Talk:PRO Rugby

Table of teams
User:Smashem: I reverted again your edits to the teams table and infobox. The table is worse when it includes a multitude of entries to TBA, unnecessary coordinates and flags, and repeated references to first seasons that are the same for every team. We should present the reader with key information about these teams, and not lard up the table with distracting and not very useful information. On the infobox, I don't know why you are insisting on putting three teams and linking internally within the article. Every source I've seen says there will be five or six teams.

Also, please do not make repeated reverts without any explanation, as that is how WP:EDITWARs get started. And please do not use an IP address to make repeated reverts, as that violates WP:PUPPET. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * All I'm worried about is the table I created. I personally don't see anything wrong with it other than it has more information than what you insist. The NFL, NBA and NHL articles all have the exact same information table? Regards, JS 22:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Smashem: I'm not a fan of those tables, as they are crammed with so much information they are hard to read. The value of including a coordinates column in particular seems dubious; if readers want that level of detail, they can read the stadium article. The table at Major_League_Soccer is a better model to follow. The table you created has several columns with no meaningful information — many TBA entries, repeated listing of the first season even though it's the same information for every team, etc. CUA 27 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Smashem: I see that you have ignored my most recent post and instead now appear to be insisting on WP:EDITWARring. In the spirit of attempting to resolve this issue amicably, please undo your change and use this talk page to try to achieve consensus. CUA 27 (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Smashem: And now you are using an alternate account of User:Rugbytaranaki to restore your edits. I have now left you these two warnings in the past two days on your user talk page. How do you think this is going to play out? CUA 27 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this table okay?

JS 02:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Smashem — Thanks for discussing on the talk page. I don't see any reason to include a column with the first season, because it is the same for every team; but perhaps add in a column in a few years if/when expansion teams are added. I don't see any reason to bold the multiple TBAs. And with the font size so small the table is hard to read. CUA 27 (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Team names
User:Kidsoljah User:Youndbuckerz User:Mattlore —

Can we decide on how PRO Rugby teams should be named (at least for now until they get proper names)?

The Sacramento team page was the first team article created. It was orginally named Sacramento (PRO Rugby). Then it was moved to Sacramento RFC. Then reverted to Sacramento (PRO Rugby). All of this without any discussion on the article's talk page.

Then the San Diego team page was created. It was originally named San Diego rugby team. Then it was moved to San Diego (PRO Rugby). Again, no discussion on the article's talk page.

What is the consistent naming convention we should use until PRO Rugby comes up with proper names? For reference, Major League Soccer wiki users have a long standing practice of names following the format "CityName MLS team", as in Miami MLS team. I was trying to loosely follow that style when I came up with the name San Diego rugby team. CUA 27 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I support using the MLS format: "San Diego PRO Rugby team," etc. Grande (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Grande. They should be named like "San Diego PRO Rugby team," for now until the offical names are announced. Kidsoljah (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * At the time I moved the first article the introduction said it was called the Sacramento RFC so it seemed a clear move to me. That has since been removed from the page by another user so its no longer clear. I think San Diego rugby team or San Diego (rugby union) would be preferable. Most of the article being created seem short on references and risk failing GNG currently, it might be better to wait until more references are available. Mattlore (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the PRO Rugby in brackets as no team names have been announced yet then they can get reverted once names, logos etc.. have been announced. Can't wait til this kicks off exciting times for rugby as a whole stateside!! Youndbuckerz (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Good discussion folks. I also prefer the "San Diego PRO Rugby team" naming format. CUA 27 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary attempt: To sum up where I think we are, three of the five editors contributing here prefer the "San Diego PRO Rugby team" format. Two editors have offered up other naming ideas (one of which, "San Diego rugby team" is quite similar to the leading proposal), but those ideas have not yet been supported by other editors. I'll also add that the current naming convention leads to strange lead sentences: "San Diego is a professional American rugby union team . . ." Are we at the point where we are ready to support what appears to be the preferred format and change the article names? If folks disagree, and want to make another attempt to convince others that another naming convention is better, please go ahead. CUA 27 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, it looks like we have consensus. I will move the pages. CUA 27 (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Squad lists
User:Kidsoljah User:Youndbuckerz User:Mattlore User:Grande —

What is the best way to present squad lists for PRO Rugby teams? I have listed three options below; each format has been used at some point in time on a PRO Rugby team page. Option #1 seems to be a common way that squad lists are shown in European rugby competitions. Option #2 seems to be popular for southern hemisphere rugby competitions.

In my opinion, of the three options listed:
 * Option #2 is my favorite. It is concise and has a nice layout that makes it easy to see players by position at a glance.
 * Option #3 has the advantage of presenting additional information. But does it present too many details?
 * Option #1 is my least favorite. The table takes up a lot of unnecessary space — because the nation (e.g., United States) and position name (e.g., scrum-half) are written out repeatedly. I find it visually a bit much.

Which of the options below do editors like best? Or is there another format we should consider? This is a brand new competition and WP:RU does not mandate any particular format, so we have license to choose whatever works best. CUA 27 (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd go for Option #2 as well. I'm not sure why #3 puts such importance on their date of birth and #1 emphasises their nationality (or Union as they call it) too much IMO. Either way, would be good to have consistency amoung the squad lists. Mattlore (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Mattlore: In response to your question re Option #3, it looks like #3 may come from a modified version of squad lists that WP:FOOTY uses for national team articles. See eg, England_national_football_team CUA 27 (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Option #2, as used in the southern hemisphere rugby competitions, typically uses three columns:


 * I think it is a better use of space. -- Ham105 (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Option #2, is my preferred layout, it puts more of an emphasis on names by position as apposed nationality (#1) and DOB and Caps (#3) - caps especially shouldn't be on club pages. Rugby.change (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like we have consensus for Option #2 then. The remaining question is whether 2 columns or 3 columns is better. User:Ham105 mentioned a preference for three columns. I prefer two columns, as it makes a clear visual distinction between forwards and backs, whereas 3 columns makes the positions seem a bit jumbled. CUA 27 (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of expressed disagreement, it looks like we're going with option #2, with two columns. Unless there are objections, I'll start making the changes on the team pages. CUA 27 (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's allow more input to reach consensus. The two column format is not used elsewhere.


 * It is not "a bit jumbled" for positions to be grouped as other than 8+7. Taking 3×5, as tight five (front row and locks), tactical five (backrow and halves), and back five (midfield, outside backs) is fine.


 * Three columns is more compact and presents the information better. I invite editors to look at the formatting when there are fuller squads, as below. -- Ham105 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Option 2 with three columns is my preferred format. It contains only relevant information in the most concise manner. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 04:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Option 2 with three columns is also how I would like to see it displayed. Sirpottingmix (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'm too skinny to be a prop :P ....and just like Sipottingmix, I prefer O2 with 3 columns (stormers squadbox)...takes less space but allows for more options..-- Stemoc 10:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ham105 — Your squad list of WikiProject Rugby union members is hilarious. It looks like there is a strong preference for Option #2 with three columns, so let's go with that. User:‎Rugby.change has already implemented, so I think we're in good shape. Good discussion, folks. CUA 27 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Haha, thanks and I originally had you in there as a Centre (or Center) but didn't want to be presumptuous and just arbitrarily assign the Stars and Stripes flag by guessing. But I think the format as used in the Super Rugby competition works pretty well. -- Ham105 (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Two columns:
 * {| class="toccolours" width="600" style="border-collapse: collapse;"


 * valign="top"|
 * valign="top"|

Hookers
 * 🇳🇿 Wcrosbie
 * 🇺🇸 Wall Screamer
 * 🇳🇿 Tomraider

Props
 * TheMightyPeanut
 * 🇳🇿 Tamariki
 * 🇳🇿 Stormie
 * 🇺🇸 Stitchface
 * 🇦🇺 Sticks66
 * Stemoc
 * 🇦🇷 Stasm

Locks
 * 🇺🇸 Skyler13
 * 🇳🇿 Sirpottingmix
 * 🇳🇿 Shudde
 * Sahmejil
 * RugbyUrulez
 * 🇳🇿 Rugbymark

Loose Forwards
 * Rugby Daily
 * 🇦🇺 RockerballAustralia
 * 🇦🇺 Pianist4
 * 🇳🇿 Neljack
 * 🇦🇺 MDM
 * 🇦🇺 Matt294069
 * 🇺🇸 Markisgreen


 * width="33"|
 * valign="top"|

Scrum-halves
 * 🇦🇺 Magpieram
 * 🇳🇿 Lisiate
 * 🇦🇺 Kiap
 * 🇦🇺 keelybarakat
 * 🇨🇦 JohnStannie

Fly-halves
 * 🇦🇺 Ham105
 * 🇳🇿 GringoInChile
 * 🇨🇦 Grande

Centres
 * 🇳🇿 Dramatic
 * DocDee
 * Dan arndt
 * 🇺🇸 Dale Arnett
 * 🇳🇿 DaGizza
 * 🇦🇷 Carcamagnu

Wingers
 * 🇦🇺 Calistemon
 * Blackknight12
 * 🇺🇸 Barryjjoyce
 * 🇦🇺 Alza08

Fullbacks
 * 🇳🇿 Alex0274
 * 🇳🇿 Alec Station
 * 🇳🇿 Aircorn
 * }


 * Three columns:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left; font-size:90%; width:60%"

! colspan="100%" | Stormers Super Rugby squad Props
 * - valign="top"
 * 🇿🇦 JC Janse van Rensburg
 * 🇿🇦 Oli Kebble
 * 🇿🇦 Vincent Koch
 * 🇿🇦 Frans Malherbe (c)
 * 🇿🇦 JP Smith
 * 🇿🇦 Alistair Vermaak

Hookers
 * 🇿🇦 Bongi Mbonambi
 * 🇿🇦 Scarra Ntubeni
 * 🇿🇦 Mike Willemse

Locks
 * 🇿🇦 Jan de Klerk
 * 🇿🇦 Pieter-Steph du Toit
 * 🇿🇦 Eben Etzebeth
 * 🇿🇦 Jean Kleyn
 * 🇿🇦 David Ribbans
 * 🇿🇦 JD Schickerling



Loose Forwards
 * 🇿🇦 Schalk Burger
 * 🇿🇦 Nizaam Carr
 * 🇿🇦 Rynhardt Elstadt
 * 🇿🇦 Siya Kolisi
 * 🇿🇦 Sikhumbuzo Notshe
 * 🇿🇦 Jurie van Vuuren
 * 🇿🇦 Jacques Vermeulen

Scrum-halves
 * 🇿🇦 Nic Groom
 * 🇿🇦 Godlen Masimla
 * 🇿🇦 Justin Phillips
 * 🇿🇦 Louis Schreuder
 * 🇿🇦 Jano Vermaak

Fly-halves
 * 🇿🇦 Kurt Coleman
 * 🇿🇦 Jean-Luc du Plessis
 * 🇿🇦 Robert du Preez
 * 🇿🇦 Ryno Eksteen



Centres
 * 🇿🇦 Damian de Allende
 * 🇿🇦 Juan de Jongh (c)
 * 🇿🇦 Daniël du Plessis
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Huw Jones
 * 🇿🇦 Johnny Kôtze
 * 🇿🇦 Jaco Taute

Wingers
 * 🇿🇦 Cornal Hendricks
 * 🇿🇦 Seabelo Senatla
 * 🇿🇦 Kobus van Wyk
 * 🇿🇦 Leolin Zas

Fullbacks
 * 🇿🇦 Cheslin Kolbe
 * 🇿🇦 Dillyn Leyds
 * 🇿🇦 EW Viljoen
 * colspan="100%" style="height: 10px;" |
 * colspan="100%" style="text-align:center;" | (c) Denotes team captain and Bold denotes internationally capped.
 * }
 * colspan="100%" style="text-align:center;" | (c) Denotes team captain and Bold denotes internationally capped.
 * }

All players notable?
Would most players in this competition be notable since they are professional full time players? could it be up for debate I think they are notable as long as they have played a game in the PRO Rugby season.Youndbuckerz (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * - It doesn't matter that they are full-time professional players (there are many varying levels of professional and many are not notable) and since this is a new league, I doubt they have any "automatic" notability per WP:NSPORTS and definitely don't per WP:NRU. However, since many of the players have gotten previously or may soon get significant coverage, any player that can pass the WP:GNG without WP:ROUTINE coverage (so not including coverage of just signings, trades, local news, etc.) then that player would be considered notable. Yosemiter (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:NRU states that we assume they are notable if they have played for, coached or administered "a team in a fully professional rugby union competition". So, the question is, is this competition "fully professional"? But, as always the GNG still applies. Mattlore (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah I guess I misread the fully professional since 1995 to mean the competitions have been around since at least 1995 or before, but reading further into it means competitions after 1995 in general. Either way, the player will need significant independent coverage to meet GNG and being that it is rugby in the US, probably only the top end players will meet that, but not all. (Mind you, my experience is from minor league hockey pages where most are fully professional players but are not notable because of no independent coverage so I just wandered by and gave my two cents.) Yosemiter (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I had stayed out of this discussion initially, but given the differences of opinion (with Mattlore and Youndbuckerz) on team pages over redlinks in the squad lists, I thought I'd weigh in here. I agree with Yosemiter's position above — i.e., top-end players are probably notable, but it's not clear that all players are automatically notable. The competition has been ongoing for only two months now. Most notable players in PRO Rugby are notable because of their activity before joining the competition, such as playing for a national team or playing professionally overseas in an established professional competition. Once you get past the starting XV on the PRO Rugby squads, I doubt there is significant independent coverage for several of these players. CUA 27 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

— Any further thoughts on this issue? For the squad lists where all players are linked, most of them are redlinks. See eg, Denver_Stampede. It looks awful. And many of these players (other than the stars) will never have articles. I'd like to un-redlink these squad lists. CUA 27 (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:NRU hasn't changed, so is PRO Rugby a fully professional competition? If it is then NRU declares them notable (and then redlinks seem warranted as all players in squads should have articles). If the competition is not fully professional, then the redlinks should be removed. I don't know enough about this competition to answer that question myself.
 * (Either way, those players that are bolded should stay as redlinks, as they have allegedly played in international matches and so meet NRU regardless.) Mattlore (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The other option is we use this example as a chance to reevaluate NRU - but that discussion would have to take place on the notability talk page to attract a wider audience. Mattlore (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If a subject meets the NRU but cannot meet at least a minimum to the WP:GNG, then I would suggest a re-evaluation of NRU (again, I should state I come from the hockey standards where fully professional is not necessarily inherently notable). WP:GNG should be what drives any sports-based notability which is why in hockey we have a WP:NHOCKEY/LA for assessing which leagues get enough general independent coverage for players to reach inherent notability. Yosemiter (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

– I agree with Reducing the redlinks. Questions of notability (more on this later) don't need to come into this. The first thing to note is that the "Current Squad" sections on these team articles are relatively transitory; in other words, the list is generally edited and re-entered every season. There is little point to having a large number of redlinks if the players concerned are unlikely to have an article created within twelve months. When the list is reviewed the next season, new wikilinks (and even a few redlink prompts) can be added. Compare pages for teams from other parts of the world where not every squad member has a separate article, e.g. Canberra Vikings (no redlinks), and Otago Rugby Football Union (many redlinks). I think the former approach with no redlinks (or only a small number) is preferable. Almost a full year has now elapsed on the Otago squad and there are still 18 redlinks.

To notability more generally, from WP:NOTE, a topic meeting the subject-specific guides e.g. pro after 1995 (from WP:NRU and via WP:NSPORTS), is presumed to merit an article with the onus on the rebuttal to show otherwise. Whether a player has an article or not (or even a mere redlink) has no bearing on notability. From the Vikings, Tyrel Lomax is notable in my opinion but hasn't had an article created. -- Ham105 (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Ham105 makes a good point re the transitory nature of squads — some players named to PRO Rugby squads during the spring have moved on to other opportunities, whereas some players on rosters are new additions within the past few weeks. User:Yosemiter is right to question whether a fully-professional league means that all players are notable, since some of the lesser-known PRO Rugby players have received little-to-no independent coverage. And I'm fine with User:Mattlore's recommendation that bolded players with international caps stay as redlinks; I'm not trying to get rid of all redlinks, I just don't like seeing a screen full of redlinks that realistically won't get filled in any time soon. CUA 27 (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Defunct?
Is it too soon to rewrite the article in the past tense, e.g. "PRO Rugby was a blah-blah-blah that did blah-blah-blah for one season"? Or is there some prayer of a hope the league could be resuscitated? Q·L·1968 ☿ 02:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think if there's no action by April, then do so. Probably merge the 2016 season with this main article as well. But find something else to do in the meantime. -- Ham105 (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page link to MLR (Major League Rugby)?
I don't mean this historical article about PRO Rugby should be deleted or replaced by the an article about the current American rugby union league. I just think there should a link somewhere on the page, maybe in the factbox, to what has replaced it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markisgreen (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)