Category talk:Rugby football

Please stop taking this out of obvious sub-cats. The category system should be practically useful, not an abstract academic exercise. Wincoote 20:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pre-schism
I am still a little confused about this topic. If it is about the 'pre-schism' why does it hold everything about both codes. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's complicated and the likelihood is that there will be a further realignment of categories in the near future. I think there needs to be discussion on this at both Wikiprojects.
 * The issue is that this "Rugby football" category tends to be the subcat of categories such as "Team sports" and so to go from team sports to either rugby union or rugby league then you need to come through here. On the face of it, a simple solution would be to make rugby and rugby league subcats of "team sports" but rugby football would also need to be a member since some relevant articles are either joint heritage of both sports or related to both. Three subcats of "team sports" containing the word "rugby" is too much.GordyB (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am guessing that the creator of this category intended the top level to be for pre-schism articles, and the subcategories for the various codes. I would suggest a new subcat Category:Rugby football before 1895 of Category:Rugby football to hold any pre-schism articles (as Bencherlite suggested in the recent cfd). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this category was created for rugby union and later became a kind of home for articles that did not fit into either union or league categories. If you look at the creation dates for the categories, they go Category:Rugby / Rugby football, Category:Rugby league and ultimately Category:Rugby union.
 * The preamble was written by me, it has nothing to do with whoever created the category.GordyB (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion: redesignate this category as Category:Rugby football before 1895 (as above) and make it a subcat of Category:Rugby union and Category:Rugby league. Put articles on subjects such as Underwater rugby into both union and league categories rather in the schism category. And put league and union categories into the likes of Category:Team sports instead of this category.

Current situation: Category:Team sports - Category:Rugby football - Category:Rugby league & Category:Rugby union

Proposed solution: Category:Team sports - Category:Rugby league & Category:Rugby union - Category:Rugby football before 1895.GordyB (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But 'rugby before 1895' is not a subcat of 'rugby after 1895' (or vice versa). We have subcats pre-1895, league, union, of Category:Rugby football - they are all varieties of rugby football. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The rugby union and rugby league cats aren't strictly speaking "rugby after 1895". If the new cat was called "rugby before great schism" then this problem would be avoided.GordyB (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically the situation is still up in the air about what exactly the category is. I'm amazed the category was moved considering the debate. Looking through here I seem to be the only one confused at the time, still wants attention with all the sub-cats, etc. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about leaving it as it is (removing para 2 of the preamble), with a new category Category:Rugby football before 1895 as a subcat of the subcats Category:Rugby league & Category:Rugby union? Otherwise the other subcats (sevens, films, wheelchair) are cast adrift. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your suggestion, Gordy. From my perspective, I really think league is big enough and old enough to stand on its own. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotta go with Gordy and Florrie on this one. Advised the closing admin here that there would be problems but they weren't interested. Londo  06  08:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'problems' pre-date cfd and cfd has no bearing on subcats and pre-ambles, which anyone can edit. The cfd was merely to insert the word football into the name, to match the article Rugby football per the usual preference. It is my view that the category Rugby football is needed to hold quite a few articles and subcats which don't seem to fall naturally into either league or union. If people want a new category then just create it; no permission is required. We have a catch-all category Category:Football (minimal preamble) for anything with 'football' in its name, and it seems to me logical to have a catch-all subcat Category:Rugby football (minimal preamble) for any variety of football with rugby in its name. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My point being that it was known there was a can of worms here, and it was opened, rather than getting to the crux of the problem, discussed above. Londo  06  12:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this now a pre-1895 rugby football category? Alexsanderson83 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
If you have a point to make about my preamble then let's have it here. Changes need to be discussed.GordyB (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)