" or "(238)47t-1dg, it makes the template ugly but then I'm DEFINITELY not the only one that wonders how many tries, drop goals, conversions and penalties Dan Carter has scored in his 95 tests and 1,399 points everytime I go to his article...--Stemoc (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm completely opposed to creating/using a new template – it's unnecessary forking. What is to say someone doesn't come along in two years and propose a third template; where does it end? Or are we talking about changes to template:Infobox rugby biography? Keep in mind that templates are only supposed to give key information. Tries, drop-goals etc are great, but at the end of the day an article is what we're trying to create here, biographical templates are only supposed to supplement that. I'd rather focus on the really key information (who they played for and when) rather than adding too much; the other material can be included in the article. As for automation, it may be possible to automate some changes, but I don't see anyone pointing to a bot that will add tries, penalties etc to 5000 articles – how is that going to work? Like I said above, I think you should propose some changes to template:Infobox rugby biography that can be easily achieved without breaking the template. Do that first and see what people think. May be best to take it to Template talk:Infobox rugby biography; if you do that though, a note here would be good. - Shudde talk 10:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
No one said to use a new template, modify the current one..we had a similar discussion in 2007 i think regarding the modification of the template and to use the rugby league type i listed above, I think many disagreed then but when we see this infoboxes now, I wish it had been implemented...a 3rd type? to add what?..overall running metres, offloads, linebreaks, try assists? There won't be a third one, this may be the LAST change the template will go through and its not like its an unnecessary "update"..its very very important and needs to be there. The last modification i remember was to allow the addition of the allblack number (a bit biased but it was allowed). The article is utterly USELESS without the statistics. Why bother adding an article if we can't/won't add whats important..when a person updates a rugby player an article every month or week, they generally change just 2 things, the caps/points section and the date it was updated. This is Wikipedia, we add ACCURATE and FACTUAL information, we already made most of Rugby union related templates ugly, lets not make it impossible to understand as can never add too much information and regarding taking it to Template talk:Infobox rugby biography, if you look at the bottom of that page, i asked a good question exactly a month ago to which i have not received any reply so I really don't see how moving this discussion there will help...If the problem is someone changing 5000+ template information then i really don't see that as a problem, infact i can bet a few will be relived they can NOW add the EXACT number of tries, drop goals, PG's and conversion scored/made by a player..--Stemoc (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Your posts just aren't very clear. Your previous post started "Can we go ahead with this? using the Rugby league format for writing the points section atleast." It's completely unclear exactly what you're proposing. You may want to consider whether there is another way to clearly express what you're wanting us to agree on. Articles are not at all useless without statistics – read Arthur Gould (rugby union) or Richie McCaw and tell me that the articles are unencyclopaedic because of their infoboxes. You can't change the template without discussing it on the template's talk page; on top of that the template is protected. Like I said, post here that there is a proposal or discussion (you may want to say exactly what you want to change/add; line by line) and you may have more luck getting some discussion. - Shudde talk 11:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Not clear?, how? I said to incorporate the rugby league format for adding points to the current template we use for rugby union. You mention Arthur and Richie, 2 of the Greatest, maybe stats do not matter to them but what about the 4990+ others with articles on wikipedia? I have already made it clear that I just want one section changed, which would apply to both club and international rugby, replace the current method of adding points to the one used by rugby league which allows for not only the points scored but also the tries scored, Conversions, penalties, drop goals as well. I mentioned those 3 converts because their article incorporates both their rugby league and rugby union scores using the rugby league template format and it looks very "clean", yes clean, we also use years with the "br" tag such as 2009-10<br>2011<br> which also makes it hard for an average (new) contributor to update, the rugby league format template seems to take this into account and is actually very well created and even though adding it individually per each section using "|club1 " "|club2" may make it a bit bulky, it actually also makes it EASIER TO READ the templates, I know how to read the templates cause i have been here for a very long time, but we really can't expect an average rugby fan to be able to understand the templates we use which honestly i feel is very very "archaic" even by our standards. I created an example of how i want it to appear (User:Stemoc/test2) using Dan Carter using Template:Infobox rugby league biography, I'm not saying to use it exactly like that but to modify the current template for rugby union to allow for use in Provincial/Super Rugby and international rugby matches and removing information ONLY related to rugby league....we replace Pld/T /G/FG/P(League) with Pld/T/C/PN/DG/P replacing field goal with Drop goal an adding a section for penalties ..i could not make that change on the test template or it would have broken the template...--Stemoc (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This conversation is becoming quite taxing. If you think your comments are crystal clear then okay, but I don't see them that way. I'm happy with omitting all that information from the infobox, and I'd rather spend my time adding prose to articles then stats/flags/templates/categories/whatever. Like I said, take it to the template talk page, that's the place for this kind of proposal. - Shudde talk 12:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
That page is for an Ultimatum, not for a discussion. Its best to discuss it here because there are more users involved here, as you can see for yourself, no one knows that talk page exists, we discuss this HERE, find a solution, find a way of incorporating it and then take it there for changes...Its not as easy as adding 2 lines to the current template, there will be wholesale changes and as you mentioned will affect many articles, the current number is 5349 for this template as it stands. Hopefully an admin here will be able to find a way to incorporate these changes, my memory is poor now so I no longer remember how to do this without breaking the template...--Stemoc (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Stemoc, let's not make changes just yet, hey? And since it's obviously too much effort for you to comply with a nice friendly suggestion by Shudde, I've done it. Please refer to Template talk:Infobox rugby biography#Proposed Changes – 2013 for some proposed changes. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to come up with a solution, its not perfect but its kinda working but needs a bit of tinkering here and i said, its not easy to do and may mess with a few templates...--Stemoc (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:2013 mid-year rugby union tests

Can we have the Old heads of this group to come over to that page and discuss the issue at hand. The page has run amok since its FAILED Deletion request and now we have people who don't care much for rugby dictating WHAT should and should not be included..--Stemoc (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because something isn't going the way you want it to does not mean that things are "running amok". Nevertheless, I would like to join the appeal for some sensible voices to join the discussion. At the minute, all we seem to have is people who don't understand Wikipedia guidelines trying to shout their way to their favourable outcome. – PeeJay 01:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
yes, I do not want the fate of that article and the ones in the future to be in the hands of someone who doesn't "give a shit" about rugby..I'm getting those involved who like me have been doing this for years now...--Stemoc (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
You think I don't give a shit about rugby? Your self-interested edits are a cancer on this project and the encyclopaedia as a whole. By all means create your own wiki where every result in christendom is listed, but on Wikipedia we have specific inclusion criteria. This isn't about devaluing rugby in certain countries or whatever accusations you seem to be throwing at me; this is about reflecting what the reliable sources say, and I don't just mean including something simply because it was covered once. Find me a viable definition of which matches should be included and we'll talk about it. – PeeJay 02:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
"You think I don't give a shit about rugby?" < no, your other friend and what reliable sources are you talking about?. everything that was added to the article was SOURCED AND VERIFIED, I'm not the one breaking the rules here, you are and if i was you, i will not touch that article again unless you want to get banned for the 12th time for 3RR. Take it to its talk page, discuss it there, do NOT touch the article unless we come to a consensus which includes other members of this group as well..--Stemoc (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please can we have some sensible editors get involved? Rugby.change and Stemoc are not engaging in civil discussion and do not appear to understand (or read) any policies. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if I count as an old head or a sensible editor, but I've read through the talk page plus various other contributions which the involved editors have made around this, and I have no interest whatsoever in making any further contribution to the debate. The level of discussion is absolutely disgraceful - you can't accuse someone who comes here and edits RU article of "not giving a shit" about rugby because clearly everyone involved does care about rugby and how it its presented on these pages. Remember that what this is about is presenting accurate, notable, verifiable data in a way which readers will find accessible, informative and interesting. It's not about pushing your own agendas, name-calling or any other such business. Good luck in finding a consensus! --Bcp67 (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the article, thats what i was trying to do but if you look at the history, Peejay and hippo were very much REMOVING large sums of data without any good reasoning. These article have been maintained that way for years and just because someone who doesn't understand rugby first tried to nominate the article for DELETION and then after it failed decided to remove large chunks of the article and related articles in a "hissy fit" for his own personal agenda...whatever outcome we have on this will affect ALL mid year and end of year rugby related articles so there needs to be a major consensus and all I see is the 2 I mentioned above pushing their now agenda removing stuff willy-nilly expecting everyone else to "just play along" with their idiotic game. I don't bite...If they "gave a shit" they would not remove anything major without consensus now would they?...--Stemoc (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
If the title of the article is '2013...tests', then there is consensus that it is an article about tests. Obviously information that does not meet the obvious criteria for inclusion should be removed. --hippo43 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
wow are u really this slow?. The title USED to be "series" until you insisted it be changed and its unfortunate the user that changed it didn't think it through..I'd rather the title be "2013 mid-year rugby union series" again because it made a LOT OF SENSE since it was a series of Rugby union games played over 6-8 weeks....--Stemoc (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
With every contribution you make, you showcase your outstanding people skills, understanding of Wikipedia and rugby knowledge. The article was in fact titled "2013 mid-year rugby test series" before it was moved. This title made even less sense, as it still should not have included non-test tour matches, but also excluded tests which were not part of a test series. The distinction seems lost on you which suggests to me you are not competent to edit this sort of article. --hippo43 (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Both of you are making many personal attacks and very little discussion about actual content. No wonder no one wants to get involved in this dispute – it's not productive at all. Here is my advice: I would suggest a proper move proposal (as per WP:RM/CM) – brief comments in a deletion discussion are not enough, it should have been discussed more broadly. There is nothing wrong with a more all encompassing name (in my opinion), as although there are a number of individual series articles (such as 2013 British and Irish Lions tour to Australia), a brief summary (per WP:SUMMARY) of each series - with

at the top of the section – can be added to this article: it wouldn't ruin it, and would reduce the likely-hood of content forking and duplication. Maybe discuss (rather than edit war or attack) a couple of names for the article you think would be appropriate, you don't have to both agree on them. Then start a move discussion (as per WP:RM/CM) with the different potential names (try not to have too many options, maybe three max) - when you do this it is important that you add a note about the discussion on the project talk page, and on the talk pages of any affected articles. That way there will be more input from uninvolved editors, and a broad consensus may be possible. At least with the name sorted the scope of the article may be more specifically defined. - Shudde talk 07:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Shudde - despite my comments above I'd be willing to get involved in that sort of discussion, if the more involved editors can come up with some proposals for an article title. It's not straightforward in any year because, to take the current programme as an example, there are bilateral series, one-off matches and a 4-team competition, but hopefully it won't be beyond our wit here to chew over the options and come up with an answer. That would then lead onto to the content and what information needs to be carried. Let's give it a go. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
That is the problem, nothing was discussed, Hippo and PeeJay started removing things blatantly which caused the problem. It was not for those 2 to make such a big decisions which would impact MANY articles. I tried to restore most if it back but they insisted and continued. I have been here for a long time and have been in many battles regarding rugby article but this was the only time i cracked because they were literally doing everything possible to devalue the article. Honestly, I'd change the title to the one I mentioned above, since we have included games by the Barbarians, Clubs and other select XV's in the past in those related article, calling it a "test" is not logical, I prefer "2013 mid-year rugby series" or "2013 mid-year rugby Internationals" though the latter does mean "test". I have only being trying to get one thing stagnant in regards to this "series" issue and that was

Any Team that is playing as a TEST team (not an A team or Random Select XV) against any team on tour DESERVE to be LISTED as that match is part of that "touring" team's ITINERARY

That is the only thing i was going for and yet the likes of Hippo and PeeJay kept removing legit matches. The first problems is obviously the title of the article(s), we already agree calling it Summer Internationals and Autumn Internationals is absurd and its neither a competition, nor a tournament, nor a Championship but it is a series of rugby matches played in a certain window which IRB opens up to allow for International games... Lets discuss the name issue at hand before we discuss what goes in those articles in the future and what doesn't...--Stemoc (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I wish you would stop using the term "legit". By whose standards were those matches "legit"? Yours? I don't see you presenting any evidence for your arbitrary inclusion criteria, so why should we take you seriously? – PeeJay 22:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

New Project: Headshots

Should we start a new project inviting users and people we may know personally who can provide pictures of rugby players that we can use in their articles? Most of the Rugby related articles lack headshots of players. I tried searching on flickr (with appropriate licences) but none could be uploaded to Wikipedia. If we know someone who has a good collection and is willing to upload them to the "free domain", we could invite them to create an account here or on Commons and upload them there so that they can be cropped and used on player articles. Only about less than a 100 players actually have a real headshot pic or what can be deemed a "headshot". Even most news sites use pics from wikipedia due to its free/appropriate licensing so it would be great if we can get this off the floor. A few articles in the "Good Article" and "Featured" articles on wikipedia could also used some good images. I have been trying to this for years now and I had to go through my old images to find any pic related to these players and even though the pics were of poor quality, I uploaded them because any pic is better than no pic...--Stemoc (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If you find an image on flickr that looks good, and is not the appropriate licence, you can always email the creator and ask for them to release the image under an appropriate licence. See Commons:OTRS for details on how to do this. It's a bit more work, but you'd be surprised how many people are open to releasing their images once they understand how creative commons works. I've done this before, and it was relatively painless. - Shudde talk 04:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Can't be dependent on flickr too much, there are many other ways. Some people just takes pictures as a hobby and have no intentions of making money out of it. I know one guy who sells his rugby related pics for $500 each to news sites for use. I'm aware of OTRS, i was on it once but I think its best to look for other sources. I have seen many Rugby league pictures that gets uploaded and also it looks like there are MANY fans of the French Top 14 competition (so many pics), there has to be someone out there who is a Super rugby, Pro12 or Aviva Premiership freak. Who knows, there may be someone here on wikipedia too who may have many pics but hasn't uploaded them yet because he/she may not know how too. Wikipedia does make it very confusing for new uses. I remember uploading many pics when i first joined here in 2006 (all were ruthlessly deleted hehe)...--Stemoc (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I have added quite a few and hoping some other people might join up on this new project..there are many players without headshots, and some actually have very poor pics such as Jonathan Sexton, Stephen Jones, Chris Paterson and some major players have no pics at all like Cory Jane, Julian Savea, Sean Fitzpatrick, Matt Giteau, Will Greenwood, Rory Underwood, most capped player, George Gregan, Nathan Sharpe, David Campese and many more...anyone else interested?.--Stemoc (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Australian tour names

I'm proposing a page move on Talk:2008 Wallabies Spring tour, which would also be extended to quite a number of Australian tours from 1989 onwards but I'd appreciate the views of the project first. Thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think using Wallabies is a good idea as it is a nickname and those who don't know that might not know that it is about rugby. Again, Spring in context here is a very Southern hemisphere term as it is Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere then and doesn't encompass all that an encyclopedia would expect. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
That's why Bcp67 is proposing that it be moved. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Line-out picture of the day coming up

Apparently, according to the note posted at Talk:Line-out (rugby union)#File:ST vs LOU - 21.jpg to appear as POTD soon, the picture of the day on 26 July 2013 will be of a line-out. There is a full note on the talk page. The article was pretty much unreferenced, and I've added some appropriate links at the bottom of the article. Still no inline citations though. If anyone wants to spend some time giving it a read and making sure it'll all make sense to someone unfamiliar with rugby, then that'd be great. The template for the POTD is located at {{POTD/2013-07-26}}. I've transcluded it below as well for those that are interested.

Cheers. OK, I've added some notes, almost all linked to the IRB online rule book (which has been updated (great it now has images) and all its urls renamed (damn you IRB!!!), so our GA rugby union article will need to be retweaked as all the law links are now dead.) But to throw in the cat with the canary, I've added Quick throw-ins onto the article. Mainly because A) there is no article for Quick throw-ins, B) someone who sees a QT-I occur on tv may well come to the line out page to see what the hell just happened and C)the line-out article stated a "line-out is THE means by which, in rugby union, play is restarted after the ball has gone into touch; which it is not since the throw-in law came into force. If anyone wants to separate the two I am more than happy to see it occur, but I will leave that to the opinions of others. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A line-out at a rugby union match between Stade Toulousain and Lyon OU. When a player puts the ball out of the field of play, the opposing team is awarded a line-out; in the case of a penalty kick, the team that was awarded the penalty throws into the resulting line-out. A line-out is also awarded if a player in possession of the ball crosses or touches the touch-line while still in possession of the ball.Photograph: Pierre Selim

Stephen Jones (rugby player)

Can someone please have a word with User:Beknow about the way they are inputting stats on the Stephen Jones (rugby player) article? For some reason, they seem to think that Jones' stats for Llanelli RFC should be merged with his stats for the Scarlets, which is of course ridiculous since the Scarlets didn't exist until 2003 and they are a separate club from Llanelli RFC. I've tried talking directly to this user as well as making informative edit summaries, but they are apparently too stubborn to see sense. – PeeJay 02:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Should 2005 Canada rugby union tour of France and Romania redirect to 2005 end-of-year rugby union tests?

Hi all. As per the section title - does it merit a stand-alone article? Peter aka "every time I watch a game of union I just want to yell out 'don't kick the f*cking ball, run with it!' " aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Not as it currently stands, no. Just a bare list of two matches, no list of players, match details etc. If it does merit a stand-alone article it needs more content. --Bcp67 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


This was already noted to WP Football (for Associação Académica de Coimbra – O.A.F., there is a move discussion at Talk:Coimbra Academic Association regarding the parent student association which has some relation to the Associação Académica de Coimbra rugby union article at Talk:Coimbra Academic Association#Rugby Union. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Tom French Cup winners

Category:Tom French Cup winners, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Women's Rugby Test Numbers

Hi all,

I asked a question regarding the test numbers in Women's international rugby union#Test Numbers. I figured I'd mention it here, since I get the impression not too many people look there...

(As an aside, why are there different templates for the women's game, Template:wrugbybox and Template:WTournament?)

Grande (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Steve Diamond

Are Steve Diamond and Steve Diamond (Rugby union) the same person? It seems somewhat implausible that there's two people involved in rugby called Steve Diamond - but then the former there was apparently playing in 1976, while the latter was only born in 1966 (according to the article). But then I'm also surprised that the article for the Sale coach was only created in April, given he's been coaching top level rugby for a decade. Anyway, if they're different people they need better disambiguation and if they're not then one needs deleting as a duplicate. HornetMike (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Two different guys. One a hooker and one a fly-half, and yes they do need to be dabbed. FruitMonkey (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Rugby union

Has been ignored for far too long hasn't it? I know it was Hamey's brainchild but I think its about time we updated it a bit atleast..anyone want to volunteer to take the leap? :) --Stemoc (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I started cleaning it up a little a couple of months ago. Updated some of the selected biographies etc. Still needs a lot of work so any help would be appreciated. -- Shudde talk 08:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Selected Biographies

Had another look at the selected biographies. Figured I'd sort this out before moving onto the article of the month, selected picture etc. At the moment we have six selected biographies, and they are displayed randomly. The six are:

Of these six. I think the first three are the best. The articles are of good quality. They are up-to-date (which is easy for Gould and Ellison), and they all have a good image. The other three are not so good. They go out of date easy, Mark Hammett doesn't have an image. Are there any suggestions for other articles. Here are a few criteria I can think of:

  • They should represent our best work. So high quality, well referenced, up-to-date.
  • A good image would be great. I think we should avoid biographies that don't have an image.
  • We need diversity. Not just from different countries. But different time periods, coaches, sevens or fifteens, women players?

Does anyone have any suggestions? An Australian, South African or French player would be great. We can have as many biographies as we want. There are no limits, just requires changing one parameter on the Portal:Rugby union page to increase the number. If you spot a good biography you think should be up there please list it here! Thanks. -- Shudde talk 05:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Still trying to find more. - Shudde talk 11:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
We used to have a project before, not so much in use now, so lets pick articles from our Top and High importance and try to improve them a bit (atleast to C-class) and used them in the portal section ... Images are very hard to acquire especially via flickr, and its not about asking flick members, its generally about the "waiting" for free flickr images here and upload it via commons if you find any... I think the hardest part is to gather volunteers to help out in updating the Portal, there are not that many left..5 years ago, there would be people lining up to help "spruce up" the portal..--Stemoc (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It's always an option to improve an article to a level where it would be appropriate to feature on the portal. It'd be quicker just to find articles that are already up to standard, which is what I was asking help with. However I'm happy either way. -- Shudde talk 11:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
-- Shudde talk 12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Of the articles I have worked on that are missing from above, and I believe are a fairly good standard, and are retired or dead so they would not require constant patching, are:
Too bad FruitMonkey didn't upload the full picture (regarding Stephen Fry), we could have got a cropped image of Hennie Muller from that too...btw, Sport24 holds the right to those images, not rugby-talk ( (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. But source and rights are two different things. Source is where you found the image, the author will tend to be where rights are owned or not. That said I very much doubt either sports24 or rugby-talk own copyright to the image. The quality and the text on the original suggests that they came from a glossy sports magazine or annual of the day. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Template: Scrum

Hello, fellow English-speaking wikipedians, I'd like to point out this -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 19:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

are you sure "scrum" is the best term to use? or wouldn't Template:Espnscrum be a better name option?..--Stemoc (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Edit: Speaking of which, it might be a good idea to add espnscrum to the rugby player infobox like we have added the All Blacks id, afterall its pretty much the most updated stats available in international rugby. We should add a "|espnscrum=" handle to the current infobox....--Stemoc (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
@ Stemoc, frankly I don't know. I am only guest on so you English speakers would better decide on your own what's the best name for that template. We named it "Scrum" because there's no ambiguity (having the equivalent term "Mischia" in Italian for "Scrum"). In the Italian template I added the condition according which if there's the ESPN SCRUM ID field in the corresponding Wikidata entry then the value must be taken from there. BTW I also asked for the creation of the property premiership rugby id which does the same for the players (or former players) of the English Premiership. Currently there are still pending the requests for an analogue property for the British and Irish Lions and the Rabodirect Pro12 -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Robert Munro (rugby footballer)

In Andy Mitchells's 2012 book "First Elevens" [1], he states that the Robert Munro who played in the 1871 international was not the person referred to in the Robert Munro (rugby footballer) article. He states that in 1871, there were two pupils of this name at St Andrews University; this one, born 1839, and another, born in 1853. While the 1839 Munro left the university in 1871, the other continued until 1873 during which time he appeared regularly in the university teams. The younger Munro also entered the church, and became a noted antiquary. Not being a rugby minded person, I am reluctant to completely rewrite the article - if the present subject did not play international rugby, his work as a minister is probably not sufficient to warrant keeping a separate article. Does anyone have any thoughts? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Steve McDowall

Hello, I wanted to warn you that I just moved the article from Steve McDowell to its current name for the reason that you can find in the page's chronology. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 16:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Howard

I created this article, but rugby is not my strong point. I'd be grateful if someone with more expertise could look it over. Emeraude (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

League tables in club articles

I've noticed some examples of current season league tables being included within club articles. This doesn't seem appropriate. The table shouldn't be duplicated at all the club articles within the league. Any views? See Hull Ionians article for example and recent edits. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Why do you think it is not appropriate? They give a quick indication of how each Club is doing in the current season. They are included for all Top14, Pro D2, Pro12, Aviva, RFU Championship, League 1, 2 North and 2 South clubs (at least). Hamish59 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Definitely not appropriate. Aside from anything else, it's a violation of WP:RECENT. – PeeJay 01:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't like them. For one thing they need to be updated week-to-week, and I also think they give too much weight to recent seasons. They seem to be more prolific in European club articles than anywhere else. International team article generally lack them (thankfully), and Super Rugby team articles generally lack them as well. I think a link to the most recent seasons' article in the infobox is a good alternative to having these tables sprinkled throughout articles. - Shudde talk 03:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a pet hate of mine too. We already have hundreds of articles that don't have last year's position, let alone this week's. We just don't have the manpower to keep a weekly tally going. Stick to the previous season. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Broken template?

The template {{Infobox rugby union season}} seems to be broken in that the parameter | website = does not show up on page view. For example, if you look at 2013–14 Pro 12, the infobox does not show a link to Does anyone know how to fix this? Hamish59 (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I attempted a quick fix - on some page change {{Infobox rugby union season to {{Infobox rugby union season/sandbox and let me know what you think...? Any suggestions on what text should be displayed? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow! That was quick. Thank you.
I have had a quick play on 2013–14 Pro 12. I changed the template as suggested and it sprang into life. Excellent! One oddity: if I use
| website =
it appears correctly and links to the exterior web site. However, if I use
| website =
(note no http://) it does not. I get
instead. Weird. Hamish59 (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I was bored. :-) I took out the bit that prefixed it with the "http://", since that was already there. I'm doing a quick scan to see how many articles actually have that parameter filled in. Not many I suspect. I'll change it so that the "http://" isn't required. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, MightyPeanut. Hamish59 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
That should now be all fixed up. All existing articles using that parameter should also be fixed. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent stuff, MightyPeanut. Hamish59 (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename/merge

Please see my proposals to speedily rename/merge:

Also my proposal to speedily rename/merge:

PS: the categories by year for Rugby sevens and rugby tours could do with a proper mavigation box like Category:2013 rugby union tours; and probably with parent categories like Category:Years in rugby union tours and Category:Years in rugby sevens. Hugo999 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

History of rugby union matches between Georgia and Romania

There's an AfD for the above recently-created article if anyone wants to contribute; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of rugby union matches between Georgia and Romania --Bcp67 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Gould (rugby union)

Myself and FruitMonkey (talk · contribs) have recently listed the article Arthur Gould (rugby union) – the 19th-century Welsh rugby player – at peer review. Gould was a highly notable centre and international captain, think the 19th century equivalent of Brian O'Driscoll or Jean de Villiers. We're looking to take the article to FAC, and would appreciate any feedback. The review can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Gould (rugby union)/archive1. Cheers! - Shudde talk 10:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Graham Dowd

Hello fellow rugby wikipedians of English language,

while writing the Italian article Graham Dowd I noticed that the English one is a copycat from his profile on which seems to me a blatant copyvio.

Another thing: he, like Steve Gordon, is a player who took part to RWC 1991 in England though never leaving the bench, but I found none in the template New Zealand 1991 RWC squad. I didn't edit it because I don't know if they were left out on purpose. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 22:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't updated the RWC template, but I've rewritten the article. It was a serious copy-vio (I'm surprised all the people that edited the article didn't notice). It was a great spot – thank you very much! -- Shudde talk 09:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Updated the 1991 template. Deserves his place in it as he was a squad member even if he was restricted to sitting on the bench and hoping for a Fitzpatrick injury. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Just couldn't be bothered digging around for the template. :-) Thanks for doing it. – Shudde talk 10:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of fact also Bruce Deans (Aussie Deans's brother) was part of the winning 1987 All Black team. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 15:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
PS BTW gosh, I guess that Bruce Deans set a record, being the first - and if I read well the only one to date - player to win the RWC as uncapped... -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A proposal for how we handle the brackets for sevens tournaments.

I've always found it strange/confusing how we display brackets for Sevens tournaments. Losing teams moving onwards for the Plate/Shield? It's bizarre, if you don't already know how it works. I think it could be clearer, and I'm proposing usage of Template:Round8-with play-offs

As an example, here's how the Plate/Cup would look for the recent SA Sevens:

  Plate Finals (8 December - 18:33 - NMBS, Port Elizabeth) Plate Semi-finals (–

8 December - 16:27 - NMBS, Port Elizabeth)

Quarter-finals (–

8 December - 13:45 - NMBS, Port Elizabeth)

Cup Semi-finals (–

8 December - 17:11 - NMBS, Port Elizabeth)

Finals (8 December - 19:30 - NMBS, Port Elizabeth)
        Fiji  12  
        Samoa  28  
      Fiji  52           Samoa  5  
      Kenya  5           New Zealand  19  
      New Zealand  19
        Kenya  0  
      Fiji  45           New Zealand  14
      France  19           South Africa  17
        Argentina  14  
          France  7  
    France  17           Argentina  0
  7th         Portugal  12           South Africa  31     3rd Place (8 December - 18:58 - NMBS, Port Elizabeth)
              South Africa  45       Samoa  21
                Portugal  0         Argentina  7

Right now, the template requires the Seventh Place game, but I could modify the template to make it optional, if there is enough support. Thoughts? Grande (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I found that diagram confusing. I had to look at it three times before I realised the first matches played were in the centre and you had to read the Plate matches right-to-left, which is counter-intuitive. I'm a big fan of reading from left to right. Having said that, I think there are issues with the current version too though – for example, why is the losing team in bold in the Plate competition? That's confusing. I think it would be much simpler to start the Plate competition at the Semi-Finals only (getting rid of duplication of Quarter Final results), with a comment that the losing Cup Quarter Finalists qualified for the Plate Semi-Finals (and the losing Bowl Quarter Finalists for the Shield Semi-Final). In fact, if you look at the fixtures on the official website, there is no such thing as a Plate Quarter Final or a Shield Quarter Final, so it might be just plain wrong listing them as such. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
2012–14 Women's FIH Hockey World League Final and others field hockey tournament use that template, I think it is better that the current system to show what a Plate and a Cup are, but yet I did not wrote that template, maybe it is a dificult template to write or complete. --Feroang (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the bracket on display here. As TMP says, it's pretty counter-intuitive to read the plate matches from right to left. Why not just have two brackets, one for the cup (starting at the quarter-finals) and one for the plate (starting at the semi-finals). And what about Sevens tournaments that have a bowl competition under the plate? – PeeJay 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible spam external links

I've reverted a couple of changes this week where an editor has added links to a website called to articles, e.g. 2014 Six Nations Championship. They look like spam links to me and I can't see any decent reason for adding them to articles - no information cited to them for example. Can you keep an eye out on your watchlists for this sort of stuff - if it looks decent, fair enough - would be grateful for anyone's opinion on whether I'm right here, thanks --Bcp67 (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Just did a search and found it on three more pages; now removed. It definitely seems as if they were added as spam, so I concur! TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The links seem to add no useful, informative content for further reading in relation to pages they were added to therefore it would appear they were included to just drive traffic to that website. So your completely justified in your removal per WP:LINKSPAM. The burden for their inclusion falls on person who added them which wasn't provided. Haven't spotted any myself but will revert on sight. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts and glad you both concur - no doubt more cases will crop up, I've seen this sort of thing on horse racing pages - like weeds, you cut them off and they appear somewhere else! --Bcp67 (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion project members may be interested in.

A number of lists, including:

Have been nominated for deletion. Thought I'd add this here because more than one list is being nominated at the same time. You can discuss these nominations here. - Shudde talk 22:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Pullin

Does anyone have any sources/details about Alfred Pullin (known as "Old Ebor") who wrote about rugby from around 1890 - 1930 in the Yorkshire Post? He was quite famous in his time, but details of his rugby writing (as opposed to his cricket writing, about which quite a lot exists) seem scarce. Any information or sources would be gratefully received. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've not heard of him. I did a little searching of newspaper archives from New Zealand and Australia and couldn't find a lot either. I think he was known as a rugby union writer/critic, but not to the same extent as in cricket. It looks like he may have written about rugby league as well, which isn't surprising since he is from Yorkshire and was based in Leeds. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. – Shudde talk 10:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles about positions

Why is Flanker (rugby union) the only article we have about a specific position? Are there any plans afoot to write articles on the props, for example? Or the fly-half? – PeeJay 23:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I created the Flanker article about a million years ago. I don't think articles for individual positions are necessary for their own sake. Rugby union positions still needs a lot of work, and I feel a bit sorry for readers unfamiliar with rugby that try to understand it. I think the most likely situation where a separate article needs to be split up would be if the relevant section within Rugby union positions becomes especially large as per WP:SPLIT. Apart from that situation , I think better to focus on Rugby union positions. The articles Scrum (rugby union) and Line-out (rugby union) would also be a good place to detail specifics of positions such as prop, hooker and lock. This would be better than duplicating the information in new position-articles. This is all just my opinion though. Happy for others to disagree. - Shudde talk 08:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I obviously failed as most of my edits to that article were aimed at making it easier for people new to rugby to understand before the world cup (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Rugby union positions/archive1). I did have plans to expand out individual positions a few years ago, but it is unlikely to happen any time soon (if at all) with my current activity. Maybe flanker should be merged back in to the parent article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The article has been improved dramatically over the last few years, but still needs work. Would make an ideal project collaboration actually. I don't think flanker should be merged back in, it also needs work, but is far too large to be merged back into the parent article. – Shudde talk 11:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Bridgwater & Albion

I came across the article on Bridgwater & Albion when working through the cleanup list for WikiProject Somerset. I have looked at this projects notability guidelines but was unclear whether a team playing in a UK sixth tier league is notable? If it is, does anyone have access to any reliable sources to improve the article and deal with the "multiple issues" banner at the top of the article as I've not been able to find anything?— Rod talk 12:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've now nominated this for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgwater & Albion. If anyone would like to join the discussion that would be great.— Rod talk 11:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Project newsletter

A little bit of a holiday project of mine was drafting and publishing a newsletter for the project. It can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Newsletter/January 2014. I hope everyone gives it a read and leaves any feedback if they can. I won't repeat what I've written in the newsletter, but hopefully a newsletter like this can be published a few times a year, and provides something of value to the community. A shortcut for the newsletter is WP:RUNEWS for those of you that, like me, struggle to remember long project-space names. Happy New Year everyone! – Shudde talk 08:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

2013 International Rugby Union matches

I'm considering nominating this article for deletion, but wanted to get everyone's thoughts just in case it's hasty. Apart from the obvious problem with the article's name, it's lack of references, and what looks like possible original research or synthesis, I have some others:

  1. It seems to entirely reproduce the statistics in 2013 Six Nations Championship, 2013 British and Irish Lions tour of Australia, 2013 mid-year rugby union tests, 2013 Rugby Championship, 2013 end-of-year rugby union tests, etc etc
  2. It seems to have a strange inclusion criteria. It includes test matches and some non-test matches. I'm unsure how the non-test matches are decided, I think it may be matches that involve one "international" team (how that is defined I'm unsure as well).
  3. Overall I think this article is completely redundant. All of these matches are covered in other articles (sometimes multiple) or lists, and those are very logical groupings (grouped by tournament or team mostly). Just because these matches were all played within the same calendar year doesn't make this list valuable.

It's the last point that I think is most important. Should I take this to AfD, or do we want to see more articles like this? – Shudde talk 11:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It lists some games not mentioned on the other articles you linked above so I think its best to keep it but remove those that are MAJOR tournaments such as 6N, 4N, PNC, the BIL lists games too, something which most of you refuse to recognise (as per the battle we have mid last year regarding eligibility of some tests(and games)).. I would not call it "original research" but "great research", even i didn't know some of the games on the list has happened...also gives a bit of exposure to bottom Tier 2 and tier 3 per the creator's last comment "The 340 matches below all contain an international team, some of which are not members of the International Rugby Board", honestly its more informative than the individual articles..This is WIKIPEDIA, an encyclopaedia and if anything, that article is very much 340 rugby matches this year, and i barely saw 50 :(--Stemoc (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Some of the matches are listed as "non-test friendly" - how does that work? If we stripped out all the matches that are listed elsewhere (as part of other tournaments, series, etc, not just "major" onces) then I'd imagine we'd have a few barely notable matches left, many between teams that aren't even recognised by the IRB. How is that valuable? And let's not kid ourselves, this list (which is an orphan) isn't going to increase the exposure of any tier 2 or 3 teams. -- Shudde talk 12:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I came across this article last night and really couldn't see the point of it. You can find details of games played in 2013 by looking at for example. I'd be happy to see it going to AfD. --Bcp67 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This article needs deleting. It doesn't have any recognisable inclusion criteria, and it basically replicates all the articles for the major tournaments, tours and series from last year. Get rid. – PeeJay 19:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
why do most of you assume sites like will be around forever?, it has already changed hands 4 times in the last 16 years.. we refused to add stats and other info for the Junior rugby competitions like u20 and u19 cause we "assumed" the irb site will be there forever; it wasn't, it was deleted with everything on it, nothing was moved to its main server (, so I'm all for keeping ENCYCLOPEDIC ARTICLES cause 10 years from now, wikipedia will still be here and the rugby contributors then would be wishing wikipedia(ns) had kept this tiny yet very informative 'tid bits'..The English Premiership has been around since 1987... and this is the best information we have for that year....just numbers, no game details, no player information, no nothing....if it was up to me, i'd AFD 1987–88 Courage League as it provides nothing "knowledgeable", maybe thats why the rugby league project is growing and has more contributors than ours, while they try to add as much information, we try to get rid of most of wonder some of our old contributors left..--Stemoc (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
95% of the match details (and 100% of the notable match details) listed at 2013 International Rugby Union matches can be found in more cohesive articles and lists within en-wiki. So your rationale is flawed, if were to disappear tomorrow, these stats would not be lost forever. – Shudde talk 03:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
No reason to kill that article we just need to translate it to 2013 in rugby union, like we have in 2013 in sports and 2013 in association football, and 2013 in science, and then maybe fix some details, a lot of info is agreat thing in a enciclopedia, and is time to start the 2014 in rugby union.--Feroang (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2013 in rugby union would be completely notable and encyclopaedic, and would not be a list of all rugby matches played in 2013. It would just be a summary of all rugby (domestic and international), and merely a summary. But 2013 International Rugby Union matches is not that, it's a list of results that exist elsewhere on the project, as well as a bunch of "iffy" and non-notable matches. – Shudde talk 03:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
yes but we are part of a project where they intentionally made the project ugly, then they refused to make the infobox any "useful" and then they refused to list rugby games to the site, if anything, the only thing they accept is to refuse everything that they do not like, no matter how useful it may be in the "long-run" like your idea Feroang, but that means including club rugby to the article which ofcourse includes the 5 big club competitions and then some..maybe rugby.change can do this for other years as well :) ..--Stemoc (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no good reason why the article needs to be deleted. Yes magority of the matches are a replicar to the main article; End of year tests, mid year tests, 6 nations, etc, but alot of the matches are not even covered on some of the articles. I'll admit, the non-test matches are bit iffy, but some of them should be alright. I supose the British and Irish Lions non-test (disincluding Barbarians matche) could be removed. I'll also rename the matches named "freindly" to "Test match" to make it correct. Rename the aricle by all means, any suggestions? To refer to the lack of references, technically all the reports to each match is a sources. Rugby.change (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Picking up Feroang's idea above, I took a look back and found Rugby union in 2008, which is along similar lines - it gives the results of the main international and domestic competitions, with a list of international matches underneath. Some sort of cross between that article and the one currently under discussion could be useful. The lead to the 2013 article is a good summary of some competitions and facts, it needs some extra references and perhaps could be expanded to cover non-international competition, but I still don't see the need for the list of matches. Most of the games are covered in some other article, which would be linked from a revised "Rugby union in 2013" article, and the ones which don't belong to anything probably aren't notable enough anyway - St Vincent & Grenadines v HMS Lancaster anyone? --Bcp67 (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Jaque Fourie,, 22 September 2011