Template talk:World Rugby Rankings

Change
I question the usefulness of this field. The change may depend on when the template is updated and whether it uses the weekly updated IRB rankings as the measure or the previous version of this template. Also without saying from when the change occurred it will be meaningless to many readers. AIR corn (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ireland
On the Ireland page, the template is showing with Ireland in bold, but with the France row highlighted in amber/gold. Surely it should be the Ireland row highlighted? Atlas-maker (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Top 25?
Why does this template list the full top 25? The FIFA rankings are only allowed to go up to 20, and there are far more teams in the FIFA rankings, so why does the IRB get a greater percentage? Top 10 should be the limit for this one. – PeeJay 21:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was up to 30. Have culled to top 20. --Bob247 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Template issues
Looks like the template has been horribly mangled in the past, the wrong countries are highlighted. We need to add notes to indicate how to properly update the table. Also, regarding the change field, how does one indicate up or down? The template does not document this. Greenman (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Update Table 13 November 2018
Can someone update table to the current World Rugby standings 13 November 2018. ( https://www.world.rugby/rankings/mru?lang=en ). Currently there is a Semi-protection on the the page because of previous vandalism and there has been multiple movements in the rankings

Women's World Rugby Rankings
The World Rugby Rankings wiki article does not cover the Women's World Rugby Rankings. Currently World Rugby do count these. I have been trying to add them but I am having some problems. I don't know if they should be on that article or on a separate wiki article. The FIFA soccer World Rankings for the men and women are displayed on two separate pages and I think it might be more reasonable if that is done with the rugby rankings, otherwise there could be two very long tables next to each other that could take away from the article, not to mention a possible future Ad nauseam debate on which ranking table (men or women)should be above the other. I cannot create a new wiki article and I would appreciate it, if it is suitable to someone interested, that they create a new article. I have created a wiki table similar to the men's rankings and that displays the women's rankings and I have changed the links so they connect to the respective women's national rugby teams rather than the men's which is what occurs on this article and I have changed the citation so that it goes directly to World Rugby's Women's World Rankings. I also need help with the template so that it matches the template of the Men's World Rankings. See below

Request for comments on how many teams are listed in the template.

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How many teams should be listed in this template? --Bob247 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Proposed - Reduce from the current 30 to just 20 teams similar to FIFA. The current list of 30 is unwieldy on many pages due to its huge size. Reducing this to 20 will be better. --Bob247 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I’d view 25 as the ideal number, but could live with any number between 20–30. I agree that a modest trimming would make the lengthy table a bit more streamlined. But I’d see value in a table large enough to pull in teams that are in the latest World Cup, and you regularly have teams such as Namibia or Uruguay who are ranked just outside the Top 20 qualify for the World Cup. CUA 27 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept - I accept the proposal as having merit Fob.schools (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Against - I don't really see the benefit of reducing the template.  If it was decided the consensus was to reduce it I would strongly consider 25 to be a better cut off point than 20.Skeene88 (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Against If the template was reduced many teams such as Spain, Germany, Belgium, Portugal and the Netherlands who play in the Rugby Europe International Championships would be excluded and therefore we would not know the progress they are making in Rugby. For instance Germany were just short of making it to the 2019 World Cup losing out to Canada in the Repechage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.116.86 (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent Vandalism
Can someone please correct the table as someone keeps vandalising the table. It may need to be protected from future vandalism by putting a Semi-protected request on the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.116.86 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019
This needs to be updated since New Zealand currently aren't on the list, and Ireland don't have 100 points! S0methingUn1que (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Appears to have been vandalism or a mistake. Reverted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2019
Wales are currently ranked number 1 in the rankings. 46.254.200.66 (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ✔️. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2019
169.1.70.190 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC) south africa is now the number one ranked team please update it.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: England is still number one. CAPTAIN MEDUSA  talk  14:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)