Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

rename of 2005 New Zealand rugby union tour of Britain and Ireland to 2005 New Zealand Grand Slam Tour

It seems that someone decided to rename the above article with the following reason: "It looks better and makes it sound more special , because it was." Should we move it back to be consistent with the other tours? noq (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, plus its not quite WP:NPOV G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I also completely agree with GainLine. If you ever disagree with a unilateral move such as this, I believe it should also be moved back until such a time as a discussion has taken place and garnered a consensus. – Pee Jay 22:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest, did anyone take a look at the actual content of this article? The prose is disgustingly POV, and I'm fairly sure that any MOS the article is following doesn't exist on any other article. The scoring summaries look like they were pulled straight out of an American football article! – Pee Jay 14:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: List of rugby union footballers

This page is useless.

It is hopelessly incomplete - alphabetically, chronologically and nationally. I also can't see that it will ever be completed. To list international rugby players alphabetically, when the country they represent, and the time they played is other important factors, is also counterproductive. Players should be listed by the country they play for (hence the "national" in "international"), and within those lists they can be organised either alphabetically or chronologically or whatever those editors wish. Some of those lists already exist in a fairly complete format.( Category:Lists of international rugby union footballers ) I propose to delete this page, or radically restructure it. Sahmejil (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is pointless and should be removed. There is no structure to this list. Maybe more useful as a disambiguation page to all the other international rugby lists. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Are there actually any inclusion criteria for this apparently all-encompassing list? Or was it just intended as a list of rugby players that one editor thought were good? – Pee Jay 19:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also have no idea what the original editors meant to do here. There also hasn't been much activity on the talk page either. As far as I'm concerned its just a random collection of names and links. Fruitmonkey, what do you mean with "more useful as a disambiguation page to all the other international rugby lists"? - Sahmejil (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that, instead of deleting the page, we could just turn it into a collection of links to the lists of international rugby union players, which can be found here. – Pee Jay 09:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Its just a random list without any context or structure. I think redirect it to somewhere more meaningful G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 09:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a redirect to the Category would be appropriate. However, in doing this it does highlight the need to harmonise those lists, and indeed to add other lists by country. Once we have an agreed harmonised structure, this could be completed in relatively short order. I would also question the need for the List of rugby union footballers by country, which is doing largely the same thing as the individual lists.Kwib (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the List of rugby union footballers by country should remain until we are able to build the lists such as those that exist for England, Wales, South Africa, etc, with those countries already with their own article stating 'see Article ... for a complete list of players from...' next to them. If that makes any sense? FruitMonkey (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This article was created back when there only were about twenty or so player articles and so having a list of them wasn't such a bad idea; particularly as categories barely existed at all. It no longer serves any purpose and ought to be deleted.GordyB (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fruitmonkey. This article no longer serves its purpose, but it would be a shame to lose the info on players from countries without their own list. - How about we delete everything referring to players from England, Wales, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa, since these countries already have their own complete lists, and then move all other players to List of rugby union footballers by country? (Those not already there). - Sahmejil (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point in keeping the article at all. After all, that's what we have categories for. If you wanted to find a list of every Singaporean rugby player (for example), you would look at Category:Singaporean rugby union footballers, not List of rugby union footballers, wouldn't you? – Pee Jay 12:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay. We should be using categories - maybe redirect the "List of ... rugby union footballers" to appropriate categories. noq (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the more technical wiki-stuff yet, but wouldn't a drawback of using categories be that only players with articles about them will be listed on the category page? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I do think it is necessary to have a more complete list of players, even if there isn't articles on all of them yet. - Sahmejil (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think the lists are important as separated from Categories. The fact that they highlight those players who are missing articles is extremely valuable.Kwib (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Name standardisation: Lists of international rugby union footballers

I refer to the lists that form part of the Lists of international rugby union footballers and the category by the same name, currently concerning England, Wales, Ireland, South Africa and New Zealand (Mentioned in previous thread). Currently they all have the same general title form of: "List of (country name) national rugby union footballers]].

Should it not actually be : "List of (country adjective/posessive noun) national rugby union footballers, eg "List of English"..... or perhaps "List of England's..."? It may sound like nit-picking but if you think about it, the current names (although perfectly understandable) doesn't make sense. I think it is a category that should be expanded, and it is probably something that could easily be done since that info is already somewhere in electronic format for most countries, so establishing a standard format now would be better than later. - Sahmejil (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the standard has been decided a while back, and that England, Wales, New Zealand are the correct terms. English would fall apart as there are players who play for a country who are not the nationality of the team. Take John Griffin (rugby player) for example. The term for the national team would be England; you are an England player, not an English player or England's player. I think that's the argument anyway, we went through this sort of thing when coming up for the categories, Category:England national rugby union footballers and the like. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit of a philistine in this area, but don't most people talk about "rugby players" these days, rather than footballers? --MacRusgail (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC) p.s. Agree with Fruitmonkey on this, there should be a distinction between players from somewhere, and players who get capped. There are some very notable rugby players (often for other reasons) who haven't been capped for their country, Javier Bardem and Jacques Rogge are two good examples.

This inevitably means arguing over whether a particular non-capped player is English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Irish or even Cornish.GordyB (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment we've got categories, for example; "English rugby union footballers" and "England international rugby union footballers" - the former being all-inclusive (although as Gordy says, opening up a whole world of debate about some players' nationalities) and the latter being specifically for full international caps who have a Wikipedia article. The lists of internationals are good because they should provide a full list of capped players. Having said which, there are plenty of links in those lists to people who played as many international rugby matches as I have, i.e. none! I like "rugby players" too myself, "rugby footballers" sounds a bit archaic these days.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As most biography articles have at least one category which states the person's nationaility, and many rugby articles hold no information other than rugby info, the nationality category allows us to link the person to a nation. For capped players I tend to use their country of birth and their adopted nationality. For example, I have categorised Paul Robert Clauss as both a German and Scottish rugby player as he was born in one country, but spent most of his life in the other. Like the example I mentioned above of John Griffin (rugby player), he was obviously not Welsh despite playing for Wales, and I therefore did not put him in the Welsh category. PS... I also find footballer a bit archaic, ...and I'm probably the most archaic person presently attached to the project. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rugby players would fall fowl of naming conventions i.e. that rugby union articles and categories have the word "union" in them to distinguish them from the other code. I don't find "footballers" to be archaic but I don't have strong opinions on it either. England internationals is an easily defined cat but I think people's nationalities should be defined solely in terms of which passport they carry i.e. those with British passports are British and save time arguing over whether Colin Charvis is English or Welsh.GordyB (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It won't work, the Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh will want to be defined as their own nationalities. It happens in all other fields, rugby should be no exception. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They might want to but these labels have no objective basis in fact. There is no such thing as Scottish (or English) nationality in law. There is no way that you can put a player in one category or another other than an arbitrary (and POV) basis.GordyB (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Law has nothing to do with it, the basis of the category is that we place articles into groups that aid recognition. Nationality is based on place of birth, and ones adopted nationality. Otherwise we should be attacking the Cary Grant article for stating that he is an English film actor... but we don't. If Nationality is an issue, like Colin Charvis, then give them more than one nationality. I've already given one example of a Germanic/Scottish player, should we call him European?FruitMonkey (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

European isn't a nationality, British is and Cary Grant should not be described an English film star becausse English isn't an official nationality. It's difficult nay impossible to decide if a Welshman has adopted "Englishness" just because he lives in England. There is no "Englishness" ceremony nor any change in legal status that would identify an "assimilated Welshman" from an "unassimilated one".GordyB (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Now this is getting interesting. Depending on your usage of the term nationality, Europe, Britain or Wales are all nations or only Britain. It's either a group of people under a state or the ethnic or cultural bonding of a group of people. It's a very difficult situation, as we will not be able to stop people being categorised as British only, as there is too much desire by people to categorise by their perceived nationality. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the idea that England, Wales etc are nations just that "English" and "Welsh" aren't defined in any legal way so that it is very difficult to say who is English and who is Welsh. This problem occured on the rugby league equivalent as players were identified as "Italian" on the grounds that they might have had an Italian grandparent (or even less) or "Welsh" on the grounds that they were eligible to represent Wales via residency. It got really absurd.GordyB (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also I don't think anyone suggested dropping the union, just switching footballer to player, therefore 'rugby union footballer' would become 'rugby union player'. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My vote is for "rugby union player". I've never heard anyone talk about rugby players as "footballers" off-wiki. I prefer a title like (eg:) "List of Australian national rugby union players". Any takers? - Sahmejil (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion has developed a few distinct issues and we should also distinguish between what is relevant to the lists, and the categories here, and what would affect both.

The footballer vs player terminology would obviously affect lists, categories and even use within the specific article.
The lists mentioned in this thread title should be populated with all names that have been awarded caps, or at least international status by their rugby board. (This makes any discussion about a player's "nationality" unnecessary. It doesn't matter what passport they hold/held or where they were born/lived or what the law says - only what international team(s) they played for. Actually a very simple process since the respective rugby bodies decides their status, not us.)
For the categories of international players the above also applies.
For the categories of national players, the nationality might be a worthwile discussion.

Since the "biography-angle" and the "rugby union-angle" have different contributions to the article, would it be a bad thing to be an "English doctor and a Welsh international rugby player"? (John Griffin) The two statements deal with seperate issues that are not mutually exclusive, don't they? - Sahmejil (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. The lists should only link people to the country to which their caps were awarded, not their own (or perceived) nationality. I only believe that someone can be given multiple nationalities under their own articles though catogarisation. I hope that I didn't confuse people to think my opinion was different earlier on. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been stagnant for quite a while, but I don't think there is clear consensus yet.

Can we start systematically changing footballer to player?
Can we call people that played for Australia : "Australian players"? (And by the same token, English, Scottish, South African etc...) - Sahmejil (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it has to be "List of England international rugby union players" or "List of England international rugby union footballers". Using the demonym instead of the country name just opens up the possibility of people including English players who have played for a different country. I definitely prefer the "rugby union footballers" title, but if more people prefer "rugby union players" then I'm happy to go along with that. – Pee Jay 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind between footballers and players, but as PeeJay mentioned above, we can't change the naming of the categories as discussed earlier in this article. You can still have Australian rugby players and Australia rugby union international players, but they are not the same thing. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - Che Guevara is an example of a notable "Argentine/Argentinian rugby player", and there is at least several websites I know of which talk about his great love of the game, but he never got anywhere near the national side. In The Motorcycle Diaries, he is also known as "Fuser", a rugby based nickname. However, he's much better known for his guerilla activities, much as Messrs Bush and Clinton are slightly better known as American presidents than players. There are dozens of other examples, even from within the game - Izak van Heerden - great coach, but never made Springbok. Bill McLaren, played for Hawick and even some Scottish XVs, but never made a full cap... so Bill and Izak are Scottish/South African players rather than Scotland/South Africa ones.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I've done a runner (been offline for a few days) - and the words "can" and "worms" spring to mind. In my experience, "footballer" tends to be used by older rugby folk, but I do notice it occasionally creeping into the BBC's coverage still. I think we have to face the fact that soccer has completely appropriated the term "football" in many places (even though rugby is actually more like the pre-codified football varieties). Is there some way of getting a "robot" to do some of the legwork if it does get changed?

Another issue, which I might as well mention. I notice an issue with the disambiguation of players from folk of the same name. In my view "X (rugby)"/"X (rugby player)" should be reserved for people who have played both codes, the rest should be under "X (rugby union)" (and "X (rugby league)" for RL). It's very difficult to link articles when there isn't really a standard for this.

As regards nationality, speaking personally I may be "British" on paper, but it is something completely alien for me, and the imperial overtures of the British Lions do nothing for me (one lion on the shirt, Union Jacks and going off to the Colonies etc - not my cup of tea thanks). Scottishness is a choice for me, admittedly, but it is also a result of my background, long term residence etc. I've no problem with the likes of Cary Grant being called "English" - I think for far too long, English people have conflated Britishness with Englishness.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you back around. I quite like the Lions concept personally and the way it takes in the best (possibly) of these islands, but that's rambling off the point. I'm totally with you on the (rugby union)/(rugby league)/(rugby player) business and I can vaguely remember chipping into a debate on this very subject at some point, possibly on the RL project board. I'd always follow that formula for disambiguation myself and it'd be good to have it as a consensus standard. Anyone got any supportive or argumentative thoughts?--Bcp67 (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Myself, I'm against the (rugby union) and (rugby league) as it is against Wikipedia standards. The American sport articles have got away with this, and have decided that this is now standard, but it is argued against outside American sports. The point being that the disambiguation should explain the persons profession or description. Therefore Winston Churchill (politician) not Winston Churchill (politics). I personally believe that (rugby union player) / (rugby league player) / (rugby player) are the way forward. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough, if a bit cumbersome!I'd be happy to fit in with that.--Bcp67 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There's probably a need for some kind of straw poll here. We have several possible options. The methods of going about this on wikipedia are bureaucratic and time consuming. But if and when we do this, I hope rugby fans will muck in. There's nothing worse on wikipedia than people voting through/against stuff that they know nothing about! However, like that pesky business with the Irish flag, it's never going to be completely ironed out, and will keep popping up til kingdom come, but I think it's worth considering this, and the majority of articles can be standardised.

"X (rugby)" is useless in many ways, unless we're talking "dual coders". I'm sure that many league fans will agree with me too. (Gordy B is on the RL project too).--MacRusgail (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC) p.s. The Churchill business, I'd definitely favour "politician" over "politics" as it makes more sense. "Politics" should be used for abstract concepts and inanimate objects, not people.

I like the idea of changing it from footballers to players and regarding the "X (rugby)" issue, it should only be added to those with a disambig list and the "X (rugby)" one to those that are not players or have not been players for sometime such as coaches, sport administrators or referees and if a player has disambig issues such as another player with the same name, then the country should be used such as "X (Welsh rugby player)" etc. No need to add "X (rugby)" or "X (rugby player)" to a player with no disambig list (unique name) for example Sitiveni Sivivatu etc..--Warpath (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Important point though... where there is no disambiguation, a redirect might be desirable, e.g. Sitiveni Sivivatu (rugby union), to the main article. Or at least in the more notable examples.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My preference for "X (rugby union)" rather than "X (rugby union player)" agrees with Warpath's comment above about people who hasen't been players for some time. For example, is Ian McGeechan a rugby union player, or a rugby union coach? Of course he's neither exclusively, he's been both in his time. So to me, (rugby union) suits better. In the other area I edit a bit, horse racing, a common disambig is (horse racing) which covers jockeys, trainers, owners, whatever and works well for individuals who have had more than one role. Agree with the idea about disambig using country for similarly named individuals (e.g. Steve Smith), and year of birth is the next disambig where name & country is the name (e.g. the two Welsh John Bevans from the 70s)--Bcp67 (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree, however when writing two new bios of Scottish rugby players I used the format - Angus Buchanan (rugby) and Thomas R. Marshall (rugby). This is simply because they played in the 1870s, before the schism. (I was amazed Angus Buchanan and William Cross had no articles, but that's by the by) As for adding "player", I think this should be put up to a vote. A standardised naming system is preferable.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC) p.s. Dabbing can be a complicated business - check out Scottish Labour Party (disambiguation) - some of these are unrelated parties.

This isn't something we can vote on as a project. It is a Wikipedia-wide situation. Adding rugby would be incorrect if the person is a rugby player, even if it was before the schism as it does not disambiguate the person. Again the disambiguation should be what the person was most notable for to allow people to chose the correct article. Angus Buchanan was not a rugby, he was a rugby player. If we go ahead and make an incorrect decision as a Wikiproject we can just see this being ripped apart later on by a Wikipedia-wide decision. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sucession box - Template:S-sports

Sporting positions
Rugby Union Captain
Rugby union

At the moment various sucession boxes (mostly used for captains/tournament winners) start with this template and lead to the header "Sporting positions". There is now two extra options: { { s-sports|ruc } } will give "Rugby Union Captain" and { { s-sports|run } } will return "Rugby union". - Sahmejil (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Tidy darts! I'll start integrating into needy articles. Thanks. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential historic image resource

Hi, browsing across Flickr I came along some nice collection of historic rugby relates photos, sport card, some scans from the early 1900 [1]. As I am not an expert in this field, I cant evaluate it's value. At least some of images are clearly in public domain because of age and if found useful freely uploaded to Commons. If you will need help in licensig, uploading and so on feel free to contact me --Justass (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Statsguru

I believe we should add the statsguru detail to every player article. Why you might say?, its because it the only stats which is reliable and update regularly and if we have a smart wikipedian, they can make a bot (RugBot, RakaBot) which can update players stats from the site instead of being forced to do it manually all the time. We could add the statsguru thing to the rugby infobox if the bot idea seems a bit crazy..any1?..--Warpath (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Team Colour Templates

it would be a good idea to emulate Template:Leagueicon (suggested Template:Rugbyicon) and I have started to create colours on Shute Shield but I'm not good with templates and things, but if someone knows and needs colours created i already have the Graphical template for it. --Hatgreg (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, new messages go at the bottom of the page. Second, this is a terrible idea, not least because of WP:MOSICON, which states "Do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas". Since these icons would be synthesised specifically for the purpose of decorating our articles and would have no basis in reality other than an estimation of each team's colours, they would be in violation of WP:OI. Sorry. – Pee Jay 09:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't violate the laws as it reflects a clubs colours which are a set pattern and are not considered a manipulated image or rather an image created using no legitimate information, they convey a brand and help people identify a team and could be seen as a useful tool, as it is used in the many rugby league articles, people find things easier to identify using pictures.--Hatgreg (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the rugby league project is wrong on this matter for the same reason that this project would be wrong to use a synthesised flag to represent Ireland. Creating an icon to fill a perceived need for one is inappropriate, especially when that need is for decorative purposes. Furthermore, the club's colours may be a set pattern, but the patterns used in these icons have very little relation to the club they represent other than the colours used. If anything, we should be using the club badges, but since those are copyrighted and limited to Fair Use only, we must not use any form of icon at all. This idea really is a non-starter. – Pee Jay 17:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of team colored templates but not in favor of team union icon..its silly and per PJ. I would love to see a canterbury colored squad template (for e.g {{Crusaders squad 2008 Super 14 champions}}). something we used to have before...on every cantab players profile instead of that ugly gay (no offense to LGBT's) colored purple (for e.g {{Crusaders squad}}) which always makes me throw up in my mouth a little...--Warpath (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The award for bad taste in rugby must surely go to Stade Français. Their current kits, and their website certainly hit new lows... --MacRusgail (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical flags

Is the flag in usage Six_Nations_Championship#Home_Nations_1883.E2.80.931909 correct ? was never officially the flag of Ireland and WP:MOSICON says we should use the flag the IRFU use or should we use historical flags which can be WP:V .

A knock on of using historical flag is the Wales and Scotland might have some issues . 87.198.164.254 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Deja vu, ever get the feeling we've been here before?

Sorry about that! The Irish flag issue is a boring one, which will never please everyone. The two best choices - the shamrock, and the four provinces were turned down. The St Patrick's cross is a non-starter as you say. There is no issue, at all about the Scottish flag. We have used the St Andrew's Cross for over a thousand years. The thistle is the rugby logo, and the lion is the royal ensign, but there is no issue. Likewise, the flag of Wales is done and dusted, for all but a few Christians who think the dragon is satanic, and one or two republicans. The Welsh flag was in use during WWI (I've seen it on recruitment posters), the design just got standardised in the 1950s.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

But did the SRU and WRU use them since 1873 or so? If they did then there is no issue. What about Canada pre 1965. I notice the South Africins are using historical flags here? Has this been discussed and a rule of thumb been accepted 86.42.64.254 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not an issue of the Unions using the flag, it is the flag being used to associate nationality within the articles. Thus the problem with Ireland. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is the core of the issue. Other flags for Ireland where rejected as the IRFU don't use them and would be considered WP:OI 86.42.64.254 (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This may never get solved so I'd like WPRU People to do us a favour. In places where the ireland flag is used with a link to the rugby team, please use {{ru|IRE}} because in the future when this problem does get fixed, we can just make the changes in the template and it will automatically apply to all related articles instead of going around and fixing it manually and since we don't have a rugbybot, it will be a hassle......and If the irish flag prob doesn't get solved, I will just use a pic of Brian O'Driscoll as the irish flag..hehe..--Warpath (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ireland, is not Ireland's flag. We shouldn't use this just to save some potential time in some potential future where some potential fix has been found 86.42.64.254 (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The St Andrew's Cross has always been the flag of Scotland, as far as rugby is concerned, although you can frequently see the lion rampant, and of course thistle on display. It's really not an issue as far as Scottish rugby goes. I'm frankly sick to death of the bureaucratic mess over the Irish flag - and don't want it extended to Scotland, where there is no sectarian issue over our national flag etc.

Along the same lines, must every South African player pre-199? or every Canadian pre-19?? (whenever the flags were changed) have the relevant flag or not? --MacRusgail (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

N.B I've renamed this section to Historical flags. I want to prevent a repeat of previous Irish flag discussions. This is about Historical flags and should we be using them 86.42.64.254 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't we spend a lot of time here talking about flags? Personally I'm no enthusiast for them and I don't generally feel they add much to pages except possibly to bring a bit of visual interest; the big deal is getting the information itself into appropriate articles, accurately detailed and properly referenced, and for my money flags are just so much fluff - plus they cause problems like this issue of whether a flag was historically correct for the time or the endless saga about what we can use to represent Ireland. Sorry if this sounds a bit miserable but in all honesty I'd rather spend my wikienergy on improving the quality of articles.--Bcp67 (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Footballers-->Players

As per apparent consensus in the "Name standardisation" thread (which has since taken a different direction), I have started changing "Footballers" to "Players" where it concerns rugby union. So far not much, mostly the Lists of international rugby union players (their titles and leads). It seems like the most work will be changing individual article titles and categories. There are about 87 categories with "rugby union footballer/s" in the name. Apparently each category name change has to be discussed. Should they be be done individually or can I group them all together and submit them? Does someone have a better idea? - Sahmejil (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was interested to see how this was done elsewhere on wikipedia. I was wondering whether basketballer or basketball player was preferred - seems "b. player" is used e.g. Category:Basketball players --MacRusgail (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone told me that "footballer" is UK English only and Americans say "football player", with that in mind I think "basketballer" probably doesn't make sense in American English. We ought to change to a Mid Atlantic usage i.e. players.GordyB (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've often heard American basketball players refer to themselves as "ballers", so I would reckon that "basketballer" isn't as uncommon a term as you might think. – Pee Jay 21:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "footballer" is used in Oz & NZ (poss SA too). I was interested to see how this was done with basketball where there is a similar situation - I have heard "basketballer" (but not "baseballer"). I think the tendency is going toward r.u. "player" rather than "footballer", plus it has the added advantage of fewer letters, so less typing!!! (although of course "A. f.ball player" is even more cumbersome than "A. f.baller"!) I do still hear "footballer" used in relation to rugby from time to time, but personally I would have never referred to myself as such when I used to play.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned at the start of this thread, the categories seem to be the biggest hurdle in changing the terminology. Since there seems to be a general consensus in the recent "Name standardisation: Lists of international rugby union footballers"-thread, as well as in this one, I have nominated all categories with rugby union footballers to be changed to rugby union players at the Categories for discussion page. Since I propose an umbrella name change affecting ALL categories using the "footballer" term (in stead of individually changing >100 categories), the discussion seems to need explicit support from WP:RU. Please discuss here - Sahmejil (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Added my tiny voice to the discussion and I'd encourage anyone else who has an opinion, on whichever side, to do the same, in the interests of a proper debate and consensus.--Bcp67 (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the vote, but I think you both voted the right way. I think "footballer" is used, but mainly for soccer players these days.... Hopefully some robot can change most of the cats. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to update all that 104 subcategories are being renamed with the help of Cydebot as per this discussion's conclusion, so expect some activity in that department. Also please continue to change the use of the "footballer" term to "player" wherever you may come across it. Here actually seems to be non-beurocratic, cooperative wiki-ing in action! :) Sahmejil (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ireland flag (yet again, and again, ....)

I see that File:Irelands Flag.svg has started to show up on several articles. Is there consensus for that? I'm unclear whether that is close enough to the real IRFU flag to be a copyright violation or not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The image is clearly based on the real IRFU flag and would probably be considered a copyright violation. There was no discussion about it here, and it should be deleted. – Pee Jay 06:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion on Commons. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just reverted the flag off the six nations template, and then after a discussion and a balls up realised I couldn't remember the exact rationale for it not being included and have put it back. I'm seeing alot of probably copyright discussions etc, but no definitive discussion. Even if it was copyright, wouldn't it come under fair use as per WP:LOGO for example? Cheers ^Khukri 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted logos can be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons) for fair-use on a minimal number of locations per the WP:Non-free content criteria policy. Practically speaking, this means that the IRFU logo and/or flag could appear on the Irish Rugby Football Union page (as File:Ireland rugby.png now does), but cannot be used as a decorative icon on pages such as 1999 Rugby World Cup, nor transcluded by a template such as {{Six Nations wins}}. I think that template ought to be fixed now, before the image is deleted on Commons. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK then so which would be the more correct, the clover or flag? The clover I would say is a symbol of the IRFU body itself, and then the flag being logo of the team? Shouldn't the flag be tagged in the same way as the Clover, as fair use logo and not deleted? all I'm trying to do is just get a definitive discussion noted somewhere for everyone to point to in the future saying why X, Y or Z was done. Thanks ^Khukri 18:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, the flag image ought to be tagged the same way as the logo. But it must be deleted from Commons, which cannot host any fair-use images. It can (and should) be re-uploaded to this Wikipedia, but per NFCC policy, it would be subject to the same kinds of usage restrictions as the logo. That means it must be removed from User:UBX/IRFU, Template:Six Nations wins (as you have done, thanks), and most of the articles in which it is included directly. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

<facepalm> just seen there's a mention of it on the project frontpage and a really long discussion there, thanks for your help. ^Khukri 21:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>Following on from last nights discussion and one I've just had with Andrwsc who recommended I brought it here first, would any one have any objections if I removed one line from the {{rugby squad player}} template. To allow that the code IRL denotes the irish flag, as it's the players nation or nationality the template is depicting and not to which union they are affiliated? Cheers ^Khukri 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not agree with this. The flags in teams' rosters are supposed to denote which national team they are (most) eligible to play for, not where they come from. Case in point, Manchester United F.C. lists Owen Hargreaves as English, not Canadian, as he plays for England despite being born in Canada. Apologies for not coming up with a rugby example, but you get my point. – Pee Jay 10:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but in this case he is actually English. Mark Van Gisbergen on the Wasps page would be an example you are looking for, as he doesn't hold a British pasport I think. But what I am looking for is if you look further down the Wasps page, the players in and players out the tricolor is displayed as their nationality. The template is titled Nat being nationality or one could argue Nation, if this is used to denote which country they play for it should be entitled affiliation or union to remove ambiguity, as Joe Bloggs off the street will instantly assume it's their nationality being displayed which is incorrect. Anyways I digress, prior to Andrwsc change at the beginning of the month, one could put Ireland down as the country code and get the tricolor, I'm not talking about removing all of them, to add the tricolor that would be incorrect, I'm talking about giving the templates an options. Does this not mean the template should be changed as well, at the moment the Ireland links to the IRFU, shouldn't the other flags link to their repsective unions? <tongue in cheek> Also if this template is used then to denote affiliation, where would I put myself:P born in England, Scots parents, residency and licensed in both France and Switzerland, and ended up playing for representative to a country I don't have a passport and don't claim that nationality. Cheers ^Khukri 13:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a small point of clarification—it was actually User:Gnevin's edits of 6 February to change the behaviour of that template to remove the flag when the nat parameter was set to IRE or IRL. My edit on 7 October was also to give the same treatment when the input parameter was Ireland and not just a country code. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys the discussion, has restarted on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)#IRFU_flag. I proposed (innocently I swear!) to use the Shamrock like it is done on other Wikipedia editions (French, German, Welsh, Spanish, Italian) because it is neutral and because having no icon for Ireland is just visually frustrating. I think we had quite a clear discussion and the last important bit would be in my mind this opposition of views (I quote below the end of the discussion):

OK so I'll try to go forward. First let's recap the (legitimate) potential concerns on the use of the Shamrock for Irish teams in RU.

. WP:OI: I think we can easily agree on this point that the Shamrock is not an original image. As Gnevin quotes: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments
. WP:COPY: The Shamrock is clearly in the public domain, so there is no copyright issue either.
. WP:OR: Gnevins raises a valid concern about the choice to use the Shamrock for RU teams. Clearly, the Irish RU teams do not enter the stadium with a Shamrock flag. Though Leicester does not show up with an English flag in Heineken Cup nor Stade Francais does with a French flag. We can decompose this concern in two part:
1. . Is the association of Shamrock with Ireland OR? No definitely not as the Shamrock page clearly states. "The shamrock is also informally used as an emblem for sports teams, state organisations, and troops abroad from Ireland: Celtic F.C., the IRFU, [...]."
2. . However, there is a legitimate concern that Wikipedia could suggest that the Shamrock is a flag for Ireland, which would be OR. I would like to stress that this is the only concern about the use of Shamrock for Irish RU teams. So it is the only point we need to discuss to solve this issue.

I think that most readers a minimum knowledgeable in rugby or Irish culture would understand that a Shamrock in front of Irish RU teams is not a flag, but just a symbol representing Ireland. However because other icons in similar place are usually national flags (though it is not a rule), the concern 3.2 is worth considering.

Here is a simple solution: let's use the Shamrock with this picture like other Wikipedia editions, but transfer the icon from 'Flag_of_Ireland_rugby.svg' to 'Shamrock_Ireland.svg'. Any person curious of this icon can click on it and read in the description of the icon: "So, the image that is used on Wikipedia instead of a flag to represent Ireland in these contexts is a generic shamrock. This is not a real flag, and it is not used by the IRFU. It is just a Wikipedia-specific symbol. This image does not belong in Category:Flags of Ireland since it is not a real flag." I think it is perfectly clear and does not entail any confusion. By the way, the interesting discussions listed in the icon page: here and here show that the participants of the RU project are actually looking for an icon for Ireland, and that the Shamrock was one the most considered options.Gpeilon (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Note I don't contend the Shamrock is an OI, I contend that when its looks like a flag and is used like a flag it becomes a OI flag with a non OI shamrock on it. The sum of the whole has to be considered.

Note 2 I don't contend the Shamrocks association of with Ireland is OR or even with the IRFU ,I contend that when its looks like a flag and is used like a flag it becomes a OR flag with a non OR shamrock on it. The sum of the whole has to be considered.

We shouldn't assume the reader has any knowledge of Rugby ,let alone the complex nature of Irish politics . I wasn't aware the flag we used to use was a wiki invention till I went to Croke Park looked around and couldn't see this shamrock flag. It was presented in such a way here as to be the IRFU's flag. You Simple solution doesn't work because it's plain wrong . This [2] is the IRFU flag end of story. The shamrock icon/flag/logo/picture is not. You've invented the association between this flag and the IRFU just to suit wiki the definition of WP:OR, It is just a Wikipedia-specific symbol that's OR on a sliver platter right there! . Once again I'll ask why we are not discussing this at WP:RU?Gnevin (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

First I clearly not invent anything, just quoting other pages. Second, if somebody made a statement which is not the defense for my argument, so what. Let's remove the "Wikipedia-specific" bit as the Shamrock is clearly not Wikipedia specific. Third, yes let's talk on the RU page as they were looking for a symbol!Gpeilon (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrwsc has a very good point. If the intention is to serve as a navigational aid rather than as a claim or statement of some kind it is not misleading or false. Shamrock is a recognisable symbol of Ireland (more recognisable, I would contend, than many national flags). I would say the same for use of the Ulster Banner too in many circumstances. The NI assembly logo is also used in a similar manner. No one is claiming that Shamrock is a flag of Ireland. It's purpose in that context would be to serve as a visual aid only. In that context is is perfectly acceptable to take a degree of artistic license.

(As a point of interest though, shamrock emblems are not in the "public domain". Quite the contrary. Shamrock is an intrenationally registered emblem of the Government of Ireland. Use of shamrock emblems are controlled under trademark law. In practice, I believe, the Government of Ireland controls the emblem in trust for the entire island of Ireland.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is utter and complete balderdash. While there is certainly a level of control by the Irish State regarding commercial use of the Shamrock, use of the Shamrock generally is not controlled by trademark law. The page referenced by you refers solely to applications to the Irish Patent Office for issuance of an Irish-Registered Trademark which itself incorporates the Shamrock emblem. Use for normal non-commercial purposes is not controlled, nor would the State conceivably object ot the use of the Shamrock to indicate the 'irishness' of an Irish Rugby Football Team.

This entire issue has become full of these nonsensical pseudo legalistic arguments. For the sake of Reason itself, put the shamrock back on the pages. That this nonsense is continuing after all this time is baffling. Every time a consensus is approached, another ludicrous objection is raised. Instead of bringing the matter to finality, this non-controversy has been rattling on forever.Khavakoz (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So what do you think? :) Gpeilon (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this matter going to be brought to some conclusion in some manner? The present disagreement is taking pedantry to the nth degree. There is a clear association of the shamrock and Ireland, shamrocks are the core of the Official Copyrighted IRFU logo, ergo, use of a shamrock flag falls clearly within the following:

Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments

Can this idiotic argument now be brought to a conclusion? Khavakoz (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Any flag created for wiki would be an unpublished flag/logo/icon/etc of the irfu as such WP:OI applies Gnevin (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How so? The use of the shamrock logo, an internationally recognised symbol of Ireland, would not be creating a flag for the IRFU, but rather indicating that the player or team competes at an international level representing the entire island of Ireland without exception. Why is this not permitted?Khavakoz (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Khavakoz, you need to chillax. I made the statement purely as a point of interest. Did you not see how I placed it in parenthesis? How I preface it with the words, "As a point of interest"? How I preceded it with a paragraph asserting that I am of like mind to you? No, you didn't because you need to chillax. If you want this matter to reach agreement, you might first begin by not snapping irrationally at those that share your opinion.

Now for good measure, let's repeat the point of interest I made. Gpeilon, stated above that shamrock is an emblem that is in the public domain. As a point that may be of interest to some, it is not. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that page just say that the word "shamrock" or a picture of a shamrock is uncopyrightable in Ireland? Seems pretty public domain to me! – Pee Jay 13:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The shamrock is in the Public Domain. Use of the Shamrock by a commercial entity to denote a link to Ireland where there is no such link is likely to lead to suit by the Irish Government. That's an issue of Private International Commercial Law, and has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. Please don't tell me to 'chillax' (whatever the hell that means) then go repeating your counterfactual argument.Khavakoz (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It may help your appreciation of these issues (and other people's perspectives) were you to understand what "public domain" means in terms of copyright and trademarks. Like Gnevin says, we've gone off the deep end. I mentioned it only in passing as a point of fleeting interest. You don't find it interesting but you do you need to fret over.

WRT to "chillax", " see here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we may have gone off the deep end here. It doesn't matter if the shamrock is PD or not as we can't use it for reason not related to COPY Gnevin (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What, precisely, is the reason we cannot use it? You keep pointing to WP:OI as if it somehow answers this question. It simply doesn't. As has been stated elsewhere in this pointless tedious argument:

1: WP:OI permits the use of original images "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments"

2: The shamrock is identified clearly with Ireland, the shamrock appears clearly in the allegedly copyrighted IRFU logo, use of the shamrock in that context is not an unpublished idea or argument

3: I have also seen WP:MOSICON cited by you, and others, as some sort of holy grail in htis rgument, yet MOSICON clearly states that: "They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon." and "They are useful in articles about international sporting events to show the representative nationality of players (which may differ from their legal nationalities)". which is precisely what is sought here.

There are two approaches to this issue. One seeks to hide behind ever shifting prevarication based on simplistic understandings of the law. The other wants the job done.Khavakoz (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How are other all-Ireland sports handled in this regard? I know that Cricket also uses blank flagicons but don't know enough about what other teams represent all Ireland instead of separate teams representing the Republic and Northern Ireland. Oh and BTW, this would be easier to follow if it had been tagged to the bottom of the page instead of continuing an old thread in the middle noq (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

See Template:Country_data_Ireland#Sporting_teams Gnevin (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

All that tells us is that the same moronic determination has been made by some people regarding the cricket issue as here with the IRFU one.Khavakoz (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it is awkward to find this current discussion thread in the middle of a long talk page that badly needs archiving... Putting aside the repetitive rhetoric, the emotional attacks, and the alphabet soup of policy wonkery for a moment, let's try to get back to the core problem. To summarize where we're at:

It is desirable to use flag icons (versus any other kind of icon) to help the reader find specific national teams when browsing through long lists of results.
The specific flag used by IRFU to represent the Ireland national team is copyrighted, so we can't use it as an icon image on hundreds of articles. We could only use it (under fair-use policy) on the Ireland national rugby union team article, and maybe the Irish Rugby Football Union article, and that's about it.
I don't think anybody would seriously dispute the statement that the shamrock (generically) is a symbol used to represent the Ireland team.
What we're left with, then, is the following question: would a reader who is browsing a rugby article make the assumption that the flag of Ireland (at least in the rugby union context) is a shamrock on a white background, because they saw that image (at 22x20px or sometimes 30x27px resolution) in the same context that they see national flags for other teams?

I think the essential issue here is the inconsistency of using a symbol as a navigation icon for one team, but using a real-life flag as a navigation icon for every other team (and not just in rugby union, but in every other team sport where we use icons). Let's focus on answering this question rationally. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The 'inconsistency' arises because the situation of the IRFU is anomalous. All other rugby union teams are national or sub-national entities, rugby in Ireland is extra-national. This fact is non-debatable. I cannot see that a reader who is browsing a rugby union article would make the assumption that a shamrock flag is the flag of Ireland, in the same way that they wouldn't consider the St. George's Cross to be the flag of the United Kingdom.

Once you accept that the Irish Rugby Football Union situation is anomalous, you must accept that the solution to this impasse demands inconsistency. Khavakoz (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(sigh). I know all that. I said all that! I'm not trying to debate the facts about the Irish team, so please re-read my statement. We already have inconsistency, of course, in that we render no flag for Ireland, unlike any other team. So perhaps we don't need to change anything...
But I'll rephrase my question: would an average user misunderstand the shamrock symbol to be a real flag, because of how we use it for a navigational icon in the same way a real flag is used as an icon everywhere else? You've answered that question with a "no". But the rest of your response just threatens to get this discussion off-track again. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And other extra-national teams such as the British and Irish Lions and the Pacific Islanders rugby union team also have no flagicon - should we make one up for those as well? noq (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget the Arabian Gulf rugby union team. It should be noted that at one time we did have made up flag icons for those teams (e.g. File:Free Use British and Irish Lions flag.PNG was used in {{BILru}} and File:Free Use Pacific Islanders flag.png was used in {{PIru}}), but consensus here was to remove these flag montages. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that we could agree that the only point to debate is "is the Shamrock going to be confused as a flag"? I guess the question is relevant only if it there is a feeling that putting the Shamrock would tend to induce the belief that it is a flag. If I am not mistaken Gnevin said that he thinks his position is justified because he had this belief until he went to a match where the Shamrock was not the flag. Personally, I never thought it was a flag, if anything the different icon suggests very well it is something different from the Irelands we know. But if some here think that it would be misleading a lot of readers, then, a possible solution in order to improve the visual display of RU pages without inducing readers in error could be to do this for at least the first occurrence of the icon on the page:

Team	Pld	W	L	TF	PF	PA	+/−	BP	Pts
^aMunster (Ireland) (1)	6	5	1	19	185	94	+91	4	24
Northampton Saints (8)	6	4	2	16	138	104	+32	4	19
Perpignan	6	2	4	12	108	157	−49	3	11
Benetton Treviso	6	1	5	7	68	222	−154	1	5

^aThe icon of a Shamrock is used on this page to represent the island of Ireland. It should not be confused with an official flag.

If such a mention is regularly present on the pages using the Shamrock for RU, there won't be any possible confusion or at least Wikipedia won't be spreading the confusion in the population about the existence of a flag for Ireland. So what about that?Gpeilon (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this example at all. The flag icons are used to represent the location of the respective teams. Since Munster is clearly located in the Republic of Ireland, why can't the tricolour be used there? This discussion had been about the use of the shamrock to identify the Irish national team, not the island of Ireland. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't the flags used to indicate the Unions? Gnevin (talk) 22:49, 27 January

2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the flag icons are still inappropriate. The icons link to the articles for each country, and a screen reader would say something like "...Ireland Munster Ireland...England Northampton Saints...France Perpignan...Italy Benetton Treviso..." The unions aren't mentioned at all. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If they meant to represent the unions then we have been using the wrong flags for Wales, Scotland and England as the national flags are not the flags used by the countries unions. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't follow .Can you clarify ?Gnevin (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand the Red Dragon of Wales, is not the symbol of the WRU. They have never used the Welsh flag to represent Wales, no matter how much flag waving of 'Yr Ddraig Goch' at national games, the Welsh Dragon, for which is used on Wikipedia articles as a representation of the Welsh rugby team is not the symbol of the WRU. That is the three feathers. The SRU is the Thistle and the RFU is the Red Rose. Therefore discussing the symbol of the IRU is pointless as we do not follow this slant with the other nations, we just use their national flags. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

~~You and Andrwsc are right here . I was thinking of something else.So should Ulster have 2 flags? Gnevin (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)~~ Striking unclear, while Wales, Scotland and England may have their own logos they still fly their respective flags at games and the IRB use them to represent them. So this column is still unclear as to it's meaning Gnevin (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if it is unclear, it is because Wikipedians have not been trying to solve a legal problem, but to illustrate teams with an icon easy to understand. This fuzzyness is another point in favour of the Shamrock.Gpeilon (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we have two different problems.

The Irish national team: Shamrock?
The regional clubs: national flags? with the problem of Ulster though :(

So for the first point, would you find my suggestion appropriate? For instance in the Six Nations tournament page we could use the Shamrock and include a note for its first use. What about that?

For the regional clubs, the binationality issue is restricted to Ulster. The other regions are located in the Irish Republic, so we can use legitimately

and for Ulster there is an official flag

, hurra! It is not fully satisficing as some regions are represented by a national flag and one by a regional flag, but it is the one which makes the most sense: we only restrict the problem to Ulster and get the Ulster flag. No OR whatsoever and we have nice flags for Irish regional teams.

So, are we close to get an agreement?Gpeilon (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The regional team flags idea is a non-starter IMO. The flag next to a team name is supposed to indicate the national union to which the team is affiliated, so we definitely can't use the flag of Ireland for Connacht, Leinster and Munster, nor can we use the flag of Ulster for Ulster. If we decide to use the shamrock for the Irish national team, then we should use that for the four regions, but I still don't think it's a good idea to apply a flag to Ireland just because "it looks bad without one". The IRFU has its own flag, but we can't use that because it's copyrighted, and in my opinion, using any other flag would be against WP:OI, i.e. the IRFU doesn't use a plain image of a shamrock as its emblem, so we shouldn't either. – Pee Jay 01:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well at least if something is sure, it is that the Shamrock is not WP:OI has I think everyone has agreed over the course of the discussion.Gpeilon (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This argument is, yet again, looping back in on itself. Can we bring the debate back to the table Gpeilon used - the flags are surely not meant to denote the location of the teams cited, they clearly should denote the home union of the team. Take the example of Biarritz_Olympique, which plays many of its home games in San Sebastian, Spain, but whose Home Union is France. Should BO's iconography be half-french half-spanish because of this? So much of this debate seems to be based on simple misconceptions.

The shamrock flag is not an invention, it is closely linked to Ireland, it is an element of the IRFU flag which is (supposedly) copyrighted so can be used to denote it. The small flag should link to the IRFU page, or the Ireland_national_rugby_union_team page, as indeed (in the context of Rugby Union) the iconography should direct to the relevant Home Union (RFU , FFR , &c) for the other teams. Khavakoz (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of misconceptions no one is claiming the Shamrock was just invented for wiki. We are all aware of its association with Ireland. Also

isn't OR as it's just a shamrock on a white background. It however has no practical usage on the Wiki mainspace. Ireland

is or as you've invented the relationship between the IRFU and this icon Gnevin (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I really cannot understand what you are saying here. "is or as you've invented"?? The Shamrock has a clear association with Ireland and Irish sporting teams and organisations. It should be used to represent Irish Rugby here. You are the only person claiming this is a problem, something you've continually claimed in these debates, preventing the issue from being resolved.Khavakoz (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand why were not using this . Stasm (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we just use words? Even if it's just the addition of union or country row in these tables Gnevin (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think about it Gnevin, not choosing an icon may in the end be less neutral than choosing one. Choosing for Irish teams not to have an icon, send the message "beware this is not a country". Frankly everybody know this, do we need to stress it by preventing Ireland to have an icon? The IRB uses a flag for Ireland, so the choice to use an icon for Ireland is surely not WP:OR, if anything, it is the very specific position of some people here that Ireland should not be represented which is WP:OR as outside Ireland is indeed represented by an icon. Now, the Shamrock is not WP:OI, and if we add the mention I suggested, it will definitely thought of as a flag, so no WP:OR.Gpeilon (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that not having an icon for Ireland is certainly less neutral than otherwise. The impression is given that Irish Rugby has less status than other teams. Can this matter now be brought forward on the lines cited here by Gpeilon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khavakoz (talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good God, Gnevin, you really don't know when to give it a rest!!!

I can think of a dozen more important things on the rugby union pages, like major players who have crappy pages, poor information about various teams and tours, and incidents etc. And what are we spending all our time on? Some stupid argument about a flag. I agree with Khakakoz on several points. What is all this nonsense in aid of? --MacRusgail (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Could someone have a look

An editor has created this International rugby players roll of honour 1914-1918 and is creating articles for the men named, I don't know anything about rugby or if the people are notable a couple have been speedied tagged already and I moved 2 of them, so could someone have a look who knows about these things thanks. BigDunc 21:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work, but I think it is a valid article. The subject has a great deal of social context and I think this ought to be brought out in the introduction. Many of the names listed already have articles and just need linking. Those that do not have articles are still notable individuals; their lack of articles simply highlights the need for the history of rugby to be better illuminated on wikipedia (which, by the way, I acknowledge is being addressed by a number of editors).Kwib (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have linked a few of the Scottish players and also created articles when I can find enough information (some of them only got one cap I think). Useful exercise in creating less recent player bios perhaps.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Update - have added some images, where available, of various players (not all in rugby situations), plus identified a few more. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is looking so much better now. Excellent job.Kwib (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that - excellent example of the project in action! Well done to everyone involved. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks, but still needing some work. I have created mainly Scottish articles - since other than general books, I have Scottish ones. I'll need to look at the James Campbell (rugby union) article and see if there's been some confusion between "James A. Campbell" and "John Argentine Campbell" or if they're different people. Could also be misprint in the sources as well.

I think the French ones need to be looked at, and I will be looking at least one of the English entries. Don't know where to start with the French fatalities. It's actually pretty sobering when one thinks about these guys playing rugby in March 1914, and then getting mown down by the end of the year.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This has also turned up List of England rugby union footballers killed in the World Wars - seems it has been around a while, but I didn't know about it. Probably should be extended to include Boer War.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

How about changing the article to List of England rugby union footballers killed in military service? – Pee Jay 20:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a Welsh one as well; List of Wales rugby union footballers killed in the World Wars. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

PJ, I think it would be better to keep the English article to do with the WWs for now. We don't have decent lists for the Boer War (at least one intl died in that - the Scottish player Monypenny), Korean War, Mau Mau rising etc etc for England, let alone the other countries. Bear in mind if we do Aus and NZ along the same lines that the ANZACs were in Vietnam too.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have created several articles on some of the French players who lost their lives in the conflict. They are basically cut, paste and translate jobs from the French wikipedia. If someone could look these over (et si vous parlez/compronez la Franc,ais, ils sont en attendant un peu de traduition - my French doesn't extend to rugby jargon so I had to look some of it up), and correct them, I'd be grateful. Here they are - RIP - Joé Anduran, Marcel Burgun, Marc Giacardy, Pierre Guillemin, Henri Lacassagne, Gaston Lane Alfred Mayssonnié‎, Theódore Varvier (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Create shortcut

Can someone point Wikipedia:RUIRLFLAG to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Why doesn't Ireland have a flag? 87.198.164.254 (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please stop removing the template with that nonsense. The temp should redirect there anyways so please stop replacing them. you are just making our jobs harder. If the template is there, then in the future when this flag debacle gets solved, we just need to make some minor change to he template and it would take effect on all articles with that template in. We do NOT have a rugby bot that can go around fixing those so please let it stay the way it is. The Irish flag problem has got more to do with WIKIPEDIA and their stupid copyright laws which I personally believe is utter crap.... than the IRU or the republic of Ireland so the problem lies here only.......--Warpath (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

and

Ireland are not Ireland's flags and to quote myself "We shouldn't use this just to save some potential time in some potential future where some potential fix has been found". The Con here and policy are quite clear. If

Ireland rendered a blank we could use it but it doesn't so we can't 87.198.164.254 (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Will you please stop reverting . Please read the discussion at Wikipedia:RUIRLFLAG 87.198.164.254 (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The question mark ? means the validity and usability of the Irish flag in rugby related articles is in question so it should stay and secondly i do agree that the 4prov flag is not legit and should not be used in any article until this problem is solved but that doesn't mean you replace all the flags with that wikilink. Find some other method cause in the last 2 years, we have lost more than 70% of the WP:RU cabal members and we may lose a lot more soon and theer are not that many joining up. I, myself would leave at the end of this month (new year, new beginnings) and I'm already coming across a few dozen Rugby related articles which are in a mess whereas a few years back, everything was in tip-top condition. Don't create more hassles/mess or it may never get fixed....--Warpath (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The validity and usability of the Irish flag is not in question. We just can't use it . Have you even read the past discussions on this issue? You are repeating arguments which have been made and rejected . We will see that other project member think. 87.198.164.254 (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about ? 87.198.164.254 (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop! This debate has been done to death. Everything that can be said on it, has been said. It's a waste of time. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On the please stop thing - I agree, but am a bit puzzled why cricket on wikipedia has always managed to have some sort of symbol for Ireland, the IRB themselves have a symbol for Ireland on their website, but wikipedia rugby articles don't. It does seem a bit insane. Nature abhors a vacuum, and quite reasonable human beings will continue to ask. And yes, someone could tell me why, but that wouldn't change it being insane. It's clearly a template issue, sot let's put it down as a 'technical problem' for the foreseeable. (Or ask people to use Firefox). Stevebritgimp (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a template issue, it's a copyright issue. – Pee Jay 09:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure Ireland cricket has got a solution. Looking at Template:Ireland Squad 2007 Cricket World Cup I notice no flag; and the profiles of the players in that squad tend not to have flag icons denoting the national team.Kwib (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Refs (sorry flag related again)

Which is correct with regarding flags for refs?

If it's the Tri Nations, is 1887_Home_Nations_Championship usage correct for Ireland or should we link to the union? In fact wouldn't it be better for refs to link to the Union across the board Gnevin (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

...Aaaaarrrgghh! If we are going to connect the referees to their unions, then we will need to state Ireland (or whoever), but wikilink the country to the Irish Union. We just need to assume that the older referees; who may be harder to research, have been histroically recorded as representing their union nation, ie, If an old book stated Dr. Badger (England), then Badger was representing the RFU and wasn't just English representing the SRU. FruitMonkey (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry totally lost here . As you saying we should use the flags or not? Also in the example 1887_Home_Nations_Championship type usage is totally incorrect,geographic Islands don't have nationalities, the link should be Ireland [[United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland|Ireland]] if anything. Also the tricolour had no official standing then, who knows what the IRFU flew back then , this maybe. I think the 6 nations usage is just simpler Gnevin (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I've given up with the flags. I originally used the flags next to the referees to show their nationality. If that's not acceptable then drop the flags. If we want to link the referee to a union then I was stating that we should use [[Welsh Rugby Union|Wales]] rather than [[Wales national rugby union team|Wales]], which has been attempted recently. As for geographic Islands not having nationalitites that's a whole other kettle of fish, as nationality has two different meanings. Good luck changing the Robbie Burns article to "he was a [[United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland|Scottish]] poet". FruitMonkey (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But then again I don't own the articles, so shouldn't we get a consensus before we do this? FruitMonkey (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If any objects I'll "fix" them Gnevin (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there is a Wikipedia guideline that says that we shouldn't use icons where text would suffice (and in this case text would be better than an icon), we should definitely be using text to denote the union that the referee is representing; to that end, that text should also be linked to the union being represented. – Pee Jay 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rugby union trophies and awards

For a reason I can no longer clearly remember, I began to try to put together a list of the various trophies and awards within the world of rugby union. If anything, it might have been to help highlight those that had no articles and act as a portal to improving them all generally. Anyway, it didn't develop in my own namespace much past a week after implementation. I have decided to move it into the mainspace in order that collaboration can improve and enrich the article as opposed to allowing to languish in isolation. Rugby union trophies and awards is the article/list and I readily acknowledge its uncompleted state, but I feel that it is best opened up to the wider community.Kwib (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Shrewsbury

This article barely mentions that he organised the first British Isles tour, should be expanded perhaps.Ditto Alfred Shaw --MacRusgail (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical question - can't see categories

I thought the article 2009 Dubai Sevens was missing categories, but on trying to edit the page they are there; only I can't see them when the article itself displays. Would someone with a bit more expertise than me mind having a look and fixing it? Thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see the categories when the article displays, both in firefox and IE.Kwib (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Me too. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I can now as well !! Sorry about that, thanks for having a look anyway.--Bcp67 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Duncan Paterson

Just a quick note to mention that former Scotland international and team manager Duncan Paterson died this week. I've tried to update the article and reference it, but maybe those with a bigger slant on the Scottish game could do better job than me. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There was an obituary in the Scotsman (print version anyway) yesterday.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Three newspaper links. I did have a look at the article yesterday and it looks reasonable (by Scottish wiki rugby standards!!!) 1) Gavin Hastings saddened by death of Duncan Paterson 2) Duncan Paterson Obit, 3) Scotland legends and rugby officials recall Duncan Paterson. I'm afraid to say that I didn't know that Paterson had as many as 43 caps!--MacRusgail (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Renaming sub-categories of Category:rugby union players

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 27#Rugby_union_players.

I have no interest in rugby, but have done this to help follow through on the decision at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 11#Category:Rugby_union_footballers. A discussion at my talk page with a member of this project suggested some uncertainty on how to proceed, so I have done it myself.

I would be grateful if members of this project could spare a minute to go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 27#Rugby_union_players and indicate whether they support or oppose thus renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to update all that 104 subcategories are being renamed with the help of Cydebot as per the obovementioned discussion's conclusion, so expect some activity in that department. Also please continue to change the use of the "footballer" term to "player" wherever you may come across it. Here actually seems to be non-beurocratic, cooperative wiki-ing in action! :) Sahmejil (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Jacketts of Cornwall

I am assuming that Edward Jackett and Richard Jackett are related, but has anyone got confirmation. Thanks Eldumpo (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears so. Try sports-reference.com and 20thcenturylondon.org.uk. Is that any help? FruitMonkey (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the info to their articles. Eldumpo (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know if Edward Jackett was often referred to by his middle name John, as I'm looking to delete the John Jackett dab page, unless I should turn it into a redirect? Eldumpo (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah... my goof. Yeah, he was better known as John Jackett. We had two articles for the same guy and I meged to the wrong page. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What do we mean by these fields

What do we mean by the fields weight and height in {{Infobox Rugby biography}}. Do we mean

The players current weight and height ?
When they died ?
When they retired ?
When they played ?

Also I've checked a number of articles and none of them seem to reference these fields. This is a major issueGnevin (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming at their prime playing days. Height isn't really an issue, but for weight I tend to go for their prime international playing days. If you know of a fluctuating weight then dash them to show a lower and upper weight level. So when they died is not an option. Also the referencing is an issue as it is sometimes difficult to jam it into the article, as infoboxes should not be referenced. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic but doesn't your average international prop lose a few inches over the course of a career? Gnevin (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds a bit of an urban myth. I'd be surprised if you can find referenced sources to say pushing your weight against an opposing force for 2 minutes a week makes you shrink. FruitMonkey (talk)

Ok maybe so but I can tell you've never scrummaged if you think props only scrummage for 2 minutes a week :). The still issue stands as to the meaning and verifiability lets see what others think Gnevin (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone else offer up suggestions to what we mean by these fields?Gnevin (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"none of them seem to reference these fields. This is a major issue" - Where possible, I put references in the body of the article. Referencing within infoboxes seems overcomplicated and "breaks" the form.-MacRusgail (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

More sub-categories of Category:Rugby union players

As a followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 27#Rugby_union_players, I did a bit more searching, and found a further 48 sub-categories of Category:Rugby union players which still use the old "rugby union footballers" format, so I have nominated them for renaming in a further group nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 5#More_rugby_union_players.

As before, I would be grateful if members of this project could spare a minute to go to the CFD discussion and indicate whether they support or oppose this renaming.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PS In future, project members may wish to look out for any further categories using the outdated naming format. This search will find them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns14=1&redirs=1&advanced=1&search=intitle%3Arugby+union+footballers

... but obviously, doing it right now will return lots of categories which are already in the queue at WP:CFD/W, and those in the second group of 48. When the current batch is all done, this search should return nothing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday's group nomination of categories was closed as a speedy rename, and the bots have now done all the renaming. Using the search above I found a further 8 "rugby union footballers" categories which I have now taken to CFD. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 6#Even_more_rugby_union_players. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Male rugby footballers

FYI: proposal to delete Category:Male rugby footballers and its sub-categories. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 7#Category:Male_rugby_footballers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You maybe interested to know

You maybe interested to know that {{ru|IRL}} now generates Ireland Gnevin (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. A lot of discussion and hot air has resulted in this. Hope that's the end of it. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

French scrum.com template

I notice that French wikipedia has a nice template for scrum.com, e.g. "{{scrum|player=2846}}" produces http://www.scrum.com/scrum/rugby/player/2846.html

There are similar templates for IMDB.com the film website etc, does anyone know how to do this for rugby?--MacRusgail (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Brian O'Driscoll at ESPNscrum {{scrum|13120|Brian O'Driscoll}} Gnevin (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful to know.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The last of the footballers...?

Hi all. After some discussion apparent consensus emerged about changing the use of the term rugby union "footballer" to rugby union player. It seems that the laborious task of renaming all the categories is complete (thanks BrownHairedGirl!) so now the use within article text remains. Please keep an eye out for it and change as necessary. Cheers! - Sahmejil (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing Template:Rugby squad start

Would anyone object to changing Template:Rugby squad start to add a note similar to Template:Football squad start. I had made this change to Template:Rugby squad end but it was reverted . Gnevin (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

2006-2008 European Nations Cup First Division and 2007-2008 European Nations Cup First Division

Back in June 2008, User:Alanmjohnson created 2006-2008 European Nations Cup First Division as a copy of 2007-2008 European Nations Cup First Division, since apparently 2006-2008 is the more appropriate name for the article. However, he created it by copying the text, rather than by actually moving the article. A year later, he proposed that 2007-2008 European Nations Cup First Division be deleted, as it was the less-correct name. However, I removed the WP:PROD tag as that copy of the article is the one with almost all of the article history, and the article history needs to be maintained to comply with the licenses that Wikipedia uses. I was hoping he would correct the problem in the proper way by following the instructions at Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves or Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, but it seems that he never got around to doing it and it doesn't look like he has edited since July of last year. I would tag the articles myself to me combined, but I know nothing about Rugby, so I wasn't sure if User:Alanmjohnson was correct about which name is the proper one. I was hoping someone here could either tag the articles to be combined, or just confirm for me which name is the proper one so I can tag them. Calathan (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The most correct name to me is 2007-2008 as none matchs was played in 2006 in this edition.Stasm (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Bill McLaren, Invictus (film)

Can project members have a look over these two very topical articles please? I added Invictus to the project just now. It looks to be the biggest rugby film ever made, so it's actually pretty important.

Editors will be sad to hear about the death of Bill McLaren. I always respected him, and it's no exaggeration when folk say he did more than anyone else to encourage rugby in Scotland and perhaps the entire UK. The article about him, sadly, is not very good at all though. :( But it has improved. I think we owe it to him.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I see someone keeps readding the story about the All Blacks going down with food poisoning. Obviously I have heard this legend, like everyone else, but how true is it? Did it happen? Was it exaggerated? etc.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The food poisoning issue is a very vague area indeed. As far as my research could tell, the AB's didn't complain about illness or report it before the match. It only surfaced some time after, when the NZ media went on their traditional hunt for blood after the defeat. I guess this could be interpreted in two ways. Either they were trying to avoid "making excuses" and tough it out, or there really was nothing to complain about. The waitress "Suzie" was implicated by Mains, but no one ever knew or saw her or knew of her employment at the hotel. Suzie's involvement is further complicated by the more recent claims of the bodyguard Rory Steyn, which implicates Far eastern betting syndicates. It doesn't seem like anyone is denying that players were ill (although hard to reference - some quotes from the players themselves would help), but the source of the vomiting is disputed.

Suzie poisoning the water?
A syndicate poisoning the food?
Players sneaking out for dodgy seafood?
Bad catering / flu?
Or even just an intense and extended game of rugby at altitude?

As I understand the story was resurrected recently in the NZ media - hence the spate of edits along these lines, since any RWC defeat is obviously a sensitive issue there. - Sahmejil (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems suspicious that they never reported it before. Maybe they just got ill and infected one another - it does happen! --MacRusgail (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal link

Can someone add a link to the RU portal on the project page please.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal selected articles

I see these haven't been updated for around three years. I created some new ones here, and have attempted to get something of an international balance (although Asia and the Americas are difficult to find much on) with at least one picture in the article.

I would like to have Invictus featured this coming month, as it gets released in the UK on 2nd January. Also, I have created a link up to Bill McLaren for March, although his article needs to be improved more.

User:MacRusgail/Portal:Rugby union/Selected articles -MacRusgail (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What do these flags mean

The above discussion is a mess. What do the flags below indicate ?

The Union the team is registered with.

If yes then what should we do with London Scottish F.C.?

The Country the team plays in.

If yes what should we do with Ulster Rugby and Biarritz Olympique.

Team	Pld	W	L	TF	PF	PA	+/−	BP	Pts
Biarritz (2)	6	5	1	19	188	97	+91	3	23
Gloucester [6]	6	4	2	12	119	129	-10	1	17
Glasgow Warriors	6	2	4	9	120	140	-20	1	9
Newport Gwent Dragons	6	1	5	12	108	169	-61	2	6

My preference is to show the Union, using The RFU for London Scottish as they will be using a RFU qualifying place Gnevin (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

One we agree what we mean would users support changing these templates like so where x is Union or Country

Team	Pld	W	L	TF	PF	PA	+/−	BP	Pts
Biarritz (2)	6	5	1	19	188	97	+91	3	23
Gloucester [6]	6	4	2	12	119	129	-10	1	17
Glasgow Warriors	6	2	4	9	120	140	-20	1	9
Newport Gwent Dragons	6	1	5	12	108	169	-61	2	6

Gnevin (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I really object to this. Flagicons are almost always used as a shorthand for concepts like country of origin, location, nationality, or national representation, all of which are somewhat intuitive for the reader. I know that I have always assumed that the flags on the Heineken Cup articles meant the home location of each team. It is a big stretch to assume that a reader will associate the governing union with the flag. This sort of thing is discouraged on Wikipedia for other team sports (i.e. using a flag to represent a league of teams from that country). For the Heineken Cup articles, I propose replacement of the flags with a link to the actual union article, such as:

So you'd replace X with Country? Gnevin (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Team (Union)	Pld	W	L	TF	PF	PA	+/−	BP	Pts
Biarritz (France) [2]	6	5	1	19	188	97	+91	3	23
Gloucester (England) [6]	6	4	2	12	119	129	−10	1	17
Glasgow Warriors (Scotland)	6	2	4	9	120	140	−20	1	9
Newport Gwent Dragons (Wales)	6	1	5	12	108	169	−61	2	6

or

Union	Team	Pld	W	L	TF	PF	PA	+/−	BP	Pts
FFR	Biarritz [2]	6	5	1	19	188	97	+91	3	23
RFU	Gloucester [6]	6	4	2	12	119	129	−10	1	17
SRU	Glasgow Warriors	6	2	4	9	120	140	−20	1	9
WRU	Newport Gwent Dragons	6	1	5	12	108	169	−61	2	6

This would also solve the problem of Ireland, as it would be treated exactly the same way as the other five nations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

When did Biarritz make the switch to league :D Gnevin (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Euh? So because of the specific case of Ireland we would remove all the flags in European Rugby club competitions? The Heineken Cup and the European Challenge Cup would be the only European competition without flags on Wikipedia because we could not find an icon for Ireland? Does not seem to me as the most economical and reasonable option.Gpeilon (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the first option, isn't there a policy some where on the usage of abbreviations? I'd prefer your 2nd option if we expanded the links Gnevin (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, my point isn't that we remove flags because of Ireland. My point is that we should remove flags because they are not intended by the writers of these articles to have a meaning that would be intuitive to the casual readers of these articles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well this is not an appropriate solution. Rugby would be the only sport where the European club competition has no flag (and the real reason would be because we could not agree on Ireland). See Football, Basketball, Hockey, Ice Hockey, Handball, Table tennis, .... And you would find the same thing for the other club competitions in the world... Gpeilon (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look closely at those articles, you will see that the flag icons always represent the home location of each team, not the league or union they represent. For example, Sokil Kyiv is a Ukrainian team that plays in the Belarusian Extraliga. On the IIHF Continental Cup 2009 article, the Ukrainian flag, not the Belorusian flag, is used for that team. Therefore, on the Heineken Cup pages, if the flag of Wales is used for the Newport Gwent Dragons, that would imply to the reader that the home location for the team is in Wales. Makes perfect sense. If we used the tricolour for Munster, Leinster, and Connacht, and the Union flag (or no flag?) for Ulster, then this would be entirely consistent with all those other sports. But for this WikiProject, we seem to be advocating an association between a flag icon and a governing union (league), and not with a country location. That is what is inconsistent and unintuitive and should be fixed. I offered one solution (link the unions, remove the flagicons) and another is to keep the flags, but use them to represent the team's location. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to use an ice hockey tournament/team as an example here. On an unrelated note, I think that if Sokil Kyiv qualified for the IIHF Continental Cup as a result of their position in the Belarusian Extraliga, they should use the Belarusian flag next to their name, just as AS Monaco FC has to use the French flag when they compete in the UEFA Champions League despite them being a Monegasque side. But that's beside the point. Common sense needs to prevail here, and common sense dictates that Connacht, Leinster, Munster and Ulster are the four Irish regions, not three regions of the Republic of Ireland and one that's half Northern Irish and half Republic. Therefore, using flags to represent "home location" is ridiculous. The flag must represent the home union of the team, and if the reader doesn't realise that from the context of the page, then I have no idea how that person manages to use a computer. – Pee Jay 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather object to that. I bought my first computer about 28 years ago and have a degree in computer engineering, so I somehow "manage to use a computer", thanks. Yet it certainly wasn't obvious to me that flags on Wikipedia rugby pages represent the home unions and not the country where the team is from. And the IIHF considers Sokil Kyiv from Ukraine ("UKR"), so good luck with changing their flag icon to Belarus. Common sense here says that we either continue to use no flag for Ireland, since the island is not a country, or we add the tricolour to the teams that are undisputably located in the republic and leave only the Ulster team flagless. Or even better yet, get rid of all the flags and use links to the union articles instead. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK then, maybe we should be using the flag of the nation that the international governing body considers the team to be from. If the IIHF considers Sokil Kyiv to be from the Ukraine, then it makes perfect sense for them to use the Ukrainian flag, just as it makes perfect sense to use the flag of the IRFU to represent the four Irish unions or the Welsh flag to represent the four Welsh regions. If your common sense doesn't tell you the same thing, then you're not thinking hard enough. – Pee Jay 01:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate: the French flag is an appropriate icon for France, and if placed next to Biarritz, the casual reader would understand that the team's home location is in France. But the French flag is not an appropriate icon to represent the French Rugby Federation, because that association is not intuitive and not stated anywhere in those articles. I suppose we could add a legend to the top of all those articles, to help the reader make that initial association, but I think it is clearer to include the links to the respective union articles and avoid the icons altogether. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK Andrwsc, I agree so the question is about finding an icon for Ireland. Are you OK with the Shamrock?Gpeilon (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To use a shamrock to represent Ireland (the island, a geographic location), certainly not. To use it to represent the Ireland rugby union team on international tournament articles, maybe... I'm still undecided for that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously we are only talking of rugby and not Ireland in general. And we are dealing with situations of teams (national team/Ulster) which cross borders. From what you say, you could agree to have the Irish Republic flag for Munster, Leinster and Connacht and the Shamrock for the national team. This would leaves the problem of Ulster.Gpeilon (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And while your just inventing stuff can you invent me up a new name for Londonderry/Derry . The NI flag and about half a dozen issues that spring to mind that are difficult . Gnevin (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure to see the constructive side of this point. I think you have made very interesting points in the discussion, but in the end if you are the only one to think that OI is a problem, you'd have to let it go or we will need to use a mediation process. I'd be worried that in the present situation your staunchness (and not your arguments) on the issue just wear out all the contributors to the debate who have been numerous to take position in favour of an icon. I am saying without animosity. I am sure that you agree that wearing out contributors by standing on ones position is not a way to solve an issue on Wikipedia. So a mediation/survey would be welcome. A mediation first would be nice.Gpeilon (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is fine,I don't know why the previous 3 discussions on this issue here are being disreguarded but fine. Lets see if it's ok to just make sure up because we feel like it. Gnevin (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer to Gnevin proposal. I recognise the value of trying to define things properly, but here we are splitting hair in half (without willing to be rude). There is no ambiguity about the French flag for Biarritz whatsoever, playing few games in Spain don't make it a binational team. [Incidentally you'd not be popular with them to tell them that San Sebastian is in "Spain"]. In the same way, there is no ambiguity that Munster is Irish, we just need an icon. The IRB was able to find one, the other Wikipedia edition use the Shamrock, is it only here that we can't accept to use an icon for Ireland?Gpeilon (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't raise the issue of Biarritz some above did,I'd have them down as a French team by their Union. Perhaps instead of debating the odd ball cases we'd be better off agreeing what the flags here mean and then debating the odd balls. Also can we keep the Irish discussion above Gnevin (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm all for using the Shamrock, like we used to before. Not sure why we stopped doing it here while other wikis didn't. If official mediation is needed then let's go for it. All these unofficial discussions have been going on for ages and so far have only contributed to elevate my blood pressure. Saebhiar Adishatz

01:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

<unindent> My preference from the past remains the same, country represented by their flag with the Irish flag being the combined 4 provinces flag . Its a proper flag and representative of the Irish union so I don't believe it contravenes any guidelines but im aware this hasn't been a popular choice. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 10:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well this is the problem with inventing an association between the IRFU and a icon . Why use use 1 icon over a other ? There is no real reason apart from from we think one looks prettier than the other but sure while we are inventing stuff and throw everything that wiki stands for out the window, who cares,right? . If it came down inventing a association between the IRFU and a icon I'd rather the 4prov flag as at least we aren't inventing the icon also Gnevin (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this an invented association? The IRFU represents the four provinces. They have these very flags embedded on their union specific flag, so the association is clear and not one that Wikipedians have come up with. If one was to go to the website of the WRU, you would be hard pressed to find the Welsh flag displayed in any primary position. Obviously, the Welsh flag represents the same region as the Welsh rugby team, but the flags of the four provinces also do this job. One might argue that the Welsh flag itself is apparent at Welsh matches, not least by being waved by the supporters, but of course the tricolor is the most prominent flag at Ireland home matches, and we are all aware of the reasons for not being able to use this as an icon.Kwib (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The usage of the welsh dragon is proven by a WP:RS outside wiki. While the usage of IRFU's own has also be proven [3] Gnevin (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Is your reply suggesting that there is no proven association with the flags of the four provinces and the IRFU? The flags that are used in rugby articles normally represent the country or region that is associated with the union the team represents. When asking the question "what country or region does the IRFU represent" we all know the answer is the island of Ireland. Is there a flag that represents the island of Ireland. The answer is "yes". The flag of the four provinces. Is this a flag an invention of wikipedia? No. The flag is used at sporting events, including rugby union matches. Is the flag protected under copyright? No. What are the arguments against using the flag? Amongst the arguments against are "It is not the same as the IRFU's flag", ok, but why does this mean that it cannot represent the region that the union represents? Let me ask you this. If we got agreement that we could use the IRFU flag, could we then use it for the Ireland cricket team? No.. of course not. Because it is a rugby union flag specifically, it does not represent the island of Ireland, but rather it represents the IRFU. If we had to explicitely represent the union, then we would have to use for England the St George's Cross with the England Rugby Red Rose at the centre. We do not do this because this would not be representing the country/region of England generically. The four provinces flag is the best choice.Kwib (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What about before 1919, what was the flag for Ireland then? FruitMonkey (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Saint Patrick's Flag used as the Irish flag before 1919? – Pee Jay 18:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So could that be used for articles before 1919, as the country I assume was united before that point? Please don't shoot me if I'm politically ignorant here. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If an WP:RS say it was used we could use it. I asked at WP:Footy before and no one was able to prove the usage for the soccer team but maybe Rugby would be different. Gnevin (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

But we have no reliable source that any of the countries used the flags we are using. People in the Victorian period just didn't turn up to matches with flags and there was no hoardings or merchadising by the Unions. The flag thing is a modern construct. We are asking for a reliable source for something that didn't exist. And not just in rugby, but in any sport outside the Olympics. I believe the flags represent the country not the Union, and always have. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Ireland has always been difficult and the use of the Saint Patrick's flags is some what disputed . All that being said the balance of evidence is that this was a flag of Ireland if not very widely used. So it could be used up till 1919. However we should consider that this decision with affect not only Ireland but any nation which has had a change of flag in the last 150 years. For example the flag for the United States national rugby union team is wrong for the 1912 date and needs to be changed (not that it makes much difference at 25px) Gnevin (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That is already a Wikipedia standard, and we already use the different flags for the South African team as it changed through the last century,; very confusing in the early days as it was identical to the Union Jack. The flag for Germany during the Nazi period is the Swastika, and is used for Germany on Olympic game articles on Wikipedia during the Reich. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is primarily a visual medium. Therefore we should try and make it as visually appealing as possible, and reams of text should be avoided where possible. However, every time I try to add images or flags, some self-selected bureaucrat goes and removes them.

As for London Scottish, for frick's sake, it's an English team. It may be affiliated to the SRU (as well as the RFU - as is Berwick RFC by the way, or used to be), but it's been open for years, and most people in the Exiles teams aren't even Scottish/Irish/Welsh as far as I can see. It should be included in the categories as a Scottish team, but a St George's Cross should be used for the team itself.

Just leave things as they are. [Would have liked to put some four letter words in this message. This is inane, TIME WASTING, infuriating and plain bloody nonsense!!! If my patience is worn any thinner, it will be dying of anorexia in the near future.] --MacRusgail (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you've a problem discussing issues, I'd suggest you avoid talk pages

If you've a problem with flags being moved, I'd suggest you discuss it at WP:MOSICON Gnevin (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I have a problem with time wasting, which is precisely what this is. You don't seem to get the message. I think you should "reassess your priorities", and go and do something useful on the rugby pages. As an example of what I'm talking about - if I remember rightly Gavin Hastings has only one reference on his page. There are numerous other notable rugby players whose articles are stubs, or worse, non-existent. I think this kind of thing is an extremely low priority - you're completely misguided. --MacRusgail (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well clearly others don't consider it time wasting . No one is forcing you to discuss this issue Gnevin (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, some other people do agree with me Gnevin, and have told me so. Like I said, this is the least of our problems. Try expanding some of the numerous unreferenced articles on rugby, or creating ones on the huge number of internationalists who don't have one already. As for the rugby club articles, many of them just read like bad adverts.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Poll

This discussion has gone way off topic again . Can you sign below which option you support.If you wish to discuss do so above Gnevin (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure it is the best question, it is your way to frame the debate. I'll answer with a precision with another poll below.Gpeilon (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Question:What should the flags in the examples above indicate

Union

My preference is to show the Union, using The RFU for London Scottish as they will be using a RFU qualifying place are in the RFU leagues Gnevin (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I support this one, its very confusing! G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 14:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This is definitely what should be displayed, although with teams like London Scottish and London Welsh, it seems obvious that the English flag should be used since those teams play in the English league system. – Pee Jay 17:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It should be the country of the union they are representing I believe. To take a football (soccer) example, if (and I know this is unlikely to happen in the near future) but if Berwick Rangers F.C. were to play in the UEFA Champions League I am sure they would be represented by a Scottish flag, because they play in the Scottish league, despite being located in England.Kwib (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are quite a few Scottish nationalists who consider Berwick (at least the part north of the river) to be properly part of Scotland. Certainly the most debatable town in the Borders. Berwick FC's ground is south of the river, in England proper though. Berwick Rugby Club is a member of both unions, but tends to play in Scotland (Berwick's more of a soccer town, unlike its neighbours to the west)--MacRusgail (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Country

Country, and be done with it, please!!! --MacRusgail (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy Pitt (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
FruitMonkey (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
If we understand country as the location of the team, broadly speaking.Gpeilon (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

What exactly is the question here? Are you asking what we (as individual users/editors) think the existing flag icons represent when we see them? Or are you asking what this project ought to do to identify each team? Or something else? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What should the flags indicate . Should they indicated the Union or the Country the team play in Gnevin (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but there is a large disconnect between what we think the flag icons should represent, and what the casual reader will expect them to represent. Without any kind of legend, the typical reader will think "England" when they see

; they will not think "Rugby Football Union"—even though they are looking at a rugby page. I ask the regular editors for this WikiProject to consider if they are too close to the issue. Since this sort of discussion has repeatedly come up, perhaps you have the secret decoder ring for flag icons in your head, and "know" that flag icons represent the unions. But no outside readers will think that way. Perhaps we should consider adding a legend to these articles such as:

Icon	Governing Body
	Rugby Football Union (RFU)
	French Rugby Federation (FFR)
	Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU)
	Italian Rugby Federation (FIR)
	Scottish Rugby Union (SRU)
	Welsh Rugby Union (WRU)

Without telling your readers what the icons are supposed to represent, they will choose the most intuitive meaning for them. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The ambiguity can be resolved with a correct column header. So we have

Union

That or we could use words

Union
England

Gnevin (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a waste of time. There are much more important priorities on this WikiProject - notable clubs, players and union articles -and I have expressed that view elsewhere. A lot of articles are not properly sourced.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently we've 3 for Union and 4 for country. Any one else care to offer up an opinion? Gnevin (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Poll: Should Irish RU teams have an icon?

These polls will help us to solve practically the matter by dividing clearly the options.

This is clearly a WP:vote, which doesn't take into account policy .Where as my poll above only has 2 options, policy doesn't affect it and is basically down to us to decide and as such this vote will resolve nothing Gnevin (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We have clearly not been short on discussion. Let's survey what people think and go from here.Gpeilon (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A survey of 100 users could agree to ingore WP:V and WP:NPOV but it ain't going to happen . And if you wonder why I picked those two pieces of policy it because of this line "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Gnevin (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing is consistent implementation of Wikipedia policies. If policy causes a problem for Ireland-rugby, it will probably cause similar problems elsewhere; so discussion needs to take place centrally to resolve that. In any case, a Wikproject cannot unilaterally make an exception to a wider policy. All the teams in Category:Multinational rugby union teams present problems for flag icons, as do West Indies cricket team etc. The proper place to discuss these is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags), with notices left at other interested projects like this one, Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, etc. It's bad enough having the same debate repeatedly about Ireland-in-rugby; let's get a general solution, even if it's imperfect, and have that solution put explicitly into the MOS at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags), and referenced from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby, etc. jnestorius^(talk) 18:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is an excellent idea indeed. It is clear that there is no strict definition of what are these flag icons, and I'd argue that it is better like that. Situations for different sports/teams are different. Flexibility in the implementation as long as important principles are respected and that the usage is not misleading is necessary. Just an example, on the Ryder Cup, and other competition with European teams, the European flag is used. It is not WP:OR as it is used by the team itself in the competition. But what is it? A country flag? No. The flag of the appropriate sport body? No. It is a simple visual illustration of the team. It helps the reading of the article and it is its sole purpose. For the same reason, I advocate the use of an icon for Ireland. Gpeilon (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

@jnestorius: That is exactly the discussion I was hoping to have a couple of days ago, before it got sidetracked yet again. Generically, the question is if the inconsistency of using a symbol as a navigation icon for some teams, but using a real-life flag as a navigation icon for most other teams is a problem or not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it is the question indeed. The only one, not that it is a simple one by any mean.Gpeilon (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ryder cup: Problem solved Gnevin (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I created most of the Ryder Cup articles, so I have to ask—was it ever a problem? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish national team

Alrighty - this seems to have come to a standstill at Yes 4 : 3 No in favour of having a flag icon. The latter issue of the flag to be used stands at:

3 votes

1 vote

Khavakoz (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Try reading WP:VOTE Gnevin (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Read it. and? So what? Why is this discussion peppered with WP:$RANDOM citations which explain nothing? WP:VOTE can be responded to with WP:VINE, or some other link. I don't suggest that this answers all problems, but, for most contributors, it has moved the discussion along, with clear exceptions, so the progress made needed to be built on, not allowed to fester. This wikilawyering has to be stopped and a conclusion arrived at.Khavakoz (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, full stop

The only flag that should be used for the Irish team is the flag of the IRFU, but since that flag is copyrighted, we can't use it. Therefore, no flag should be used or we would be in violation of WP:OI (at least, we would the way I interpret it). – Pee Jay 17:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I deeply regret having brought this one up again and I apologise to everyone involved. I think in another publication we could use icons of shamrocks and what have you to represent Ireland. However, seeing the fiasco above, the nature of Wikipedia requires we stick religiously to WP:V. The alternative is that we each make things up as we go along according to our own personal whim. The facts are straight forward: Ireland has no flag. End of. The Tricolour can be shown for France. St. George's Cross can be shown for England. But Ireland has no flag. Even if the IRFU logo was not copyright, one would have to ask why we were mixing the flags of nations with the logo of a local sporting body. The choice for all sports where the island of Ireland fields a single team is therefore between {{Noflag}} and Ireland. We can stick with facts or (given the nature of the medium we work in) we can each make things up as we go along. Having read through the shambles above, I now convinced the former is the correct path (having started off questioning its wisdom). Again, the facts are that (at this time) Ireland has no flag. We may therefore uses flags to represent France, England and whoever else may be, but (at this time) not Ireland. Again, I apologise to everyone for having brought this up. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:OI and User:PeeJay2K3 Gnevin (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- We have several time established hat WP:OI is not an issue, please take into consideration the arguments in the debate. The only question is the possible confusion of the Shamrock for a flag.Gpeilon (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  - I disagree, the shamrock is a violation of WP:OI. There is no such flag that has a plain white background with a single green shamrock on it, and it should be considered "synthesis of ideas" to suggest that such a flag has ever been/will ever be adopted by the IRFU. Ireland does not have a flag, and we shouldn't make one up just because we think it needs one. – PeeJay 16:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    - We've established that based on some very wishy washy ideas where you've not considered the whole you've discounted WP:OI . I and other maintain it is Gnevin (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
      - PeeJay you were not in the discussion so I understand your view, but Gnevin, arguments were clearly put by me and other about OI, and you did not bother answering them, but you still quote this point eventually. I'd like you to argue instead of just sticking to your positions. For Peejay, nobody in the discussion wanted the Shamrock to be considered as a flag, this is very clear. I suggested the use of the Shamrock with a warning mention in case some are worried that it could be thought as a flag. As such the Shamrock is an existing symbol which is not OI. I agree, as I think the others, that we should avoid to let people think that it is a flag, don't worry about that. Gnevin you know that, it is a pity that you did not answer the other arguments and just stick repeating your WPs.Gpeilon (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes

Khavakoz (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Can this poll also be referenced somewhere in the very active discussions on this page? Having seen the apparently agreed call for mediation, I thoughthis matter would be settled by that means, imagine my surprise to see this poll - I'm sure i'm not the only one.

G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 17:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found this picture from the 2007 Ireland-France match at Croke Park. Flag of Ulster is flying next to the Tricolor: Ulster and Tricolor. Kwib (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stasm (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If yes

Shamrock

* Yes Shamrock is good and neutral. If people prefer a flag, whatever it is fine, just for an icon really.Gpeilon (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A flag (to define) for instance the one used by the IRB

Use the flag of the four provinces. Not in violation of WP:OI, because not an original image; the association is clear and the same elements used even with the union's flag; it represents the geographic location represented by the union using accepted flags, in the same way that the flags of the other six nations do.Kwib (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
second this G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd go along with this. I attended many matches at Lansdowne Road, and this flag was always flown until the appearance of the IRFU one. Khavakoz (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As I, the IRFU flag is merely a stylised 4 provinces flag to protect commercial concerns G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, good argument. I agree with the 4 provinces flag. If has been used by the team it is not WP:OI or WP:V, and not WP:COPY. So there is no more argument not to use it.Gpeilon (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The 4 provinces flag is the geographical flag for Ireland as an island, which the rugby team represents not just the republic, its used for wikiproject ireland so theres alread precedent to use it G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 10:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No its not. WP:IMOS FLAGS Gnevin (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

#its kind of ironic cos on Talk:Ireland national rugby union team whats the first flag you see on the right hand side of the page here?! The flag of the Ireland Portal, 4 Provinces flag, each part of that flag is a flag of the provinces which the national team represents. Its even in the words of the "anthem" the IRFU commissioned. This was the flag before the modern era and is representative of the island as a whole, more ever its the flag that the IRFU flag is derived from and they only did that for commercial copyright. Please apply a little common sense and remember to ignore all rules G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Non project page , outside the scope of WP:IMOS FLAGS, IAR does not apply to WP:OR Gnevin (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on! This is precisely the circular argument that has characterized this ridiculous debate. We can't even call the 4prov flag a flag of Ireland because WP:$RANDOM! ignore all rules Khavakoz (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's well accepted that talk pages are outside the scope most policy and certainly outside the scope of content policy! Do you disagree with this ? WP:OR,WP:V,WP:RS and WP:COPY are outside the scope of IAR as per "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Gnevin (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I acknowledge that as a statement of Wikipedia's 'principles'. The thing about principles and giudelines is that they break down where there are corner cases, and the people who get things past corner cases are the ones who can look at them and see which element needs to apply. How is the 4prov flag in violation of WP:OR or WP:Copy? For that matter, other than your own contention, how is the shamrock? If all you cna bring to the discussion if ceaseless iterations of policy, then that's never going to permit consensus.Khavakoz (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The 4 provinces flag is not OR, the only concern we could have is that readers interpret its use as suggesting that Wikipedia considers that it is the official flag of Ireland (thought as a kind of country). The only problem is therefore not on the use of the icon (no WP:COPY, no WP:OR). It is only on the possible interpretation that the way the icon is used could suggest. Could you agree with that Gnevin in order to move forward in the discussion?

To prevent any such confusion, we can have an informative note warning on the page that this flag is used as an icon to represent the island. The note could be:

^a, ^a"The flag of the four provinces of Ireland is used as a symbol on this page to represent the island of Ireland. It should not be confused with an official flag". To avoid filling the page with cumbersome notes, this warning note could be used on the fist instance where this icon is used on the page. I must say that this note is not my preference simply because it is a bit cumbersome, but this would be a compromise which would definitely answer the concerns raised by Gnevin.Gpeilon (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes Let's use the IRB flag Stasm (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The IRB flag? (Joking.) So I know, what is the "IRB flag" - is it the same as the "IRFU flag"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Irish clubs

No, full stop

The only flag that should be used for the Irish clubs is the flag of the IRFU, but since that flag is copyrighted, we can't use it. Therefore, no flag should be used or we would be in violation of WP:OI (at least, we would the way I interpret it). – Pee Jay 17:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Per my comments above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
As per WP:OI and User:PeeJay2K3 Gnevin (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes

Gpeilon (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Khavakoz (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Also suggesting the comments below be taken as supporting this option where appropriate

If yes

Yes, local branch flag. Eg Garryowen under Munster flag. St Marys under Leinster flag etc. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 11:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, relevant provincial flag for the club.

The branches don't have any official flags . Gnevin (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No more so than the official flag of the SRU is the scottish flag, the WRU is the welsh flag etc. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The SRU and WRU flags have a widely reference-able de facto usage . The branches don't Gnevin (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Before the professional era, the provinces (and not clubs as they are mistakenly referred to) played under their provincial flag. Munster the 3 crowns, Leinster the harp etc. Only in the modern professional era were stylised logos introduced to preserve commercial rights G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 16:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you state that they don't have a de facto usage of the provincial flags? Can you please give a cite for this position? Khavakoz (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

- This is a ridiculous proposal. The flag should indicate which union the team is representing in supra-national competition; using provincial flags to represent the Irish regions in the Heineken Cup or European Challenge Cup would imply that the teams are representing themselves, when in fact they are representing Ireland as a whole. In competitions contested only by Irish clubs, this should be fine, but not in international competitions. – Pee Jay 23:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Errr, the vote is regarding Irish clubs - St, Mary's, Blackrock, Cork Constitution &c. To my best available knowledge, these clubs don't compete in the European Cup, the CHallenge Cup or the Celtic League. Khavakoz (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, settle down, big guy. In my opinion, the Irish regional sides are also counted as clubs, as are the Welsh and Scottish regions, so they were part of my consideration for this discussion. Now that I think about it, though, why do we need to add flags to club names in competitions that involve clubs from only one union? Is the affiliate branch particularly significant in Irish club rugby competitions? – Pee Jay 11:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, come to think of it this is a fair point (although I wasn't 'up' in any way.) First off, forgive any confusion on the use of Club. Having been involved (peripherally) in Irish rugby for some years, the local teams (be that Blackrock and St. Mary's down to Midleton_RFC or Monivea_RFC) are what is always understood by 'club'. The big boys are always always called "Province" or, at a stretch "Provincial Side". I'd agree that there is little need to add iconography to the pages which reference club sides.Khavakoz (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a good point, I'm actively involved with my club and would say theres no real need to add icons. In this case Leinster is the provincial side and Clubs in Leinster would be part of the Leinster branch of the IRFU. Technically speaking Leo Cullen would be a memeber of Blackrock RFC and be representing leinster. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 10:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Stasm (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Shamrock

Yes Shamrock is good and neutral. If people prefer a flag (or different flags), whatever it is fine, just for an icon really.Gpeilon (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A flag or different flags (to define) for instance the one used by the IRB

Yes Let's use the IRB flag Stasm (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Some of you may be aware of the kerfuffle going on about unreferenced BLPs. Read [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people|the RFC] is you have a day or two to spare. Bottom line is there are about 50000 unreferenced Biographies of Living People on this wiki, and the big bosses don't like it. Some admins decided the best way to bring this number down is to delete them. At WikiProject Australia, we've said, no, we'll reference them instead. So we're almost half way through our 2000 unrefed articles after about a week's effort. Somehow, a bunch of Welsh rugby player articles ended up on our list! I think they are all gone now, but I thought I'd help you guys out and make up a list for you. There are 488 pages that are in both the Category:Unreferenced BLPs and a subcat of Category:Rugby union. I've placed the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Unreferenced BLPs. I've also noticed that a lot of them are not tagged with the WikiProject Rugby union tag on their talk page, but that's another issue. I wouldn't have a clue where to find sources for rugby players, so I can't help with much more than this. If anyone here uses WP:AWB, then they can keep the list up to date by using the list comparer tool to compare the two categories. Good luck with the task. The-Pope (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a far bigger priority than this pedantic flag business. There are numerous rugby bios which are badly written/don't include footnotes etc. The ones for rugby clubs are as bad/worse in some cases, and sound just like adverts. Big Gav has only one inline reference on his page for example. I sometimes feel like I'm the only person working on Scottish rugby biographies!--MacRusgail (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fear not. You are not alone. I have just created this one: Eric Loudoun-Shand, and recently substantially added to this one:Grahame Donald‎. Only 3 caps between them, and not in the modern era but little by little....Kwib (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad someone's done Loudon-Shand. Within the near future, every single British Isles/Lions player from Scotland should have articles. It's tedious looking them all up, but someone has to do it!--MacRusgail (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Popular pages

The rugby league project has a list of popular pages set up so editors can see what league articles get the highest pageviews. I'm going to see if we can get a rugby union equivalent.Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Popular pages. GordyB (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. However, one word of warning... it might lead to a bias towards current and recent articles, since they would receive more page hits at a given time.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Irish Flag - consolidate the discussion and definitive evidence that must be addressed

Four points, the fourth of which calls for participants to address the definitive evidence of the fact that Ireland officially uses two flags (therefore so should we).

First, would it be acceptable to create a single page attached to the forum for the discussion of this subject. It has been discussed a number of times, but the discussions are disparate separated by varying lengths of time and therefore are found in different locations. Often the same point is not just re-emphasised, which is fair, but instead made from scratch because new participants potentially have no knowledge of prior discussions. It takes up too much space on what should be a constructive page for the furtherance of rugby union articles as a whole. Don't misunderstand me, I like the idea of the Ireland rugby team having an icon, I am of that persuasion, but I think it would be more constructive to hold the discussion in its own space. Even in this current round of discussions we have points going unanswered or unread because different discussions are popping up around the page (yes- this is one also...guilty, but you see what I am trying to do).
Second, a poll was called, a number of contributors have voted but it has been pointed out that polls are no substitute for discussion. I believe that was Gnevin's point. I may be wrong. Having had this brought to my attention, I tend to agree that polls can have a potentially unsavoury feel and would prefer to get to a consensus. I think the poll was called with the best of intentions though, and that was to put the matter to rest.
Third, the argument that the only flag is the IRFU flag is, I think (and please hear me out, because I am not trying to be inflammatory) a red herring. The flags on Wikipedia represent the country that is represented by the union that is responsible for picking the team. I doubt that if you interviewed a hundred England rugby internationals and asked them who were the representing, that any of them would answer "the RFU of course!", it would be the country every time. I have not done this survey of course but I have seen and read plenty of interviews, and read widely around the subject and never once got the inkling that the pride for playing for one's national side was in representing the union you are affiliated to. The IRFU flag does not represent exclusively the island of Ireland, it represents the IRFU. It is a reasonabley recent innovation that incorporates the elements of the Flag of the Four Provinces. It happens to be of commercial value as well to the IRFU.
Fourth, it is an absolute fact that the flags flown at Ireland games have been the tricolor and the Ulster flag. I linked a picture from the 2007 Ireland-France match at Croke Park and I have linked it again here: Ulster and Tricolor. I also have the following passage from the Irish Times report of the Ireland England match of 2007: "On this significant Saturday, with the Cross of St George flying alongside the Ulster flag and Irish Tricolour, England came to Croke Park". Are these two pieces of evidence not in some way definitive? This question must be answered if the combination of these two flags, side by side (), is not to be used for the icon for Ireland rugby.Kwib (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well re the third point four of us agree the flag is for the country and 4 of us agree the flag shows the the union. I think we should sort this out before we go on . Also Ireland isn't a country Gnevin (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unions govern the game within a defined region (very often a country, but there are obvious exceptions). It is the governing body and therefore by definition has authority over that which it governs. Players are selected by processes instituted by the union to represent the country (or region) over which it has authority. Has a match ever been billed as the IRFU vs the RFU or the SRU vs WRU? Do supporters go to support the union or their country? If it were the union being represented by the icon then all such symbols would be under copyright.Kwib (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Re the fourth point. Well I knew this before. The IRFU fly the tricolour to honour the home nation and the Ulster flag for well thats where it gets a little vague. At away matches only 1 flag is ever flown Gnevin (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the flag not been flown is a red herring. We have proof that the flag is flown, but no proof that the flag isn't flown. Isn't the fact the flag is not used just Original Research by Gnevin. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice , accuse me of lying and dress it up in a link to policy !

[4] Highlighting add my me .

1.3.1 - Sports with British associations Sports responded to the changes in the political environment in different ways. Those with British associations which were dominated by the middle to upper class sections of society tended to retain the all-Irish administrative structure which had operated before partition. In the case of cricket it was not until 1923 that the controlling provincial bodies were united.(14) However problems remained, as demonstrated by rugby union where feelings in the north ran high concerning the flying of the Irish flag at international matches. In 1925 the IRFU decided to use its own flag rather than the Tricolour at such fixtures but southern members were dissatisfied with this solution and the flag issue continued to cause controversy, despite pragmatic responses on the part of the Irish union, sanctioning the flying of the Irish flag at Dublin internationals and the Union Jack at those matches staged in Belfast.

A spokesman for the IRFU last night said: “The Union Jack is only flown when Ulster is playing at Ravenhill, along with the flag of whatever visiting team.
“For this match, the Ireland team are the hosts and Italy the visitors, so the Italian flag and the IRFU flag, which represents the four provinces, will be flown.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Union-flag-39banned39-by-IRFU.3144044.jp

After 1922, when the southern counties split from Britain and became the Irish Free State, virulent conflicts arose over which flag to fly, which anthem to sing, which stadium to play at. In an attempt to resolve the disputes, the IRFU designed its own flag, which featured the coat of arms for all four provinces in Ireland, including Ulster, the province which encompasses the six northern counties.
Northern Ireland was happy with this agreement, but the Irish Free State, after shedding the blood of native sons in order to gain the right to fly its own flag, demanded that the Irish national flag be flown alongside the IRFU flag, at least in all matches played in Dublin World War II made these disputes seem petty, and for a while the nations coexisted peacefully on the rugby field without much complaint. But by 1954, Britain had made waving the Irish flag or playing the Irish anthem in the northern territories illegal. Before an international rugby match, God Save the Queen would be played if it was being held at Ravenhill Stadium in Belfast, and Amhrán na bhFiann was played at matches in Lansdowne Road in Dublin. On February 27, 1954, the contingent of players from the Republic of Ireland made a group decision that they would not stand for God Save the Queen; in fact, they would not leave the dressing room. The then-IRFU president did not want his match disrupted by a political black hole that swallows everything it touches, so he was eager for a way out, and sat the players down for a compromise. Allegedly, it was agreed that an abbreviated version of the anthem would be played , that all future matches would be held at Lansdowne and not Ravenhill, and that, if asked, the Irish players were late because they were praying for the health of the Pope. The compromise was kept a secret, but the Irish rugby team didn’t play at Ravenhill for another 53 years, until 2007, when, due to renovation at Lansdowne Road, the stadium was out of use. A decision was made not to play God Save the Queen and risk another 53 years before the Ravenhill stadium could be used again, but to stick with Ireland’s Call, the “politically neutral” anthem designed by the IRFU.
The 2007 match, in which Ireland gave Italy a proper thumping, was pulsing with tense overtones due to the abandonment of the Union Jack and the British anthem. The minority of Ulster players of the Irish rugby team had stood for years of the Irish anthem and tricolor flag being flown and played alongside the nonpartisan IRFU symbols in every Dublin game, but in Belfast, all symbols of Union were carefully tucked away for fear of offending the southern players.

http://www.kingston.ac.uk/international/guidance-and-advice/your-home-country/documents/Cheers_02_May09.pdf

As I said before we need to discussion what these flags mean first Gnevin (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin, I never accused you of lying, I'm just trying to find holes in your argument as I disagree with it. If you can back up your claims then that's all well and good. But the argument to the lack of flags at the matches is difficult to discuss if their have politically supressed.FruitMonkey (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, none of the above refutes the fact that the Ulster Flag and Tricolor are flown at Ireland matches. Plenty on the Union Jack not being flown or the British national anthem not being sung, but neither of these were in the proposal. Also, I fail to understand the reasoned implications of Gnevin's statement "and the Ulster flag for well thats where it gets a little vague." Is this in someway meant to refute the fact that the flags are flown or nullify their official presence at an Ireland match? The IRFU accept the Ulster flag, as shown (it is subsumed in their own design). The tricolor covers the other three provinces in their entirety (as well as some of Ulster, I know). Ireland rugby seems to think that these two flags do the trick. I am not sure any amount of discussion here will change the fact that they were flown. Until such time as the IRFU officially announce that the two flags were flown mistakenly, I think we have the necessary precedent to display them as the symbol for Ireland.Kwib (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to refute the fact the flag is flow in Dublin but the flag represents the ROI not the IRFU as per the 3 links above.

Gnevin, without looking to reduce your position to an ideological one, could you let us know what is the political underlying debate? It looks like you are against it full stop. No argument makes you flinch so maybe this point is more sensitive that non-Irish people think. Could you tell us the political problem associated with the choice of a flag? This could help us to design the best solution.Gpeilon (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Political problems sure well it's against WP:OR/WP:OI with a little of WP:IMOS FLAGS and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Do_not_repurpose_icons_beyond_their_legitimate_scope . Or in other words , why are you asking about politics i have no political problems here. We can not invent something just to suit our needs ,were does it stop ? We invent a flags here or an association between a flag and a union there and the next thing we are claiming Ireland won the WRC in 07 ? Gnevin (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To quote the passage that Gnevin has quoted for us:

"A spokesman for the IRFU last night said: “The Union Jack is only flown when Ulster is playing at Ravenhill, along with the flag of whatever visiting team. “For this match, the Ireland team are the hosts and Italy the visitors, so the Italian flag and the IRFU flag, which represents the four provinces, will be flown."

So the IRFU flag represents the four provinces does it? I think the spokesman from the IRFU, has cleared the matter up. The flag represents the four provinces, not the IRFU.Kwib (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And ?Gnevin (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Flags used by unions do not represent the unions, they represent the region the union represents. Per the statement above. Yet, you are arguing that the flags should represent the unions.Kwib (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the flags should represent the national union to which the club/region/national team is affiliated, and since most unions do not have their own flag (only a logo, which is not a flag), we use the flag of the nation the union represents. This really isn't a difficult concept. – Pee Jay 10:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement is rather different from finding a concept difficult to grasp. I disagree with you that the flags represent the unions. I believe the fact is that the players are selected by the unions to represent the country/region. Therefore that is what the team represents. When England played Scotland in 1871, there was no Scottish union. Yet it was Scotland on the field. The players were representing Scotland, the team represented Scotland. I do not think this is disputed. That a body is formed to administer the team does not alter who the team represent.Kwib (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> Is there any point having this discussion at all? The Irish Rugby Football Union DOES NOT represent a country. This is back to the issues raised weeks ago. For the sake of reason, can we please move forward and use the flag which recognises the Four Provinces, which is precisely what the Union represents?

It now seems clear to me, and to other contributors, that some of the objections being flagged (sorry) here again and again are political in nature, and are clearly non-neutral. While I acknowledge that WP:VOTE states that voting is not a substitute for discussion - How much more discussion is needed? It is quite clear that Gnevin will never change his mind, are we to whittle away our time on this while the electrons of his computer slowly degrade? Once again here, we appeared to have made a move forward only to have the entire issue dragged back to the start. Either move the matter forward or delete this pointless additional splurge. Khavakoz (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If WP:OR/WP:OI change to allow us to make up stuff I will change my mind. Also your vote was hardly a landslide. If this was a FFD and I was closing it I would close it as no consensus Gnevin (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry "my vote"?? I had nothing at all to do with the vote, save partaking in it. I haven't continually shifted the argument on this matter to new areas everytime there appears to have been a consensus, I have lost count of the number of times this has been done on this issue. I accept that the vote was, in your words, hardly a landslide, however, there was at least some development of ideas among many of the contributors. But never mind, I see you've already moved the matter elsewhere yet again.Khavakoz (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking of consensus, Gnevin. The Shamrock was previously used on the English edition of Wikipedia as it is on the other language editions. Wikipedians had decided on the Shamrock by survey. Then arguing of OI (which you are pretty much the only one to defend without answering others' arguments), you campaigned to remove any icon for Ireland. You did not bother much about consensus then. Now, in order to even just come back at this previous situation, you request a consensus. I am for the consensus rule, but the definition of the default option is debatable and clearly, you are playing with the spirit of the rule by first implementing a change without a consensus, then requesting a consensus to come back to anything close to what was previously in place.Gpeilon (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wooha dude! remember WP:CIVIL, comment on the content not the contributor. You are making some good points but don't ruin it by attacking another editor. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Policy > Con Gnevin (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Irish flag

Currently the IRFU use a flag which contains a copyrighted logo see here as such it can't be used expect as WP:FU. A number of users have suggested we create a flag/icon or use the File:Four Provinces Flag.svg for the IRFU and it's teams. It is mine and others contention that this is breech of WP:OR/WP:OI as it invents a flag/icon or invents an association which doesn't exist between the IRFU, its teams and a flag Gnevin (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This call is written in a biased manner. It fails to acknowledge the progress made by all users except Gnevin in the extensive discussions above, essentially restating the position Gnevin claims was agreed in a previous discussion. I would rather state that a number of users have suggested that the Irish Rugby Union team be denoted by the use of a shamrock

, which is widely used for Irish Sporting Organisations, or by the use of the Four Provinces Flag

, which was widely used for Irish Rugby before the commercial use of the copyrighted logo-flag by the IRFU. These two options do not 'invent' a flagicon, it does not 'invent' an association. They merely reflect a common usage (shamrock) or use pre-existing non-copyrighted iconography.Khavakoz (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I truly think that this question misses the point. We shouldn't be talking about flags, we should be discussing icons. And yes, there is a difference. Does a little blotch of colour next to the wikilink to Ireland national rugby union team imply that we're also making the statement that any image we choose is indeed the flag of Ireland and/or the team? I assert that we're not. Let me try to explain another way. Suppose we used some other colourful icons for national teams:

7 February 2009
15:00 GMT

England	36 – 11	Italy
Tries: Goode 2' c Ellis (2) 18' m, 54' c Flutey 28' c Cueto 78' c Con: Goode (4/5) Pen: Goode (1/3) 36'	Report	Try: Mi. Bergamasco 72' m Pen: McLean (2/3) 34', 39'

Twickenham, London
Attendance: 82,000
Referee: Mark Lawrence (South Africa)

7 February 2009
17:00 GMT

Ireland	30 – 21	France
Tries: Heaslip 34' c O'Driscoll 43' c D'Arcy 66' c Con: O'Gara (3/3) Pen: O'Gara (3/5) 3', 17', 78'	Report	Tries: Harinordoquy 15' c Médard 50' m Con: Beauxis (1/2) Pen: Beauxis (1/1) 76' Drop: Beauxis (2/2) 40+1', 53'

Croke Park, Dublin
Attendance: 79,000
Referee: Nigel Owens (Wales)

8 February 2009
15:00 GMT

Scotland	13 – 26	Wales
Try: M. Evans 69' c Con: Paterson (1/1) Pen: Paterson (2/2) 32', 51'	Report	Tries: Shanklin 22' m A. W. Jones 29' m Halfpenny 41' m S. Williams 58' m Pen: S. Jones (2/3) 13', 40+1'

Murrayfield, Edinburgh
Attendance: 63,000
Referee: Alain Rolland (Ireland)

For a user browsing a long list of results like this in articles like 2009 Six Nations Championship, the icons serve a navigational purpose. It makes it easier for the reader to find a specific team in a multi-screen or multi-page listing. Now, it just happens that national flags are really good for this function because they are mostly recognizable to most readers, and it is intuitive to make that connection. That's one reason why flag icons are used on a quarter-million Wikipedia pages. When someone sees , the mental association with "France" is obvious. So that brings us back to Ireland. Clearly the flag of the Republic of Ireland is considered inappropriate to use as the icon to use with the Irish team. But does an icon have to be a real-life flag? In my opinion, it does not. We could use one of the other proposed images to use as the icon for Ireland, without ever making the claim (implied or explicit) that the image is a real-life flag. The only question in my mind is whether the inconsistency between using real-life flags as navigational icons for some teams but using non-flag images as navigational icons for others is a problem or not. I can certainly understand that being a problem for some editors. But to pose this question as whether or not an image is claimed to be the flag of Ireland, because of its use as a navigational icon, is a red herring and misses the point. This is not about OR, OI, or any other alphabet soup of wiki-lawyering. This is about the user interface for these Wikipedia pages, and what the most clear and intuitive way to help our readers browse them. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A big dose of common sense, very good points. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 19:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points about what is the issue and what it is not. Many thanks Andrwsc.Gpeilon (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC doesn't work if we all just move the discussion down one header . Can we please allow outside users to read the RFC and related discussions ? Gnevin (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent contribution Andrwsc. Incidentally, and apropos of the use of the

, might I just note the use thereof in the following: Khavakoz (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ireland is the "nation" of the team (there's no better word), use an Irish symbol. I would use the shamrock, because it's more clear than the four provinces flag. In fact, it may even be superior to the non-free image for the reason of clarity. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User Gnevin asks on my talk page, "I noticed you left a comment Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Irish_flag. However I notice you didn't mention OI or OR. Did you consider these?" It is clear to me that it is no more original research to use a shamrock as a symbol of Ireland or Ireland's rugby organisation than to use a Flag of Saint George as a symbol of England or England's rugby organisation. OI is a subset of OR, so bringing this up is an unnecessary duplication on Gnevin's part to make the objection look stronger. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. This is what I'm trying to get at above. The only question that we should be discussing here is whether or not it is a problem to use one type of symbol as a navigational icon for one team and a different type of symbol as a navigational icon for another team. I am undecided, but I understand both positions. I think it is intuitive to use national flags as the default type of symbol for navigational icons, but I also strive for consistency, so that leaves the conundrum of what to do with multi-national teams. Either we use no symbol, or we use an alternate symbol anyway and accept the inconsistency. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If we are just going to invent stuff shouldn't we invent a a flag for all rugby nations? Why use the Flag of St George when we can have the English rose on a white background? We used the welsh dragon when we can use the Welsh feathers? If we adopt this system then Ireland won't stand out are the only one using a made up flag Gnevin (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. Nothing is being "invented", yet you continue to use that word. The symbol of a rose representing England is an existing concept. And again, at no point is anybody suggesting putting up a non-flag image with a caption that says "this is the flag of the English rugby team". Of course that would be original research. Look at my example at the top of this section; when you see that, do you say "hey! that's wrong, the flag of England isn't a square with red and white triangles!" Or do you say, "hmm, I see the team colours being used to help me locate the results of the English team as I scroll down this page." I just don't see how using a symbol as a navigational icon instantly makes the claim that Wikipedia is stating that the image is a real-life flag. To use a well-known flag as a navigational icon makes sense, but do our readers make the reverse correlation (i.e. see the symbol, assume it is a flag)? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If it looks like a horse and sounds like a horse,the odds are it's a horse ! If it looks like a flag and is being used like a flag......Gnevin (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so what if it didn't look like a horse? What I mean is that what if we used a symbol that didn't have a 3:2 aspect ratio and didn't have a rectangular border, for example, so it didn't look like a flag? I'm just brainstorming with myself a bit here, and your comment gave me this thought. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If we used icons for everyone the argument of on the main space but not of the main space could be made Gnevin (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The core of this dispute is OR , the RFC asks users to comment on OR so it's hardly unnecessary to ask the person if they considered OR when they replied as this is what the RFC is about . Gnevin (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The core of this dispute is about what we believe readers will infer in their own minds when they see specific captionless images used as navigational icons. One side of the dispute thinks they will infer that the images are real-life flags, because real-life flags are used in almost every other instance of these navigational icons. The other side of the dispute thinks they will infer nothing, that it is just a useful symbol to help find a specific team. OR (or any other acronym you wish to throw at us) is not relevant at all. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Let it put it this way . The core of the argument for me is about OR Gnevin (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether to use the IRFU banner aside, the colour icons used by Andrwsc in his example above are superior to flags currently with respect to the intended use of these images as visual components. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe any of the icons discussed breaches OI. OI says, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" (italics in original). The idea of the shamrock, or the four provinces, or the colour green, representing Ireland is to be found in many published sources, so any icon that illustrates that idea conforms with policy. I don't like the idea of using the four provinces, simply because it is not easily recognisable, especially at 20 pixels. The average non-Irish rugby fan would not see it and say "oh, yes, that's Ireland". Andrwsc's colour-scheme icons are a good idea, but why not just use plain green for Ireland? I don't think any other rugby nation would be associated with plain green. Scolaire (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

problem is, a plain green flag is associated with libya, egypt, saudi arabia, indeed most of the arab states. a plain green banner has, afaik, never been used to denote ireland. the shamrock is clearly identified with ireland, and the 4prov flag has been used in the context of ireland, not just in rugby. C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khavakoz (talk • contribs) 11:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

But again, we are talking about icons, not flags or banners. Libya, Egypt etc. are not rugby nations, and the colour green is associated with Ireland, as red is with Wales. Scolaire (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read much of the discussions above and find myself in agreement with the essential points made by Khavakoz, Kwib, Andrwsc, FruitMonkey and others. That is: #1 the icons used for clubs from England, Scotland etc are not used to represent their respective unions (which would be the rose, thistle etc) - they represent the nations the clubs and international teams are from. #2 The icons perform a valuable navigational function. #3 Neither the shamrock icon, nor the four provinces flag represent WP:OR - each is shown to be verifiably identified with Ireland. Consequently, using an icon to represent Ireland is entirely justified. Of the two, I would prefer the four provinces flag to the shamrock. Purely because it is closer to the flag used to represent Ireland prior to the IRU copyright issues, and therefore has a greater connection with rugby, but I would have no objection to the shamrock being chosen. This seems to have been dragging on and on and needs to be resolved. Would I be right to say that this has been caused by only one editor disrupting the process - gaming the system, forum shopping, etc.? Daicaregos (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear up a point there, the flag next to a club's name is chosen based on the union the club is representing, but the flag merely represents the country represented by the union. And based on my logic there, I think I've just convinced myself that the four provinces flag would be the most appropriate option. *thumbs up* – Pee Jay 02:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

But we're not looking for something that "has a greater connection with rugby", we're looking for something that has an obvious connection with Ireland. The rose and the thistle have an association with England and Scotland that's not just to do with their unions. The four Provinces flag, especially when reduced to an icon, is a fussy image with no associations for anybody that isn't familiar with either the flags of Ireland or the flags of the IRB/IRFU.

As regards whether it is one editor against the rest, that does seem to be the case. It would be good to establish whether it actually is. Scolaire (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union&action=historysubmit&diff=342281072&oldid=342279408#No.2C_full_stop . Now repeat after me 1 person said no , 2 people said no and 3 said no ! Wow 3 that was hard to establish now wasn't it and considering 4 people said yes it was harldy a landside. Also the issue [[5]] is also at 4-3 Gnevin (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin, you could appreciate that you are the only one arguing for OR or V. We clearly understand that concerns can be raised, but the fact that you are against any icon with different arguments each time whilst in the same time you do not consider the arguments against OR and V which have been raised again and again could lead us to think that you have some other motives than just ensuring the respect of Wikipedia policy. Anyway, without moving to this conclusion, let's try to find a solution to this problem. I agree with Scolaire that the 4 province flag is not the best icon visually, but I think that all editors here have to be ready for some compromise if we want to find a solution. So I am OK with the four province flag. Now here is a comment I made above which did not get any answer but is relevant for this discussion.

The 4 provinces flag is not OR, the only concern we could have is that readers interpret its use as suggesting that Wikipedia considers that it is the official flag of Ireland (thought as a kind of country). The only problem is therefore not on the use of the icon (no WP:COPY, no WP:OR). It is only on the possible interpretation that the way the icon is used could suggest. Could you agree with that Gnevin in order to move forward in the discussion?

To prevent any such confusion, we can have an informative note warning on the page that this flag is used as an icon to represent the island. The note could be: ^a, ^a"The flag of the four provinces of Ireland is used as a symbol on this page to represent the island of Ireland. It should not be confused with an official flag". To avoid filling the page with cumbersome notes, this warning note could be used on the fist instance where this icon is used on the page. I must say that this note is not my preference simply because it is a bit cumbersome, but this would be a compromise which would definitely answer the concerns raised by Gnevin.

Obviously this suggestion would work with any icon, be it the Shamrock or any other icon. So Gnevin, what about this suggestion?Gpeilon (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I could appreciate it but I'm not the only one arguing OI look at the poll. I have not express different agruenments against different icons . OI has always been my argument . Belive what you want but I've no other motives than wiki doesn't and should invent shit just because we want to. So we should add notes left and right just do we can invent stuff. I'm going to add that Ireland won 5 grand slam in a row now that inventing crap is ok .... Gnevin (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has involved a large number of editors who have devoted a considerable amount of time in trying to reach consensus on the subject. In the course of the discussion many different aspects have been considered and analysed. We have talked about what we believe the flags should represent; we have considered evidence of actual flag use at Ireland internationals; we have each weighed up the pros and cons of having an icon at all; the issue of what an icon actually means has been examined; approaches to the IRFU have been deliberated and in the past even made; and, amongst a number of other things I am sure I have missed, we have taken account of every Wikipedia policy and guideline that has been brought up either in favour or against various proposals. When we disagree on the applicability or interpretation of certain elements of policy this does not mean that we are wilfully disregarding them. The strength of belief in various interpretations of policy has helped make this one of the most detailed dissections I have come across on wikipedia. The fact that not a single editor has decided to go ahead and change articles whilst these exhaustive attempts at compromise and consensus have been made is a testament to the level with which the editors are respecting the principles of wikipedia and indeed of each other. It would be a shame if our efforts are interpreted in any other way.Kwib (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In the manner of politicians and the like all over the world, I'd like to associate myself with the remarks of kwib here. That not a single pertinent edit to the articles involved has been made by anyone involved in this discussion is a reflection of the seriousness with which we've all been treating this issue. Now, however, we have to ask

Is there enough of a consensus on the issues to move forward and make the edits which are clearly necessary?
Is there enough of a consensus on the specifics to agree which edits will be made?

For my 2c, I think that there appears to be a broad consensus that the Irish Rugby Union Team deserves to have an icon associated with it in all places in which other such teams are given one. I also think that there appears to be much less agreement on what it should be. Over the course of this long and interesting discussion there appears to have been three very worthwhile options presented: The Shamrock

; The 4Provinces

and, latterly, the idea of using some icon based on the Victorian IRFU Badge, pre-copyright tinkering by the IRFU. Is it possible to move forward on one of these options and create proper iconography for the Irish Team? Khavakoz (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule out the flag used by the IRFU to represent Ireland just yet. There is still no answer as to why this particular image would not be allowed when other copyrighted images are allowed in the same circumstances.

Compare with the flag of Europe (© 1955 Council of Europe). Contrary to what is claimed on the file page, that image is available only under an unfree license. Yet it is allowed in articles such as the Ryder Cup and 2008 Ryder Cup. If that (and many other examples of copyrighted flag images) are OK, why not this one? What is different about this case?

The question of why we cannot use the correct image needs to be closed off before we discuss other (or no) substitutes. That has not been discussed properly as yet, but rather has been assumed to be the case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The IRFU flag cannot be used because to use it on every page would not be covered by Fair Use. One of the tenets of Fair Use is that the image only has minimal usage, and I hardly think that using the flag on every page relating to Irish rugby would count as minimal usage. Furthermore, just because the flag of Europe is being used on lots of pages despite it being non-free doesn't mean we can do the same with the IRFU flag. After all, "what about X?" is not a valid argument on this site. – Pee Jay 18:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite. As, I have just commented at [Wikipedia talk:Non-free content we either allow non-free images to be used in contexts such as this or we don't. (You say we should not, and I don't strongly disagree with you.) What we should not do is willy-nilly insist that one non-free image is not allowed while turning a blind eye to all others.

There are scores (hundreds?) of examples of non-free flag images use in this way. Were someone were to take a look though Andrwsc's templates with an eye to removing use of these images, it is not only Ireland and not only rugby union that would need to appear with a blank space beside it. The question we are discussing here is thus not one solely of Ireland and rugby union. It is one that involves the entire community (since if we do not allow non-free images to be used in this way there would be so many "holes" left in tables of teams participating in spots, armies participating in wars, governments participating in international organisations, etc.).

If on the community decides that it is OK to use non-free images in this way then the flag used by the IRFU to represent Ireland is no different to any other. If the community says that is it not OK to use non-free images in this way then (likewise) the flag used by the IRFU is no different - and more to the point, the case of Ireland and rugby union is no different as there will be either:

a) no flags used in this way;

b) many countries appearing without flag images beside them; or

c) another approach to these kinds of things (such as the colour icons suggested by Andrwsc's above).

Either way: problem solved. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you made a good point coṁrá regarding the flag of Europe. It non free and however it is used in several pages as a navigation icon. I think we are putting too much constraints on us regarding the IRFU flag (4 provinces plus logo). We must remember that following a request from an editor the contact at the IRFU agreed to the use as an icon (but not to release the flag under creative commons which is understandable). So we are a bit in a weird situation: the IRFU is OK for us to use the icon but WE think it would not fair use (not fair to them!?). In parallel for another icon which is non free, it is used as a navigation icon (nobody I guess bothered to ask the Council of Europe)... What about being bold, using the IRFU flag under an argument of fair use and in the mean time we raise this issue in a general discussion maybe at WP:MOSICON. Gpeilon (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

While the wider debate regarding the philosophical merits of iconography continues below, can we move the actual issue of an icon for the irish team forward at this time? To be frank, while I find the said discussion fascinating, it really is tangential to the point case we've spent masses of bandwidth discussing. The issue of the use of iconography has previously caused ructions in Encyclopedia compilation - once resulting in a duel iirc. In the interim then, can the

Ireland ru|IRE be redirected to the 4prov

or Shamrock

or the IRFU flag [6]?

I agree with Khavakoz. I think the discussion about the wider issues of trans-national team representation and icon-usage have great merit, and I do intend to participate in them (certainly I have been reading them with great interest). However, though I appreciate the issue of the icon for the Ireland team is linked to that discussion, we have thus far made huge progress towards reaching a consensus for what to use now for Ireland. The resolution of what is a wikipedia wide issue should not delay us from to a consensus now. Should the issues above later come to a conclusion that will affect the use of icons for all rugby sides (at the very least), then we will have to re-evaluate. But right now, we have an opportunity to fill a gap that will, I believe, improve Ireland-related rugby articles. My opinion, based on the vast amount of discussions, is to move forward with the use of the four provinces

. Should the use of the IRFU flag be ratified by wikipedia in the future, then I wholeheartedly would support that change. As to the merits of either as a navigational tool I will comment below.Kwib (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The flag used by the IRB and fair use

One possible way is actually to consider the use of the flag used by the IRB Image:Irelands Flag.svg (as an icon, not as a flag for a non existent country). In the discussion, it was ruled out early because it contains the logo of the IRFU which is copyright. We can however consider if we could use the icon under the WP:Fair use policy.

I started this discussion here: Logos, but apparently other people do not care as much as we do. Here are the points which can be made:

On the WP:LOGOS page: the use of non free logo is allowed "so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with Wikipedia or endorses either Wikipedia or the article in which the logo appears, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner." That I think is not a problem.
This leave us to the question. Would it be fair use to use this flag which contains a logo? The WP:NFLISTS states: "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." So there is not a sacro saint principle and we can argue in specific cases. I think this is clearly a very specific case. While the section does not give much criteria about how to discuss case by case, they are clearly a set of factors which makes our situation quite specific.
1. The flag itself is not a logo, only contains a logo.
2. It does not represent a commercial brand but an international rugby team (and its union).
3. The flag is used by the IRB along other icons which represent other countries.
4. It has proven excessively hard to agree on an icon, and if this one is available, it would clearly make consensus as it is used by the team itself.Gpeilon (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This idea is a non-starter. WP:Non-free content criteria is the policy (not just a guideline) that applies here. Fair-use rationales must be provided for each article, and there is general consensus that FURs could never apply to dozens or hundreds of articles, which is what would happen to any image used for an Ireland rugby icon. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

~~::WP:OR is policy but you've no problem ignoring that ! Gnevin (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)~~

Excuse me? When have I done that? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry , thinking of the wrong editor Gnevin (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I too believe this is a case for fair-use rationale. To strike parallel with another banner used on this island, the Ulster Banner is used to represent Northern Ireland sporting teams in the same way as the IRFU banner is being sought to be used here. The Ulster Banner is within copyright.

I think that use of the IRFU logo is within the scope of the non-free content criteria. Specifically:

No free equivalent? Yes (as the above discussions demonstrate in spades).
Respect for commercial opportunities? Yes (to represent the IRFU national team).
a) Minimal usage? Yes (only IRFU logo); b) Minimal extent of use? Yes (low-quality copy, low-rendered resolution on page).
Previous publication? Yes (hence its use is being sought).
Content? Yes (desire to use it is so that it will fit with other content).
Media-specific policy? Yes (fits with image use policy).
One-article minimum? Yes (by a long shot).
Contextual significance? Yes (omission itself is the problem).
Restrictions on location? Yes (article namespace).
Image description page? Yes (although is currently being marked for deletion per non-free content criteria because it is not being used per fair-use rationale - not in spite of it).

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

and from the same article:

"A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added."

so a non-free-use rationale for every article it is used on? Seems like an awful lot of work. noq (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And the non-free-use rationale is the same for all instances that we are discussing here: to represent the IRFU team in tables of rugby teams. Were the image to be used in a context outside of that rationale then the section you refer to would apply.

This is not the case of a photograph taken from Google images and is used to illustrate an apple in one article, the colour red in another, a fruit in a third, a photograph taken against a white background in a fourth, a high-lit shine in a fifth, etc. The rationale is precisely the same in all instances we are discussing here: to indicate the IRFU national team in tables. In other contexts, that rationale does not apply and so the image would be removed from the article as you suggest.

There is of course another approach - to contact the copyright holder (officially) and ask them for their permission to use it in this context. (Or to ask them to express a preference for another image should they refuse.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(Added by RA: re photograph linked to above) Can you link to where that is used - it is not used in the obvious articles (Red, Apple, Fruit) and does not sound like a use that a non-free-use rationale could be applied. There is no reason a free image could not be used in its place. noq (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite. It was a made-up example to demonstrate what is intended by providing a fair use rationale on for each use. (It obviously didn't work too well as an example.) Having a rationale for use in one context of an image that is in copyright does not provide a alow for use that other contexts. In our case, it is only one context in which we are saying there is a fair-use rationale. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Making things up does not help your argument. noq (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Quips such as that does not help yours. Please approach talk page discussion as a venue to aid collaboration, not as a theatre to win arguments (through rhetoric or any other means). Thank you. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not just a "lot of work" to add tens or hundreds of fair-use rationales—there is consensus against that, as I mentioned above. I have seen instances where a team logo was desired by some editors for identification purposes on every season page for that team, and edit-warring ensued when FURs were added by the boatload (and removed again by other editors). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Why do we need to add a FUR to each article? It could be added to the image page - or to the template (though with the image itself wrapped in <includeonly>, so that it would not be used out of context on the template page itself). This is not a bureaucracy. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Non free use rationale is required for each article to protect Wikipedia from litigation. If you want to try to change the consensus then good look with that but I think you will fail. Putting a non free image into a template would allow it to be placed in contexts were it was not fair use and so open up potential legal consequences. noq (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite. The rationale is above in a number list.

Never mind templates - placing a non-free image in the File namespace would allow it to be placed in contexts where it was not fair use and so open up potential legal consequence! We do so none-the-less because there are contexts where fair use applies. As outlined above, I believe this is one such context.

You apparently don't seem to disagree with the proposition that this is a context where fair use would apply. Rather you seem to believe that we need to post a message on each and every page that the image would appear on? Is that the case? I don't think you're correct. It is the rationale that is necessary, not the expression of that rationale. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the arguments of coṁrá, but to answer to your concerns Andrwsc, what if we write to the IRFU and ask for their authorisation to use the flag as an icon. Would you be OK then to use it if we get their authorisation?Gpeilon (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The IRFU would have to release under CC-BY-SA-3.0 including there logo. This is never going to happen Gnevin (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, same basic reply) Of course, but I'm sure that's been tried before (check the archives) without success. What we need is an image that qualifies for hosting on Commons, and that would basically mean that the IRFU would have to release it under a Creative Commons license or release it to the public domain, and I can't imagine they'd willingly give up their rights of exclusive use (and the commercial value of the image) just so that we could use it on Wikipedia... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's unlikely. It may however clear up some fear, uncertainty and doubt. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't we ask for their authorisation to use it under as a non free logo? I thought this text in the Logos article suggested we could do that (though I admit it is not that clear about this solution): Note that it is not necessary to seek formal permission from the owner in advance of using its logo, so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with Wikipedia or endorses either Wikipedia or the article in which the logo appears, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner. The "formal permission" does suggest another route that requesting the release of the logo under a creative commons license.Gpeilon (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the older icon for pre 1990 articles, which was the triple shamrock against a white shield. This was the IRFU logo, or should I say the image used to represent the Irish team form the Victorian era. The logo now is similar but for the banner and the rugby ball, which is a more modern construct. Can we use the original icon for Irish rugby? FruitMonkey (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the original crest is now long out of copyright (see use in action). It does not look substantially different to the new logo (indeed while we're citing WP:OR, why not throw WP:RECENTISM into the mix). And it is a plain old shamrocks which are readily identifiable with Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I say above, the use of the IRB flag as an icon defeats the whole purpose of an icon, which is to provide the average reader with an image that is easily recognisable as representing a country. Rugby articles are not just for those who are familiar with the IRB and its flags. Scolaire (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Draft of letter to the IRFU (redundant)

I've drafted a potential letter to be sent to the IRFU. While probably it would come to nought it would cost nothing. Comments are very welcome.

Draft of letter to the IRFU

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Wikipedia project <http://www.wikipedia.org/>, an endeavour to build a fully-fledged multilingual encyclopaedia in an entirely open manner, to ask for permission to use your copyrighted material.

When writing encyclopedia articles relating to sports, sports teams and sporting events it is our current practice in listings of national sporting teams to accompany the names of national teams with a small icon showing their national flag. As there is no internationally recognized flag for the island of Ireland, in the case of Ireland's national sports teams we use the flag used by the governing body for that sport in Ireland. In the case of rugby union, the corresponding flag used by the IRFU appears to be one that can be see at <http://www.irishrugby.ie/6855_8117.php>.

Wikipedia licenses all of its content under a licence developed for purposes of free documentation by the Creative Commons, the text of which can be found at <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode>. Since the flag used by the IRFU contains the IRFU corporate logo, we assume that the image is not available for the Wikipedia project to use under the terms of a compatible copyright license. Hence, in the case of rugby union we do use the flag used by the IRFU and so the Ireland national rugby team appears without a flag image in listings of teams. See for example our article on the 2009 Six Nations Championship <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Six_Nations_Championship>.

In some circumstances, images that are held in copyright under other licenses can be used by Wikipedia under a condition of copyright law known as "fair use". A description of the criteria for these circumstances can be seen at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content>.

We would be grateful if you could reply to this email indicating:

Your view on a potential decision to use the IRFU flag in the contexts described above under the terms of "fair use".
Whether it would be possible to license use of the IRFU flag image under the terms of the license linked to above.
Whether it would be possible to license use of the IRFU flag image minus the IRFU corporate logo under the terms of the license linked to above.
If you have any comments on the use of another image - or the continued use of no image - to represent the Irish national rugby teams in the contexts described above.

If you should choose to licence an image under the terms of the licence linked to above, it should be borne in mind that it will remain copyrighted to you; however, the said licence stipulates that third parties must be permitted to reuse the licensed work so long that they retain the licence of this work and any derivatives from it. Consequently, you may wish to consider carefully whether you are prepared to compromise some of your rights granted to you by copyright law by licensing your work as suggested.

That said, allow me to express that your material would be used to the noble end of supporting a free collection of knowledge for everyone. If you should choose to license a work under the terms of the license linked to above, could you kindly fill in the attached form and post it to [where?]? We would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with this, but I think someone tried it before; have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Archive_7#The_Irish_flag_saga.2C_finally_a_breakthrough... --Bcp67 (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for that. It clears up everything (I think) that the above letter would have done. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done on taking the initiative. I think its been tried but fingers crossed. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 19:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Can a fair use claim be made for Six nations? What if we added the IRFU logo to MediaWiki:Bad_image_list. If we done this could we have a centralise Fair Use claim which would be limited by the files inclusion on the Bad image list? Gnevin (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#General_or_Centralised_Fair_use_claim. Can't be done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 February 2010

I don't think it was well-explained there. The image being referred to is not the symbol of the union but rather the flag that the union uses to represent Ireland. I've posted a message there as well clarifying that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Icon usage, trans-national team representation and Andrwsc's suggestion

In what way will it be made clear that these icons are on the main space but not of the main space?
Are you suggesting replacing all the flags for every union?
As navigational icons these icons will have no meaning, correct?
- How will clubs be handled if these icons offer no meaning? Gnevin (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what you are asking here. What suggestion? What do you mean by "on the main space but not of the main space"? What do you mean by "replacing all the flags for every union"? (We're not using any union flags at the moment.) I'm not trying to be difficult; I truly don't understand your questions. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is my fault for referring to your example use of simple colour icons instead of flag icons as a "suggestion". I don't think you meant it as a suggestion but I do that it would be a very good one for numerous reasons.

I also think that it would require wider community input. We can't make decision like that here on behalf of everyone - but of course it would be wiser to discuss it further before we go to the community (if we were to). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't openly suggesting we use the team colors for icons, but that was a strong visual example to make my point that we are talking about icons first and foremost here, not flags. We could use anything sensible for that purpose, but national flags just happen to be the most commonly used icon (Wikipedia-wide) for that purpose. But it poses problems for multi-national rugby teams (Ireland, Lions, Pacific Islanders, Arabian Gulf, etc.) I have no suggestion that I am strongly advocating in this discussion. I am simply trying to keep the focus where it belongs. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There are a hundred and one approaches we could take. What ever our choice however, while not necessary from a technical point of view, since we are talking design it would be good to use a system that marries good design principles with the needs of a free encyclopedia. Some comments:

The following are examples of poor design:

a)

Ireland 22 - 19

Italy

b)

Ireland 22 - 19

Italy

c)

Ireland 22 - 19

Italy

d)

Ireland 22 - 19

Italy

Mixing images with different meanings such as a), b) and c) falls short of what Gnevin calls OR. I think "OR" is not correct: none of the images on their own constitute OR. A pizza could be used for Italy or a graphic of the Coliseum and that would not constitute OR. Those are images that could be considered indicative of Italy. The problem from a design perspective is that they use images of mixed meaning. a) and c) mix wholly different types of images. b) mixes images of different warrant. The image used for Italy is the flag of Italy. I can recognise that. So is the image used for Ireland the flag of Ireland? No? So the images were arbitrarily chosen? That's messy.

a) and c) are also examples of poor design because they are imbalanced: a) because the two images are of different sizes; c) because of the gaping hole where an icon should be for Ireland. c) is poor also because it is not clear why an icon is missing for Ireland - was a mistake made was the creator simply? If one particular image could not be used, why was another one not used in its place or if no other one existed that would fit with the current scheme why was another scheme not chosen?

The the following examples of good design:

e) File:Ireland Flag Rugby.svg Ireland 22 - 19

Italy

f)

Ireland 22 - 19

Italy

g) Ireland 22 - 19 Italy

All of e), f) and g) have a balanced layout. (It might be good if the flow of the Italy images could be reversed to form a symmetry but that is not crucial.) None mix images of different meaning. (In the case of f) that is the flag of Ireland with respect to rugby union.)

Of the three e) is the least best example - the detail in the image used for Ireland becomes messy at low resolution (as does the example b) above). f) is superior because the icon is both more suitable for use as an icon (not only because it is slightly larger but also) because the set is based on simple recognizable block colours (which are roughly as recognisable as icons as flag images). g), while good, lacks not only the pizazz of an image based but also the utility of icons, which is to allow items to be quickly identified in a list as a way to bypass the difficulty that humans have in searching text.

Of the possibilities mentioned I think the following is the best choice:

g) Ireland

22 - 19

Italy

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. I think we should steer as far away from the rugby league icons as possible. If we have to use any flag, we should use the "four provinces" flag; in my opinion, it's that or nothing. – Pee Jay 23:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you rationalise your preference (or your distaste)? What is it that you disagree with? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I just think that the rugby league icons look ridiculous. They are just arbitrarily chosen blocks of colour in an arbitrary pattern. There is no established connection between

and the Italian rugby team, nor between

and the Irish team, etc. Using those would be just as bad, if not worse, than using the shamrock "flag". – Pee Jay 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. (Although I think the connection is that those are the teams' colours.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How would you represent other trans-national teams? The discussion so far has focused almost entirely on Ireland. What should we do for the British and Irish Lions or the Pacific Islanders or other trans-national teams? The point was raised earlier but other than User:andrwsc no one responded. The argument for an icon for Ireland has been for consistency with other teams but has not addressed this issue. It seems to me that this is just adding an extra level of complication - Use the national flag for national teams but nothing for trans-national team except for Ireland were we should use one for consistency. I'm confused. noq (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as an FYI for any editors who don't remember, but at one time we used

as a "collage" icon for the flags of the Pacific Islanders nations, and we used

for the Lions. I think

was once used for the Arabian Gulf team. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

@Andrwsc - As icons those are horrific. Illegible.

@noq - I raised a similar point above (under #Irish flag) regarding the use of other non-free flag images: we turn a blind eye to them but wig out when it comes to the IRFU flag. Consistency please. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

With reference to the Arabian Gulf Rugby team, is there a reason why the UAE Flag

cannot be used? It is commonly used for the Arabian Gulf team by the IRB Oh, and by the by, I completely disagree with rannphairtí's anlysis of the different flag usages. The reason the flag of Italy and the $ Provinces flag are 'under different warrant' is becuase the IRFU does not represent a nation. This is the same argument as three weeks ago, dressed up in new clothes.

Got to stop doing this, but - wrt the B&I Lions: While it is accurate that the 'shield design' is itself a trademarked image, a reconstructed image of the Four Former Union logos would not be so limited. The logos used in the Lions Shield are the 'Victorian' logos of the four home unions, and bear only passing resemblance to the modern-day copyrighted logos. None of the four logos are under any sort of copyright (hence their usage in the Lion's Shield) and any concatenation of them which does not impinge upon the Shield (by omitting the definitive party cross or and lion passant guardant or) would likewise be free from any copyright issue. Khavakoz (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You would imagine the IRB is authoritative on such matters but in the programme for the 1993 Sevens World Cup they used a tricolor for Ireland (see here). Arabian Gulf are represented on the Asian Five Nations by this flag. At the same time, they are represented by a different, but similar flag by the rugby in asia site at the farleft here. Does anyone know if these have been created by the two sites mentioned?Kwib (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Lions, surely this older version of the crest is out of copyright: check the 1924 photo.Kwib (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I write this, I feel I am in some small way distracting contributors from resolving the Ireland specific flag/icon issue that, in echoing Khavakoz, I am hoping we can reach a consensus on without having to find a resolution to this much wider issue. Now, into the matter of coloured icons, I am yet to be persuaded. That they stand out, I concur. That they are better aids for navigation, I disagree. My instinct is that use of symbols associated with the nation we want to represent draw my eye more readily and are more representative of that team. Yes, on occasion a new flag to me will emerge because it is a country I am not familiar with, but because I am familiar with the majority of flags, especially on rugby related articles, that one extra icon is of no detriment. It is akin to meeting a new person amongst a group of friends and learning their name. With coloured icons, I find that the association comes less readily to me and theerfore navigation is harder. The colours of the nations often overlap or replicate one another more readily than flags. Which ocmbination of red white and blue is used for France as opposed to USA for example, I will get used to that to the point that I do not have to relearn it every time? Just one example.Kwib (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Which ocmbination of red white and blue is used for France as opposed to USA for example ...?" It doesn't actually matter. The purpose of icons such as these rests in the difficulty that humans have in searching for words. We find it very difficult to find specific words in text. This is why "word searches", which otherwise should be trivial, are considered puzzles by the human brain. Pattern matching of images can also difficult (particurly similarly coloured images), hence why it is included in certain aptitude tests and why we have 'spot-the-difference' puzzles, which again should otherwise be trivial.

Icons such as these ones are useful because they act as aids for us in finding words. Instead of searching for the word directly, the mental process is to search for a blob of colour that we associate with the word (either 'naturally' or that we have been told to associate with the word) and then refer to the word beside it to see if we found a match. That blob of colour can be the green of a shamrock or a stripe on a flag: we do not distinguish between the actual images merely their colours. It is not a "shamrock", for example, that we are looking for - to do so would take as long as just searching for the word 'Ireland' without the aid of an icon - it is the colour green. (Shape can be employed to do the same thing instead of colour but, when using the two at the same time, colour predominates.)

Hence, whether you are looking for France, the USA, Great Britian or Russia the mental process is the same: you will look for a red and blue thing and refer to the word beside it to test if you have a match. In that context, and particularly at this resolution, the difference between

,

, and

will be lost on the human brain. The difference between

,

and

will be lost too but by stripping the process down to it's fundamental components we can make it clearer to see and simpler to process and so easier to find the words we are looking for.

This doesn't mean that flag icons aren't more useful that simply colours in some contexts. Flags have specific meaning.

means "France" in a way that

does not. And the origin of flags is similar (simple arrangements of colour to quickly identify points and participants on a battle field). But for this process, when the task is to aid a human being to finding a word in text and not to convey a meaning it itself, there is no advantage to using a flag and a lot to be lost through the extra fuss and detail at this resolution. If some words have to forego an icon because we cannot use the appropriate flag (for whatever reason) then there is reason to dump flags altogether.

But that's just my 2¢. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is simply no way in which I would look at

,

and consider this to somehow be clearer than

,

, and

, in any context. Those League Icons are horrible things, and their inclusion in Wikipedia says more about these debates and the quality of the contributors than a hundred edit wars. Khavakoz (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable reply. The answer is that you do not "look at"

or

(at least not for very long). You "look at" France.

For example, we don't write:

29 - 11
30 - 17
9 - 18

(Although we could in a way that we could not do for the "colours" icons.) We write:

Ireland 29 - 11 Italy
England 30 - 17 Wales
Scotland 9 - 18 France

The purpose of the blotch of colour (be it in fact a flag or another symbol) is merely to help readers find the text they are looking for (amid a mass of other text). That blotch of colour can take the form of...

Ireland 29 - 11 Italy
England 30 - 17 Wales
Scotland 9 - 18 France

..or..

Ireland 29 - 11 Italy
England 30 - 17 Wales
Scotland 9 - 18 France

...it doesn't matter a whole lot. It is the text that you "look at" not the icon. The only clincher between the two is the resolution that they will be displayed at (the flags can become fussy) and the availablility of the associated images (we can't use the correct one for Ireland).

Watch how TV stations do this sort of thing next time there's a match on, particularly in situations that are text-dependant or where space is tight. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the example you've just used, the flag symbology is clearer, more consistent and more understandable. The swatches bear no resemblance to either the flags of the teams, the uniform of the teams or indeed each other. They are, in essence, a confused mess and they, moreover, most certainly do that which Gnevin feels the shamrock/4prov &c do - invent something without reason.

I know what TV stations do, but I'd argue that you are talking about a very different medium. When these swatches are used, the teams are playing right there in front of you, you can see that the team with a green top and white shorts is playing one way, and the guys in blue the other. The iconography can be blasé because the 'key' forms part of the medium. When the results are given without images from play, no matter what the channel, where iconography is used it is invariably the seal, emblem or flag, because there is nothing to reinforce or interpret a swatch. I would argue strongly that wikipedia is much more analogous to this latter context. Khavakoz (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearer changes from situation to situation

New Zealand 12-12

Australia or

New Zealand 12-12

Australia. Gnevin (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite. A downside to using flags is that the choice of icon is already selected for you by someone who had different design requirements. Bear in mind, however, that I'm not putting down flags for this purpose. For a publication like ours, lacking a central editorialship, flags are a simple and ordinarily straight-forward choice (but one that comes with more emotional baggage than we possibly need). Rather, I'm saying that if we don't have access to the full range of flags images - or if we have to make up flags where ones don't exist or where we cannot use the real one - then we from a design point of view, there's more than one way skin this cat.

(Not to mention that I think that those who insist that the IRFU flag cannot be used are mistaken and suffer from blind spots with respect to other images.)

Khavakoz, I'm not going to convince you. If you're interested in this subject, this is a great backgrounder to the subject of colour in UI design. This PhD thesis gives a broad overview of considerations when choosing icons for tasks like this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can agree to differ on this topic at least. :) While I do understand your point, I don't agree that adding a layer of abstraction where one is simply not needed is ever a good idea. I'd note that the thesis and the article both refer to the use of color and iconography in abstracted presentation structures, which is clearly not the case in this textual-hinted media. I'd also quote from the conclusion to the article in that: Take account of human visual needs and expectations. Finally, and just to labour the point - The Aus-Nz clash is the Corner Case of all Corner Cases - same defaced blue ensign, same jack in the canton, same device in the fly, albeit of different colour. Of the four independent nations which use the Defaced Ensign, that's only true of those two. The two others may also be confusable as between themselves, except for the large red seal in Fiji's flag

and

. Besides, with any luck the Aus and NZ will adopt proper flags before too long -

getting rid of the argument altogether! Khavakoz (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No flags

Is using no flags at all a realistic solution? Gnevin (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

At the very least it might be the simplest G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This would need to be a wikipedia-wide decision in my view. I have not looked at every single sport covered in wikipedia, but those that I have perused (and they are numerous) tend to use flags as the predominant icon. I do not think that rugby union can strike out on its own on such a generic and visually fundamental issue. In addition, the sporting bodies themselves, and with regard to rugby I would highlight the IRB, use flags as their means of iconic representation.Kwib (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the example of Ireland and rugby union, there are other examples of where flags are commonly used to illustrate entities but where certain non-free flags are steadfastly "not allowed" e.g. NATO or African Union. At the same time, as I mentioned above, there are also examples of where non-free flags are steadfastly "allowed" e.g. United Nations or European Union.

First let's get community agreement on what we do in these circumstances: are non-free flags in or out? Once that is settled, the choice to use a) all flags (free and unfree); b) no flags; c) free flags; or d) some other system will become obvious and will be grounded in Wikipedia-wide consensus (and not willy-nilly as it is now). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

rannṗáirtí can you open a discussion at WP:VP about this. If your correct we need to address the inconsistency asap Gnevin (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll post it this evening. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot which automatically updates unreferenced biography of living persons daily

RE: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 34#Unreferenced biography of living persons bot to get projects involved in referencing.

Hello Rugby union wikiproject, I requested a bot which will update unreferenced living people (BLPs) daily. User talk:Betacommand is willing to create this bot. Since you already have a /Unreferenced BLPs page, this shows your project really cares about this issue.

I just need a list of projects who would like to test this bot. Please let me know here if your project would like to do this. Thank you. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 19:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

hello, is this something your project maybe interested in? Several hundred, probably several thousand articles will be deleted if they remain unreferenced. Okip (formerly Ikip) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FruitMonkey said your project would be interested in this.[7] thank you.Okip (formerly Ikip) 20:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the list, while the bot is being worked on: http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/unref_blp/WikiProject_Rugby_union_articles.txt

Seems rather short. Okip (formerly Ikip) 11:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion

I am not suggesting this is the authoratative summary but I would like to help crystalise the conclusions and general consensus reached from the past couple of weeks' deliberations:

It appears there have been two main strands developed.

Should teams be represented by Icons and if yes, should flags ever be used
What do we use for the Ireland Rugby Union side

Should teams be represented by Icons at all/Colour patches vs Pictoral Icons (incl flags)

The choice of icon generally I strongly believe is something that cannot be decided by Rugby Union alone. Whilst the points made are interesting and well made, as a topic I think it should be referred upwards (if that is the right term) to WikiProject Sports. Colour icon vs flags is certainly generic and transnational teams are in many sports.

What do we use for the Ireland Rugby Union side

Perhaps this can be summarised into three choices:

The IRFU flag
Another icon
Use Nothing

The IRFU Flag

Use and fair use

For those that want a symbol and a flag the overwhelming position is that this would be the best option if possible. A huge amount of evidence has been presented suggesting that, despite the IRFU giving us permission to use the flag, wikipedia rules prohibit its use. Fair use has been postulated but not universally accepted and advice from outside of the project also suggests this wouild not be possible. Examples of other copyright flags used in the way we would like to use the flag have been cited (Canada and the EU for example). It seems that parallels can be drawn and I would venture that an investigation and review needs to be requested of those who write the policy on such matters. As stated by other contributors, it cannot be one rule for the IRFU flag, whilst another is applied to equal violations of the same policies.

An alternative version of the IRFU flag

This has been suggested in the past and indeed was suggested on Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#General_or_Centralised_Fair_use_claim in a discussion resulting from a question posed by Gnevin. There is a body of opinion in this project that this would constitute Original Research. I am not sure that contributors have felt strongly enough about the vailidty of using such an image to robustly refute the OR/OI block. I may be wrong, and I apologise if I have missed a part of the discussion that deals with this. For now I feel that this option does not look viable.

IRFU Flag conclusion - Unless Fair use can be established at an explicit policy level for use of all copyrighted flags, we cannot use the IRFU flag without the IRFU releasing it under CC-BY-SA-3.0.

Another icon

Is this possible at all?

Use of official flags and symbols

A combination of the tricolor and ulster flag (

) was suggested as being representative of the island of Ireland and something which was flown at Ireland (home only?) games. The basis for the use of these two flags was questioned however and the consistency with which they have been used by the Ireland rugby union side brought into doubt. The use of the tricolor itself was dismissed on the grounds that it only represented the Republic of Ireland and general agreement was received on this.

The use of the Saint Patrick's Flag was proposed for pre-1919 matches. WP:IRISH FLAGS verifies the use of this flag is valid pre-1923 (up to December 1922).

Can alternatives be used

OI or not OI - The main objection to alternatives was on the grounds of being against WP:OI. A lengthy debate has ensued on this subject and the large majority of contributors do not believe WP:OI would be infringed should certain icons as described below be used on the basis that they are not illustrating or introducing unpublished ideas or arguments.

Alternatives

Region/Country vs Union

What does the flag represent? The country or the union. Opinion was divided, but the majority agreed it was country, or the country the union represents.

Main Suggestions

The Shamrock -

This has inextricable associations with the island of Ireland. It is used on other language wikipedias, and was once the symbol on English language wikipedia. The association has not been created by wikipedia and as an icon it would not breach WP:OI. It is not an official flag, but concerns that it may be considered can be allayed by a footnote.

Flag of the 4 provinces

.

The IRFU represents the four provinces. They have these very flags embedded on their union specific flag; the association is clear and not in breach of WP:OI. The flag itself is already used by other sporting bodies that represent All-Ireland teams. Outside of this discussion, it was suggested on Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#General_or_Centralised_Fair_use_claim in a discussion resulting from a question posed by Gnevin as an alternative we can use. It is not an official flag, but concerns that it may be considered can be allayed by two things. First, a footnote; second it has its own article on wikipedia that describes its status and use.

Another icon conclusion: The majority of contributors to this discussion, including those that have joined as a result of the RFC, believe another icon is feasible. OR/OI have been duly discussed and although complete consensus (in the sense of every contributor agreeing), has not been achieved, the vast majority believe that OR/OI is not being breached by certain suggestions. Concerns over whether readers would be mislead into believing the icon used is an official flag could be allayed by use of a thoughtful footnote. Both the Shamrock () and the flag of the four provinces () are seen as viable icons. The majority of contributors believe that the flag of the four provinces is the preferred option. Waiting for either the uber-level "Colour icon vs pictoral icon (incl flag) vs nothing" debate for all sports is not a viable option, and neither is waiting for the outcome of a wikipedia wide investigation into the fair use of copyrighted flags. If either of these result in a required change, then the beauty of wikipedia is that we can make that change when required.

Use Nothing

This could remain the position if:

All flags are removed from rugby union articles. I would refer you to my argument above that a decision of this magnitude should be a WikiProject Sports one, to avoid inconsistency across wikipedia.
If there is no viable alternative to the IRFU flag. "Another icon" above strongly suggests there are alternatives.

Overall Conclusion In simple terms, we cannot yet use the IRFU flag, nothing is not a viable option unless wikipedia changes its standard wholly, but alternatives are available. Of these the flag of the four provinces has gained the most support and is not in breach of WP:OI. Therefore, we can and should use the flag of the four provinces until such time as we are able to use the IRFU flag or policy on fair use of copyrighted flags is changed in favour of using them.Kwib (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and thoughtful reply . My main issue with the 4 province flag is not that it's WP:OI but the association it will create between it and the IRFU and it's teams is WP:OR . Every (or 99%) sports governing body on wiki and all the Irish sports governing bodies show the flag the governing body uses. By using the 4 prov flag we are creating this association the IRFU use this flag that does not excist. See

Ireland,

Ireland and

Ireland. 3 different flags but each of them is the flag the governing body uses Gnevin (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for those examples. I am confident that we have duly explored the issue of association and that the weight of opinion was to represent the region/country with a relevant and freely available icon. IRFU flag would be the first choice. We can't use it and so we have rigourously explored alternatives that have been assessed to be viable by us and by other communities invited into this discussion. We have given due consideration to and placed great weight on the relevant wikipedia policies and it seems that the majority of us feel our reasoning is sound.Kwib (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kwib. Many thanks for your very useful round up of the discussion. I am for the use of an icon, either the Shamrock or the 4 provinces. The Shamrock was fine, but some could dislike the lack of consistency as it is not a flag. The 4 province is more consistent, but some will rightly dislike the fact that the tiny icon does not allow to see the details. Overall both these concerns are minor in my mind and I am happy to go for any of these icons. As more people seem to be for the 4 province now, I'll support this as well. The OR argument against the 4 provinces is clearly flawded as nowhere it is written that the icon has to be the union, and even if it was, using the 4 provinces for the IRFU would hardly be OR (if necessary a pedantic note could clear that). In any case arguing that using the 4 provinces to represent the Irish team is OR is just Kafka-ish. You have to read it to believe it.Gpeilon (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You've all been provide a link to the OR noticeboard if you believe the OR argument is Kafka-ish then challenge it there. Gnevin (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangent

(On another note, Ireland is interesting in that it appears to be a very specific flag and I wonder if this too is copyright but has simply not been discussed by the Wikipedia field hockey community? The GAA use both the Ulster banner and the tricolor yet articles on the international match with Australia simply use the tricolor and do not seem to have engendered any debate. I am wondering if we should raise this on the various all-Ireland team related sports main pages, where similar copyright issues may pertain, or whose articles are not representing all parts of the island. However, this is a tangent that I do not want pursue currently.)Kwib (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The GAA would never fly the Ulster banner. I looked into the hockey and other sports flags before but couldn't find any copyright notice for that icon. The hockey association don't use that as there logo but I suppose WP:Copy say we should assume it's copyrighted unless can be proven not to be Gnevin (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to "find" copyright. It just is copyright - until the copyright period expires. (Like the EU flag, the Canadian flag, the United Nations flag, ...) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If the Canadian flag is copyrighted on the same basis as the IRFU flag, how come Wikipedia freely uses the Canadian flag as an icon? jnestorius^(talk) 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) True, copyright is automatic for certain works, per Berne Convention. Copyright does not need to be claimed to be in effect. But some images are also ineligible for copyright as they do not exceed the threshold of originality. The European flag might fall into this category (simple geometric shapes, just stars in a circle). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to flags the copyright laws are very vague. They're clearly specific about the right to manufacture a flag but also very vague for everything else that is flag related. I'm all for using the IRFU flag. I was the one who contacted them and they're okay with it. Only here do we seem to be making a big deal out of this. Saebhiar Adishatz 00:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A reply from OR noticeboard

Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#IRFU_flag Gnevin (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The respones indicated a willingness to hear arguments for the use of an alternative to the IRFU flag with regard to OI policy and so I have duly invited them to read our discussion above.Kwib (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be a little off when you post questions like these, Gnevin, and very quick to write, "Ok thanks".

You wrote: "A number of users have suggested we create a flag/icon or use the File:Four Provinces Flag.svg for the IRFU and it's teams." That's untrue. No-one wants to use that flag to represent the IRFU.

Similarly, when you posted to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, you let allowed Masem believe that the emblem was that of the IRFU and not a representation of Ireland. Neither dose anyone want to "create" a flag or icon.

On the boarder question of OR, may I ask what is the assocation between

and France national rugby union team? None. That is the flag of the French state, not an emblem of the French rugby union team. 22px is the emblem of the French national rubgby union. The team has no flag. Original research? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a complex issue sorry if I've misrepresented it in some way . I will however note the 3 users above agrees the flags represented or indicated the union while 4 didn't. I said OK thanks as at that time I had nothing else to add and still don't still may change. I think you should discuss your objections/points of order at the OR noticeboard. On the boarder question of OR, may I ask what is the association between and France national rugby union team? The left sleeve of there current jersey [8] for the scots the back of the current jersey [9] ,for the English probably that giant flag they had in the middle of twickers on Saturday Gnevin (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS for the Italians File:Italy_rugby.png and the welsh (and all of the above again) [10] Gnevin (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PPS [11] welsh current jersey Gnevin (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PPS England [12]. So that is 5 out 6 nations Gnevin (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, originally 3 said union, 4 said country, 1 said country of the union. Since then, one of the 3 for union has clarified their position as the "flag represents the country represented by the union". That makes 6 for country and 2 for union, from those that took part in the original vote.Kwib (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about here not sure where your looking Gnevin (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As am I. And from this posting from PeeJay: "Just to clear up a point there, the flag next to a club's name is chosen based on the union the club is representing, but the flag merely represents the country represented by the union. And based on my logic there, I think I've just convinced myself that the four provinces flag would be the most appropriate option. *thumbs up* – PeeJay 02:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)", the 3 become 2.Kwib (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So Tricolours for Leinster, Connaght and Munster. Ulster = ? and Tricolour and does the Island or Island have a flag? Gnevin (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the Island of Ireland doesn't have a flag - that's what has started this entire raiméis of a discussion. The IRFU is a trans-national side. We are trying to make progress here - why do you insist on dragging this discussion backwards time and time again? Khavakoz (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Aaaah ... so the association is based on what emblems appears on the team's rugby shirt? A tricolour of red white and blue appears on the French team's shirt therefore a tricolour of red, white and blue is an emblem of the French national rugby union team. I understand.

OK then, let's look at an Irish rugby shirt. How about a picture of a pretty jumping kitty cat? Or that nice big O₂? Since they appear on the Irish shirt (on the basis of what you write above) they must be emblems of the Ireland national rugby team - and not of any other entity?

Let's start again. Is the tricolour of red, white and blue a emblem of the French national rugby team? Or is it the emblem of something else? Answer with reference to pretty jumping kitty cats and nice big O₂s. Reality is that the tricolour of red, what and blue is an emblem of the French state. Why then would using (for example) a shamrock be original research when it bears a similar relationship to the Irish national rugby team as a tricolour of red, white and blue does to the French team (it even even appearing on the strip!)? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The flags on the shirts indicate the usage of the flags by unions So no problems with OR, the question you asked first.Gnevin (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

They do? Do you have a source for that statement. Or it is based on original thought? BTW don't the IRFU use shamrock ;-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused are you suggesting we use a shamrock? Because didn't you help write WP:IMOS FLAGS which says the total opposite ? Gnevin (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm playing devils advocate to your OR argument. I don't think it holds much water (at least not in a strict sense).

BTW - the association between

and France national rugby union team is that that is the flag flown to represent French team at international matches. The corresponding flag for the Irish team is the IRFU flag. That doesn't preclude using a shamrock, or the four provinces flag or a picture of a leprechaun as an icon for the Irish team on Wikipedia - it's just messy graphically because it mixes imagery. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is complicated enough withot people playing devils advocate, to use an apt expression here . Can you pin your colours to the mast please Gnevin (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: There seem to be quite a number of sub-topics above and its a bit of a personal knowledge type of breakdown. I'd like to possibly see a straw poll on each issue to see how the active participants feel the end result of each sub-issue should be resolved. Hopefully this will help move the discussion towards some type of long term consensus. As a side note, I personally am a fan of "fair use", but its best to tun such things by image policy people. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use has been ruled out Gnevin (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But it seems that OR is not an issue.Kwib (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Or is not an issue for clubs if we agree the flags indicate country the club is from. Which I attempted to discuss before but the Irish flag issue muddied the waters. So if we agree the flags show the countries and we solve an the Ulster issue then by all means use the Tricolour for Leinster, Munster and Connacht. However that still leaves the national side and the flags there don't indicate where the national side is from and WP:IMOS FLAGS Gnevin (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest all who disagree with the OR argument present their case at OR noticeboard. Either way this will put this discussion to bed. They will say it's OR and we can't use an icon or they will say it's not OR and we can invent what we like. Currently they are saying it is! Gnevin (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

one contributor has said that it is. That's all, just one person. Look at the masses of discussion we've had here, compare to the paltry results of your forum shopping. If it isn't the OR Noticeboard I'm sure this argument will crop up someplace else. It is done.Khavakoz (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't forum shopped, I've informed in a neutral way users and WP:IWNB, opened a RFC and asked the relevant noticeboard (which took a while to find). Which of these should I not have done? There are 2 users who know about this sort thing saying its OI. If your so sure they are wrong call them on it . Gnevin (talk)

Country

Since the con here is for country that leaves us 2 issues .What do user feel about adding a column header called country to dispel any doubt.

Team	Pld	W	L	TF	PF	PA	+/−	BP	Pts
Biarritz (2)	6	5	1	19	188	97	+91	3	23
Gloucester [6]	6	4	2	12	119	129	-10	1	17
Glasgow Warriors	6	2	4	9	120	140	-20	1	9
Newport Gwent Dragons	6	1	5	12	108	169	-61	2	6

and what is to be done with Ulster? Note as Ireland is a island is doesn't have a flag so this will only solve the club issue Gnevin (talk)

I am afraid that this is misleading, although I am sure that was not the intention. We have established that when talking about Ireland we mean the region and that the logic of the icon representing not the union but the country and/or region stands for the island of Ireland. That Ireland does not have an official flag does not mean we do not have an available recognisable, valid, and verifiable flag to represent the whole of the island.Kwib (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did we established that when talking about Ireland we mean the region . I thought we established the flags indicate the country. The Island of Ireland doesn't not have a flag but by all means invent one Gnevin (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we please delete these retreads and go back to discussing the call for conclusion and not muddy the waters yet further with this further obfuscating discussion? Enough! 'Tis done! 'Twere not done quickly but no mind. Khavakoz (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly it aint done. We can't even agree what country means ! Gnevin (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As this discussion has ensued we have been trying to resolve the issue for an icon for the Ireland rugby union team. The generic question has been asked as to what flags represent, and only two possibilities put forward, Union or Country. Why country, because in general that is what a national team represents. Do you think if country had been replaced by "Region that is represented by the union to whch the team is affiliated" or some such alternative the result would have been different. Contributors have made it abundantly clear they understand that Ireland represents the island, and not a country - that is to a great extent the reason why we are having to discuss this. When referring to the poll we have referred to country in the spirit of what the national team represents. Perhaps every single time we used the term we should have added a footnote along the lines of "in the case of Ireland I of course mean the island of Ireland and not the precise definition of country which of course would not be appropriate", but perhaps because we have all demonstrated that we know this, to make this distinction each and every time would be redundant. I think this line of discussion is a red herring.Kwib (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If the flags represent "country" that the clubs are located, as in Republic of Ireland, rather than the "country" of the governing body, as in the island of Ireland, then would the Gloucester, Newport and Glasgow teams not show the Union Flag rather than the flags of Eng/Cygm/Sco (i.e. UK is the equivalent of Republic of Ireland, whereas Eng/Cygm/Scot are the equivalent of the island of Ireland)? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The question was asked about clubs not national side. The island of Ireland is not a country anyway lets have a poll

As other contributors I would like to point out that the level of bureaucratic arguments in this discussion as reached some high levels. The discussion has clearly shown that there is no consensual evidence against the use of icons like the 4 provinces or the Shamrock. However we are still splitting hairs in four to solve questions that most other pages would not have even raised. They would have used one of the icon: the IRFU flag (like the Canada flag or the EU), the 4 provinces, or the Shamrock (like other Wikipedia editions). We have fallen in a kind of WP:LAWYER where the spirit of Wikipedia is lost for some bureaucratic discussion about the respect of the letter of guidelines. Whilst there is no consensus on the fact that Wikipedia policies are breached (on the contrary there is a majority thinking that it is alright to represent Ireland with an icon), some argue that we need a debate on the definition of guidelines in our specific case (flagicon) in order to see how to avoid conflict with Wikipedia policies. I think we should try to get back to basics and accept to do some compromise to make the rugby pages easier to read with visual navigational icons.Gpeilon (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that someone else has picked up on the bureaucratic nature of this debate. It is actually irritating, not productive, and is putting people off wikipedia, and this wikiproject.

I dislike the way that Gnevin seems to be determined to drag the Irish Troubles into rugby articles. Rugby has thankfully been fairly free of that business, but some people seem to wish to rub our noses in it. Ireland is administered, and plays as one nation in rugby union. That's it.

I have already pointed this out to Gnevin, who takes it personally, even though s/he is the sole driver of it. Why are we spending so much time on this issue when Wikipedia's coverage of rugby players, and clubs etc is so poor? As I've pointed out, Gavin Hastings, the greatest player to ever come out of Scotland only has one reference on his article for crying out loud. He's not even exceptional in that regard either.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Who mentioned the war! I for sure never said anything about the troubles Gnevin (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Poll

The consensus is that for club pages the flags beside the clubs show the country of origin not the union. This being the case is the island of Ireland as a whole is a country or a region of with two countries. Should Leinster have a Tricolour or some "Irish Rugby icon" Gnevin (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This poll expresses clearly why you are not accepting to go forward in the discussion. Flags for you have to be about "countries". Either Ireland is two countries (so not one single flag) or it is ONE country which is obviously not the case, so there can't be one flag. The point is the team of Ireland represent the whole island, we SHOULD leave outside of this discussion the definition of Ireland as a country or not. Having an icon for the island of Ireland does not mean we consider it as a country. There is a team out there playing in official competitions, it represents an island with clear identified symbols like the 4 province flags or the Shamrock. How comes we should avoid using this island recognized symbols as navigational icons to help visualise its team? Gpeilon (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Because by using non official icons we are inventing associations. If you disagree take if up at the or noticeboard. All this talk of regions,teams are just other ways of saying union Gnevin (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Island of Ireland as a whole a country , we should use some "Irish Rugby icon"

Support - Ireland is a rugby country and always has been, unlike for football. Just decide on a proper icon please and be done with it. Enough of this nonsense! --MacRusgail (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Support - Ireland is a rugby country, in fact it is in its third century as a rugby country. Use a proper icon and have done with this argument. Khavakoz (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As per the discussion below we may have a solution that doesn't require to invent stuff or jump through hoops where Ireland is and isn't a country all at once Gnevin (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A region of with two countries, Leinster should have a tricolour

Oppose - Ireland is a single country, at least for rugby purposes, and I think certain people here should be ashamed of themselves for trying to drag the sectarian row into rugby.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - This would serve only to divide what is not divided in rugby terms. The Four Proud Provinces of Ireland, not 23/26ths of the Republic of Ireland and the Province of Ulster Khavakoz (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE: Discussion on use of flags and copyright at the village pump

Arising from the discussion above, I have opened a discussion at the village pump about the use (and non-use) of copyrighted images in flag cruft (such as what we were discussing). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IRFU flag - old and new - is 1925 version still under copyright

There is agreement that the IRFU flag is protected by copyight and that despite having permission to use it on wikipedia, we are prevented from doing so because the relevant license has not been obtained. The current flag has the current IRFU logo on it. The flag prior to the current IRFU logo was introduced had the previous IRFU logo on it. The flag itself was introduced in 1925 and I am aware that the design of the flag has been basically the same since then except that the logo has changed in the centre. The logo as used in 1925 was the three shamrocks and this is out of copyright. Given that the flag was introduced in 1925, 85 years ago, my question is, is the IRFU flag with the three shamrocks in the centre as opposed to the modern IRFU logo, out of copyright?Kwib (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky question. 1 January 1923 is the current cut-off date for the Commons. A green field is not copyrightable. The individual coats of arms of the provinces are out of copyright (if even "in" copyright). The pre-1923 crest of the IRFU is out of copyright. But is an arrangement of these copyrightable/an infringment on the copyright of the current flag? If, as you say, the flag was first made public in 1925 then at the very worst we only have two years to wait. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus we would need evidence of usage .Did the IRFU use the same flag for 75 years? Gnevin (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to copyright, the 1923 does not apply to all copyright. It is a line in the sand that says that anything published before that date is in the public domain regardless of such considerations as whether the author is still alive. Then we need to ask if the flag was first published in the US, and it was not, which would mean we have to defer to the copyright laws of the source country. This would be the country in which it was first published or if this is unknown the country which has the most significant contacts with the work. I think that we can therefore look to Irish copyright law. Irish copyright applies for seventy years from the end of the year of death of the author, editor or creator and if that is not known then seventy years from the end of the year of creation (which incidentally is the same as the UK I believe). Therefore, I think a case can be strongly made for the original design being in the public domain.

With regard to evidence of usage, a number of published sources refer to the flag having been created in 1925.Kwib (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Created and used till 2000 or when ever the new flag was created? I'm sure the IRFU could tell us Gnevin (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin, I think you are now putting roadblocks in the way. This is not like the case of the flag of Italy where the flag changed substantially over the years. If the only differences are minor stylistic changes to the IRFU motif then the image is effectively the same. And anyway, at the resolution it will be displayed at it will be invisible to the user. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We use the 30 star US flag when need even if at the resolution it is invisible to the user. All I'm saying is we need the IRFU to confirm they used this flag for the period claimed. I seem to recall the IRFU using a 4 prov flag back in the day.Can you provide a link to this 1925 flag please? Gnevin (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The changes TO the US flag were more than stylistic. They were substantive.

It is not the IRFU that we need to confirm use since 1925, it is verifiable sources ... and ... eh ... wow ... actually ... (and surprising to me even!) ... a very plain one exists:

"As Diffley recognises 'entrenched attitudes caused some problems for a while after the founding of the Irish Free State in 1922'. He records that there was, apparantly, a reluctance at first in some quarters to fly the 'Irish tricolour (which, of course, had replaced the Union Jack as the national emblem) at Lansdowne Road for international matches'. The problem had to be confronted by the IRFU which was now 'in the position of governing the game for oneisland which contained two separate political entities'. According to Van Esbeck, 'the question was resolved in 1925 by the union designing a special flag of its own'. ...

"The issue was was raised again in January 1932, by the Connaught branch of the IRFU. Again the Union insisted that its own flag would be flown at all international matches, regardless of whether these were played at Lansdowne Road, Dublin, or Belfast's venue for international rugby, Ravelhill."

— John Sugden, Alan Bairn, 1993, Sport, sectarianism and society in a divided Ireland, Leicester University Press: London

So it would appear that, after all the years of comotion, the flag is actually in the public domain after all! Joy! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a bit slow today but I see neither a claim for PD or what the flag looked like and if it was flown from 1925 to xx? Gnevin (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That being said I am willing to IAR and use this IRFU if we can establish it is PD Gnevin (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I today have the following form the IRFU in response to an email request:"The flag has remained the same basic design since then. The IRFU logo in the middle on a green background with the four provincial emblems quartered. It has been updated with the new designs but the layout is still the same."

Does this help?Kwib (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This was in resopnse to the following from me: "I was wondering if that 1925 flag bore any resemblance to the IRFU flag that is seen today at Ireland internationals. Has the flag changed substantially over the years? The flag today has the modern IRFU logo in the centre so perhaps this is the only thing that has changed since 1925?"Kwib (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly interesting. The old issue that remains in the issue of copyright on the 1925 flag. Gnevin (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this is only 2 or 3 years away from PD and the IRFU no longer use the logo . I wonder if we could get them to release under {{CC-BY-SA}} Gnevin (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Kwib's comments above, I think it is public being public domain in the country of origin. Certainly, the original IRFU motif is PD and if people can claim that other flag lack creativity then surely anything involving the four provinces falls short too? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for contacting them, Kwib. In response to Gnevin's last post I went trawling and saw reference to a red saltire with the one of four provinces in each segment and the IRFU motif at the centre point. This was mainly in unreliable source but it is said on FOTW. I have never in my life seen this saltire flag, so I was a little suspicious.

Gnevin, in light of the IRFU response are you satisified. Or have you (or anyone else) ever seen the red saltire described above? Would you want the IRFU response to go through WP:OTRS for verifications sake? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The stuff about the red saltire looks wrong . As the IRFU have said the flag hasn't really changed, what we need now is a image of this flag so we can have someone create a SVG of it Gnevin (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The saltire flag is not appropriate (except for Scotland LOL!) - it appears to be the flag of the FitzGerald family, and never really considered the national flag by anyone other than the folk who cobbled the Union Jack together.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And many of those "cobblers" grandsons were the chiefs of the IRFU at the time in question. Hence their lack of desire to fly the tricolour. Recall, the IRFU president was assasinated by Repubicans on the first day of the Easter Rising.

The idea that the IRFU would use the saltire as a flag of Ireland (especially at the time) should not be surprising. So has anyone ever seen the IRFU use it, as claimed by FOTW (and contradicted by the IRFU email)? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Restating case for PD

Because the flag was not first published in the US copyright rules in wikipedia suggest we defer to the copyright laws of the source country. This would be the Republic of Ireland (according to the following logic - it is the country in which it was first published or if this is unknown the country which has the most significant contacts with the work). Irish copyright applies for seventy years from the end of the year of death of the author, editor or creator and if that is not known then seventy years from the end of the year of creation (which incidentally is the same as the UK I believe). The creator of the design is the IRFU and sources on the subject of its creation attribute it to the IRFU, not to a specific designer. Therefore, going from the end of the year of its creation the copyright on the original design (assuming copyright was asserted in the first place) expired at the end of 1995. Therefore, this would make the design in the Public Domain.Kwib (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kwib I missed this the first time around . It is PD. I say if we can find an image of it we use it , ask the IRFU perhaps? Gnevin (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is excellent. My research on the the IRFU logo (based on programmes) through the twentieth century has revealed that the three shamrocks (that was replaced in the early 1990s by the first incarnation of the modern IRFU logo) actually began being used in 1955. Until 1954 it was a single shamrock surrounded by an oval around the rim of which (from bottom left clockwise to bottom right) read "Irish Rugby Football Union". This was consistent from at least 1929 and probably before. Even if it had changed in 1929, this would still have copyright expired in 1999.Kwib (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

South African flag

Considering all the Sisyphean debate going on about the Irish flag (which is NEVER going to be properly resolved frankly - and I don't understand why it is happening AGAIN), no one (to my knowledge) has mentioned the South African flag.

The Springboks for most of their history played under the blue, white and orange flag, the one commonly linked with apartheid, rather than the "rainbow flag" that is used now. But in a lot of cases, articles referring to SA in the period use the modern flag.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats very nice Mac, thanks for that history lesson Gnevin (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the various historical Italian flags handled correctly. See the infobox at Italy national rugby union team for example. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)