Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 24

Merge redundant RU notability pages

The seemingly disused Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria should merge and redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability. It's confusing to have two competing pages for the same thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I agree the names are confusing, but arguably "/Notability" is the disused one as "/Notability criteria" is linked in WP:NRU for reference. However, they are not redundant. It appears "/Notability criteria" was attempting the be like WP:NFOOTY's /Fully professional league list, but the name here is not nearly as clear. I would also argue, as shown in the discussion #Major League Rugby above, that fully professional in this sport does not inherently receive WP:GNG coverage depending on the league and regional popularity of the sport. I would propose to merge the list in a useful way directly into WP:NRU itself, or make it a qualitative assessment by league a la WP:NHOCKEY's Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment (and rename the /Notability criteria essay to something else to clarify it as "qualifying leagues" or similar). Yosemiter (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Right then. What I would suggest is merging the salvageable material from /Notability into /Notability_criteria, then we can do a round-robin move to make the shorter name the "canonical" one, and redirect the longer to it, while preserving page history. That will centralize the WPRU advice material. After that, merging into NRU would be more of a challenge. That's a guideline, so there's apt to be line-by-line scrutiny of it. When it comes to declaring what amounts to GNG exceptions, the community is very skeptical of that, and it's always controversial. E.g. the most constantly controversial (= lowest consensus) WP:SNG page is WP:ACADEMICS, specifically because it tries to declare itself an alternative to GNG instead being an explanation of how to topically apply GNG and offering predictive advice about what topical material is likely to pass.

That is to say, I would not commingle the process of merging two redundant WP:PROJPAGE essays within the wikiproject on the one hand, and on the other promoting that essay material into a site-wide guideline. Very different processes. Even if we should ideally winnow all the PROJPAGE material down to guideline-viable items and have them be actual guidelines, the community is getting more serious about WP:CREEP concerns, and the wild and wooly days of wikiprojects creating guidelines without much resistance or community review back in the 2000s are long over. We've learned the hard way that WP:Policy writing is hard. It takes multiple layers of revision to remove the unnecessary and over-complicated, to avoid conflicts with other WP:P&G material (which per WP:CONLEVEL policy is going to end in favor of the broader-applying and -accepted P&G page unless consensus is achieved to modify that to account for some kind of variance), and finally to think through every conceivable WP:WIKILAWYER and WP:GAMING scenario and write around it, thwarting any loopholes to exploit. It takes a while, and it's not always successful.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: The essay was intended as part of the SNG as supplement to save space on NSPORTS, same as the lists for NFOOTY and NHOCKEY, and is only a essay because there not really another category for them. Both lists are routine cited in AfDs as being part of the SNG via many discussions. But I think you are finding the same thing SportingFlyer did: the /Notability criteria essay for NRU is not well discussed or controlled to GNG standards. I highly suggest reading and contributing at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Major League Rugby where this problem is(was) being discussed. That could include depreciating it entirely and merging what can be properly vetted into NRU. (I seem to already have made this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#New SNGs needed for Rugby union and league, but had no response.)

On the other side, /Notability is sort of a MOS for when and how to create rugby union related pages and references NRU. Merging the list there to /Notability and then having NRU reference a wikiproject page seems problematic, which you lay out above. As they serve very different purposes — one is essentially an explanatory supplement to an SNG and the other is a handbook for a wikiproject — merging the two seems incorrect. Hence, my proposal of merging the less concise name into NRU, which effectively merges it into /Notability anyways as it references NRU. Yosemiter (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your lack of response at NSPORT is partly due to what I was talking about (skepticism about adding guideline material), but quite possibly also due to the page split being confusing and suggesting a lack of consensus. If these two PROJPAGEs are merged (or one simply blanked and redirected to the other should none of the one be worth keeping), that gets rid of any perception of conflict, and a merge into NSPORTs is more likely to go forward. I'd be amenable to a ping to such a future proposal (I don't have a PoV about rugby, but do have an interest in stuff that is effectively acting as a guideline being accepted as such and merged into the WP:P&G material per se.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I think we are in agreement that /Notability criteria should not exist as is (although I disagree with the confusing aspect, the same exact format is widely used in NFOOTY and NHOCKEY discussions). The problem with just merging into /Notability and still referencing the advice page in NRU can make anything in the what is supposed to just be an dice essay read as a guideline, which it isn't. If we remove the link to /Notability criteria (or the link to the merged pages) from NRU then NRU#2 would read A team in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995, which is also false as shown with the problems in Major League Rugby above. My proposal was not add anything to the guideline, it was restrict it by removing any link to a PROJPAGE (which has already been referenced in many AfDs as an SNG: see here and here) and make the leagues and tournaments more visible so as to have more eyes on it, thus removing the guideline-affecting aspect of the page or the random adding of leagues that may or not meet GNG. Changing the NRU then changes the advice page as it directly references NRU. If you think there is any merit to that, I would appreciate it being added to my proposal on NSPORTS. Yosemiter (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but we are still left with the problem that there are two conflicting pages purporting to be the rugby union notability PROJPAGE; that shouldn't continue, even if the ultimate goal is to move stuff into the RU section at NSPORT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: There wouldn't be. /Notability criteria gets merged into the SNG as it is already an SNG supplement. /Notability would remain, but it clearly states it is just an advice page The following WikiProject rugby union advice page.... The actual Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Biographies section is a reference to NRU — Note: This guidance is identical to and is the source of the generally accepted guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). — and no guideline should link back to the advice essay. NRU should influence /Notability, not vice versa. (As opposed to /Notability criteria, which does affects NRU right now.) So by merging the SNG supplement into the SNG, we would effectively being doing exactly what you propose: merging it into the advice page. Many projects have "how/when to make a page" rules of thumb, and notability guidelines certainly influence those. Yosemiter (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't follow. We would have no need of any such old advice page if the other page were merged into NSPORT (and that's an iffy proposition anyway). We still do not need two pages about the same thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Many Wikiprojects have subject-specific help pages, old or otherwise. If want to to have a Wikiproject cleanup/delete their old help pages, especially projects with lesser participation, I am not sure how to help you. I don't use them too much and I'm not sure anyone else does either. It does also deal with notability of clubs and competitions themselves as opposed to the other being about players on said teams for NSPORTS, which could be helpful for future participants.

Merging the other into NSPORT would not be adding anything to NSPORT because

  1. It is just a reorganization of what is already there. WP:NRU directly links to /Notability criteria as an explanatory supplement for NRU#2, it would be simply turning it into a note like NRU#1 and NRU#4.
  2. It does not change how /Notability criteria is currently use. That is how this addition lead to 4 of the 6 Keep !votes on this AfD citing that list.
  3. If the list itself was on NSPORTS and not an essay in a link, others would have seen the addition and questioned it (as @SportingFlyer: did over a year after the addition).
  4. Your proposal would then have the outcome you are proposing. After it is NSPORTS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Biographies would have to be changed as the entire section is Note: This guidance is identical to and is the source of the generally accepted guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I would like to remove the "and is the source of" though, it was probably true when NATHLETE was turned into NSPORTS, but not really the case anymore.

So, the two pages you want to merge serve very different purposes: one is essentially a part of an SNG and the the other is just a help page. We should not merge the SNG supplement into a help page. We should merge the SNG supplement into the SNG to make it visible. (Or rename it to something else like "/NRU top-tier leagues and tournaments".) Yosemiter (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel this is just turning circular, and am tempted to just MfD the page that is not [hopefully] destined for merger into NSPORT. It is an actual problem that people are regularly citing both of these pages as if they are guidelines, when neither of them is, and one of them is clearly not guideline-destined material but old chaff that's been laying around. You say "Many Wikiprojects have subject-specific help pages, old or otherwise. If want to to have a Wikiproject cleanup/delete their old help pages, especially projects with lesser participation, I am not sure how to help you." Well, yes, we should clean them up, and let's start here. The way to help is to not urge the retention of a such a page. If there's something in it worth keeping, merge it into the material that is wanted to merge further up into actual guidelines, and redirect the old page to the new one. That is the simple way. The not-simple way is nominating the old page for actual deletion. As long as the end result is no longer having two conflicting pages that different people keep claiming are more-or-less authoritative on the matter. WP:POLICYFORKing a bad idea, even when it comes to not-yet-policy material, especially if people are already trying to rely on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Perhaps, I missed it, but I have not seen /Notability ever cited in an AfD, just /Notability criteria by way of NRU. While I can't claim to know why exactly /Notability criteria was created as I was not involved, it is very likely because they saw NFOOTY have the same type of essay page, which is used as gospel on NFOOTY AfDs (for better or worse).

Currently, I don't see conflicting pages and both link to /Notability criteria in NRU#2. /Notability#Biographies is identical to NRU. Merging /Notability criteria into /Notability would make it conflicting with NRU, the actual SNG, and that seems worse IMO. Yosemiter (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll take your word for that, as to what is the better material and what would conflict with it. What led me here was actually seeing a "citation" to one of these in an AfD at some point, and realizing it was not the same page I'd seen before. I kind of forgot about it, but when I was doing some essay categorization cleanup it came up again. Given the WP:THEREISNODEADLINE principle, and I'm not in a big rush to resolve this right this second, but it's something worth dealing with eventually. Maybe even just tagging the disused page with {{Historical}}? Or moving some material out of it and reducing it to just "novel" advice that expands on something without being duplicative and without seeming like a guideline to wave around as a shortcut at AfD? I might have already mentioned this, but we have similar problems in other areas, like comics having both a style page and a naming convention, but the style page also purporting to be a naming convention. This isn't the only merge and other cleanup that needs to get done. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Which one is the disused page? For the advice/help page, including the tags that explicitly states it is not a guideline (and then linking the guideline) instead of just saying it is advice could be better. As for the other, well I just a made a proposal at NSPORTS, so we can see what others think of how the essay was being used. Although I will gone for the next few weeks so that is about all the input I will have there. Yosemiter (talk) 18:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
If there are two pages and we can't figure out which one the disused page is, it's probably time for a merge. SportingFlyer T·C 03:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: I think we all agree on that, the question is merge which page where. (As for "disused", I would probably say instead they are both "un-maintained".) I proposed moving the list of leagues into the SNG itself as that is how it has been used, that was its intended use, it is already linked to from the SNG, and to make it visible to more editors. SMcCandlish proposes to move it into the wikiproject advice page to consolidate the unofficial and conflicting guidelines. My only problem with that merge is that it either leaves the SNG linking to an unofficial advice page or not linking anywhere leaving the "fully professional competition since 1995" undefined, which both seem very problematic IMO for potential wikilawyering in AfDs ("is such-and-such fully pro?", "IT"S FULLY PRO!!! -> But it gets insubstantial GNG coverage", "but the league is listed!!! -> THAT IS JUST AN ADVICE PAGE!!!", etc. we all know how the AfDs can go...) Yosemiter (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Yosemiter: Maybe we just get rid of the "fully pro" requirement anyways and list out the leagues that get GNG coverage - it's not like there's a lot of them. SportingFlyer T·C 11:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: Indeed, I proposed that exact thing at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Rugby union phrasing and removing a redundant essay page, with redline changes to the phrasing, and have had no other feedback other that of User:SMcCandlish, who argues that it changes NRU. So please comment there if you think it should be merged. As stated before with evidence, it does not change NRU as it is currently used. It just streamlines the uncontrolled pages. Yosemiter (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not objecting to anything in particular making it into the WP:NSPORT section. Whatever is generally done as best practices for this topic is what should be in the section there. The issue is that we have three conflicting things that people are apt to "cite" in AfD and other discussions – two essays and a guideline section. This needs to be consolidated, probably into a guideline section that summarizes every actionable point, and (if even this) a single essay page that explains those points in more nuance (and no additional points – it should not be trying to make up more rules than are in the guideline); and let that be it. Redirect every old shortcut to the guideline section or to the consolidated essay, as appropriate. I'm happy with the "fully pro or not", etc., discussions above being massaged such that the kinds of articles we presently keep are the kind that will be kept after the consolidation of the criteria and related advice. I don't seek to change any outcomes, only to change the confusing situation of two unmaintained and inconsistent essays being used as "guidance", at odds with each other and with the guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Rhys Davies

Hi all, I've a question regarding name clashes and how to differentiate between players, which came to light on List of 2020–21 Pro14 transfers. Rhys Davies, a lock currently in Bath's academy, is joining Ospreys next season. At present, this Rhys Davies doesn't have a page, but he has played for Bath this season, so one could be created. A page has recently been created for Rhys Davies (rugby union), who is a fly-half with Cardiff Blues. Both of these players were born in 1998, which would normally be the first, and often only necessary, level of differentiation between players with the same name. My question is, when it's the case that two players with the same name are born in the same year, what is the second level of differentiating between them? Should it be month of birth? Thanks all, MunsterFan2011 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be month of birth. They're both Welsh, both born in 1998, and playing positions aren't always nailed on, so I would go with month of birth. – PeeJay 19:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Typically it would be nationality (if undisputed) but obviously not applicable in this case. I would suggest position? There must be a comparable case in either football or cricket or something else to compare to?Skeene88 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, I moved it from the longer original title without realising there is another rugby Rhys Davies. As a fairly comparable case from football, two players born even closer together to confirm that a more detailed birthdate is the next level to go to - Paul Smith (footballer, born 22 January 1976) and Paul Smith (footballer, born 25 January 1976). I agree that the two Rhys Davies should be differentiated by month of birth in 1998. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all for your responses. Looks like month is the way to go in this particular case. MunsterFan2011 (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

History of rugby union matches between Australia and England

I recommend adding this page to your watchlist as there's an IP who's changing the teams to others. WDM10 (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Super Rugby statistics

Hi all,

I was looking to format the Super Rugby statistics into a table rather than a list however came across a problem verifying any of the appearance / tries / points statistics for Super Rugby and finding different stats on different sites, including on Wikipedia: here and here. Does anyone know of a reliable data set to use?

I've provided the first few rows of the future table below.

Rank Player Games Years Club(s)
1 New Zealand Wyatt Crockett 202 2006–2018 Crusaders
2 New Zealand Liam Messam 179 2006–2015
2017–2018 		Chiefs
3 New Zealand Keven Mealamu 175 2000–2015 Blues (164)
Chiefs (11)
Australia Stephen Moore 2003–2017 Reds (58)
Brumbies (117)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixsv7 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Maxime Mbanda

Hello, I've just added the latest news that he voluntereed for the Yellow Cross and got the knighthood by the president of Italy; can anyone review my English, if necessary? Thanks. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Done, please feel free to edit my edit! Felixsv7 (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of Initials on South African names

Hi all, Following a discussion with @MunsterFan2011: and having not been able to find any consensus on the topic I was wondering what peoples opinions were on abbreviated names of some rugby players. RG Snyman was moved to R.G. Snyman recently and that CJ Stander was moved to C. J. Stander (I believe this page was moved by @PeeJay2K3:). Although these are obviously initials and the common consensus normally is to punctuate initials in names, MOS:INITIALS states that if a majority of sources use a specific variant it can be used. Have looked at google searches for both RG Snyman and R.G. Snyman there are more results for RG Snyman. Munster's official channels also use RG Snyman and the player himself on his social media uses RG Snyman. This also seems to be the case for CJ Stander. A large number of South African's don't seem to punctuate their initialed name, including other rugby players including JJ van der Mescht, JT Jackson and a large number of other South African professional players, and so was wondering on opinions on this, and whether or not it would be worth creating a request move for these players. Thanks guys. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Having just looked at further players, I see JP Pietersen has also been moved to J. P. Pietersen. Again the player seems to prefer JP, and there are more results under JP. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a subject fraught with controversial history - see for example discussions at T.J. Miller and CCH Pounder. If you want to get an exemption to MOS:INITIALS for South African rugby players, you'll need to do one of three things: get a large number of members from this project to endorse such a naming convention (WikiProject-specific consensus has been known to "hold up); get a mass RM (or at least enough of one to show precedent for future cases) to move to the shorter method; get an RFC to set consensus. Since the discussion's been started here, I suppose that takes care of #1, we'll just have to wait and see if an RM and/or RFC are required. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments @Primefac:. I wasn't specifically saying that all South African's, or all South African rugby players use this way of initialling their name. Just in the case of every professional South African rugby player I've come across who abbreviates their name doesn't have punctuation, or prefers there not to be punctuation. Maybe this was because a Wikipedian created them all this way. But if some of them are being moved, then surely all of them should be moved, or vice versa. My personal view still is that they should have no punctuation or spaces in the ones I have listed above. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I'm going to try and get a further consensus by requesting moves for these pages as other than the few comments so far there hasn't been any other opinions on the matter, hopefully we can achieve consensus that way. I'll link the request move pages once I have created them. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussions are at R. G. Snyman, J. P. Pietersen, C. J. Stander. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

British and Irish Lions tour articles naming

Does anyone have a view on whether the Lions tour articles named "...British Lions tour to...." should be renamed "...British and Irish Lions tour to..."? I created a few of these myself originally and went with the name used at the time of the tour, so 1968 British Lions tour to South Africa for example, but I'm thinking now it might be better to move them all in line with the current name of the team. Many of the early tours were never "British Lions" at the time anyway, so it's only a retrospective convention. I'm willing to start RMs for the 1888 to 1997 articles but wanted to see if there was a view here first. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I've seem a similar issue with some of the Olympics (and Commonwealth Games) naming, mostly when a country changes their name and suddenly (at least until recently) some of the templates broke. My suggestion would be to have each article be named as it was during the time period, and (if necessary) create redirects from the corresponding "British Lions" or "British and Irish Lions" pages. In navboxes and other templates, though, we should be able to get away with piping things to avoid most of the redirects.
So for example, I would fully support 1888 British Lions tour to New Zealand and Australia actually being called 1888 British Isles tour to New Zealand and Australia, with a redirect at the "British Lions" page.
In other words, I would not support retroactively renaming everything to be "the current name". Primefac (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Primefac for coming back with your view, which does actually tie in with my original ideas when setting up the articles - although I went with the common usage "British Lions" rather than the official "British Isles" used for the 60s and 70s tours I was interested in. For the earlier tours I'm not sure of their names at the time, but it shouldn't be hugely difficult to identify those. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
It should only be B&I Lions from 2001 onwards, before that it should be British Isles or British Lions because that was the name of the team at the time before the rebranding. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Yep, agreed with this. Some editor has been trying to change the 1997 tour article to talk about the B&I Lions despite that name not being in use at the time, so it's good to have this discussion here to refer to. – PeeJay 07:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Tasman Rugby Union page

Hi guys, as a new Mitre 10 Cup season is soon to start I've been going round tidying up and editing updated squads for the sides ahead of the new season. However I'm having real problems with the Tasman Rugby Union page. The article itself is devoid of sources for the information on there, and a lot of the content on there is either unnecessary, not detailed enough or not written within Wikipedia's guidelines (and all basically unsourced). I've tried to tidy up the page by deleting some trivial information and excessive detail but previously the page had one main contributor who seemed to have a close connection to the side, so neutrality is questionable also. If there are any editors who could help tidy it up and add some sources, especially if they commonly edit New Zealand pages, that would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Further work is still required – on adding more citations and missing history prose – but I made a start by:
  1. Swapping out all the (straight copied) competition season tables for one summary table;
  2. Consolidating the year-by-year history sections into bigger chunks of prose; and
  3. Adding a few citations and general reference tidy.
Other editors, please feel free to take it forward from here. -- Ham105 (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your start @Ham105:, I have updated the squad so it matches the 2019 reference, with the 2020 squad not released yet. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Bay of Plenty and Auckland separate pages

Hi guys, was wondering what people's views were on potential mergers of Bay of Plenty Steamers → Bay of Plenty Rugby Union and Auckland rugby union team → Auckland Rugby Union so they are inline with other Mitre 10 Cup teams. Neither 'team' pages are at all well sourced and don't really give any information apart from lists of previous players or small snippets of previous seasons. Any information in them could easily be merged into the main articles as they are for the other 12 teams. If people think merging them would be the best thing I'm happy to raise a merge proposition for the two pages. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think there might be another article that exists like that also. I was thinking of a solution to tidy things up, especially to the non-rugby readers to help simplify things. My idea was to begin a project with creating new pages for the current professional Mitre 10 Cup teams. It would include a brief header, history to do with its origins, Ranfurly Shield, NPC, and current professional era. Also independent sections for current squad, notable players, Mitre 10 Cup record, and history surrounding the Governing Body or known as Union. Thus we can merge the pages all together. Let me know your thoughts. Kidsoljah (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Personally I think the teams do need separate pages really. The Mitre 10 Cup teams are professional, widely covered and other than shared ownership are separate from the geographic unions that share their name. For instance the players play for who offers them a contract not their local union.Skeene88 (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments @Kidsoljah: and @Skeene88:, I am happy to create new pages for all of the Mitre 10 Cup teams, they will all likely start as stubs than will need improving from there though. The two I have listed I suggested merging as they lack sources are much other detail, but I am happy to try and improve those starting now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
There will most likely be no use for the article representing the union to exist as the majority of them have information all to do with the men's top representative side and very little to do with the union's origin itself. These articles are very messy with very little sources. My idea would be to create a new article to do with the professional rugby team that represents that union and consolidate the information together. I believe this would simplify things for readers that know very little of rugby in New Zealand. These unions were also established to form a team chosen from the surrounding clubs. I am in the process of drafting a few together before I create them so you could later have a look and have your thoughts. I would like them to be GA articles. Kidsoljah (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
For the South African Currie Cup sides that represent each different province (or governing body) there are only pages for the Currie Cup sides and not the different unions. I though do not know if NZ rugby is governed differently from SA and how much power the NZ regions have compared to NZ. I feel for now that having a rugby union page and a smaller Mitre 10 Cup side page could be the way to go currently as the rugby union pages are probably to go to page for other tournaments such as the Farah Palmer Cup and junior tournaments. In the future if the women's tournaments become more notable and popular then pages could be created for them as well obviously. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bay of Plenty (Mitre 10 Cup) and Auckland (Mitre 10 Cup) pages have been tidied and simplified while I have created drafts for Canterbury and North Harbour. @Kidsoljah: is going to tidyup some of the main Rugby Union pages. Then we will have examples of tidy Rugby Union pages which list the Mitre 10 Cup team/squad and Rugby Union pages with a separate Mitre 10 Cup page. Whichever is the more popular choice I am happy to implement changes to, but we need more of a consensus first please. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Anymore comments on this? Had another vote for separate pages on one of the merger talk pages. There seems to be a consensus for that view, and if so I'll start implementing the draft pages and making the required changes. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Josh Gray (rugby union)

I came across Josh Gray (rugby union) via WP:THQ#Josh Gray (rugby union) page and did a bit of minor cleaning up. Perhaps someone from this WikiProject could take a look at it and assess it? It's not a bad first effort, but the Josh Gray (rugby union)#Early sporting achievements and education section needs a bit more sourcing and probably a little rewriting to remove the WP:PUFF. Anyway, the creator might also be someone who's interested in joining this WikiProject since they just started editing and seem to be interested in the sport. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Chronological lists

Hi guys, I just discovered that List of Wales national rugby union team results is an article that exists, but unfortunately the table is in entirely the wrong order. Per WP:SALORDER, chronological lists are supposed to have the oldest entry at the top and the most recent at the bottom. Given that other such lists may exist, and I know they do for various head-to-head matchups between rugby nations, can I please remind the participants of WP:RU of the guidelines and to make efforts to correct the order of these lists where possible? – PeeJay 14:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

International caps in infoboxes

Hi guys, just wondering whether non-cap international matches should be included in the infobox section on players. Akira Ioane and Asafo Aumua both made their 'international debuts' this weekend, but both had represented the All Blacks in no cap matches against France XV (giving them an 'All Black number') so should their repcaps be listed a 1 (for their full debut) or 2 (in the case of Ioane) or 3 (in the case of Aumua). Thanks guys. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the previous consensus is to not count uncapped matches, mainly because of a lack of robust database of such games. The All Blacks and British and Irish Lions are a little different from most international sides in, I think, having those robust databases albeit not 3rd party ones. "Tour matches"/"non-cap matches" for BIL, All Blacks and Springboks is an area I think info boxes could better reflect but I personally cannot recall seeing a genuinely third party database of such things to reference.Skeene88 (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Skeene88 here - it will be almost impossible to verify non-cap matches for most teams, whereas there are decent sources for full capped internationals. I'd say stick with just cap internationals for the infobox, although the subject might need revisiting during the Lions tour next year as we'll find that people will update players' records with the non-international match numbers.--Bcp67 (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I have edited both players caps to 1 and added a note to why their All Black number is out of sequence. The All Blacks statistical database is actually very good, but they seem to be the only team with such a significant stats database. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Major League Rugby deepdive

Hi guys, have started a deepdive on Major League Rugby player pages as large numbers have been created that do not qualify for WP:NRU and in my opinion do not qualify for WP:GNG either. I have flagged a large number having gone through all the current squads in the Western conference. Here are the discussions so far:

Tonata Lauti, Michael Baska, Lance Williams, Awara Elkington, Franco van den Berg, William Rasileka, JP Aguirre, Riekert Hattingh, Eric Duechle, Taylor Krumrei, Josh Hayden, Daniel Trierweiler, Save Totovosau, Keni Nasoqeqe, Derrick Broussard, Chris Turori, Ben Mitchell, Nathan Sylvia, Fakaʻosi Pifeleti, Aaron Mitchell, Malacchi Esdale, Taylor Howden, Cecil Garber, Robert Meeson, Valdemar Lee-Lo, Charlie Connolly, Mason Pedersen, John Ryberg, Ata Malifa, Luke White, Kelepi Fifita, Blake Rogers, Chad Gough, Jacob Finau, Sione Fangaiuiha, Zinzan Elan-Puttick, Moe Abdelmonem, Chris Schade, Kody O'Neil, Jope Motokana, Kellen Gordon (last one flagged by @SportingFlyer:)

I'll add more once I've gone through Eastern conference sides and historical players. Thanks guys. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't think any of these players are notable and I appreciate you tagging them, but giving it a week to allow all of these AfDs to be resolved or relisted would be appreciated. Want to make sure none slip through the cracks. SportingFlyer T·C 18:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer:, that is the plan. I'm AfD any I come across that don't qualify for WP:NRU and I believe don't qualify for WP:GNG. Some may be kept as some sources are disputable, but i'm just trying to tidyup as best as possible. There are some I've found that don't qualify for WP:NRU but may just qualify for WP:GNG (specifically Sebastián Kalm, Tiaan Loots and Tomas Quinlan) but even these might be debatable. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Further updates from the first three eastern conference sides. Afd's:

Dylan Taikato-Simpson, Vetekina Malafu, Michael Reid, Josh Brown, Jack McLean, Matt Hughston, Jake Turnbull, Mo Katz, Kyle Rogers, Cameron Troxler, Jojo Tikoisuva, Nick Feakes, Holden Yungert, Kevin O'Connor, Moni Tongaʻuiha, John Sullivan, Devin Short, Nikola Bursic, Kevin Sullivan, Cam Falcon, Piceli Rinakama, Zach Stryffeler, Diego Maquieira. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Completed eastern conference and historical players I could find. Afd's:

Alex Tucci, Alex Vorster, Jack Evans, Tira Patterson, Chris Saint, Spencer Jones, Kolby Francis, Steven Ng, Martini Talapusi, Ross Deacon, Amro Gouda, Marcus Walsh, James Denise, Anthony Parry. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Further batch of historical players found. Afd's:

Chris Coyle, Ayron Schramm, Drew Gaffney, Alec Barton, Chad Joseph, Maximo de Achaval, Derrek Van Klein, Pita Moala, Maka Tameilau, Alex Elkins, Matias Cima, Chris Kunkel. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this original research?

Just came across List of 2019–20 Major League Rugby transfers... lots of twitter sources and I'm not sure there's a master list of these anywhere. Is this WP:OR? SportingFlyer T·C 20:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I imagine the style has been copied of List of 2019–20 Pro14 transfers and similar pages. Personally I feel the twitter sources are ok but they're all incorrectly cited and a lot on there have no sources whatsoever. Not sure the league is really notable enough to have one of these though compared to Pro14, English Premiership etc. though. The most recent Major League Rugby transfers page should really be moved to a draft page until some sources are included though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Americas Rugby News do keep roster lists for all the sides on their site. But they're not always entirely accurate, and with the AfD's of the past week or two we know that they're not the most reliable of sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It would appear the 2020–21 article was created by a sockpuppet of currently blocked User:DylanFaraci98 for creating many unsourced or undersourced articles. Yosemiter (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to attention, have found he's created a number of rugby union pages that are almost all unsourced or have one primary source on them are tend to not be notable. On one speedy deletion nomination his reasoning for keep was 'because there is no coverage in the media and so creating this page will allow American rugby fans so coverage and for the sport to grow.' or similar. I'm not sure he understands Wikipedia's general rules tbh, or maybe he doesn't care. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

2021 Rugby Tours

Where can I find sources of these matches? WDM10 (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Announcement and tasks lists

Hi guys, anybody else's Announcement and Tasks lists on here not updating properly? Apologies if there's an easy way round this but I can't see one and it doesn't seem to have updated for a good number of days. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Super Rugby Naviboxes

Hi guys, following a minor disagreement with @Skeene88: over at Template:Jaguares squad, just wanted to see what the views are on these boxes. Super Rugby announce squads each season unlike European sides who more often transfer players in and out. Therefore, along with the differing times of season with European sides, players can leave these Super Rugby squads to move to Europe or elsewhere. Should these players be removed at that point from these naviboxes, or when the squad for the next Super Rugby season is announced. Naviboxes do say 'current squad' in them, but if they were announced in say the 2020 squad, that is the current squad for that side, even if they have departed. A previous discussion I had with a Super Rugby page user suggested it was the later, but this was a few years ago and people may have differing views now. I personally think the later, but am happy to follow consensus as long as players are not removed during the actual Super Rugby season. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe have a group for players who left mid-season? You could call it "mid-season transfers" or similar. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Rugbyfan22 for bringing to the talk page. I agree with Skeene88. The current squad should be, well, the current squad. Not current plus recently departed. I also suggest both editors involved in editing that template page would be well served by taking a break from editing that particular template until we have consensus here. CUA 27 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted twice already so can't again until a discussion has reached a consensus. The other suggestion I had is that for rugby sides that release 'squads' (such as Super Rugby, Currie Cup, Mitre 10 Cup and a few others) maybe their naviboxes should be changed from 'current squad' to '2020 squad' and then that is changed for each year (so when the 2021 squad is announced changed to Jaguares - 2021 squad). Interested in people's views on that. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In normal years it is a moot point, the players move on at the end of the super rugby season and the new season's squads are announced quite quickly, so even if there is this previous consensus of delay I will freely admit I never spotted it. The problem with the Jaguares as it stands is that we have no idea when any new squad will be announced but we now have a large number of players and the coach at other clubs. These players, and particularly Gonzalo Quesada who is now a head coach at another club, should not be in a navibox for a club they do not play for and probably never will again, it is very confusing for even interested parties let alone the apocryphal new reader. I did use the navibox's talk page after redoing the first reverted edit which I thought was the proper place for the initial discussions. At a minimum the Jaguares navibox should be renamed 2020 squad if a consensus is reached that the players for some reason should remain in a squad list of which they are no longer part. Skeene88 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd agree with User:Skeene88 and User:CUA 27 - current squad should be current squad. Just because a club tends to announce them at a particular time does not mean players that have moved on should remain in the current squad. noq (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


Shall we call this a consensus and edit to leave the remaining players only? User:Rugbyfan22 okay with that? Skeene88 (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes happy with this consensus @Skeene88:, for the coach bit can we leave it as 'Vacant' instead of hiding it though. I would also mention that the two Jaguares players who are moving to the Force don't move until 2021 (their contracts start in January) so should be left for now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
No problem with that. Will do it now.Skeene88 (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Have done the same for Australian sides (New Zealand sides have already announced new squads, South African sides have played recently so no changes to them), changed Sunwolves to 'final squad' as the team has been disbanded and removed a couple extra that were missed from the Jaguares squad. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Issue with teamname in Template:Infobox rugby team

In Moana Pasifika, the team name is not showing up. Could somebody please fix this? WDM10 (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Concerned about the notability of this page, the team is currently not confirmed in a league as of yet and is only playing a one off game. Maybe should be redirected to 2021 Super Rugby season#Future developments until more is known. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 Fixed, the blank |country= was preventing |teamname= from showing. Primefac (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. WDM10 (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for help with Montreal Westmounts

Hi Montreal Westmounts is almost the last unsourced article from November 2006. I’m having trouble finding any sources for thus team though. The article looks odd - it says a Montreal team played in an Ontario league and the project template on the talk page is for football, not rugby (also true for other articles I’ve looked at). If anyone is able to find sources that would be fantastic! Thanks Mccapra (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mccapra: Early Canadian football was often called rugby due to shared origins and the unestablished firm codes of both sports at the time, so this team operated on a similar code of what we would now call Canadian football. See Comparison of Canadian football and rugby league and History of Canadian football. Yosemiter (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you would be better off asking at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Canadian football as it looks to be a Canadian football team rather than a rugby union team. noq (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Great thank you very much! Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Amateur notability

I have been thinking, we have a notability criteria that covers internationals and the professional era but what about the amateur era? My thinking would be if they have played in a pro-equivalent top level national league, they should be considered notable, similar to what they have for GAA on WP:NSPORTS. Here's a mockup of my idea.

  • Anyone who has played for:
    • A team in the amateur era (pre-1995) in a top level national competition

The list of accepted amateur competitions are (draft, please amend if you disagree):


Please let me know what you think. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It'll be very difficult to find statistical information on amateur players as a lot of the statistical sites (itsrugby for example) don't list amateur players unless they were internationally capped. If there are enough sources for players to pass WP:GNG then fine, but I think more information is required to know how notable actually players playing in these competitions were (are there lots of news articles/sources about players, or are there just lists and passing mentions of players that play in these listed tournaments). For me it's a nice idea, but it'll be very difficult to source these historical players without detailed historical databases like there are in cricket for example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
For English players another difficulty is that the Courage Leagues started in 1987 so the criteria would only cover the last 8 years of the amateur era. The top level competition in England for many years would have been the County Championship or later the Divisional Championship but certainly difficult to source stats on a lot of the county seasons.--Bcp67 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
and even that's highly debatable, I would argue the merit tables and the John Player Cup were the top level competitions, and prior to 1972 there was no such thing. I think saying Courage League players are assumed to be notable is reasonable, its limited, sources like statbunker are generally reliable and often cover it and it is a direct linked precursor to the Premiership. However that coverage is patchy, so I think defaulting to only allowing ones which pass general notability on their own merits is the best course of action. The other competitions more so. We don't want more deletions of lots of articles like we are seeing with MLR where the writer made a reasonable, if mistaken, interpretation of these rules.Skeene88 (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking with South Africa mostly in mind given they didn't play international rugby for a time due to the apartheid boycott so the Currie Cup would have been the highest profile competition most could have hoped for. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
With South Africa, during the height of the sporting ban from 1985–1991, according to ESPN stats, even though they didn't play any matches during that span against official test opponents, they did play six international matches in that period, including four against the NZ Cavaliers (essentially an unofficial All Blacks by a different name). I would guess those SA international players would be notable, given that the violations of the sporting ban were high-profile events. In any case, I don't think a relatively short and incomplete sporting ban for one country warrants changing the project-wide guidelines. WP:GNG ought to cover this just fine. CUA 27 (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I would prefer that these players pass WP:GNG unless we can clearly demonstrate that almost all of them pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I have been thinking about this and I just looked at List of South Africa rugby union Test matches and given that the Springboks didn't even tour every year in a decade until the 50s and with the apartheid boycott interruptions, makes me think that maybe we should just add the Currie Cup as the non-international competition for notability in the amateur era. Technically it was international if you count Rhodesia and S-W Africa (Namibia) but I understand that would be a bit of a stretch. I would just say that its worth considering on the grounds of the lack of Springbok matches considering the Northern Hemisphere had the 5 Nations whereas SA didn't have anything until the Tri-Nations. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Are there any databases/records of the Currie Cup matches from this period that we could accurately create biographies of players from? Would be my only concern with your proposal. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Andrea Marcato

Hello, I added some information about his recent coaching activity, but since I am not a native speaker, someone would kindly have a review of my English? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 16:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Blackcat, it looked quite good - I have made a couple of small edits without changing the sense.--Bcp67 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bcp67: Thanks, you did well. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 21:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

NSW Waratahs coaches page

Hi guys, I have just seen that a page New South Wales Waratahs coaches has been created. It is a copy of information from the main New South Wales Waratahs page but more may be added to it. Do we keep this sort of pages on Wikipedia and if not what should be done about it. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted it. If there's a consensus to split the main page into smaller bits I don't mind restoring. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Primefac:, I couldn't find any other similar pages or any need for spliting. The table is very compact anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Another page has been created at List of New South Wales Waratahs records, again most of the information is just taken from the main page, there is only one source provided, but guessing it violates WP:NOTSTATS. Guessing these sorts of pages aren't kept either @Primefac:. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Since MarioBayo doesn't appear to have been notified of this discussion, I will ping them to it. There are proper ways to do page splits and forks, and copy/pasting without any attribution or discussion is not the appropriate way to do it. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Primefac, FWIW I don't believe there to be enough relevant statistics to require a separate page, what is on the main page is enough in my opinion. Super Rugby hasn't been competing long enough for team relevant statistics no need a separate page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, even from a page size perspective it's not huge; not even 50k at the moment. Pages really only need to be split once they're up in the multiple hundreds of kb. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for sports stadia

A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability of rivalries

These articles don't appear to pass WP:NRIVALRY. Are all lists of matches between High Performance Unions inherently notable, even if they've only played a handful of times? Some examples:

@Geschichte: had PRODed some articles like this before, I'm not sure on the criteria though for what does and does not qualify as notable. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your input both. I've decided to put them all up for AfD. I've done them separately as each rivalry may have its own faults and merits so didn't feel bundling was appropriate. Spiderone 17:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Found this old AfD, may be of relevance. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I have recently PRODed another 10/15 or so of these articles under the same lines that they don't qualify for WP:NRIVALRY, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG. All have been deleted. However a user on my talk page has complained against my decisions (despite not removing PRODs from the articles), have I done everything correctly in response to him about his options on said articles? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@Rugbyfan22: which ones do they suggest we restore? The consensus seemed fairly clear to me Spiderone 19:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Spiderone, may have seen on my talk page anyway, but they didn't say any specific ones. They seemed to just appose the deletion of them, but didn't provide any suitable reasons for them to be kept. I've had previous discussion over GNG with one of them over Major League Rugby player articles at AfD before. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@Rugbyfan22: On your talk page, the link you are looking for about match reports is WP:ROUTINE: Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. For NRIVALRY, there needs to be significant depth of coverage on the history of the rivalry, not just the fact that two teams played each other a few times. Also, "Significant coverage" is not a policy, it is a guideline, which makes it open to interpretation. Hope that helps. Yosemiter (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Yosemiter, was looking for guideline but couldn't find it. Was probably looking in the wrong area. I still feel that my decision to PROD and Afd these articles was the correct one following previous consensus on AfDs. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Historical photograph of rugby union in Italy

Hello, I found a 1932 photograph (here) about a rugby union match that was played at the National Stadium (demolished in 1957 and replaced by Stadio Flaminio) in Rome between Rugby Roma and a British Navy selection (more precisely, enlisted and officers of the Mediterranean Fleet). I found something about that game in the Italian sports magazines of that time, but was curios to know whether that could be considered a "Navy Rugby Union team" like it is now, and if on the British media there's something about that match (19 March 1932). Thanks . -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 23:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be worth including at Royal Navy Rugby Union, if it isn't already. ElAhrairah inspect damage⁄berate 11:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

England U20 rugby squads page

Hi guys, have come across this page England national under-20 rugby union squads. Do we keep pages such as this in this format (could possibly be kept in template form). Struggling to see the importance of it. All the squads are sourced but still. Maybe could be merged into the main England U20 rugby page but still not sure if it is necessary to be included in this format on that page. Courtesy tagging the creator Woggie10. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Have started a discussion at AfD which can be found here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wasps RFC potential violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Dear all users, please be aware of potential issues with a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest on the page Wasps RFC. It appears the club has tried to set up an "offical" user and tried to move the page without providing sources or references. Please keep an eye out for any other edits by the user on other pages likely to contain a conflict of interest. Skeene88 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've reported him at WP:UAA for using a promotional username. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Millennium Stadium officially a football stadium?

User:PeeJay considers football to be the priority of the Millennium Stadium's usage, so this user continues to modify it to "football and rugby union" in the Millennium Stadium article. Of course, the Millennium Stadium has been used the 2017 UEFA Champions League Final and 2012 Summer Olympics, but according to this user's logic, Is St James' Park a Rugby stadium because the Heineken Cup Final and the 2015 Rugby World Cup were held at some football stadiums? as for me, because Millennium Stadium is owned and operated by the Welsh Rugby Union and the purpose of the stadium's early building is still for rugby games, that is its primary usage, I think Millennium Stadium should be officially considered rugby stadium. In addition, this user was considered a tenant of the Millennium Stadium by the Welsh national football team in the Football in the United Kingdom article, the user was making the error of writing the home stadium of the Wales national football team as Millennium Stadium instead of Cardiff City Stadium. --Strayacj (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strayacj (talk • contribs) 14:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What's the issue here? We don't need to give it an "official" designation in the article - the coverage can state the stadium ownership and the sports played there. It's a stadium which has been used for various sports - rugby union, rugby league, football, speedway. So it's a rugby stadium, a football stadium, a speedway stadium. If they had an American football match there it would be an American football stadium. Could you explain what the actual problem is? --Bcp67 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The issue is that the Millennium Stadium is mainly used for rugby union, so I modified it to "rugby union and football", but this user continues to modify it to "football and rugby union". --Strayacj (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Might that not just be an alphabetical order? It amounts to the same thing, the stadium has hosted both sports, I doubt it hugely matters which one comes first when reading about it, someone can read the article and find out who owns the place and what goes on there.--Bcp67 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
However, in most other articles, it comes first according to the main order. And all the articles don't have to be in alphabetical order. I think it is also strange for this user to continue to modify it on purpose. --Strayacj (talk)
Yeah, I don't give a shit about whether football or rugby comes first in the infobox. I do think that User:Strayacj changed it for no particular reason, but I admit I shouldn't have changed it back; my only leg to stand on was that it was the way the article was previously and there was no good reason to change it now. My problem at the moment is that User:Strayacj is insisting that the Millennium Stadium cannot be considered a football stadium in any way and is thus removing it from the list of the UK's biggest stadiums in the Football in the United Kingdom article – but that's an issue for WP:FOOTY, not WP:RU. – PeeJay 15:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I do think it's ironic, though, that even when another editor (User:Kivo) comes in and makes exactly the same change as I did (diff), User:Strayacj still thinks it's a good idea to revert them. Almost as though WP:3RR means even less to them than it does to me, and that's saying something. – PeeJay 15:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
User:PeeJay, Because User:Kivo also reverted it for no reason, and as shown on its user page "football statto", this user is a fan of football. and ok, I'll allow it to include the Millennium Stadium in the list of the UK's biggest stadiums in the Football in the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strayacj (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You'll allow it? How gracious of you, kind master! And by the way, people can be fans of more than one sport, you know? I also work as a football statto, but I'm a huge fan of rugby union. It's why I edit rugby articles on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 16:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FWIW the Millenium Stadium's is owned by the Welsh Rugby union. It's the home ground of the Welsh Rugby national team, no football team uses it has a permanent home venue (Wales national football team mainly use Cardiff City Stadium), don't think it really matters how it's described though as long as rugby is mentioned. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Rugbyfan22 Yea, I totally agree with you. Although the home ground of Wales national football is Cardiff City Stadium, Some people misunderstand or distort the Welsh national football team's home ground as a Millennium Stadium. --Strayacj (talk)
And I don't understand why User:PeeJay is deleting the addition of Six Nations Championship competitions to the stadiums involved in that in this List of European stadiums by capacity article. as for me, Six Nations should be mentioned because not only Six Nations Championship but also Autumn Internationals and other Test matches like an Autumn Nations Cup are also played at each rugby union national team's home stadium. --Strayacj (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Why would you need to mention a specific tournament when it's already mentioned that those stadiums host all home games of certain national teams? Mentioning the Six Nations specifically implies that its games are not included by default among the nation's home matches, which of course they are. The fact that you don't understand is particularly telling when it comes to your lack of WP:COMPETENCE here. – PeeJay 16:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
User:PeeJay, Six Nations ≠ All international matches. --Strayacj(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You think I don't know that? Have you completely missed the point I was making? The article mentions that the Millennium Stadium is the home of the Wales national rugby union team and therefore hosts all Wales home matches; that includes Six Nations matches, so why would you need to specify that the Six Nations is played at the Millennium Stadium? It's just unnecessary verbosity. – PeeJay 16:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
FFS, I don't think anyone was trying to claim that the Millennium Stadium is any football team's permanent home, but the argument that it can't be described as a football stadium simply because that's not its primary use is lunacy. Also, User:Strayacj, you keep removing a section from Football in the United Kingdom that notes how the Liberty Stadium, the Racecourse Ground and Parc y Scarlets are also used as home grounds for the Wales football team; not sure why you would do that when it essentially backs up your point that the CCS is the primary home of the Wales team and the others are just irregular home venues. Your editing is almost nonsensical to me. – PeeJay 16:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This is already being discussed at Talk:Football_in_the_United_Kingdom#Millennium_Stadium and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Is_the_Millennium_Stadium_a_football_stadium? where most (including me) seem to say yes it is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Georgia as a notable 'High Performance Union'

Hi guys, following a discussion with Spiderone over the notability of some Romanian and Georgian player articles, I was just wondering if there's ever been a discussion to add Georgia to the 'High Performance Union' list given the number of fixtures they've played against tier 1 sides over recent years and in the Autumn Nations Cup. Currently you would have had to have represented Georgia in a World Cup or a notable 7s competition to be notable under WP:NRU that way. Could it potentially be time for them to be moved into the 'High Performance Union' section. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say yes, according to World Rugby. Their site [1] has a link to a "High Performance Playbook" for 2016-20 which gives High Performance status to Georgia. The 20 RWC finalists of 2015 plus five emerging unions are shown on page 8. Appears to supersede the list shown in this article Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability_criteria#National_sides. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this document, would mean adding Namibia and Uruguay as well as Georgia. I'm not sure about adding the 5 'emerging unions' at this point in time though. FWIW I believe some of the listed leagues could be updated as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with adding Georgia, Namibia and Uruguay Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Spiderone: Should this also be taken to the WP:NSPORTS talk page for discussion there? Not 100% sure on the protocol required to get it added. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Rugbyfan22: - I would agree - I'm not too familiar with the protocol either - I imagine some sort of discussion would need to happen on there and consensus would be needed for them to be added. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Spiderone: Thanks, will start one there as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What are people's views on the notability of the Russian Rugby Championship. Statistics for the competition aren't listed on rugby statistics sites such as itsrugby. It remains a professional league but I'm not sure how much coverage it gets in the media. Also got concerns about the Australian National Rugby Championship being included as well. Lot's of club players tend to play in this competition now instead of being just an extension of Super Rugby and the coverage seems to be diminishing as well, wasn't held this year due to COVID. Interested to hear other people's views on these leagues and any potential additions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Are there any sites that publish match reports for these leagues? If we still believe them to be professional, then we ought to keep but the lack of sourcing will be an issue in determining whether someone meets NRU, I suppose. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
For the Russian league I've not found any real coverage in English language sources. There may be Russian sources though. For the NRC the Australian site Rugby.com.au and local press do cover the games, but I'm not sure the league can be classified as fully professional as not all the players in recent seasons have been professional players (They might have received a wage for playing but when Major League Rugby was discussed it was decided that because not all players were fully professional at the time it shouldn't be included). There was also some discussion whether 'having played in a fully professional league' should be changed to 'have played in a league that receives significant coverage' instead but not sure this went any further. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

History of rugby union matches between Leinster and Connacht + others

Based on previous discussions regarding the undesirability of similar articles pertaining to Tier 2 national teams, I've AfDed a series of five articles detailing the history of matches between the Irish provinces. See here. – PeeJay 12:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation for early rugby players

Hi guys, was wondering what the correct disambiguation for early rugby union players was. Plays such as Gilbert Harrison and Harry Bowen are described in the article as rugby union players/internationals and so I moved them from the disambiguation (rugby) to (rugby union) as per our normal disambiguation style. Is this correct for these players who potentially played before the official split, or would we describe them as rugby union players still? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

For anyone who played for a club that became a rugby league club, or played it themselves, we should definitely keep it just as (rugby). For players retired prior to the split I would generally prefer just (rugby) as the concept of league/union did not exist and it is not a neutral point of view to make a claim on pre-split players for "rugby union" as opposed to "rugby league".Skeene88 (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Understandable, happy to move them back. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking at Bowen, he was still involved in rugby union at an administrative level after the split, and didn't play for any of the clubs that became rugby league clubs, plus played for Wales internationally, so should we keep him as (rugby union). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
On the Harry Bowen side, he played rugby for Dewsbury, who went onto become a rugby league club in the last years of the 19th century, would have never played rugby union for them. It's a weird grey area.Fleets (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Definitely a grey area. Worth going over to the rugby league project to see what the editors there think? Certainly before any mass moving of articles with existing titles.Skeene88 (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I've avoided the majority from that time, or moved them from (rugby player) to (rugby) as rugby player is even more ambiguous. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I have just used "rugby" in that situation. If a distinction is needed to distinguish between pre-schism rugby, union and league; I use "Rugby football" for pre-split context and then "rugby union" or "rugby league" accordingly post split. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Think (rugby) is a good disambiguator for anything pre split and dual code players/coaches, and then (rugby union) for anybody else. It was only a couple of players that needed moving anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Page move for Lions (Super Rugby)

Hi guys, was wondering what new title the Lions (Super Rugby) page should be moved too. With the Lions departing Super Rugby to join the Pro14 the page likely needs a new title. However the name of the Pro14 likely won't remain as there will be 16 teams so moving to this title probably isn't an option. Moving to the Lions (rugby union) or Lions (rugby team) also not options due to potential confusion with the British and Irish Lions, and this would probably be the same if moved to Lions (South Africa) as the B&I Lions play in South Africa regularly. Does anybody have any ideas or solutions as i'm currently not sure. Maybe it could be best to keep it as is while they play in the Rainbow Cup until an official tournament name for next season is announced. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How about Lions (South African rugby team)? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
If we were to go that route I'd prefer Lions (South African rugby union) instead. There is the added compilation of the Golden Lions side that competes in Currie Cup as well which could cause potential confusion if we disambiguate that way. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that's as bad of an issue because it has the "Golden" quantifier in its name. But something along (South African rugby union team) would be the most common sense view for the current SR team in my view. Of course, if they do go in the Pro14, then we can change it accordingly. But until then, "nation and sport" are fine. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think any move is necessary since it's likely the team will return to Super Rugby once the pandemic is over. The Pro14 situation is only to allow the teams to continue playing top-level rugby in the build-up to the Lions tour. – PeeJay 15:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@PeeJay:, The South African sides aren't returning to Super Rugby in the future as confirmed by the SA Rugby Union, they have agreed to play in the Pro14/Pro16/whatever new name the competition is given going forward, hence me suggesting that a name change either now or at some point in the near future is necessary. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't seen any announcement from SARU to that effect, although the Australians don't see South Africa rejoining Super Rugby. Has there definitely been an announcement from SARU? – PeeJay 21:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@PeeJay: SA Rugby announced it in September, announcing the 4 Super Rugby teams would join the comp, and Cheetahs would drop out. [2] Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I was aware of them joining the Pro14 for the Rainbow Cup, but there has been nothing since then about the future of those teams. The article you linked is from before the Rainbow Cup was announced. The Southern Kings are also dropping out of the Rainbow Cup, btw. – PeeJay 12:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@PeeJay: Yeah the Kings wen't into liquidation so don't exist as an entity so they were never in the discussions. The article I linked was the agreement between unions for the South African sides to quit Super Rugby and instead play in the northern hemisphere. So far it's been announced that they'll participate in the Rainbow Cup in a few months, but what style Pro competition they'll compete in in the future hasn't officially been confirmed (a lot of sources are using Pro16 for the future though). What's definite is that they won't be returning to Super Rugby in the future though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
D'oh! I forgot the Kings got liquidated, my bad! Okay, so what I see from that article is that SARU decided to pull its teams out of the Super Rugby format because the Australians and New Zealanders unilaterally decided to keep this year's tournament a trans-Tasman affair due to COVID. What I don't see is any suggestion that the move is permanent and precludes the South African sides from eventually rejoining Super Rugby once the pandemic is over. Any chance you could point out the passage that says this, as I may just have missed it. – PeeJay 14:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You are correct that there's nothing in there that states that they may not rejoin Super Rugby, however it does discuss 'northern hemisphere future' quite a lot which would suggest that it is expected to be a permanent change. South African media aren't expecting to return to Super Rugby anytime soon either. The NZ and Australian want the tournament to be a trans-Tasman affair going further as well as it's better for their TV rights and travel, as the games for them in SA were on in the middle of their night and flying thousands of miles to play in SA wasn't beneficial for them. It's likely we'll see an announcement on Pro rugby for next season in the future, hence why I suggested perhaps the move shouldn't happen until that occurs, but it's pretty much a worst kept secret they'll be joining full time at least for the next few years. Whether a side tournament is created for the Cheetahs and potentially the Jaguares and other sides to compete in by SANZAAR we will see also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Archive_20&oldid=1085480978"