Template talk:Infobox rugby league football competition

Is use of "Nation" better than "Country"
A small point, but would it be better to use the term "Nation" or "Nations" in this template. Many competitions use this term in preference to Country e.g. Six Nations, Tri-Nation --HighKing (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that 'nations' sounds right. This template is used in domestic club competitions as well, for example Super League and the Challenge Cup, not just competitions between national teams. In these club competitions there are more teams than countries represented (14 and 94). The term 'nations' would be used less in that context than 'countries' whereas the reverse is not the case.  LunarLander  //  talk  // 21:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. But while Country is applicable for a subset of articles, Nation isn't incorrect even for domestic competitions.  Perhaps a different template for international rugby competitions is a better solution?  Thoughts?  --HighKing (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My point about applicability of these words was the opposite actually. Both words can be applied to both types of competitions, but countries works well in both, nations is a term more associated with competition between national teams. I don't think a new international only infobox is justified over one word and because I think the situation is fine now. This template's use of country is in line with Template:Infobox Sports league. Your example earlier, the Six Nations, is using that template actually so you might want to ask there.  LunarLander  //  talk  // 00:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd already changed the template but I've changed it back now while we're having this discussion. Thinking about "Ireland" in particular, it's not just about the Six nations - it also applies to competitions like the Heneiken Cup.  Use of "Country" in these cases probably isn't the best word...  Similarly for the Rugby World Cup, etc. What about if I edit the template so that if both "Countries" and "Nations" are present, but if they are blank they don't show.  That way, within the various articles, editors can decide whether to use Countries or Nations. --HighKing (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, good idea to have an option. Thinking of international competitions, some - those without fixed participants - might be better off with 'Region' being available too. At the moment Rugby League World Cup, RLEF European Shield and others have "Country(ies) International (RLIF)" or "Country(ies) Europe (RLEF)", when perhaps "Region International (RLIF)" would be better.  LunarLander  //  talk  // 09:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've modified the template to add countrytag that you can set to whatever you want e.g. "countrytag = Regions". I've tested it on Heineken Cup to change to "Nations" and it seems fine.  --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we have the year unlinked and roman face, not italics?
The linking of the plain year is compliant with neither standard practice on WP nor the Manual of Style. The italics is unnecessary, in my view. Can we have both aspects fixed, so that the year is not, for example, 2012, but a more authoritative and plain 2012? Tony  (talk)  03:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing end tag for bold
This template is causing a missing end tag for  lint error at Global Rapid Rugby, and the offending code is almost certainly

I tried changing that to

but on previewing Global Rapid Rugby with this tentative change, a line changed from bold to not bold, so I leave it to the experts to fix it right. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have moved the bold wiki markup to inside the #if branches. Have used bold & italic to display the current_season parameter. -- Ham105 (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Extra Fields Being Used
My latest change in Giuseppe Garibaldi Trophy is an example of some usages of this infobox that contain fields that are not part of the template. This renders as "Found  " as, for example, here. Clicking at random in pages that transclude this infobox I see that roughly a third of the pages contain such fields so this might require a programatic fix. DMaggot (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh. There is a parameter check but no tracking category associated with it... guess that's the first step. 12:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)