User talk:Rugbyfan22/Archive 10

Rugby transfers
Hello there, you got a problem of what I am doing when editing pages, you simply calling it "vandalism" is your own opinion. I honestly do make mistakes but I try to improve those mistakes when editing. There is no "vandalism" that you are thinking off. I've done this for years and I simply don't need you justifying what I can and cannot do when editing pages. If someone else changes or edits them, that is absoultey fine, its just further improvements. User:NikeCage68 (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, no offence was meant to be caused. But you were changing corrections I had already made previously, such as changing Jaguares (Super Rugby) (which is the correct page name) to Jaguares (which is a disambiguation page) and changing EW Viljoen to EW Vijoen, which isn't his name. Also you were removing amalgamation of sources (where a source is used more than once on a page, it is amalgamating so it is not listed more than once). These were my only issues. Thanks for your edits though and the additions that you make to the pages. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! wjematherplease leave a message... 13:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No need to avoid redirects after page move / merge
As per WP:NOTBROKEN there is no need to replace redirected pages with a piped link to the new page, like you have done with leg spin and off spin. Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, was not aware of this. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problems, I only found this out when someone else told me when I was doing similar. Spike &#39;em (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Mitre 10 Cup squad navbox
Hi there,

I appreciate your edits however I see you’ve undone my edits on all the Mitre 10 Cup squad navbox’s. I would really like to revert it back to how I originally had it. To many full names that link to unwritten articles seems a little untidy. I also think just having surnames looks much more tidier and less cluttered looking.

Would like to hear your thoughts.

Regards, Kidsoljah (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I changed the Mitre 10 Cup navboxes to full names as that has been the previous precedent for all rugby navboxes for other comps in the past. I though haven't been able to find whether there was a consensus discussion on it, although other rugby users have used full names in the past and all professional league navboxes have used full names. The only times i've seen just surnames used have been for historical squads. My personal view is that full names should be listed, but that may be biased as that's all I have seen in the past and is what I'm used to when editing Super Rugby, Pro14 and other major league pages. If you want to try and get a consensus to moving towards just surnames being listed, then feel free to list a discussion on WikiProject Rugby union. Thanks for your edits though, Mitre 10 pages have become a mess over the past few years. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Anton Segner
Hi there mate, just on the flag icon of Anton Segner on the Tasman Rugby Union page. As Segner has represented NZ schools does this mean his nationality is New Zealand as you have changed it to despite him being born in Germany and still being a citizen of Germany. I would have thought that the flag icon should be Germany even though as you said because he has represented NZ schools he is showing preference to playing for NZ but does this change his nationality? Im not really sure on how the flag icon thing works but from my understanding it is your nationality that is represented. Cheers
 * Hi, in the past there has been much debate on flag listings, the only certain ones are when players are capped internationally or by Sevens. Usually if a player hasn't indicated their chosen nation U20 caps or youth sides are used, but sometimes birth place is used. Just researching the player some more now though, he doesn't seem to be NZ qualified yet so i'll change it back to Germany. In terms of the page, i've added some sources so it qualifies as notable, as under the basic page that you'd created, it may well have got deleted for not being notable. Thanks for your edits and page creations though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Mitre 10 Cup pages
Hi there noticed you added replacement players to the Tasman squad just wondering if you have done this to all of the Mitre 10 squads or just Tasman? But anyway I  also just wanted to say thanks as I see you have been doing a lot of work tidying up the Mitre 10 pages which were a bit of a mess before (including my edits to the Tasman page haha) So yeah cheers appreciate your work bro
 * Hi there, yes doing this for all the Mitre 10 Cup squads, usually after each round. Tend to only check team lists though, so if players have been added during the week due to injuries and other, then I might have missed them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Josh Gray (rugby union) page
Hi, thank you for your edits and moving page from draft. Is there anything else required to get it published? Looking down the revisons it looks like categories have been hidden and transcluson applied? Any guidance welcome. Regards, MelbourneWang6727 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelbourneWang6727 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, just as other editors have suggested. The early sporting achievements section requires more sources and more of an encyclopedic tone. These pages should avoid bias and opinion really, hence some of the changes. Thanks for creating it though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed mass cull of rugby articles
I just do not have time to deal with all your Afds, but your scattergun approach seems to be based on the mistaken idea that sports policy over-rides WP:GNG and that articles for as many Major League Rugby players as possible need to be deleted. Clearly you have only glanced at each of the articles for a few moments before proposing it for deletion and moving on to another. This kind of behaviour is not in the interests of Wikipedia. It would be much better for you to withdraw all these afds, apply refimprove tags, where needed, and leave the articles to develop. Goodness knows what you are up to. Moonraker (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, for each article I have AfD'd I have gone through and searched each article to see if they qualify for WP:GNG also. There articles I have AfD'd in my opinion do not qualify for WP:GNG as there is very little coverage from all of them, hence why I have AfD them. There are some that I have not AdD'd that do not qualify for WP:NRU as they potentially pass WP:GNG. This 'deepdive' as such was requested on WikiProject Rugby union as Major League Rugby was added to WP:NRU with no discussion and so large number of non-notable articles were created. I appreciate there are a lot, but hope you understand this. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making these nominations, and of course it's none of my business, but can you slow down a bit since it's hard to keep up with all of them? Bearian (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, apologies for there being so many, there were more than expected when I started (was expecting maybe 10-20), I have completed them all now. Regards. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 'history rugby union articles'
Hi there. As a rugby fan I thought I would write and express my concern regarding the mass deletion of these articles. All of these rugby matches will have received significant coverage in the mainstream media, more than satisfying WP:GNG. Please take a look at the following article I started in 2012 Scottish Rugby Schools' Cup. I had someone try and delete this article at the beginning. Surely refimprove tags would be more appropriate. Let the articles develop as above. I strongly urge you to reconsider your proposal. Regards, Gomach (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, these PRODs were in reference to discussions on WikiProject Rugby union and various AfD's that have all passed as 'delete'. WP:GNG in these cases is to do with the rivalry, and there is not significant coverage on the rivalries of those that I have PRODed. There may be some coverage of matches taking place between sides, but this is not enough for significant coverage. There have been 8 AfD of articles such as this year (all in the last few months) and all have been deleted. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * At what point do these articles satisfy WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG?Gomach (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , when there is significant coverage of the rivalry. For example all Six Nations games are 'rivalries' as there is significant coverage of the tournament every year. Occasional test matches every few years don't tend to count towards significant coverage, unless something particularly dramatic happened in one of these games which continues to be talked about (Japan beating South Africa for example), otherwise these pages violate WP:NOTSTATS. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely if these rugby matches have received significant coverage in the mainstream media satisfying WP:GNG then WP:NRIVALRY is completely irrelevant!Gomach (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , The articles I have PRODed though don't receive significant coverage though. Just routine coverage when the matches occur such as match reports and previews. There would need to be more on these matches to qualify as significant coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know match reports in the mainstream media qualify as significant coverage. There are numerous articles on various rugby tours around the world which are referenced with match reports. Most of these articles link in to the history of rugby union articles.  Very few, if any, of these articles are referenced to Wiki standard.  Are you going to delete those articles as well?  I think not!  Perhaps you might want to improve the references on these articles in the near future.  I suspect you may have just deleted some perfectly acceptable articles if you had given them time to develop.Gomach (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Match reports aren't usually enough on their own to qualify for significant coverage. A lot of the rugby tours that have pages on Wikipedia are those where rivalries occur (for example they play for a trophy or play regularly). Those that have been deleted violate WP:NOTSTATS along with those that were AfD as discussed at WikiProject Rugby union all of which were deleted for failing WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Most were described as just listcruft. If you have a problem with these deletions take them up at Requests for undeletion or Deletion review. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

, I am entirely with. Please see the definition of "Significant coverage" in WP:GNG, it “addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” You say “Match reports aren't usually enough on their own to qualify for significant coverage”, but where on earth do you get that from? If seems to be just your subjective opinion, to suit a deletionist agenda. I am at a loss to see what good you are doing. Moonraker (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the commonly held opinion is that match reports aren't enough to qualify as significant coverage. This is an opinion held by the majority that are involved with AfD's in multiple sports. Mentions in match reports tend to be just trivial mentions. In terms of the articles Gomach was discussing, the rivalry is what needed to pass WP:GNG. There need to be significant coverage of a rivalry taking place. Matches between sides do not just count as a rivalry. Teams that play each other in the Six Nations for example have coverage for the rivalries. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is about notability, and the main policy that matters is WP:GNG, subject to some exceptions which can give presumptions of notability even if the GNG is not complied with. I have seen a lot of people in AfDs who believe notability is something to do with importance, but it isn’t, it’s simply about whether there is "Significant coverage", as defined in the policy, in reliable sources independent of the subject. “Commonly held opinion” is only opinion, and if it is different from the policy it is wrong. However many people want to read their own ideas into the policy, thus changing the policy, it should cut no ice at all. Moonraker (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I should point out also that match reports are primary sources, secondary sources are needed for notability. I have read what GNG is and have listed AfD's or PROD's when GNG hasn't been met. All the AfD's I done (apart from two which I withdrew) were all deleted for failing GNG. If you have an issue with the policy, maybe you should take it up on the relevant talk pages. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This gets more and more surprising, . Can you please let us have a source for “match reports are primary sources”? Moonraker (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Match reports almost always tend to be written at the time of the event or just after. WP:PRIMARY states 'an account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about an event'. A match a report is the same as this. Secondary sources expand on primary sources using the information in them. Therefore a match report in itself is a primary source. An analysis on a players performance in a match that is specific to a player would be secondary though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But that’s your personal opinion,, I asked if you had a source for “match reports are primary sources”, and I meant a reliable source or something in WP policy. WP:PRIMARY says nothing about match reports or any other kind of reporting. WP policy does not have any special categories of that kind. “An account of a traffic incident written by a witness” is given as an example of “original materials”, on which secondary sources are based. The witness of the traffic incident is not writing a report, he is giving a first hand account of what he saw from one angle. A report is a secondary source, as defined, and its reliability depends on things like editorial control and who publishes it. Moonraker (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Granted match reports in themselves aren't covered in WP policy. For me most match reports are read are accounts and so primary sources. If they're expanded on afterwards to offer opinion or analysis then they are secondary sources of the match but not those involved. We seem to have drifted slightly from the point you were trying to make though. The history of rugby articles were deleted as the 'rivalries' weren't covered in significant detail and just scores were recorded without any real context. Nobody provided any sources to counter this argument. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to interject but thought it might be worth adding that PROD is just 'soft deletion' so if anyone strongly objects to any of the articles deleted via PROD then they can request undeletion. Spiderone 19:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, one of the reasons for PRODing over AfDing was the number of them. I imagine they would have been deleted at AfD also. Apologies I missed a ping on last comment also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

, clearly the aim of PROD is to get an article deleted. I just don’t know what you think all this achieves. If we were dealing with a print encyclopaedia, then fine, as new articles came in old ones would need to go out. But WP doesn’t have that limitation, its aim is to include all human knowledge, subject to what is here being verifiable. It could be by far the best online resource for rugby, but if it ever gets there it will be despite you. Your aim strikes me as very elitist: only important players and teams should be covered. That isn’t what the GNG is about at all. Moonraker (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a rugby union encyclopaedia though. It is an encyclopaedia that has some information about rugby in it. There are policies in place for what rugby articles are and are not allowed on it. These policies have been set following consensus from other editors of Wikipedia and the Rugby union WikiProject. More well known teams and well known players are covered much more because they are just that well known, whereas for example Major League Rugby players, at the current time, are not well covered in media and sources, and therefore it is not currently included in the guidelines as a notable league. I am only following the guidelines that have been set. In terms of the 'history of rugby...' that the discussion began on, there had to be GNG coverage of a 'rivalry' taking place. In all of this articles, this was not the case as in the majority very few matches had been played between sides and there was no GNG coverage of a rivalry. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Were there any articles in particular that you felt shouldn't have been deleted? I disagree that Wikipedia needs to document absolutely everything. Please see WP:IINFO. Spiderone  20:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * From memory I suspect History of rugby union matches between Romania and Scotland, History of rugby union matches between Italy and Romania and History of rugby union matches between Samoa and Scotland may be permissable.Gomach (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * fair enough. All of those were only soft deleted so can be restored at WP:RFU should you wish for them to return. None of them have been at AfD as far as I can see. Spiderone  21:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, FWIW there were a number of matches between Italy and Romania, but I couldn't find sources suggesting a rivalry, this may have been because they matches were more than 15 years ago, or the sources were in different languages and I couldn't find them. One the other two, I couldn't find anything on a 'rivalry' between these sides, but happy for them to go to AfD to get further consensus on these if wanted. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , yes, a lot, but I am not going to try to reopen a whole lot of AfDs, life is too short, a large number of people who spend a lot of time in AfDs have persuaded themselves that the GNG is about importance. And you will see saying above “There are policies in place for what rugby articles are and are not allowed on it.” That just is not so. There are policies for over-riding the GNG and arriving at notability by another route, but Rugbyfan22 believes that articles which can’t get there on exceptions for importance are non-notable and need to be deleted. I just do not know what he (or she) thinks that kind of elitism achieves. Thank goodness my main interests are in other areas. I see, who started this conversation, has almost stopped editing. It’s hardly surprising. Moonraker (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , again for the articles that I have sent to AfD, they have failed the WP:NSPORT AND GNG. You voted in a number of them and myself and other users gave you valid reasons on why they did not meet NSPORT and GNG, and you failed to provide other supported reasons on why they did, hence all of the player articles I AfDed failed both of these and were deleted. You'd like to think that if they had passed GNG they would have been kept, especially given the detail into finding sources that many on AfD discussions go too. Importance is never an argument for me, I just try to follow the guidelines when editing about rugby and creating. I think the guidelines in place at the moment are totally acceptable, however others believe that WP:NSPORT is not strict enough (especially in cricket where it seems that first-class, list A and T20 matches are no longer going to be enough to get you notability).