Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 12

Heineken Cup (Cup)
Anyone fancy writing an article on the Cup its self? From what I can tell there have been a number of Cups awarded down the years Gnevin (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are sources available, I'm sure someone will take up the mantle. However, I would suggest Heineken Cup (trophy) as a better title. – PeeJay 20:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Peejay, "trophy" is unambiguous.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

List of rugby union incidents up for deletion
Discuss here please - Articles for deletion/List of rugby union incidents--MacRusgail (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Rugby Union biography
I have opened a discussion topic on the talk page of this infobox template. Contributions would be useful in determining the direction I take with this template. – PeeJay 20:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

2008 Heineken Cup Final up for deletion
If you have any comments please leave here: Articles for deletion/2008 Heineken Cup Final --Bob (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sport honours
Template:Sport honours has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —WFC— 21:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unknown England players project
Within the listing of Engalnd players, derived from data from espn scrum.com, there are a number of players about which there is little biographical detail to the extent that only their initials were listed. This intrigued me, because the information at scrum.com normally has the forenames and a birth date. I made it a little mission to look further into these players and have been returning to this mini-project on a number of occassions. I have made some progress, but there are still gaps and I thought that highlighting it to the wider community might help fill those gaps. I have listed the players here: User:Kwib/Unknown England players project. If anyone has information and can jump in, that would be excellent.

I have also done the same thing for a number of early Scotland players, but have not been as structured, yet. I am sure this phenomenon occurs in all the major rugby nations player rolls.Kwib (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would add that among these players I think I have identified the first Australian, first South African and first Welshman to play international rugby. Might be wrong but I am fairly confident.Kwib (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for players
Hi all. Just some advice that Notability (sports) has been read by at least one editor as stating that International rugby players in the pre-professional era can never satisfy the guideline and therefore WP:GNG must be strictly applied (see Articles for deletion/Bill Hirschberg). This seems to me to be an absurd and tendentious reading but perhaps some clarification is needed. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the offending statement. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And it was put back in due to a lack of edit summary explanation. A link to a show of consensus here would be useful. The problems I see with the current wording is that the whole page section is titled "professional sportspeople", so the applicabilty of the guidelines to amateurs pre 1990 should be explicitly stated (at all levels or only Test players?) and there is no definition of "first class" matches. The-Pope (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed it again and opened up a debate on the talk page. The amateur thing rears it head on a regular basis. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely WP:ATHLETE applies here? If a player played at a time when there was no professional game, then as long as he played at the highest amateur level (e.g. full internationals, highest league in any country, highest cup competition in any country, etc.), that would confer notability. – PeeJay 07:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to see this is being tackled (sorry) and to see FruitMonkey's edit. I too read the AfD in question, metaphorically threw my hands up in despair and made a note to come back to it later on. By that time, thankfully, the issue had been resolved, albeit in a rather unsatisfactory way, but it seems to me that part of the problem here is how the article is laid out. My personal view is that the guideline should be read so that both the professional and amateur standards are sub-categories of the 'notability guidelines on sportspersons', but that's not really what the headings indicate. If my interpretation does in fact represent the consensus, then perhaps someone should reset the headings. Otherwise, unfortunately, it seems there are editors who will stick by what they see as the letter of the law if that's what suits them at a particular moment. I'd also suggest that it wouldn't be unreasonable to state explicitly that any amateur who happens to meet the standards normally expected of a professional sportsperson (as was the case with Hirschberg) is automatically considered notable. Anyway, for whatever it's worth, here's my view of how the hierarchy of headings should actually be interpreted (with a minor rewrite of the heading for point 4 in this list):
 * 1 Applicable policies and guidelines


 * 2 Basic criteria


 * 3 Notability guidelines on sports persons


 * 3.1 Generally acceptable standards
 * 3.2.1 Professional sports persons
 * 3.2.2 Amateur sports persons
 * 4 Notability guidelines on games and organisations


 * 5 Notes.


 * BlueThird (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is as it appears now:
 * A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has either:
 * Appeared in at least one test match, sevens competition, or fully professional domestic rugby competition, as player, referee, coach, or administrator, or,
 * Appeared in at least one first class rugby union match.
 * Players from the early days of rugby cannot meet these criteria, as they pre-date the era of first-class rugby, and must therefore pass WP:GNG.

I suggest rewording as follows:


 * A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has:
 * played in, coached or administered a (now) first or second tier test nation since 1871 or,
 * played in, coached or administered a third tier test nation during an appearance at the men's rugby world cup finals or,
 * refereed a first or second tier nation test match since 1871 or match at the rugby world cup finals or,
 * played in, coached or administered a team, or refereed in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,
 * played in, coached, administered or refereed at the IRB Sevens World Series, Rugby World Cup Sevens finals, Commonwealth Games, Olympics or Women's Rugby World Cup finals
 * Notes: Players who do not meet the above parameters must also pass WP:GNG. The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status. A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

Comments? --Bob (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, but as it will still be undera professional sports heading, and Bluethird's suggested split is unlikely to be implemented due to the huge duplication issues it will cause, the application to both am and prof should be explicitly stated. Is there a relevant article/section to link to about the forced amateur requirements historically? The-Pope (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The best article I have seen on the matter is History of rugby union.


 * In response to The-Pope, I have adjusted the Notes section and point 4. as follows with adjustments in bold italics (the adjustment is in italics which will be removed later).


 * 4. played in, coached or administered a team, or refereed in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,


 * Notes: The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status. Players who do not meet the above parameters must also pass WP:GNG. A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.


 * Do these changes nulify any potential problems? --Bob (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one question about the tier-one and tier two nations. Before the Second World War, the rugby scene was much smaller and there really was only two tiers, with the four/five nations, Aus, NZ and SA in the first and everybody else in the second (Germany, Italy, Spain). How does that tie in? Secondly, the new rule would make virtually all players in, for exapmle, Category:Germany international rugby union players, Category:Belgian rugby union players or Category:Serbian rugby union players non-notable and therefore ready for deletion while before the fact that they all played at least one test match caused them to pass. Personally, I would find this a bit upsetting. Calistemon (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relating to tier one, two and three, that it why I included the (now). All players that represented these countries deemed notable regardless of when the match occurred re professional and amateur periods. Regarding the players that represent third tier nations who do not play professionally, yes, they probably will be deleted as they would be deemed non-notable, but not all players in those categories would fail the criteria above (66% of the Belgians would remain for example). I have personally contributed to a number of the articles (and categories) that would be deleted as I was unaware that the criteria for rugby union players is listed under Professional sports persons at ATHLETE. Thus, only players playing professionally for their national team are currently considered notable as written. No mention of amateur status side is made. The nutshell statement at the top of WP:ATHLETE is An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The players for Serbia, Germany and the like are not playing at the highest level and have not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Bob (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Women's Rugby World Cup finals should be added to point 5. AIR corn (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. --Bob (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed your sentence "Players who do not meet the above parameters must also pass WP:GNG." I don't think you can/should put this in there as players still have to meet GNG even if they meet any of the specific criteria for any sport. This is spelled out clearly in NSPORTS in a number of places so probably doesn't have to be reiterated here, and the current wording implies those who meet the criteria are notable without meeting GNG which isn't true. Otherwise I have no opinion since I know little of the sport. -DJSasso (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Will delete offending statement. --Bob (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree that Bob's revised list is a significant improvement. In response to The-Pope, I don't quite see why there would be any need for duplication with the heading structure I've suggested. In any case, thinking again, a single unified list might be better still, with the three amateur categories brought into a single list:


 * 3 Notability guidelines on sports persons


 * 3.1 Generally acceptable standards


 * 3.2 Individual sports


 * 4 Notability guidelines on games and organisations

BlueThird (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To establish a waterproof guidline is a great idea but I'm just not comfortable with the empathis on professionalism, especially in a sport like union where amateurism was and, in a lot of places still is held in high esteem. With the new guidline, a third divison football (soocer) player in Germany, England or Italy with one league appearance would be deemed notable because the league is fully professional while a Serbian international like Milan Rastovac with 72 caps for his country, many of those no doubt achieved in World Cup qualifiers and ENC matches is non-notable because he plays the game for the love of it rather then the money. Maybe its only me that feels so but do we have our values quite right there? Calistemon (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is on the right track, but have a few more comments. I am not overly familiar with the tier system, but a quick look seems to suggest that nations can be promoted. Georgia and Namibia are said to be tier 2 here, but wikipedia classifies them as tier 3 (Russia has been promoted too I believe). While it probably won't be an issue if teams are only promoted, if nations are demoted to tier 3 a lot of players who were notable under these guidelines as written would suddenly not be. Maybe point 1 should be reworded to something like played in, coached or administered a nation that has at some point since ???? [whatever date the three tier system came in] been classified as first or second tier or, to cover such an eventuality. I don't think the year 1871 is needed as it starts off saying A Rugby Union person and if they were involved before 1871 it would not have been with Rugby union. Maybe point 2 (and the other related ones) should not use "finals" so no one could potentially misunderstand and think that they have to actually get to the finals at the tournament. AIR corn (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Tier issue should not be a problem, as if a nation is demoted to tier 3, those players, etc who were involved during the tier 2 period would still be notable, they would not become not notable all of a sudden. Otherwise all defunct teams would be not notable; it is the period of time when they were notable we should concentrate on not 'where are they today'. Also there was rugby 'union' before 1871, it was just the first national union and international matches that began on that date. WikiProject: Rugby union is interested in all players, officials and clubs going back to when it was just 'football' and there were no official codes, like association, rugby or league. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Would just like to add my 2c to this, firstly in points 1 & 2 can "played in" be changed to "played for" as it reads better and remove IRB Sevens World Series in point 5 as I don't think just playing in that is any indication in and of it's self the player would have recived enough coverage to pass WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then it should probably not use (now) as that implies 'where are they today'. The Woman's rugby world cup might need tweaking too. It needs to be included as its the top women's competition, but I am not sure how many of the lower teams would have notable enough players. AIR corn (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewritten:

 * A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has:
 * played for, coached or administered one of the first or second tier test nations at any time(see Note 1) or a third tier test nation during an appearance at the men's rugby world cup(see Note 2) or,
 * refereed a first or second tier nation test match since 1871 or match at the men's rugby world cup finals or,
 * played for, coached or administered a team, or refereed in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,
 * played for, coached, administered a team or refereed at the Rugby World Cup Sevens, Commonwealth Games, Olympics or the semi-finals of the Women's Rugby World Cup.(see Note 3)


 * Note 1: Tier 1 and 2 nations for men are:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Women do not have tiered nations.
 * Note 2: Tier 3 nations that have played at the World cup are: (2003, 2007, 2011),  (1995),  (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011),  (2007),  (1999),  (2011),  (1999 and 2003), and  (1987 and 1991)
 * Note 3: Nations that have played at the Women's World cup at the semi-final level are:, , , , , , and ,
 * Note 4: The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status.
 * Note 5: A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

Again, comments? --Bob (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, and thanks Mtking (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 10:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I will post these to the WP:RU/N and WP:RU on July 1st as I will assume consensus if no other comments made by then. --Bob247 (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Could it be simplified to three points (sorry if I am missing something, but I can't see the value of not combining point 2 with point 1). The first three notes are fine, but I would write out the last two similar to how you had them above. AIR corn (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for, coached, refereed or administered:
 * a first or second tier test nation at any time(see Note 1) or a third tier test nation during an appearance at the men's rugby world cup(see Note 2) or,
 * a team in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,
 * a team in the Rugby World Cup Sevens, Commonwealth Games, Olympics or at least the semi-finals of the Women's Rugby World Cup.(see Note 3)


 * Note 1: Tier 1 and 2 nations for men are:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Women do not have tiered nations.
 * Note 2: Tier 3 nations that have played at the World cup are: (2003, 2007, 2011),  (1995),  (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011),  (2007),  (1999),  (2011),  (1999 and 2003), and  (1987 and 1991)
 * Note 3: Nations that have played at the Women's World cup at the semi-final level are: (2010),  (1998, 2002, 2006),  (1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010),  (1991, 1994, 2002, 2006, 2010),  (1991, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010),  (1991, 1994, 1998), and  (1994).


 * The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status. A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.
 * Question : Re Women's World cup, should the years be listed for the countries : (2010),  (1998, 2002, 2006),  (1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010),  (1991, 1994, 2002, 2006, 2010),  (1991, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010),  (1991, 1994, 1998), and  (1994) ? Mtking (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No reason not to put that in the notes. Already listed through the link as well. --Bob247 (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * semi-finals of the Women's Rugby World Cup link should probably go there too. And I would list the English appearances rather than just saying any. AIR corn (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Posted to WP:RU/N --Bob247 (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1912 Wallabies to the USA
Just made a start on this less-than-stellar episode of Australian rugby history. As you can see I'm thin on tour match details and the touring squad must surely have been longer. Any help appreciated to flesh it out. - Sticks  66   01:44, 22 June 2011‎ (UTC)

John Currie
As part of my own personal small project to get an article on everyone who's ever played first-class cricket for Somerset County Cricket Club over at WP:CRIC, I've done a stub article on John Currie (sportsman), who played in one first-class match for Somerset in 1953 and then a further nine for Oxford University in 1956 and 1957. In view of his far more glittering career as a rugby player, I've left the article structure such that the cricket is a bit of a footnote, should anyone from here care to fill in any of the rugby details, and I'll hold back on a cricket-style infobox, because I think a rugby one should take priority. I'm not a rugby follower, so I'd hesitate before doing it myself. Johnlp (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion sorting
I created a WP:DELSORT at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Rugby union in case anyone is interested in keeping an eye on relevant discussions. AIR corn (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if the deletionists informed the WPRU every time as well...--MacRusgail (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is probably less likely now, not that it happened much anyway. We could transcribe it to the projects main page, but it will have to be watchlisted to see any changes. Nothing stopping anyone watching that page adding a note here though. BTW I was thinking of renaming it to just "Rugby" and letting the leaguers in. There seems to be enough crossing between the two projects, not to mention the shared history, and it will make it easier for anyone unfamiliar with the games (plus Commonwealth Ex Pats Rugby League has already been added). AIR corn (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * When I come across AFDs, I'm constantly having to complain about the fact that articles X, Y, and Z haven't been listed on the relevant projects. As a result, the debate often takes place between people who know nothing about the subject matter.


 * I wouldn't be against letting the rugby league crowd getting involved, but I'm not sure what other folk think.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Snow rugby
Any info on this widely played but little known sport would be appreciated.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit to add - any info or help please would be appreciated. No "help" of the type already offered by one project member, thank you very much.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've better thing to do than edit war over your personal attacks. As such I'll leave the above Gnevin (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously have the time to comment on these personal attacks though. Why not just let it lie and get on with your important business? As it is, MacRusgail should refrain from making such comments in the future. – PeeJay 17:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rugby union positions
I started a discussion at Talk:Rugby union positions about using a bot to replace the positional templates with redirects. There has been limited response so far, but as this could affect a lot of rugby articles I would like a decent consensus before implementing any changes. AIR corn (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tfd: These templates have been nominated for deletion; see Templates for discussion. --Bob247 (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard Downend
I've created the article on the Staffordshire cricketer Richard Downend. His CricketArchive profile says he also played rugby. I'm not a rugby follower, but if someone could fill out the rugby section that would be great. Thanks. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Infobox rugby league biography
Hi there. I'm a participant on WikiProject Rugby league, and I'm currently attempting to make changes to our biographical infobox. The two changes I'm trying to put through are a greater amount of flexibility with British rugby league terminology and using tooltip where column headers such as "Pld" and "T" use shorthand. You can see examples here. These changes would not affect the vast majority of rugby union players, since they use a different infobox, but cross-code players who use the rugby league biographical infobox, such as Karmichael Hunt, will be affected by these changes. It looks a bit awkward having one part of the infobox with tooltip and the others not, but it wouldn't be fair for me to put through these changes when other sports WPs are covering the article:
 * 1) Would it be OK for me to allow British terminology ("DG", "Drop goal") to be put in place of "FG" where appropriate by the use of another field in the infobox? All infoboxes that do not use this field would default to "FG" still;
 * 2) Would it be OK for me to use tooltip on the optional RU section of the rugby league biographical infobox, elabourating "Pld" with "Played", "T" with "Tries", "FG" with "Field goals" and "P" with "Points"?

Thanks, GW  (talk)  20:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move - Reds (Super rugby team)
See discussion at Talk:Reds (Super rugby team) where your views are welcome. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move - Philippines national rugby union team
Discussion posted at Talk:Philippines national rugby union team. --Bob247 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move - South Korea national rugby union team
Discussion posted at Talk:South Korea national rugby union team. --Bob247 (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The IRB refers to them as "Korea", however they are no such thing, since they only represent South Korea, and North Koreans would not be allowed to play for it.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Project facelift
I have been thinking for a while that it would be nice to make the Wikiproject a bit more attractive and accessible. I have taken some ideas from WP:MILHIST and WP:MCB and had a play in my sandbox (see User:Aircorn/Rugby). I have documented the content changes I made on the talk page User talk:Aircorn/Rugby. I realise that it may have been better to get consensus that a change is desirable first and will have no problem if the status quo is kept or a completely different approach is taken. If anyone wishes to suggest or make changes to the sandbox Wikiproject they are more than welcome to, particularly adding back in any sub pages or wordings they think are useful. AIR corn (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a great improvement on the present pages. Looks professional.Jowaninpensans (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it too. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me as well. noq (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will start transferring it across. AIR corn (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dominic McDonald
Hello

this article is really true about his international performances ? I don't find anything in scrum stats. Is it only advertising ? Ddfree (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * he doesn't mention he is/was a rugby player, its pure advertising....has been there since Oct 2010..--Stemoc (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It did claim "he is best known for being the first Prop to represent Australia in Rugby Union and Scoring a try on debut." - born in 1977 and Australia's first prop! Obvious vanity page has been nominated for deletion. noq (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Club Sides
If a club has had no feature length articles in major news magazines/sources/books but only coverage in the form of match reports/training schedules, should an article be created? The Pinner and Grammerians RFC is currently being considered for deletion under this standard. However, I posit that 80% of the clubs listed in Wikipedia are in the same potential situtaion of failing the standard being set for inclusion in this Afd. If this article is deleted, then most of the articles describing rugby union clubs should be deleted for the same reasons. In this vain we will have no coverage of any clubs outside of the top tiers of rugby union. If that is the consensus, then sobeit and I will start nominating entire categories of clubs. However, I thought that the members of WP:RU (who should have been notified by the nominator through simple courtesy) should have input to this potential precedent. --Bob247 (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pinner and Grammarians Rugby Football Club is an English team playing in the Herts/Middlesex 2 division. They have a long history and are the lowest league club to provide a President to the RFU. I think it's a worthwhile article. Please contribute. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Should a rough guideline be established similar to the biographical one? Maybe competitions could be included as well? WP:Football has some simple ones. AIR corn (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea for both competitions and clubs. --Bob247 (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would help prevent the continual issue of attempts to delete rugby articles. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't use soccer clubs as a guide to rugby. They've got huge amounts of money involved in just about everything, and a thousand times more coverage than they actually deserve!

It should be pointed out that while there are a number of professional rugby union clubs out there, plenty of amateur clubs qualify as notable. The majority of RU history has been (officially) amateur, bar recent professionalism and frequent shamateurism. --MacRusgail (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's suggesting that football notability guidelines should be used to define notability for rugby union. Aircorn just said that WP:FOOTY has some simple guidelines that could be adapted for use with rugby union. – PeeJay 11:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They were the only ones I found when scanning the other sports Wikiprojects. I agree that any that are developed here would have to include amateur clubs in some way. AIR corn (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate what you're trying to do, Aircorn, I meant no offence by my comment about football. I just get a bit p-d off with football up here, its fans behave as if it's the only sport in existence. And our media's the same, especially the tabloids. If anything gets by the Old Firm, then football division 50 gets more coverage than our division one in rugby! Football (if we should call it that) gets so much coverage and so much money pumped into it, compared to rugby. Minor FCs stay on wikipedia, while significant RFCs are getting AFDs all the time...--MacRusgail (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Criteria as I see them:
 * Age - Anything founded before WWI is significant, especially if it's still around, e.g. Wimbledon RFC, Montevideo Cricket Club (it may be in Uruguay, but it's one of the oldest in the world)
 * Professionalism - Prof/Semi-Prof clubs automatically qualify, no question. Pre-professonalism, dominant clubs deserve a mention.
 * Significant players - Aspatria RFC plays in a low league but has plenty of notable players. Cefneithin RFC would also qualify on these grounds.
 * Historical significance - Mohicans Football Club disbanded quickly but helped set up the RFU. Likewise, Merchistonians qualifies in Scotland.
 * Significant administrators - One or two clubs have provided national RU presidents etc, despite not providing players, e.g. Pinner and Grammerians RFC

It would be good to have a few more. Sadly, I'm not sure my own old club really qualifies!--MacRusgail (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was tinkering with using a ranking system based on the Tier's (or High Performance Unions).
 * Club that has played in the top national competition of any country.
 * Club that has played in a national competition of a "High Performance Union" (for the USA this would have to include territorial competitions).
 * Club that has played in a provincial competition within a Tier 1 country (might need better wording and could be too broad).
 * It is less subjective, but may miss a few historical clubs - although they should hopefully pass GNG anyway. I would think this should cover most clubs that have produced significant players and administrators. AIR corn (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally agree, but I would include certain clubs in Tier 2 as well. There are some fairly notable sides in the USA, particularly the university sides, and notable regional sides in Canada. Some of these have played major international sides. I think some Clubs outside 1 & 2 might be harder... but I believe there are some notable ones in Hong Kong, Germany, Holland etc.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. This is all without going into individual notability.


 * Yeah, no matter what we come up with there are going to be a few which fall of either end. AIR corn (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Amalgamating the suggestions above I have worded the following:

A rugby union club is deemed notable if it has
 * 1) played in the top national competition of any nation,
 * 2) played in an officially recognized domestic or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board  High Performance Union,
 * 3) been a founding member of a national rugby union/federation
 * 4) provided an administrator, player or coach of a High Performance Union.

Comments? --Bob247 (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that would work. Should point two be reworded slightly? Played in an International Rugby Board recognized domestic or international competition organized by a  High Performance Union. AIR corn  (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I worded it such as some teams played in defunct leagues in these nations that existed before the union became affiliated with the IRB. For instance, France only became affiliated in 1978, Italy in 1987, Australia and NZ in 1949 and the Pacific Islanders (Fiji, Tonga and Samoa) and USA and Canada in 1987-88. Teams and leagues predated this period.


 * On another note, what about university sides? For instance, in the USA they are arguably more prominent/notable than the club sides. --Bob247 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Completely agree, and the USA university sides need much better coverage than they've got.


 * I would consider the following notable, but not for the usual reasons: Kyadondo Rugby Club (Uganda), Montevideo Cricket Club (Uruguay), Hong Kong Football Club, DSV 78 Hannover (Germany) etc. There are also some interesting clubs that were started in the Soviet Union, but information is hard to come by on that. (I should know, I researched it for over a year).-MacRusgail (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. AIR corn (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

These are good, but I still feel that they leave out ome notable sides outside the major playing nations.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For the USA university teams what about clubs that participate in the College Premier Division? A historical guideline (formed before 1900) or something similar could also potentially be included. AIR corn (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good guide, but I'm still scratching my head over the apparent absence of Ivy League teams. As I understand it the two historical strongholds of rugby in the USA are in the Ivy League, and in California. Utah and Hawaii have also developed a strong rugby tradition, mainly due to Polynesian immigration (Utah, because Mormonism is strong in some of the Pacific Island nations, such as Tonga and Samoa. Some of them get scholarships to BYU etc) I think Hawaii is organised separately from the Continental US, so there are issues there too.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have been forgotten. Any objections to moving Bobs numbered points above along with one for USA college teams participated in the United States of America College Premier Division into the WikiProject Rugby union/Notability page. It should at least give a base for any further reworkings and doesn't disqualify any clubs that meet GNG through other means. AIR corn (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved it to the WikiProject Rugby union/Notability and put the discussion on the talk page. AIR corn (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Uncapped British Isles players
Can people please look over this list - User:MacRusgail/Sandbox13 - and remove/add any players who don't belong on this list. As far as I know, no player for the British Isles XV was capless after 1950.-MacRusgail (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC) [Edit to add: I am aware of the Irish flag issue, but this presumably can be fixed]


 * I'm adding Alun Lewis - called up as a replacement in 1977, never played for Wales. He did play for the Lions v Fiji on that tour but that isn't listed as a capped appearance in my reference books.--Bcp67 (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also John Brown - 1962 Lion and England triallist, but never capped. Also competed for Britain in the 4-man bobsleigh at the 1968 Winter Olympics.--Bcp67 (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bcp. I'd adding John Brown to another page I've got in "refrigeration".


 * I'm including people who DIDN'T play in any games, but who were part of the squad. Not sure what the best way to mark them would be. Argentine tourists are italicised.


 * I also intend to set up a cat for these uncapped players. I'm actually stunned at how many there seems to be.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an excellent list and I think could form the core of an article in its own right. A list sortable not only be name, but by date / tour and country etc. Added to this could perhaps be number of matches played for the Lions, and sub-divide this into test caps and other tour matches. It really does aid in showing the gradual evolution of the Lions. Was it your intention to turn this into an article/list article in its own right? For me, lists such as this are great prompts.Kwib (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kwib. I hope it can be turned into a convertable list, like the ones for the players on national teams. I'm not a Lions fan, but if we got a list together, it would be the only such one online AFAIK. It's an interesting bit of trivia anyway.


 * I'd suggest the following fields - Name, Tour(s), Country of Origin (or if unknown country of club), Club. Argentine tourists could be distinguished, as could those who toured, but did not play.


 * In some cases, e.g. Brooks, it is difficult to determine the country of origin. Brooks was at Edinburgh University, but may have been an Englishman. The majority seem to have been based in England, but several of them appear to be South Africans and other nationalities.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. I'm also thinking of setting up cats for players by tour. This is possible for BLs, but not for national caps, for obvious reasons.


 * I have put together a proposed table on your sandpit page, following the above discussion. Let me know your thoughts.Kwib (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Much better. But still don't know what to do about the first Argentine tour. Info on the people in it is very scanty... --MacRusgail (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * JL Farrell who toured Argentina in 1927 was a major international player for Ireland. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As were CT Payne and TO Pike. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * James Leo Farrell has been removed, and an article created. Please add to it if you wish. I don't have time to do the other two just now.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * On the 1910 British Lions tour to Argentina page I have added some details about teams/counties the various Combined British were associated with. I have also just created an article on William Lovat Fraser, one of the Combined British, who also played first class cricket for Scotland.Kwib (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a small mention of Barrie Bennetts on the Penzance RFC page Jowaninpensans (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

One question, why are the Argentine tourists italicized? --Bob247 (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They are not accepted by everyone as being a proper British Isles tour. They're sometimes referred to as "the Lost Lions" (Lions in this context is anachronistic), but they seem to be better remembered by Argentina than in Europe and elsewhere. One of them was in the same year as a South African tour... Although some people count Argentina as part of Britain's informal empire (and there's good reasons to do so), they weren't a proper British colony, and for some reason, British Lions historians and tour organizers seem to have been only really interested in the "White Commonwealth" and English speaking areas. Matches against US sides, Ceylon etc weren't considered good enough to be official matches.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up listing
In case anyone is interested I recently requested a clean-up list. It is added to the main page under links or it can be accessed here. AIR corn (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jovesa Naivalu
Hello Rugby folks, I added an article about Jovesa Naivalu based on his experiences in track and field, but I understand he has performed mainly in rugby since 1999. He has played for the US National team and for some professional clubs. I hope someone of your group could fill in the blanks of his significant activities in your sport that I am only marginally familiar with. Trackinfo (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * your article lacks information about him raping someone, getting jailed and later getting deported to Fiji....--Stemoc (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Dilemma with player notability
I've got a dilemma with the current notability guidlines within the rugby union project. I would like to update all Germany-related player articles after the 2010-11 season has ended but there may be little point as the new notability guidlines (from 3 July 2011) make a large amount of the players in Category:German rugby union players now non-notable. When created, the players fullfilled the projects notability guidlines, which stated that a player Appeared in at least one test match to be notable, which all have, having played in ENC Division 1 or 2, the official senior FIRA competition. Since then however, the guidline has been changed. Would they be association footballers, they would be notable, as the guidlines there say: Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. However, being rugby players, they are not, which is a bit inconsistent. Personally, I don't want to invest anymore time in rugby-union related articles if the articles could be deleted tomorrow, would anybody chose to nominate them, but I also don't like them having their information being outdated. Personally, I don't believe in the current notability guidlines which basically makes rugby outside the handful of traditional nations non-notable but they have been approved by the majority, therefore we have to accept them.

Where to go from here? Any suggestions? Will the policy be applied retrospectivey? Calistemon (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sure that the hard work you have contributed to German rugby players has not been wasted. You appear to understand the notability guidelines and therefore would not have designed these articles unless you were sure that the pages were of note. The new guidelines are in their infancy, and we are trying to make sure we do not hit problems where notable sportspeople are ignored. Could you give examples of a few articles you are concerned about. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Realisticly, about 70 of the 93 in the category don't make the current guideline. The range of those outside the guidelines is quite large, for example:
 * Welsh-born Kieron Davies, (34 caps), to my knowledge never played professionally.
 * James Keinhorst, (2 RU + 7 RL caps), dual international, was one of for brothers to field against Czech Republic in 2007, setting a world record, but never played professionally.
 * Horst Kemmling, (50 caps) Germany's record international, never played professionally.
 * Erwin Thiesies, (14 caps) founding father and coach of the East German national team for 21 years, coach of Stahl Hennigsdorf for 29 years (17 national championships), never played or coached professionally.
 * Alexander Widiker, (44 caps) current German captain, plays for a professional club (Heidelberger RK) in a league that is, except for two clubs, amateur.
 * Mustafa Güngör, (37 caps) former German captain, played at a number of sevens tournaments (London 2007, World Games 2005) but never professionally.
 * These are just a few of the more colorful figures, there are quite a lot with ENC Division 1 and 2 appreances with lesser caps. Notable to me, but not necessarily to somebody else. The fact that rugby does not get much media coverage in Germany, unlike football or ice hockey makes it quite hard! Calistemon (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, if they were capped for their country, they are notable. Don't panic, we will find an acceptable description. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and input. I haven't actually created an article on any uncapped German players as those weren't notable even by the old standards. Calistemon (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of rugby notability guidelines is not to provide a definitive answer on notability, but to provide an easy way to determine the likelihood that someone is notable. From WP:BIO: A notable person is "the subject of multiple published, non-trivial, secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,and independent of the subject". People who meet the rugby guidelines are presumed to also meet these general notability inclusion criteria, even if it is not made obvious in the article. Under the current rugby notability guidelines international players from Tier 3 (now classified as Non-High Performance Unions) that have not played in teams competing at a world cup are not presumed to automatically meet the general notability guidelines. That doesn't mean they aren't notable, just that they have to be shown to be so in the article. AIR corn (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The irony here is that the East German team existed before professionalisation, but as we know (cough) a lot of Iron Curtain amateurs were somewhat professional in their earnings... -MacRusgail (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rugby Sevens Template Independency
I am a foreiner, I did not play myself it sports but I understood that somebody should made templates for Rugby sevens outside of the current rugby unions templates, like in FIFA article and organization control and rule the Association football and his 2 big variants futsal and beach soccer and at the end of the article you can see his independient templates, they all are in the same wikiproject, WikiProject Football, there is separeted World Cups of Rugby 15 and rugby sevens, we need more separated templates of it "separated" sports, rugby sevens is a olympics sport, the orginal 15 not. we need a Template:International rugby sevens--Feroang (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

List of players who have not played at the Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games
I removed the list of Jewish players who have not appeared at the Maccabiah Games as their inclusion was irrelevant to the subject of that article. This was reverted by User:MacRusgail. Please comment if we should include a list of people who have not appeared at these games. --Bob247 (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the article is about the Maccabiah Games, what possible relevance does a list of Jewish players who haven't played at the Maccabiah Games have? – PeeJay 20:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When did religion become a factor in rugby union? ....don't care how many Buddhist, hindus, muslims, shintos play rugby and articles on them are irrelevant and should be deleted...--Stemoc (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Maccabiah Games are a valid sporting event. They shouldn't be discriminated against just because other religions don't have equivalent contests. The issue here is whether there should be a list of Jewish players who haven't competed at the Maccabiah Games on an article about rugby union at the Maccabiah Games. – PeeJay 22:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * having a Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games article is all thats needed, i don't think having individual articles on countries (its not an international regarded competition as per IRB and so i do not see how it qualifies in WP inclusion criteria) represented is important, they should try to add all that information in one article..--Stemoc (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion relating to that point located at Articles for deletion/Australia Maccabiah rugby union team. --Bob247 (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes for refs
I've just started on an article on André Watson and was wondering which infobox I should use for referees. After adding Infobox Rugby Union biography (which has referee fields) I noticed it seems to have been superceded by Infobox rugby biography (which doesn't have referee fields). Hack (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have requested that it may be added to the main infobox: Template_talk:Infobox_rugby_biography --Bob247 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Gameplay, laws and positions
I have recently been working on articles relating to Rugby union gameplay, Rugby union laws and Rugby union positions. Apart from the Rugby union article (which User:FruitMonkey has been getting ready for WP:GA review) I feel these might be the most useful for anyone who has never seen a game before and wants to know whats happening. The laws is pretty complete, I still need to go through the loose forwards and add sevens to the positions and have not yet started on gameplay (although I have left a rough outline of how I see it panning out on the talk page). I am hoping to get these up to standard before the RWC kicks off and it would be good to get some fresh eyes on them to make sure nothing major has been missed out or is incorrect. I will put them through peer review as I finish and ask for non-rugby watchers to get an idea of their general readability. AIR corn (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Great work!. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

André Vos
Gentlemen, I partly rewrote that article adding references (and removing broken links). Could any native speaker please correct possible English errors? -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 11:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Football link
I have a question for the members of this WikiProject concerning the article Football and links to it. Football is a general article on all the related sports that go by that name, and, although it is an article and not a disambiguation page, it has one of the characteristic liabilities of a dab page: It has a lot of links to it that are actually intended for another article. In this case, most of the incorrect links are intended for either Association football or American football, with smaller numbers intending Australian rules football, Gaelic football, etc. There is however one other very large group of articles that link to Football: Biographies of rugby players, many of which begin, "Joe Player is a rugby union [or rugby league ] footballer ..."

Now there is absolutely nothing wrong or against any policy about this linking to the Football article. But because there are several hundred such links from rugby bios, it does make it much more difficult for an editor (myself, natch) to find the incorrect links, especially new ones, that should go to the article for a specific code. I have changed a few of these links to rugby football, but most I've left alone so far. There are, I think, four possible ways to proceed:


 * 1) Leave them alone; linking to the Football article is best
 * 2) Change the link to Rugby football
 * 3a) Unlink Football; it is unnecessary and distracting, and the link to either rugby union or rugby league is sufficient
 * 3b) No need to link to Football, but combine the links, e.g. rugby union footballer

Let me reiterate that there is nothing wrong with linking to the Football article; it is merely inconvenient from an editorial point of view. The issue should be decided based on what's best for users, with the editorial issue only coming into it if you see no difference among the choices as far as user-friendliness (access to information, readability, etc.). So keep it, change it, unlink it, or combine it? I will gladly abide by whatever consensus is reached; I just wanted some feedback before doing anything more. (And I'll be copying this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league.) Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This project, a year or so back, moved the categories from rugby union footballers to rugby union players. Although not incorrect, it was thought that the term was a little archaic and somewhat confusing to casual readers. Personally I believe that option 3a is the best way forward, mainly for the reasons you highlighted. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 3a is probably best. --Bob247 (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since all the answers I received from both projects agree on unlinking, that's what I'll do. Thank you for the replies.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Elliot
Hi, I've just created the article on the Durham cricketer Edgar Elliot. He also played four Tests for England, for which I've added a basic reference for from ESPNscrum. I don't follow rugby union, so thought I'd post him here to see if anyone wants to expand the rugby section. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Does any one else think that the infoboxes for rugby players look a lot better on the French Wikipedia?

For example, compare Francois Louw here and on the French version. Also, I've never understood why we need to split super rugby/premiership/provincial rugby etc. into different sections. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree on your point about splitting infoboxes - would be much better to combine these sections. BiggerAristotle (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I would prefer combined sections too. AIR corn (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So would I. --Bob247 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone disagree? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What we need to be careful with here is how we split them. Take pre-professional times. Do we state Amateur/Senior or Amateur/Professional, where do you put Yorkshire or the Barbarians? Before becoming professional there were no senior teams, though there was still regionality, pre-1985 do we place the Barbarians in amateur, and then after 1985 in senior. We need to ensure consistancy. (apologies, I'm a black hat thinker) FruitMonkey (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could it just be split "club" and "representative" with teams like Yorkshire and Barbarians in representative along with international teams? Mattlore (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Youth, Senior, National. The Ba-ba's, if included, would then be with the senior sides. --Bob247 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So we would then strip away from amateur/professional in the infobox, right. I'm happy with that as it leans away from the 'lets delete this amateur player' argument. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If this were to be done, hundreds of articles would need to be changed to allow for this. --Bob247 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could a bot do it? AIR corn (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors might be interested in figuring out a way of implementing this at Template talk:Infobox rugby biography as well as discussing any other changes to the template. AIR corn (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD's
I've nominated Articles for deletion/Parkmore RFC and other similar clubs for deletion. Have a look Articles for deletion/Parkmore RFC Gnevin (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They should all be listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Rugby union now. AIR corn (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Club notability
at Articles for deletion/Swords RFC it has been argued that the club passes WikiProject Rugby union/Notability by simply playing in a competition organised by a tier one nation looking at the current wording it's hard to disagree, surely this wasn't the intention of this project? Gnevin (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Guinness R.F.C. also Gnevin (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is what was decided in a discussion above after this AFD. However, only three of us participated in that discussion, despite it being up for over a month. Point two could use tightening up, it currently covers over 8,000 clubs. In the end it is just a guideline and although they tend to be given too much weight during discussions these should not trump WP:GNG. If sources cannot be found demonstrating notability they can be deleted despite any guidelines we come up with and vice versa. AIR corn (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * But also, not winning any major competitions or trophies, does not make a club not notable. Treorchy RFC for instance falls into that category, but it has a history going back over a hundred years, has supplied players directly to a tier one nation, is a feeder club for players who are actually in the present World Cup and has played against Tier 2 international teams. I'm not sure is speedy delete is always the best policy. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know there are other reason for notability but these clubs haven't supplied any players or other such or ever will, the only notability guideline they could have meet was winning a major competitions or trophies Gnevin (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Gary Teichmann
Here. -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 09:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost interview

 * I know that everyone's busy, but this is the last call for more participants in the interview. This is your chance to tell the larger community about your good work here, and to potentially attract new members to the project. The interview will close sometime towards the end of next week (to be edited for publication the following Monday). Cheers. --SMasters (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Barbarian F.C. info-box error
Could we please have a more appropriate info-box section for those rugby players who have played for the Barbarian F.C., as has been discussed on the Barbarian F.C. talk page here. At current, the Barbarian team representation has to be included under “club teams”. However, this is obviously very incorrect and inaccurate because Barbarian F.C. is not a club team. It is actually an “invitational” (or possibly “representative”) team- as was mentioned on the Barbarian F.C. talk page. Therefore, I think it is of urgent importance that Wikipedia rectify this inaccuracy. Thank you very much.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is notable enough to merit a section in the infobox. There are any number of invitation sides - playing for one, even the best known of them, is not especially significant in a professional player's career. Listing every invitational team a player has played for could make these infoboxes unwieldy, defeating the purpose of having a concise summary in a box.
 * S-A, this would affect a great many RU articles, not just the one you are interested in. BiggerAristotle (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree that having an invitational title will make it too unwieldy. How many REPUTABLE invitational’s do you think a rugby player represents? Not many in fact. So your worries are unfounded to say the least. I agree: it would affect a great many articles. But Wikipedia is about including what is correct, and not worrying about what is difficult or too big a task. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're entirely missing the point - my objection isn't about the size of the task, but that adding every possible team, particularly invitation teams, that a player has played for will bloat these infoboxes unnecessarily and unhelpfully.
 * My point about this affecting so many articles is that your interest here is only in one article. More than 99% of your edits relate to Sonny Bill Williams. It is disingenuous for you to claim here that this is an urgent matter for Wikipedia as a whole, when you are only concerned with adding more material to your pet article. BiggerAristotle (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again I completely disagree. In no way will “adding every possible team, particularly invitation teams, that a player has played for will bloat these infoboxes unnecessarily and unhelpfully”. This is incorrect simply because players do not play for many invitational teams to start with, and even less invitational teams that are noteworthy. I am not saying you have to add the team the pub down the street invited a player to partake in; only those teams that are noteworthy and well known- and there are not many of those.

Also, about your accusation of my ulterior motive; I say: yes I am pursuing this because this issue was brought to my attention while editing the SBW article. However, the club/team title is not as good as say an “Invitational” title. This is about making the SBW article reflect a more accurate reality i.e. that SBW played for the Barbarians which is an invitational team and as such should be expressed correctly in the info-box. I make no apologies about correcting content, despite your attempts to make me feel guilty. And your attempt to portray me as editing for ulterior motives is becoming so repetitive as to smack of desperation. Have you not also edited more than 90% of your edits on SBW?! So what sets you apart from me, other than the fact that your edits seek to remove content hastily? You say: “It is disingenuous for you to claim here that this is an urgent matter for Wikipedia as a whole, when you are only concerned with adding more material to your pet article.” I respond: “It is disingenuous for you to remove the Barbarians from the info-box to claim a corect and righteous stance, when you are only concerned with removing it from your pet article and not all other articles that have the exact same thing.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * S-A, relax, please. I'm not trying to make you feel anything, or saying you have an ulterior motive. I have said that claiming that this is an urgent issue for the entire project is somewhat disingenuous, as you've shown no interest in the encyclopedia as a whole.
 * On the specific SBW issue, you haven't 'corrected content' - you have added content that is misleading. As you are well aware, the only reason I have recently made so many edits to that article is to try to correct/counter-balance your indiscriminate addition of material.
 * Let's try to focus on the issue here, and perhaps work together to improve things. IMO, the infobox would be better with a way to list all notable teams played for. On that we are in agreement. Currently, there is no category available which is appropriate for the Barbarians, so I'm in favour of fixing it. I am also in favour of merging categories together - in the SBW case, for example, listing Toulon, Canterbury and the Crusaders as three separate categories seems dumb to me. BiggerAristotle (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of adding a section for invitational club sides (Barbarian F.C. is a club side, that is what the C stands for). They do stand apart from league, regional and national sides. As to bloating infoboxes, I am not sure this would happen if only notable invitational sides are stuck to.Kwib (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Craig Joubert
The Craig Joubert article is getting a bit of attention presumably from unhappy French. This is probably worth monitoring for a while. The article is pretty spare for a referee of his standing and could probably do with some expanding. Hack (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How should we handle criticism of referees. Obviously we can't include every single one otherwise the page would just be full of fans, players and coaches complaining about the referee. I was originally working on a rough guideline of being mentioned (accused or defended) by the IRB and this seems to have rough agreement (see Wayne Barnes and Alain Rollands talk pages). A few more comments regarding this and Jouberts performance in the final would be nice as I am at wp:3rr. There are also similar issues at the 2011 Rugby World Cup Final article (which is still linked from the main page so needs to be kept in good order). AIR corn (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue that a matter of fact statement that a particular decision or series of decisions was questioned is fine as long as appropriate references are provided. In Joubert's case there are quite prominent voices either suggesting that he was right or that his refereeing had no bearing on the result. To maintain neutrality, these opposing viewpoints need to be included. Hack (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

James Alexander Simson Taylor
Hello. I've created an aticle on the Anglo-Scottish cricketer James Alexander Simson Taylor. He's meant to have played rugby for Leicester and became an international rugby referee, so as I don't follow rugby or have a clue where to find sources for that information, I thought I'd post it here to see if anyone who knows what they're talking about can add some information along those lines! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not much sorry. It appears that in the rugby world he was known as 'Sandy' Taylor, he must have been respected as a referee as he was put in charge of seven international games, Wales v Ireland in 1957, England v Wales 1960, France v England 1960, Wales vs South Africa 1960, France v Italy 1961, England v Wales 1962 and Ireland v Wales 1962. There is a photo of him at this site, lining up with the England team in 1962. Hope this helps a bit. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and here he is refereeing the annual Army vs RAF match. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Solly Tyibilika
In case you haven't heard, this Springbok is in the news just now, for having been shot dead in a Cape Town bar. The article could do with being expanded.-MacRusgail (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion
Slightly related to the discussion above (which I hadn't noticed) there's a move discussion here which may be of interest to this project. pablo 14:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Rugby union in London
Began a short stub-like piece at Rugby union in London. Football has an equivalent, which is a very good article, and there's definitely enough on rugby union to warrant another. I'll get toe expanding it when I have some time, but any help much appreciated! Grunners (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

List of professional rugby positions
Your attention is requested at List of professional rugby positions. My inclination would be to send it to AfD, but since I'm not a participant in your project I thought your group should dispose of it as you see fit.  PK T (alk)  20:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 in rugby union
I did start this article 2011 in rugby union, like others sport do 2011 in rugby league, 2011 in association football, but I am not good enough to finish it, hope this community can take care of it turning it in the right way, which I dont know.--Feroang (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Owen Sheers
Owen Sheers has received a very unusual honour from the Welsh Rugby Union - is the first? --MacRusgail (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)