Talk:Cardiff Rugby

Cardiff RFC or Blues
Shall we try and stay neutral on this issue?

Text biased in favour of one particular view will just be changed by someonelse with an equally biased view. Then it all starts to become a bit childish. Lets just stick to facts. There's already a section on the page which discusses the identity issue. Best to keep that stuff there or it just clutters up the page. Theres no need to change all references to "Cardiff Blues" to just "Cardiff" or "Blues". No need to clutter the history section with stuff about the circumstances behind switiching from 9 clubs or the status of the Premiership side. It isn't directly relevant to the topic and there are other sections on wikipedia for that material.

Formed in 2003
The Blues were formed in 2003, not 1876 as some people keep changing it to. Cardiff RFC were formed in 1876. In 2003, due to the regionalisation of welsh rugby, Cardiff RFC spawned a new team, the Cardiff Blues, which would compete at the top level of club rugby, including the Heineken Cup, and would therefore carry on the history of Cardiff RFC in that respect. The Cardiff RFC club however remained and competed in the Welsh premiership. Before 2003 the Cardiff Blues did not exist, and therefore they were formed in 2003. The Cardiff Blues were not "rebranded" in 2003. They came into existence in 2003. If you really want to use the word rebranded, it would apply only to Cardiff RFC, however this would not make much sense as the RFC side still exist. Besides any of this, the infobox cannot display a formed in and rebranded in year, so to avoid confusion, just leave it as 2003. The history of the club is in the article anyway. Nouse4aname 07:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On this issue, I'm afraid you are consistently confusing your own opinion with fact. There is no rule which states that a club cannot operate two teams. It is more common than you seem to realise. Statements from figures in Welsh rugby and Cardiff Blues themselves consistently refer to the events of 2003 as a rebrand, and the company's structure is certainly identical to what it was prior to 2003. If you'd like links to justify what I've written here, they are plentiful. At any rate, the situation is far less black and white than you seem to think it is. I hope that, in future, you can get a better handle on this distinction between fact and opinion. Steve1978 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ask yourself this, did the Cardiff Blues exist before 2003? No. Thus they could not possibly have existed in 1876, the Cardiff Blues brand was first formed in 2003. Just as the Scarlets were founded in 2003, despite the continued existence of the Llanelli RFC side. Since the infobox currently only allows the word "formed" rather than "rebrand", 2003 is the logical year to put. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they existed prior to 2003, playing in the same competitions and owned by the same company under a different branding. You can certainly argue that the branding is more significant than the reality, but once more, that would be to confuse your opinion with fact.Steve1978 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, so the old Cardiff RFC side used to be a regional representative side, then 2003 came along, and they were renamed Cardiff Blues, and then the Cardiff RFC name was used for the premiership side? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that Cardiff RFC got the franchise for the regional team. As the recent dispute showed they could also lose it (see the press reports of the WRU offering the franchise up).  Ditto Llanelli.  The other regional teams were combined franchise holders with joint board membership of the participating club.   I think its therefore true to say that the team was founded in 1876, and won the regional franchise in 2003  -- Snowded   TALK  10:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, did the regional team exist before 2003? No. Regional rugby did not exist until 2003 and thus a regional side could not possibly have existed before this date. Just because they recruited players from the RFC side does not mean that they are the same team; the RFC side is still playing, the Blues is an entirely new team, owned by the RFC which was founded in 1876, but formed the regional team in 2003. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the point. Cardiff got the franchise and rebranded themselves.  On the other hand the Ospreys are a new team as they were formed from Neath and Swansea.  -- Snowded   TALK  18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How can they both rebrand and go from operating one team to two? One of the teams must be new - quite obviously it is the Blues, which is a regional, representative side, a concept that did not exist previously. Yes, the Ospreys are a new team, as are the Dragons. The Scarlets on the other hand are operated by Llanelli RFC, with the Scarlets formed in 2003. Just because the regional sides are run by companies that run the old RFC sides, does not make them a continuation of them. These sides represent far more than just the Cardiff RFC or Llanelli RFC sides. This whole talk of rebranding is needlessly confusing the issue. The regional sides are not the same as the old RFC sides. They are a new concept, represent a wider region, and simply did not exist prior to 2003. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

They were operating two teams prior to 2003. Both under different brandings to the ones used post 2003. I'm not sure where "one of the teams must be new - quite obviously it is the blues" comes from - unless once again you feel justified in placing unsubtantiated opinion ahead of fact. You've assumed that they operated one team. You've assumed that it is "obvious" that Blues are a new team - why is it obvious? Steve1978 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who were operating two teams prior to 2003? What were they? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Cardiff and Llanelli both won franchises, in the other two cases new companies were formed. in 2003 we therefore get a common history for two entities not a new entity. One of those was rebranded, but this history is there. The franchise has responsibility for a region but not control, and (I don;t think) Ponty do not have the same relationship to Cardiff as exists between Swansea and Neath for example. Newport got very messy as I remember it so I not sure there. If you go back Cardiff were allowed to form a region by themselves and later expanded their territory with the demise of the Warriors. -- Snowded  TALK  09:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that a regional representative team did not exist until 2003. Some of the management and players may be the same, but the concept was entirely different. The Cardiff Blues brand was launched in 2003. It was a new name and a new team. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does a new branding equal a new team? Is that your opinion again? Steve1978 (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the Blues are not the same as the old RFC side. The RFC side maintains the exact same structure as before, playing in the Welsh Premiership, whereas the Blues, which were formed only following the regionalisation of rugby in 2003, are based on an entirely different structure. They represent a region - a concept that did not exist prior to 2003. They are fed by Premiership club sides, something that did not occur prior to 2003. This is not my opinion. It is simple logic. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) How many times do I have to say this. Cardiff RFC won the franchise, the Blues thus have a common history with the divisional side, neither can claim to exclude the other from that history and neither do. Llanelli is the same. Ospreys and Dragons, a new company is formed. This has got to stop -- Snowded   TALK  00:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does this mean that the Blues are the same team as the old RFC side? Why can't you understand that an existing company won the right to form a regional side. The simple fact that regional rugby did not exist before 2003 should be a sure sign that a team comparable to the Blues could not exist before this date. Who are you to say "this has got to stop"? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not have an issue with the 2003 date being used next to "founded" as it reflects the foundation of the brand and there is information in the article pointing the reader in the direction of pre 2003 history. I have an issue with the message that follows the 2003 date in the info box: describing Cardiff Blues as an entirely new entity is simply incorrect, furthermore it contradicts what you have written in this discussion area. It is also unneccesarily aggressive and dictatorial in tone. This is why I change it. Steve1978 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that we will never agree on to what extent the Blues are new or old or a mixture thereof, and I really can't be bothered going around in circles, so I don't see the point in my continued involvement in this debate. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly entitled to say "this has got to stop" when all we get is repetition of the same (in my opinion) very poor argument. You have obviously come to the same conclusion.  Given that two editors agree on continuity I will make a change with an appropriate note.  -- Snowded   TALK  10:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree, does not make it a "very poor arguement". Further, the inclusion of 1874 (it should be 1876 anyway) was not discussed, nor is the footnote cited, it simply represents your opinion. Take a look at a few sources that refer to the Blues as being "newly formed" in 2003. Until we can reach an agreement, and you can provide a source, and not simply a POV statement, I will revert your addition to the infobox. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

story repeated elsewhere:
 * "Williams was one of the first players to sign for the newly formed Cardiff Blues in the summer of 2003" WRU
 * "Williams was one of the first players to sign for the newly formed Cardiff Blues in the summer of 2003" PlanetRugby
 * "Williams was one of the first players to sign for the newly formed Cardiff Blues in 2003" Rugby365
 * "The two sides have not met since the Cardiff Blues region was formed in 2003" LeedsCarnegie
 * "Since the formation of the Cardiff Blues in 2003" Cardiff Blues
 * "The five newly formed regions – Cardiff Blues, Celtic Warriors, Llanelli Scarlets, Neath-Swansea Opsreys and Newport Gwent Dragons – were the Welsh representatives in the Heineken Cup, Celtic League and Celtic Cup." WRU (page 25)

Formed in 2003
The Blues were formed in 2003, not 1876 as some people keep changing it to. Cardiff RFC were formed in 1876. In 2003, due to the regionalisation of welsh rugby, Cardiff RFC spawned a new team, the Cardiff Blues, which would compete at the top level of club rugby, including the Heineken Cup, and would therefore carry on the history of Cardiff RFC in that respect. The Cardiff RFC club however remained and competed in the Welsh premiership. Before 2003 the Cardiff Blues did not exist, and therefore they were formed in 2003. The Cardiff Blues were not "rebranded" in 2003. They came into existence in 2003. If you really want to use the word rebranded, it would apply only to Cardiff RFC, however this would not make much sense as the RFC side still exist. Besides any of this, the infobox cannot display a formed in and rebranded in year, so to avoid confusion, just leave it as 2003. The history of the club is in the article anyway. Nouse4aname 07:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On this issue, I'm afraid you are consistently confusing your own opinion with fact. There is no rule which states that a club cannot operate two teams. It is more common than you seem to realise. Statements from figures in Welsh rugby and Cardiff Blues themselves consistently refer to the events of 2003 as a rebrand, and the company's structure is certainly identical to what it was prior to 2003. If you'd like links to justify what I've written here, they are plentiful. At any rate, the situation is far less black and white than you seem to think it is. I hope that, in future, you can get a better handle on this distinction between fact and opinion. Steve1978 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ask yourself this, did the Cardiff Blues exist before 2003? No. Thus they could not possibly have existed in 1876, the Cardiff Blues brand was first formed in 2003. Just as the Scarlets were founded in 2003, despite the continued existence of the Llanelli RFC side. Since the infobox currently only allows the word "formed" rather than "rebrand", 2003 is the logical year to put. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they existed prior to 2003, playing in the same competitions and owned by the same company under a different branding. You can certainly argue that the branding is more significant than the reality, but once more, that would be to confuse your opinion with fact.Steve1978 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, so the old Cardiff RFC side used to be a regional representative side, then 2003 came along, and they were renamed Cardiff Blues, and then the Cardiff RFC name was used for the premiership side? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that Cardiff RFC got the franchise for the regional team. As the recent dispute showed they could also lose it (see the press reports of the WRU offering the franchise up).  Ditto Llanelli.  The other regional teams were combined franchise holders with joint board membership of the participating club.   I think its therefore true to say that the team was founded in 1876, and won the regional franchise in 2003  -- Snowded   TALK  10:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, did the regional team exist before 2003? No. Regional rugby did not exist until 2003 and thus a regional side could not possibly have existed before this date. Just because they recruited players from the RFC side does not mean that they are the same team; the RFC side is still playing, the Blues is an entirely new team, owned by the RFC which was founded in 1876, but formed the regional team in 2003. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the point. Cardiff got the franchise and rebranded themselves.  On the other hand the Ospreys are a new team as they were formed from Neath and Swansea.  -- Snowded   TALK  18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How can they both rebrand and go from operating one team to two? One of the teams must be new - quite obviously it is the Blues, which is a regional, representative side, a concept that did not exist previously. Yes, the Ospreys are a new team, as are the Dragons. The Scarlets on the other hand are operated by Llanelli RFC, with the Scarlets formed in 2003. Just because the regional sides are run by companies that run the old RFC sides, does not make them a continuation of them. These sides represent far more than just the Cardiff RFC or Llanelli RFC sides. This whole talk of rebranding is needlessly confusing the issue. The regional sides are not the same as the old RFC sides. They are a new concept, represent a wider region, and simply did not exist prior to 2003. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

They were operating two teams prior to 2003. Both under different brandings to the ones used post 2003. I'm not sure where "one of the teams must be new - quite obviously it is the blues" comes from - unless once again you feel justified in placing unsubtantiated opinion ahead of fact. You've assumed that they operated one team. You've assumed that it is "obvious" that Blues are a new team - why is it obvious? Steve1978 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who were operating two teams prior to 2003? What were they? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Cardiff and Llanelli both won franchises, in the other two cases new companies were formed. in 2003 we therefore get a common history for two entities not a new entity. One of those was rebranded, but this history is there. The franchise has responsibility for a region but not control, and (I don;t think) Ponty do not have the same relationship to Cardiff as exists between Swansea and Neath for example. Newport got very messy as I remember it so I not sure there. If you go back Cardiff were allowed to form a region by themselves and later expanded their territory with the demise of the Warriors. -- Snowded  TALK  09:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that a regional representative team did not exist until 2003. Some of the management and players may be the same, but the concept was entirely different. The Cardiff Blues brand was launched in 2003. It was a new name and a new team. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does a new branding equal a new team? Is that your opinion again? Steve1978 (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the Blues are not the same as the old RFC side. The RFC side maintains the exact same structure as before, playing in the Welsh Premiership, whereas the Blues, which were formed only following the regionalisation of rugby in 2003, are based on an entirely different structure. They represent a region - a concept that did not exist prior to 2003. They are fed by Premiership club sides, something that did not occur prior to 2003. This is not my opinion. It is simple logic. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) How many times do I have to say this. Cardiff RFC won the franchise, the Blues thus have a common history with the divisional side, neither can claim to exclude the other from that history and neither do. Llanelli is the same. Ospreys and Dragons, a new company is formed. This has got to stop -- Snowded   TALK  00:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does this mean that the Blues are the same team as the old RFC side? Why can't you understand that an existing company won the right to form a regional side. The simple fact that regional rugby did not exist before 2003 should be a sure sign that a team comparable to the Blues could not exist before this date. Who are you to say "this has got to stop"? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not have an issue with the 2003 date being used next to "founded" as it reflects the foundation of the brand and there is information in the article pointing the reader in the direction of pre 2003 history. I have an issue with the message that follows the 2003 date in the info box: describing Cardiff Blues as an entirely new entity is simply incorrect, furthermore it contradicts what you have written in this discussion area. It is also unneccesarily aggressive and dictatorial in tone. This is why I change it. Steve1978 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that we will never agree on to what extent the Blues are new or old or a mixture thereof, and I really can't be bothered going around in circles, so I don't see the point in my continued involvement in this debate. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly entitled to say "this has got to stop" when all we get is repetition of the same (in my opinion) very poor argument. You have obviously come to the same conclusion.  Given that two editors agree on continuity I will make a change with an appropriate note.  -- Snowded   TALK  10:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree, does not make it a "very poor arguement". Further, the inclusion of 1874 (it should be 1876 anyway) was not discussed, nor is the footnote cited, it simply represents your opinion. Take a look at a few sources that refer to the Blues as being "newly formed" in 2003. Until we can reach an agreement, and you can provide a source, and not simply a POV statement, I will revert your addition to the infobox. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

story repeated elsewhere:
 * "Williams was one of the first players to sign for the newly formed Cardiff Blues in the summer of 2003" WRU
 * "Williams was one of the first players to sign for the newly formed Cardiff Blues in the summer of 2003" PlanetRugby
 * "Williams was one of the first players to sign for the newly formed Cardiff Blues in 2003" Rugby365
 * The two sides have not met since the Cardiff Blues region was formed in 2003 LeedsCarnegie
 * "Since the formation of the Cardiff Blues in 2003" Cardiff Blues
 * "The five newly formed regions – Cardiff Blues, Celtic Warriors, Llanelli Scarlets, Neath-Swansea Opsreys and Newport Gwent Dragons – were the Welsh representatives in the Heineken Cup, Celtic League and Celtic Cup." WRY (page 25)

Perhaps even more telling are statements from the Clubs own page "About the Blues": Even the Blues do not count appearances for the RFC side before 2003 in a player's appearance record; see Martyn Williams, who played for the RFC side, then the Blues, yet his stats only go back as far as 2003/04. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cardiff Blues were launched in June 2003 as one of five new Welsh regional sides" (No hint at a simple rebranding exercise here)
 * "The Blues qualified for the first time in their brief history for the Heineken Cup Quarter Finals in 2007/8," (Brief history? But didn't they form in 1876?)

What do we do? Proposal
All the above citations are fine Nouse4aname, there is no question that the region was established in 2003 you are again, as you consistently have, ignored the question of the franchise allocation. Its not even clear if you disagree with it, or simply don't understand it. My edit (which you have reversed) was a sensible compromise. It stated 2003 but but the original foundation date in brackets with a note (which could easily have a citation).

I therefore propose that this solution 2003 (1876) with a citation noting the franchise issue is the best way forward. -- Snowded  TALK  11:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For

 * -- Snowded  TALK  11:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Against

 * Nouse4aname (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * But why does the formation date of the company that owns the Blues come in to it? We are not talking about the company that runs the team, but the actual team itself. There are numerous sources that clearly define the Blues as a new team. The fact that the company that runs them formed in 1876 can be discussed in the text and just confuses the infobox. Do you propose we do the same on the Scarlets page? Nouse4aname (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you direct me to the WRU press report that you refer to above? Nouse4aname (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this section not going to have to be re-opened for debate?

As recently as today the club have tweeted that them and Cardiff RFC are one in the same.

https://twitter.com/Cardiff_Rugby/status/1390593555484356609

The club can be asked to provide a statement to state that they were formed pre 2003 if needs be. Will likely need to be a project to merge the two wikipedia articles for Cardiff RFC and this one.
 * , Currently the side is still the Cardiff Blues (founded in 2003). At the end of the season when the revert to Cardiff, or Cardiff Rugby, it'll be changed to their original founding date (I think 1854 can't remember off the top of my head) and the page moved to Cardiff Rugby, but for now it's correct. Also please remember to sign your posts when posting. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies not all that experienced with Wikipedia, only ever done small things like updating player appearances and minor stuff. Appreciate the reply, thank you. CardiffRugbyFan (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , no worries. Thanks for your edits. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Importance to Wiki Rugby Union project
I recently changed the "Importance" parameter in Template:WikiProject Rugby union for this artical from High to Mid per my reading of the importance scale. I note that User:Snowded has changed it back. Not a problem, but I want to get clarity on what the Importance should be. I have asked a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union and would welcome all input. Hamish59 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one external links on Cardiff Blues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020023320/http://www.cardiffblues.com:80/786_120.php to http://www.cardiffblues.com/786_120.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203001/http://www.wru.co.uk/114_1831.php to http://www.wru.co.uk/114_1831.php
 * Added tag to http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-1-2003-38429.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203036/http://www.wru.co.uk/6371_4928.php to http://www.wru.co.uk/6371_4928.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217111416/http://www.cardiffblues.co.uk:80/33_3040.php to http://www.cardiffblues.co.uk/33_3040.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090218004040/http://www.cardiffblues.co.uk:80/33_3060.php to http://www.cardiffblues.co.uk/33_3060.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216200530/http://www.cardiffblues.co.uk:80/33_3135.php to http://www.cardiffblues.co.uk/33_3135.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227070159/http://www.cardiffblues.com:80/37_3846.php to http://www.cardiffblues.com/37_3846.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606175647/http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/statistics/team_statistics.php?includeref=859&teamid=14 to http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/statistics/team_statistics.php?includeref=859&teamid=14
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411014722/http://talkcardiffrugby.net:80/forums/ to http://talkcardiffrugby.net/forums/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cardiff Blues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-1-2003-38429.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20031026/ai_n12883662
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120804210548/http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/elite/fifty_tournament_caps.php to http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/elite/fifty_tournament_caps.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://talkcardiffrugby.net/forums/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cardiff Blues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216200610/http://www.cardiffblues.co.uk/33_3080.php to http://www.cardiffblues.co.uk/33_3080.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Notable former players
I feel like this section offers very little value. 20 international caps isn't a high bar, it also doesn't include players who are renound for playing for the club such as Paul Tito, Xavier Rush, Taufaʻao Filise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CardiffRugbyFan (talk • contribs) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , there was a discussion here on sections like this. Perhaps a section of players with over 100 appearances and players who played at a Rugby World Cup and the Lions while at Cardiff would be good. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)