Talk:2021 Rugby World Cup qualifying

South America/Africa play-off
There seems to be some confusion here over a colorbox indicating which team progressed to the repechage tournament. The page currently shows this:

However, since Colombia won the playoff (and progress to the repechage), it should be displayed thus:

Pinging the last five named editors -- -- what is the consensus here? The other alternative, if this remains too confusing, is to remove the colorbox entirely. -- Ham105 (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(User talk:Cltjames), it would only make sense the the repechage would be indicated next to the winning team, thus like game 1382 before on the list, Samoa progressed winning 40-0; then Columbia takes the repechage for winning.

I'd go with the former and put in a note under the match (if it's not already there) about how Kenya won on aggregate and advanced to the repechage Ignioto1993 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ignioto1993, however, by the score shown, Colombia (not Kenya) won the one-off match - no aggregate required (Kenya were eliminated). Yep, there is a note under the match stating "As a result, Colombia qualified for the repechage tournament". The question now is whether the to repechage colorbox should be shown next to the team advancing to the repechage (Colombia). Which do you suggest for best clarity? -- Ham105 (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have always put it on the left side regardless of who wins as it looks far less scrappier. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel. Unless mistaken in this instance, I believe you only copied the colorbox markup from my original edits on the Oceania Rugby Women's Championship page. The code is the same as my original code.
 * It is specfically placed within either the  team parameter or   team parameter - because it applies to that team and shows *which team* advances, in this case, to repechage -- Ham105 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Always having it on the left, even if the winner is on the right, means readers mistakenly think it was Kenya that advanced to the repechage in this example, as Ignioto1993 did above. It doesn't make sense. -- Ham105 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally I feel that the 'to repechage' and 'to RWC' boxes on this page aren't really necessary. It's explained in the text above the score infobox who qualifies for what and what the match means. Different sections have different qualifications rules, which I think has brought about some confusion here, as from what I'm reading the winner of the Oceanic section qualifies for the repechage, and then losers of other sections qualify. In my opinion they're not needed, and can draw attention away from the reader, but I'm not too fussed either way as long as there's consensus on it's use. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask also when they started being used, I can't see them in use in any other World Cup qualifying page men's or women's. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Rugbyfan22. Consensus is the aim here. As mentioned at the top, removing the colorboxes is one alternative.
 * I agree on different rules adding confusion. The word "repechage" may even add to it (commonly being the loser's destination).
 * Does prose alone do it best, tho? ... all other sections (esp. with log tables) use both prose and visual color cues to convey the info quickly and clearly.
 * Using the same green/yellow color keys from those sections gives a consistent visual cue, article-wide.
 * An example from the 2019 RWC qualifier page (for a two-match tie) showing a color key alongside, is below. Same green for the RWC qualifiers is used in all sections.


 * Europe/Oceania play-off qualifier


 * To your question on the origin of this color key alongside a team within a rugbybox – it was used by me in the 2019 section of the Oceania Championship, then copied here. -- Ham105 (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, personally prefer the mock-up here to the extra boxes. The aggregate score table can be placed with the small amount of text above the individual game infoboxes. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It does work pretty well, . But a difference here (prescient of Covid-19, perhaps) is that two-match ties on aggregate weren't feasible logistically and/or financially after a measles outbreak in Tonga disrupted the original qualification process. So we've got a one-off decider – well, we've got one-off playoffs on multiple occasions for women's teams in this RWC. This sort of markup...


 * ... using the rugbybox template for a single match, provides virtually the same visual cues—given it's only one match, not two—as my previous men's example does. I think this is appropriate to show a one game playoff. -- Ham105 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , for a single fixture such as this, I don't feel the box is needed, qualification permutations are better explained in text than imagery in my opinion. Even just using the note function of the infobox to state Fiji qualified for the 2021 Rugby World Cup for example, would be my preference for a single match like this. But that's my view, if yourself and others prefer this way then I'm happy to go with it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks,, I'm already in favour of prose such as "Fiji qualified for the 2021 Rugby World Cup" (and it's already in the article). Can I ask this: If a colorbox *is* used to indicate a team has qualified for something, should it be placed: 1. ... always beside the home team?
 * Adding this sentence again in the note parameter just puts such prose in a different location, does it not?
 * To recap, my approach is to use both prose and color cues consistently across the whole page.
 * Colors, in particular, can convey info quickly and clearly, such as what team goes where.
 * I accept you have a different view.

2. ... beside the team that gained the qualification?

3. No opinion / don't like the question / rather not say. As simple, even "dumb" as that query might be, it may save some time :) -- Ham105 (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

, Apologies, I've probably overthought it a bit, if it is to be used, I'd use it not to the side that's qualified or been relegated to the specific location, so team that qualifies for the repechage should have the color box next to their name. Hope that sort of makes sense. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No apology needed,, the aim is to consider options on how things can be done – which is what we've been doing. I am assuming 'so team that qualifies for the repechage should have the color box next to their name', would translate to option 'b'. But anyway, I'm going to leave this thing for a while now and might check back in tomorrow. Thanks for discussing. -- Ham105 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , yep option B, listing beside the home team can be confusing. Apologies if I'm going slightly off point again, but if a match see's the winner of the match qualify for the tournament, and the loser enter the repechage, I don't think both should be used, just the 'qualified for tournament' color box. But that's probably a different discussion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, to summarise 3+ weeks on with no further replies. This discussion involved 5 editors (including who I forgot to thank). I think there is a rough consensus that—if the 'to repechage' box is used (which it currently is)—it should be next to the team that achieved that qualification. I will amend the South America/Africa play-off, for now, to show Colombia advanced to the repechage -- Ham105 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks, the topic slipped my mind a bit, but bringing me back to a simple case of common sense, and the outcome is correct. As in, the win is indicated with a potential link ( this case repechage) to show the progressing team. Cltjames (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)