Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 13

Mass name changes
User:DynamoDegsy has begun moving the names of articles using (rugby player) as a disambiguation to (rugby union). As I recall it wasl decided not to do this the last time it was discussed and I have asked him to stop and discuss here before continuing. noq (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always thought it should be "rugby union player", unless they have played both codes, in which case it should be "rugby player". Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Although it is a little long, (rugby union player) is correct as it explains precisely what that person does, ie s/he is not a referee or administrator. This should have been discussed, has anyone given Degsy a shout?FruitMonkey (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - He stopped as soon as I mentioned it. I have pointed him here to discuss further. noq (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to go through and make all those disambigs consistent they would have my support. It would make it a lot easier when linking terms/names if all we had to remember was one. There was really no previous agreement last time (the discussion seemed to peter out), but if you follow WP:NCDAB it makes a case for keeping it simple (i.e. mythology not mythological figure). I felt that when I was changing the positional names that the majority used (rugby union) so in practical terms it should be easier to make that the standard name. I really see no potential for anybody to get Scrum (rugby union) confused with Jason Little (rugby union). It looks like the Rugby League project tends to use (rugby league) so it would be consistent with them too. The only issue I can think of is when two or more players all played rugby union, which thanks to Welsh unoriginality when it comes to names happens quite a lot (see William Williams (rugby players)). In these cases it might be best to use (rugby union player born ????), although this doesn't mean we still can't keep (rugby union). AIR corn (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As to Fruitmonkeys point, according to the DAB page they are not supposed to be descriptive. If a coach or referee has the same name as a player then the extra qualifier can be added, otherwise a simple rugby union works (many were players before in any case). AIR corn (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'm losing the will over this one, but with articles of people we are expected to state their profession for consistancy. So it's Winston Churchill (politician) not Winston Churchill (politics). The main projects to move away from this are the American sport teams who stuck to (baseball) and (basketball), and others have followed suite. But is you generally look at a dab page the majority are all profession rather than field. I randomly chose Tom White, and that page only had two articles that did not follow this rule, being Thomas White (rugby league) and Tom White (Nebraska), the later of which is a poor dab choice anyway. But I feel I'm going in circles with this one. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day I don't think it is a major issue what disambiguation we use. I would like them to be consistent though. You make a good point about professions, and with you, Apples (and possibly Noq) all suggesting it should be rugby union player maybe we should go with that. Editors probably used rugby union because it is more time consuming to write rugby union player compared to cricketer, politician and so forth. Looking at the WikiProject Rugby union/New Articles one user uses rugby player (which I think we all agree is wrong unless he played both codes) and the rest use rugby union so it may need a bit of monitoring at the start. AIR corn (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, consistency is at the core of this issue, but I think we will need to include WP:Rugby league. Not that we can force them how to name their dabs, but we must agree on the dual-code players. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Left a note at their talk page infroming them of this discussion. AIR corn (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support using (rugby union). A lot of players, particularly high-profile players with high-traffic articles, will be involved in different contexts, because they've also been administrators, referees, coaches, commentators etc, so (rugby union player) would be too narrow. BiggerAristotle (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most would be more notable for just one of those roles though. AIR corn (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right. However, articles like Eddie Butler (rugby player) are the kind of thing I'm thinking of. He may be more notable as a player (I'm not sure) but is now better known as a journalist.
 * Either way, I don't think it's a huge issue, and I don't see any real need for consistency with other fields like politics - no reader will be confused. BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

We decided a long time ago at the rugby league Wikiproject to save ourselves choosing between John Lang (rugby league player) or John Lang (rugby league coach) by just going with John Lang (rugby league). You won't find a single rugby league biography with 'player' or 'coach' tacked onto the end because it's been working fine without. We've gone the way of baseball/basketball/tennis on this and it would be a massive (and pointless IMO) exercise to change that.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, coming from the WP:RL I prefer the use of rugby union, rugby league and rugby (for dual-codes). If we start adding player/coach/commentator etc some people could end up with very long disambiguations. Keep it as short and simple as possible. Also, while on the topic, If we have two with the same name we tend to use (rugby born 1954) rather than (rugby b. 1954) or any other alternative. Not sure what policy says regarding that? Mattlore (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get some closure on this issue. How about a few more days to allow anyone else to voice an opinion and then a poll if nothing is obvious. I think either (as long as it is consistent) is better than what we have at the moment so maybe it should be a straight vote count? AIR corn (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Poll
FruitMonkey (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) This has gone stale and I feel there is enough consensus above to use rugby union. Unless there is some activity here within the next few days I will look into changing the disambiguations to (rugby union) where appropriate. AIR corn (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rugby union. As well as preventing possible edit wars over dual international league and union players, there are a few practical reasons. It will be easier for a bot or someone to semi automatically change "rugby union player" to "rugby union" than the other way around (someone will have to read every rugby union DAB to see if player/coach/administrator/referee etc is the most appropriate. It will also be easier to maintain as most of the new articles use (rugby union). AIR corn (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussed already, not sure what the problem is. As per my comments a year ago, lets just leave it as it is and move those which have "(rugby union player)" to "(rugby union)". We have already discussed what to do when there are 2 people with the same name playing the same sport (year of birth). If they are dual code, or have played both the codes, then best is to move them to "(rugby)", i.e if necessary. As mentioned on the post a year ago, DO NOT MOVE UNLESS ITS NECESSARY. No need to create a DISAMBIGUATION where its not needed. A weird example is [[Lote Tuqiri]] who is a dual international and his namesake [[Lote Tuqiri (Japanese rugby union player)]], who is a Japanese 7's player. The option taken by the person who created or moved the page is correct as it would have been silly to move Lote Tuqiri to Lote Tuqiri (rugby league) as he has played union longer than he has played league, even though he is currently a league player. ..--Stemoc (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was discussed, but there was no clear consensus and the names are still inconsistently Dabbed. This is aimed at trying to get that consensus (I thought a poll might encourage more people to weigh in as the discussion above was again petering out). AIR corn (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree and this is not a poll to decide on how to name the articles. By doing this we fly in the face of current Wikipedia sport consensus.
 * There is no sportwide consensus. League, baseball, basketball and American football use one while football and cricket use another. We seem to be one of the only projects that can't make up our mind one way or the other. You and Mr Apples are the only ones advocating for "rugby union player" above while everyone else in the discussion prefers "rugby union". This has been up long enough to give the silent majority a chance to speak and they obviously don't care one way or the other. Taking this discussion together with the previously stalled one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 11 I am seeing a clear consensus at this project to use rugby union. AIR corn (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Phil Murphy
Hi guys, I'm not sure how you disambiguate, but there are two rugby union players both called 'Phil Murphy' - articles currently at Phil Murphy and Phil Murphy (rugby union) - would it be by nationality? Disambiguation is needed to differentiate from Phil Murphy (footballer). Cheers, GiantSnowman 23:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see why disambiguation is needed in this case. Are you disputing the primary topic? I added a few hat notes to make navigation easier, but otherwise the current set-up seemed fine. AIR corn (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I see it we have Phil Murphy, a rugby union player and Phil Murphy (rugby union) a rugby union player. That's a numberdab.FruitMonkey (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as a big issue, but wouldn't have a problem renaming "Phil Murphy (rugby union)" to "Phil Murphy (rugby union born 1980)". I would prefer this over nationality as a lot of players with the same name come from the same country. AIR corn (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Celtic League rm
Talk:Pro_12, Thanks Gnevin (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:2011–12 Celtic League Table
User:Bjmullan has taken upon himself to add an Ulster flag to the league table, rather than using this  & I thought the whole point in having this flag  was so we could avoid issues like this. I don't want to start some massive flag debate as these questions inevitable do. I just want to know should I revert his edit. Thanks &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 23:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would revert. All the other clubs have national flags not regional ones so on that basis alone I think Ulster is not the appropriate flag. Mattlore (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand is why Bjmullan only changed the Ulster flag and not the Leinster, Munster or Connacht ones. Obviously the correct flag is the Irish rugby flag. – PeeJay 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Irish flag issue has been a persistent and irritating question. One policy should be kept and enforced.

"What I don't understand is why Bjmullan only changed the Ulster flag and not the Leinster, Munster or Connacht ones. " - Maybe he equates Ulster with Northern Ireland. Which it isn't. A 1/3 of Ulster is not in the UK.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

England rugby union internationals
The list has recently been updated after a gap of a few months but it appears that Joe Simpson has been missed off.

Joe made his England debut against Georgia in the Rugby World Cup in Dunedin on 18 September 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.80.65 (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ FruitMonkey (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

2011 end of year women's rugby tests
Does the 2011 end of year women's rugby tests page (and the title) look ok to the project? There was some discussion about it at the NZ project and I said I'd raise it here for you to have a look at. Mattlore (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not seeing anything wrong with it, apart from the minor issue of the sea of red (are the Italian and Netherlands players likely to pass WP:RU/N)? What was the discussion at the NZ project about? I can't find anything on the talk page. AIR corn (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They were just wondering if it was notable and if it should be merged with an assumed start of year tests page. But once I showed the existence of the mens equivalent page that was fine. Mattlore (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

English Premiership seasons
I've noticed that all the articles on English Premiership seasons are named in the format "20xx–yy English Premiership (rugby union)", except 2005–06, which is "2005–06 Guinness Premiership". Is there a reason for this apparent inconsistency? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say it should be changed to match the rest of the series. Mattlore (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. The move needs admin intervention because of previous renames, so the request is here.
 * This move has now been done. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Help translating short article Rugby union in Afghanistan into various rugby-fan languages?
Afghanistan is sending its rugby side overseas for the first time ever at the end of April (Dubai, and then Glastonbury in June), so I would imagine the wiki articles for Afghan rugby might start getting some hits. The article existed only in English until today, when I whipped up a quick, shorter version in Spanish.

Any chance folks could take a look and knock out a 10-minute lede-translation into other languages? That's about how long es:Rugby en Afganistán took me, and for other Latin-based languages you can probably just modify that one slightly and get it done in 5 minutes. Thanks for any assistance! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Pontypool's strip
Not sure if this is in the right place, but is anyone able to alter the kit on the Pontypool RFC page? Currently the shirt is red and white hoops, but should be red, white and black. Thanks Shenko316 (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we tend to use the football kit templates for our rugby kits, and hoops are not common in football teams. You can see the available templates here Template:Football kit/pattern list, and as you can see there is no option at present for a three hoop jersey of the colours pool use. Unless you can find someone happy to create a new strip, we're stuck. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've managed to cannibalise an existing one, although not sure how to get it on there now (if at all possible) am happy to email someone a copy to see if they can do anything with it? Thanks Shenko316 (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

National team appearances in the Rugby World Cup
Can anyone add a table with wins, draws, losses and points scored and received by each team? That seems to me very relevant. Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Heineken Cup name
The Heineken Cup was originally called the European Rugby Cup. It was know as this from the 1995/96 season to the 1998/99 season. In fact, it is only known as the Heineken Cup for sponsorship reasons. Should all articles surrounding seasons 1995/96 to 1998/99 at the very least be renamed from Heineken Cup to European Rugby Cup considering it was never known as the Heineken Cup during these years ? ManfromDelmonte (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd expect pages like 1995–96 Heineken Cup be moved to 1995–96 European Rugby Cup. You may need a source to back up these moves if challenged though. Mattlore (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it was certainly sponsored as the Heineken Cup (or H Cup in France) right from the very start; the ERC website has a couple of links to support that. The trophy awarded in 1995-96;  and the programme from all the finals in this gallery; .  On the grounds of keeping the common name, I'd personally stick with 1995-96 Heineken Cup rather than 1995-96 European Rugby Cup.--Bcp67 (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Bcp67. WP:COMMONNAME would support leaving it as Heineken Cup and I doubt you'll find many sources calling it the European Rugby Cup and even so, it would no doubt be outweighed by the number that call it the Heineken Cup. For instance, the BBC call it the Heineken Cup. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Notably
Doesn't played in an officially recognized domestic or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union, make every club in a tier 1 nation notable ? Gnevin (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the same point here. noq (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * played in an officially recognized adult domestic national or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union
 * Seems fine, I always assumed it meant adult in any case. AIR corn (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So did I but you know what AFD's are like, if it can be read a different way it will Gnevin (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of rugby league and rugby union
There is a quote in the intro of Comparison_of_rugby_league_and_rugby_union which I contend is in breech of WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD but an other user disagrees can you have a look Talk:Comparison_of_rugby_league_and_rugby_union? Gnevin (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrea Marcato
Hello, I destubed the abovementioned article. Could someone please check for its language? I'm not sure it's flawless as English is not my native language :"> Thanks -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 14:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of Canadian football and rugby union
I have created the page Comparison of Canadian football and rugby union, but unfortunately it contains too many references to American football. I was hoping that some people from this project could help improve it. I'm not really au fait with the precise differences between CF and AF, other than pitch size... Many thanks --MacRusgail (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Test matchs aticle titles
2011 end of year rugby union tests and 2011 mid-year rugby test series articles have a "very" diferent name, why? is there a reason to that? can we agree on a "official" title to this event? same with the 2012--Feroang (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 in rugby union
I did start this article 2012 in rugby union, like others sport do 2012 in rugby league, 2012 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, also there is a 2011 in rugby union too, maybe imcomplete.--Feroang (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Countries' "% Win" figures
I noticed on that in the table of results  the "% Win" against New Zealand is not 0, yet the number of wins against New Zealand is 0. It seems that this calculation has included draws as wins, which they are not. I have noticed simiar methodology on, for example they have won 20/30 games against Ireland, with 1 draw, and the % Win is not 66.66%, but rather 21/30.

Is this an intentional decision, or some oversight? I am prepared to (at some point) go through and try to correct these errors, but I won't do that if there is a feeling the status quo is correct. I have considered that perhaps this error was included in the reference for the Argentina table, but that shows a Win % against NZ of 0%, which is what I expect. Also, on the % Win against Argentina is not 100%, as there the draw is not counted as a win. Given this inconsistency, I will try and clean this up, and if no one has objections, I'll go the direction of not counting draws as wins. Waltersom (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What has happened is that a draw is counted as a half win, not a win. If it was counted as a win the Argentina vs New Zealand percentage would be 5.55%. What you are saying is correct though, wins are wins and it is a misleading title. I would hang back for others to reply first, maybe we want to change the heading rather than the results. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A draw is not a win. The win% should be for percentage of wins only. --Bob247 (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that is the question really: what do we want the column to represent? If the heading is "% Wins", then the contents should be updated, but if we have "%Wins + draws/2" or somesuch, then still the contents need to be updated, because as it stands the various tables aren't consistent. I personally prefer "% Wins", which is a lot easier to get your head around, and is probably more common. Waltersom (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well very few people have added to this talk, so I think switching the teable so the results reflect a 'win' percentage and draws are ignored is probabbly the way to go. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The changes of the %wins to include draws were made by an anon IP. All such changes by this IP have been reverted and updated. --Bob247 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability
There is still some confusion surround the notabilty guidelines. For example if Fairwater_RFC (Articles_for_deletion/Fairwater_RFC) had no international would it still be notable? What do we consider a regional or national league? In Wales the league becomes "regional" after 1 tier List_of_Welsh_rugby_union_clubs_by_division but in Ireland it's 3, the scots go to 6? Gnevin (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And Spinal Tap go to eleven. I don't have a problem with including rugby clubs at fairly low levels. I think they will be around long after certain reality TY stars (with articles on Wikipedia) will be forgotten.


 * I would insist on OTHER factors too, e.g. age and historical significance. Some quite low lying clubs in these parts have long histories.


 * Anyway, we've been here before. I just don't understand why you have to persist with things until you get your own way...--MacRusgail (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It won't really matter if you can prove it meets WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Age: How old and why is endurance a measure of notability?
 * We already consider historical significance in points 3 and 4 should we include some others? Gnevin (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Any club founded in the 19th century, and probably quite a few founded before the war (possibly including mergers). If 19th century clubs are still going, I'd consider them notable...


 * "should we include some others?" - Internationalists? --MacRusgail (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that if there was a small club founded in the 19th century but with no actual accomplishments to its name other than - well - existing, they would be notable? That seems a bit silly. By the way, since when is "internationalist" a word? – PeeJay 16:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Since when is "since when is" good grammar? LOL... If a club dates back to the 19th century, that is notable, and ancient in rugby union terms. I think you'll find "internationalist" has been used many times, by many people, in various different senses...--MacRusgail (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that simple length of time since establishment is notable. The clubs needs to have done something notable over the course of the last 150+ years Gnevin (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor with no idea about rugby has written article on rugby player ...
Hey people, I just knocked together an article on former Scotland international Herbert Bullmore but, as mentioned, I have no idea about rugby so could someone swing by it to make sure I make sense when writing about the rugby bit? Ta. --Roisterer (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have had a look, and added it to My watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on it for you. Good editing!  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a bit and stuck in a photo. Be careful with the 'soccer' link. The articles state that he won a Blue at rowing and football. Football could well refer to Rugby football, which sounds far more likely. I would personally (unless you know it was association), unlink to soccer and just leave it as football until a more clear source appears. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at his obituary from The Sydney Morning Herald (Wednesday 29 December 1937) and the blue was almost certainly for rugby because it talks of his membership of the famous University XV -
 * "Dr. Bullmore will also be remembered as a keen sportsman. Before going to Scotland he represented Queensland at Rugby Union, while at Edinburgh University he gained the distinction of a "double blue" for rowing and football. Later, he played for Scotland in international Union matches, and was also a member of the famous University XV., captained by A. B. Plott." Kwib (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Magners League Logo
I am working through the Celtic League / Magners League / Pro12 seasons. I wanted to add a Magners League logo to the appropriate seasons. does anyone know where I can get one? Hamish59 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a specific logo for each season, that won't be possible. The logo is copyrighted and no Fair Use rationale would be valid just for putting the logo on each season page. – PeeJay 21:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't fully understand this. Nevertheless, I will remove logos from Celtic and Pro12 seasons that I just put in.  Drat.  Hamish59 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, copyright law is a bit complex, but I reckon WP:NFC should explain the situation. – PeeJay 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, PeeJay. I have had a read (and the one on logos), but it is still as clear as mud.  Must be me.  I will have another read when I get time.  Hamish59 (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, because Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia, we can only afford to use free images, except where the use of a copyright image is allowed by Fair Use. Fair Use includes the use of small versions of images for educational and informative purposes. For example, we can use the Pro 12 logo in the Pro 12 article because it is a unique identifying feature of the league and we can write encyclopaedic content about the logo; we can't do that for the individual season articles, so we can't add the logo. However, we could do that if there was a specific logo for each season that we could write about. – PeeJay 14:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

RU combo squad templates nominated for deletion
RU combo squad player, RU combo squad start and RU combo squad end have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Unused templates nominated for deletion
Rugby squad S14 player, Rugby squad S14 start, Rugby squad player country, Rugby squad country start, Rugby squad country mid and Rugby squad country end have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Super rugby squad start and Template:Super rugby finals system
Template:Super rugby squad start and Template:Super rugby finals system have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Player Statistics
I'm trying to complete the records for a few players but am a bit stuck on the 'stats' box for Lenny Woodard. Does anyone know how to make the box longer so that all his playing stats can be included. it seems to cut off about halfway down. Thoughts/advice welcome! Thanks Shenko316 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you check out Template:Infobox rugby league biography, it appears that the box has only been created up to club10, the point where his infobox cuts out. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that changeable? I'm not sure I have enough know-how to start messing with templates! Shenko316 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is. Your best bet is probably to talk to the guys who maintain the article. Check the history and see who knows what they are doing. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

US competitions
Need feedback. I am considering making articles for club and college national tournaments in the US. It is hard to say what is notable however since USA does not have very high level professional competition. Libro0 (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the pages Rugby union in the United States and College rugby. They should give you an idea of what is out there. I don't know of any significant U.S. club or college national tournaments that don't have articles yet. There are some articles out there, though, that could use improving.

I was strongly considering doing a tournament called the Monterey Invitational later called the Pebble Beach Classic. Although it was not an official national championship it was the oldest and most prestigious and it was referred as an unofficial national championship before US rugby began their tournament. Libro0 (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Low level English rugby union compeptitions
Should articles like Berks/Bucks & Oxon 1, Berks/Bucks & Oxon 2, Berks/Bucks & Oxon 3 North, Berks/Bucks & Oxon 3 South, Berks/Bucks & Oxon 4 be merged into one article i.e. Berks/Bucks & Oxon (rugby union)? Because there's a lot of examples of competition articles like that on the Template:Rugby union in England, and it may be a good idea to merge them. Or at least that's what we've done over at WP:Football (see Southend Borough Combination, Bristol and District Football League, East Riding County League etc.).  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  19:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is also the issue we are encountering at Articles for deletion/Southern Counties North. Editors who are interested in what to do with these kinds of articles are strongly encouraged to comment over there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Blues (rugby union) → Blues (Super Rugby)
I've requested that Blues (rugby union) be moved to Blues (Super Rugby) due to the ambiguity with Cardiff Blues. The move request can be found at Talk:Blues (rugby union). – PeeJay 08:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible to my way of thinking. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones  (GG-J's Talk) 10:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be better if you would formally add your support to the move request on the article talk page. – PeeJay 11:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Gareth Griffith-Jones  (GG-J's Talk) 14:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Chiefs (rugby union) and Sharks (rugby union) fall into the same criteria. I tried to standardise the Super Rugby teams a while ago and consensus was adjudged to use rugby union (see Talk:Crusaders (rugby union)). Given the recent move discussions above at at Talk:Lions (Super Rugby) that consensus is no longer valid. Prehaps all the Super Rugby teams that require disambiguating should be moved to (Super Rugby). AIR corn (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, I think they should all use the same disambiguator. Mattlore (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda neutral on this. The only reason I suggested that Blues (rugby union) be moved to Blues (Super Rugby) is that there is another team that could conceivably be searched for using the search term "Blues (rugby union)". How many other teams could lay claim to the names "Chiefs (rugby union)" or "Sharks (rugby union)"? The only one I can think of is Exeter Chiefs, but I can't think of one for Sharks. – PeeJay 11:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sale Sharks AIR corn (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I just facepalmed at myself. – PeeJay 13:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we have the same problem with Blues (rugby team) which forwards to the Auckland Blues i.e. Blues (Super Rugby) page? This also ignores the New South Wales Rugby League Team which are also informally known as the Blues. - Cymrog (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created a disambiguation. Mattlore (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox stats question
When using Template:Infobox rugby biography, should appearances in the Heineken Cup and LV Cup be counted in the appearances and points totals, or should it only count league appearances? Template:Infobox Rugby Union biography, explicitly states the latter, is that the wikipedia standard? --Kafuffle (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Does no-one know? I've been creating infoboxes for french players that don't include european appearances, but I've found some infoboxes that do. Should I include them or not? It would be a great help if someone would respond. --Kafuffle (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Its a lot easier to find out the appearances as a total rather than breaking out the league appearances - might be worth asking the question on the template talk page - the league only thing might just be an artefact of copying the template and documentation from another template. I know I have been using total appearances as the club websites profiles tend to list the totals. noq (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've been using itsrugby.co.uk, which does seperate out league and european appearances and has very complete statistics. But it seems the standard might be total appearances, so I think I will switch to that. --Kafuffle (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When I fill out the infoboxes I use total appearances. The template doesn't have an asterix to denote league only appearances like the footy one.  --Bob247 (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although I must add a caveat regarding taking stats from the Welsh regions' websites: they tend to include friendly appearances in a player's stats, and that is something we should not do. Only competitive appearances please. – PeeJay 10:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Club v country matches
Should the club v country matches (e.g. Gloucester v Fiji) be included in the 2012 end-of-year rugby union tests article? I am of the opinion that they should not, since they are not full internationals, let alone test matches. Could people please weigh in with their own opinions at Talk:2012 end-of-year rugby union tests? Cheers. – PeeJay 10:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't rugby team templates have colour schemes?
Hello. I am currently engaged in a dispute with an editor regarding 2 templates i created that are viewable on my user page - with the dispute viewable here. These templates are for 2 rugby teams and both initially had colour schemes that represented the teams colours. However, an editor has removed these colours to keep the templates following the standard for all other rugby team templates. My question is as stated in this heading: why don't rugby team templates have colour schemes? Shouldn't rugby follow the Wikipedia standard of having the team colours represented on the template?...As is the case with other team templates from rugby league, to AFL, MLB, NFL, NBA, hurling, Gaelic football e.t.c.

I simply don't understand the reasoning and why it hasn't changed to follow others team templates. Thanks.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have always found it odd the RU templates don't use colour. I think they should. Mattlore (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed in the past WT:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 7. Consensus at the time was against it. noq (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to add my weight to the discussion, I'm against adding colour to the templates. Add little diagrams of the club's kits, but there's no need to add a field that says "Colours: Blue and White" or whatever, and especially no need to supplement that with any little coloured squares. – PeeJay 12:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Completely misunderstood the question. For the record, I am actually in support of using colours in navbox templates; what I am against is adding a "colours" parameter to the infobox. – PeeJay 10:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also against adding colors as Wikipedia is not a fan page but a place for information. Also, adding lots of colors to the templates makes the articles look like a 13 year old girl's MySpace page. --Bob247 (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so i had a read of the 2008 discussion and i was wandering whether we could start a new discussion of the colour template issue, since the last was 4 years ago & only conducted over a 3 day period. As we all know, Wikipedia has come a long way since then. I also think the last discussion was less effective due to 1 editor being a sock-puppet and another giving-up in frustration.

After reading the 2008 discussion, i saw that 2 recurring themes were used by the "plain template" group as arguments against colour templates: Now, if i may, i would like to present arguments for colour templates - while also responding to the above pro-plain arguments:
 * 1) The word "garish" was repeated used to describe colour templates.
 * 2) Plain templates ensured that there would be no arguments between editors over the colour scheme of templates.
 * 1) To describe the look of colour templates as "garish", or "a fan page", or "like a 13 year old girl's MySpace page", is IMO clearly out-dated & irrelevant. How can WikiProject Rugby union see colour templates in such a manner, while every other major team sport templates on Wikipedia use colour templates? Colour templates are used for AFL, rugby league, football, NFL, MLB, Basketball, F1, hurling, Gaelic football e.t.c. Do the editors on WikiProject RU somehow have the correct taste, while the consensus on Wikipedia's team sport projects is that colour templates are the way to go?
 * 2) To claim that coloured rugby templates will lead to editor arguments is actually an insult to all rugby editors. If league & all these other sports have used colour templates without debilitating arguments, then in what way can't rugby editors do the same?
 * 3) I guarentee if you brought any unbiased person & asked them whether coloured or plain looked more presentable, coloured woould win-out the overwhelming majority of the time. Just compare 2 similar roled players from league & rugby, like Benji Marshall & Dan Carter. An even better example would be to look at cross-code legend Brad Thorn. Would you rather all his templates be plain (as are his rugby ones), or would you rather all of his templates have colour (as are his league ones)? Remember, we have to view this from the POV of an unbiased viewer - not our own preferences. Maybe a relevant poll of such people could be conducted for this purpose. Although, i don't believe it needs to, or should, resort to this.
 * 4) Templates on Wikipedia are in-of-themselves rather inconspicuous. I rarely find myself opening a plain template; they just don't capture any attention at all, especially since they are way down at the bottom of the page without any header link in the contents section at the top of the page. I'm sure most people share this opinion. However, with colour templates you are instantly drawn and will regularly expand them. They are also brilliant ways of quickly identifying a players current & past squad & any achievements.
 * 5) In some scenarios i find it pretty insulting that we don't have colour templates. The 1st example that comes to my mind is that of the All Blacks. How can a much less prominent team like the Kiwis (New Zealand's national rugby league team) have a black & white template, while the worlds most famous representative of a black jersey (the All Blacks) doesn't have a black & white template?

A solution (which follows the consensus of other sporting templates but maintains the independence of rugby within Wikipedia) could be that we allow colour in the rugby templates only for the title & the border i.e. the title colour follows the main colour of the jersey, the border colour follows the second most prominent colour of the jersey, and the background colour is always - say - white. That way we have presentable templates, with no issue of "garish" looking templates.

Colour templates must be adopted because this is the consensus for all prominent team sports on Wikipedia. It is going to happen sooner or later because rugby cannot live in its own ecosystem separated from the rest of Wikipedia. I'm not sure what is driving the pro-plain group in their position: perhaps it may have its origin in the whole amateur vs. professional argument that still seems to linger in the rugby air. Whatever it is, rugby needs to catch-up & join the rest of the sporting fraternity.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you link to an example ? I'm not sure I know what you mean Awe I know what you mean . No per WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR Gnevin (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. So i am thinking of templates like this for club rugby:

And templates like this for test rugby:

Obviously, each team having its own colour scheme (for both club & test rugby) & flag (exclusively for test rugby).

I hope i am allowed to actually add these templates on this page. I just thought it would be more helpful to peoples understanding if i did so.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how the colours of an infobox are an aid to understanding an article. And with a single navbox the colours are not really a problem, the issue for me is when you get several navboxs of different and often clashing colours - it just looks ugly and detracts from the page. noq (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Read points 1 & 4 of my main discussion above for answers to your questions. About your concern regarding "several navboxs of different and often clashing colours": if we only allow a white background & only allow colour in the title & border (as is shown in the NRL & F1 examples above), i don't see in what way clashing colours will be a problem? It's the background colour that (i think) causes most of the problems for the pro-plain group, but i don't see how a slither of colour in the title & border can be an issue. What do you think about that?Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither point addresses how the colour of the navbox heading helps peoples understanding of the articles. As for using a white background and coloured text, doesn't that go against your point 4 - the boxes above do not stand out very well. The examples you gave in point 3 I think are quite ugly and don't add to the articles. Point 5 just seems bizarre to me - why would you feel insulted because a standard colour is being used for all teams? noq (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Regarding "helps peoples understanding of the articles": Can my point be more clear? It quickly shows what team the person plays for & any achievements (e.g. titles). Definitely it helps peoples understanding more than plain, identical-looking, inconspicuous templates piled on top of each other. 2. Of course those boxes above stand out. Any colour, on an article that lacks colour except in its images, is going to get peoples attention. Anyone with an inkling of knowledge of the NRL will know straight-away that the red & white template above relates to the Dragons. When people can identify something, they are much more likely to explore it - unlike the plain templates, that wouldn't even warrant ones attention in the first place. & i find your last 2 responses just plain out of touch with the realities of team sport template layouts on Wikipedia. How can you say colour is ugly & support plain templates because they use a "standard colour" when all other major team sports use non-standard colours & obviously do not see them as ugly. I'm truly perplexed how 1 sub-section of sport in Wikipedia can buck the trend & legitimately resist accepted change?!Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UNDUE why does this information need to stand out ? Gnevin (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. If someone has got to the bottom of an article and does not know who they play for already - an infobox at the top will usually supply this information - then a collection of different coloured boxes at the end will not convey that. 2. They don't stand out to me.  The purpose of the navboxes is to provide a simple navigation aid to related articles, by the time I get to them, I should already know what teams are involved, I know that I don't scan down to the bottom of a page to identify a team and I can't think of a reason to do that, even if I did, having multiple navboxes with differing colours would not immediately tell me anything - I would need to look closer and read the titles to find out which is relevant. Whether other projects accept them or not does not stop them looking ugly. The navigation boxes should follow the general look and feel of Wikipedia and apart from the sports pages where people have decided for some reason to go non standard, the normal look and feel for navigation elements uses the colour that is presently used. noq (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, we can go on all day & around in circles about how ugly, coloured templates are, or whether they aid the article e.t.c but at the end of the day we are missing the crux of the issue: the Wikipedia team-sport template standard is coloured templates - not plain ones. I just don't see how some rugby editors can legitimately resist that standard. So before i carry on going around in circles on this talk page, i am going to see where i stand by discussing on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do, I have not seen anywhere any discussion of this so called standard. The standard colour scheme for navigation within Wikipedia is what we currently use and I see no reason to change that. noq (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes the plain colour scheme is standard for most things, but not with regards to team sports - where colour is the standard. Even on some templates that have nothing to do with sport, but are strongly associated with certain colours or symbols, you see the use of colour templates (or flages e.t.c.). Take a look at articles realting to colours (e.g. the Wikipedia articles on red, blue e.t.c.) or countries (e.g. USA, Israel, South Africa e.t.c). & i can only see this being extended over time to more & more templates. However, the time has already arrived for team sport templates & rugby should be no different or exceptional. Thanks.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

They used to have colour during my era but then the old farts of Wikipedia Rugby decided they liked England and decided to change all the colour to England's alternate strip, PURPLE.....--Stemoc (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "during my era"?Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Rugby biography stubs
Category:Rugby biography stubs, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople
An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

New articles
Not sure if the RU project really still exists these days - mostly seems to be invidual editors doing their own things, but in case anyone is still out there, I stumbled across this in an WP:RU talk archive - its a bot-generated list of recently created articles which might have some RU content. Looks like it updates itself every day. Is it worth keeping handy on here so other articles can be linked to new ones etc?--Bcp67 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A bot will generate a list of new articles as can be seen below Gnevin (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is already linked at the top of the main page (see WikiProject Rugby union/New Articles) AIR corn (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - apologies! --Bcp67 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 end of year rugby union tests
They are trying to delete this again. Please add your support here Talk:2013 end of year rugby union tests Hamish59 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. And it is gone again.  Hamish59 (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom Reid
A page on the Irish player Tom Reid at Articles for Creation could do with a bit of help providing references. It looks as if there's plenty out there, but I don't know anything about rugby myself :) Dsp13 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please help
I am attempting to write an article on Aylestonians rfc without any success. Here is a link to what I have worked on already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Aylestonians_RUFC. Hopefully you will be able to help me get this published. Thank you in advance Aaron O'Rourke Aaron O'Rourke (Aaron1477) 16:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron1477 (talk • contribs) ps, I try to sign but it keeps saying I am unsigned despite putting 4 tidels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron1477 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is it does not appear to meet the notability criteria - see WP:RU/N. noq (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem I am having is that this club has had notable players such as Harry Sibson who is credited with the introduction of the offside rule as well as competing at regional level until very recently. The article I have submitted has more references and infrmation that [Leicester lions] [aylestone athletic] and [syston] yet they all have pages and it is starting to feel like my page is being discriminated against. I know this is starting to sound like I am becoming emotional but my article has sound references and is about a club that has made history and is currently working with the RFU at grass roots level to continue the development of the grass roots game.Aaron O'Rourke (Aaron1477) 22:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron1477 (talk • contribs)

Jim Kilburn
Working on this article, I discovered that Kilburn, primarily a cricket journalist on the Yorkshire Post between 1934 and 1976, was also that newspaper's rugby correspondent. The sources are sadly lacking on his work in this role; does anyone have anything at all on him as a rugby writer? Any help gratefully received! Sarastro1 (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion Times
In a recent debate, PeeJay have mentions that converstion times should not be aloud on articles. I personaly disagree as on Offical score sheets that commentators and broadcasters use who are perfessinal, convesrtion times are used. This is why I personaly think Converstion times should remain on articles like the 2013 Six Nations Championship. What does everyone else think? "... If someone wants to bother putting it in, fine. If not, no problem.  If in there, leave it. ..." Rugby.change is a diligent editor who is prepared to carry out the painstaking, conscientious detail that should be encouraged rather than dismissed. I support his endeavour to include the conversion times. – Gareth Griffith-Jones   – The Welsh  Buzzard''  – 23:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC) – Gareth Griffith-Jones   – The Welsh  Buzzard''  – 10:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't think we need to list conversion times because they can be intuited from the time when each try was scored. The actual time when a conversion goes over is not relevant as it must follow within a minute after a try is scored, meaning that for us to note the time of a conversion is pointless. – PeeJay 20:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Usual expectation is that a conversion is within a minute of the try bring scored (assuming the conversion is made). I believe the kicker is allowed 90 seconds? Mostly, converstion time is not recorded, merely try time plus 1 minute (its what I do when I am score keeping for my Club), if anything.  If someone wants to bother putting it in, fine.  If not, no problem.  If in there, leave it.  If not, don't bother to add.  My tuppence worth.  Hamish59 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hamish59 puts it perfectly:
 * If he wants to waste his time by adding superfluous information, that is his prerogative, I'm just trying to save everyone's time. The try and the conversion are typically considered to be part of the same score, so the conversion should intrinsically have the same to the try (or similar). There are certainly far worthier pursuits to be concerned with here than adding pointless info, and I suggest that Rugby.change diverts his energy elsewhere. – PeeJay 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record if I dont mind adding this information then why should I divert my energy somewhere else??? Rugby.change (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We can't tell you what to edit or what you should be focusing on. Personally I don't think they are needed and I would not add them myself. I would also not remove them if they were already there. It seems to be a small thing to argue about. However, we do specialising in arguing about small things. I am just glad to see a new editor interested in editing rugby articles. We all have to start somewhere and if it leads to them making more "worthwhile" edits then we all win. If it doesn't we haven't really lost anything. AIR corn  (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A large workload, for the record too! Rugby.change (talk) is employing his energy on a raft of editing these articles and is to be commended.
 * With AIRcorn again on this one. We have a lot of debate on essentially trivial matters - for my money I'm not bothered about conversion times. If they are in there now, leave them in, its not worth the bother of removing them. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And what about in the future? What about for articles that are yet to be created and matches that have not yet been played? We have to have some consistency here. – PeeJay 20:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there are too many diverse personalities, cultures, nationalities and generations at Wikipedia to get any realistic consistency. If you create a new article and don't include the conversion times, even though the related ones have them, I don't think it is going to be a big problem. In the end it doesn't really matter as long as the information in the article itself is coherent and informative. AIR corn  (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Importance of Clubs
I started re-assessing the Importance of Clubs against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Assessment#Importance_scale Almost all Premiership / Pro12 / Top14 Clubs are rated High which is not correct, IMO. My initial reading of the High Importance criteria
 * Club and provincial teams: General overviews of Super 14 and Heineken Cup championship teams.

and the Mid Importance criteria
 * Club and provincial teams: Club or province that has competed in the top professional domestic competition of a tier one rugby nation within the last 5 years and is not included above. All other club teams of the Super 14 and Heineken Cup.

was Clubs that have won the Heinenken Cup should be High, other Premiership / Pro12 / Top14 Clubs should be Mid. Now I am not sure. Can anyone clarify, please. Hamish59 (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Any major club with a history in the top established league for their area is high. You can't link the criteria to winning a particular competition.   Snowded  TALK 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any major club with a history in the top established league for their area is high. - are you saying this is what the criteria is or what you think it should be? It seems to me that it is not what the RU Project Importance Scale is saying.  Hamish59 (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the criteria it seems to say that winning the Super Rugby or Heineken Cup competition makes the clubs improtance high, while every other club in the competitions are just rated mid. I personally would change that to make clubs that to put any clubs that have competed in the Super Rugby or Heinekin Cup competitions as High no matter what there placing. I would then put any that compete in the top comptetitions for a tier one team as mid and the rest as low. So from a NZ point of view, the Highlanders (rugby union) would be high, the Otago rugby football club would be mid and Dunedin rugby football club (if notable) would be low. AIR corn (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would seem sensible to me, AIRcorn. I assume this would require a change to the criteria.  I am not sure how we would go about this.
 * We already are. If no one objects we can change the criteria from this discussion. AIR corn (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There remains a question of timescale. A number of Clubs have participated in the Heineken Cup in the past that cannot be considered high importance e.g. teams now at the 3rd Level such as Ebbw Vale (now playing in the Welsh Championship below Pro 12 and Welsh Premier Division), Milan (actually, 4th level in Serie B, below Pro 12, Excellence and Serie A) or Bourgoin (now consigned to Fédérale 1 below Top 14 and D2) or teams no longer in existence, such as Aironi, Celtic Warriors and Borders.  How do we rate them?  Hamish59 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't get too hung up on it, just use it as a guide. You seem to have a good knowledge of clubs so I think your judgement would be fine. Worst case scenario someone disagrees with you and you can discuss it on the talk page or just let it go. If you really wanted something concrete I guess we could use "since professionalism" as the cut off or retain the "last five years" that is already there. AIR corn (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points, AIRcorn. I am happy to go through the Northern Hemisphere Clubs and put them into some sort of order.  What I am worried about is having multiple discussions as people try to keep their own Club "high".  I reckon more support / consensus is needed here before I make any more changes.
 * I suppose an alternative interpretation of the current Importance Scale could be 1) if currently playing in the Heineken Cup / Super 14, then "high" 2) if plyed in the Heineken Cup / Super 14 in the past 5 years, then "mid" 3) everyone else "low". Hamish59 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly I think you will find little resistance, especially if you look at the number of rugby articles which have no classification. I agree with Aircorn, use your own judgement and I don't think you will get more than one or two (if that) disagreements. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Having had a bit of a think about this one, I am going to do the following:
 * High Importance - Clubs playing in the current season of the Heineken Cup
 * Mid Importance - Clubs who have in the past 5 seasons played in the top Division of a tier 1 nation - so Top 14, Premiership, Pro 12, Excellence (only up to 3 years ago)
 * Low Importance - everyone else

I am going to keep clear of the Southern Hemisphere as this is beyond my ken. Hamish59 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent effort, and I agree with AIRcorn - go for it, use your judgement and put your thoughts here if you'd like some support / discussion. My only extra thought would be to vary the assessment maybe if historical circumstances suggest it - thinking here of a club like Blackheath, who are not currently a top divison club but who hold a historically important place in the development of the game in England. All the best! --Bcp67 (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point re Blackheath. Not covered by the existing criteria, so potentially a problem.  Do we need additonal criteria?  For example, Founding Members of the RFU surely should be high importance?  Or should they?  What about Wasps (snigger)?  How about any Club old enough to be "FC" - Rosslyn Park F.C., Watsonians RFC (hmm, that article ought to be renamed). Without a strict, objective criteria everyone is going to wade in to argue that their own Club is more improtant than "low".  OK, so I have made a start (mostly Level 1 and 2 clubs in 6 Nations).  I will wait for the backlash.  Hamish59 (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't imagine a huge amount of wading in to be honest - not many clubs have people who edit their articles. It's difficult to set an objective criteria for those historically-significant clubs anyway so maybe it has to be a bit subjective. I've got no club loyalty so don't mind giving an opinion from time to time. To carry on with the example above, not even all the founders of the RFU are of high importance, Wimbledon RFC for example. I've thrown enough spanners in the works for the moment - will let you get on! --Bcp67 (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm reverting back the Welsh clubs dropped to low importance who are of major historical value. The founding members of the WRU should be mid and the teams who played the touring internationals teams are high. As an Encyclopedia pro teams are blips in the history of Rugby Union, and we must understand the importance of historical teams. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FruitMonkey, I can see that the Founder Clubs may need to be of higher importance than "low", analagous to, say, Blackheath F.C. in England. However, I cannot see teams who played the touring internationals teams are high.  If pro teams are histoical blips, then surely playing an international team way back when is also a blip?  Hamish59 (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with FruitMonkey on this one. The fact that those clubs played the touring international teams isn't so much signigificant of its itself but more for the fact that it denoted their stature in the game. I'm assuming FruitMonkey is thinking here of Cardiff, Swansea, Llanelli and Newport, who regularly played (and sometimes beat) the Southern Hemisphere giants, rather than just a blanket approach to any Welsh club who played a touring side. I like to keep a historical perspective personally and accept that although people may mostly come here to find out about the present day, we need to keep a balance between where we are and how we got here. Let's keep those clubs as high importance? --Bcp67 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Week-by-week standings tables in Six Nations articles
User:Rugby.change seems hell-bent on adding week-by-week standings to the most recent Six Nations articles, and using the countries' national colours to shade each cell of the table. Not only is this garish and probably in violation of WP:ACCESS, the table is pretty pointless. Because the Six Nations is so short, showing the standings after each round of games is unnecessary - early on, positions change like nobody's business, and later in the tournament, they hardly change at all. Plus, what difference does it make which team was in 3rd place in week 2? None whatsoever. The standings are also unsourced, though there is an argument that they have been synthesised based on simple mathematics; however, there is no evidence to suggest that the tie-breaking criteria for the Six Nations apply at any time other than the end of the tournament, so their application at earlier points may not be supported by evidence. An anonymous objector at Talk:2012 Six Nations Championship made the point that we could easily add game-by-game standings (i.e. 15 different tables) or even minute-by-minute if we had the inclination, so to add week-by-week seems a little arbitrary. Finally, if we have week-by-week tables, what do we do when a match is postponed to outside its original game week? Treating it as though it was played in that week would be inappropriate and inaccurate, while leaving it out until after it is played would defeat the point of having the table in the first place. Anyway, if you guys could express your opinions, positive or negative, about these week-by-week standings tables, I'd appreciate it. – PeeJay 08:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC) "At Wikipedia, a consensus is not a poll, it is for you as the antagonist to provide an acceptable argument for other editors. Until then you must not continue to revert the status quo" – Gareth Griffith-Jones   – The Welsh  Buzzard''  – 09:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @PeeJay, who has just ended a 48 hrs block for edit-warring on this and related articles, and has returned today to revert once again, I say this:


 * For the relevant conversation please see Talk:2012 Six Nations Championship and Talk:2012 Six Nations Championship. AIR corn (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a straw poll running about this issue. Perhaps some users could have a look ? Talk:2012_Six_Nations_Championship. Thanks. Gnevin (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration
This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  18:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Rugby players and officials awarded knighthoods
This is a recently-created category, including both RU and RL individuals, which I've got a couple of questions on. First off - should we have separate "rugby union players..." etc, and "rugby league players..."etc, rather than just "rugby players...." etc? Secondly, is it a category for people awarded knighthoods for their rugby deeds, or for people who happened to play rugby and were awarded a knighthood? I've just added Wavell Wakefield, who is an example of the latter type (knighted for political service) but I'm not sure if he really fits the criteria. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 10:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 11:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If we split them wouldn't there need to be three as anyone knighted before the schism would need their own category. I would just base it on numbers, if there are lots of knights then a union/league split makes sense. I would include anyone that has played a high level of rugby and has been knighted (for rugby or otherwise). AIR corn (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Aircorn. Any rugby player, union or league, and knighthood for any reason. Also whatever we agree upon then the criteria gets added to the top of the category. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is presumably for people notable for rugby involvement, not just someone who played rugby as a kid? Hack (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Always the case. It is stated in our notability rationale that the likes of George Bush Senior, who played rugby at school, is not significant to WP Rugby union. Therefore the same rides for this new catagory. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. BTW, sure it wasn't Bush Junior you were thinking of? Hack (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! — is that Dubya? –&#32;
 * Yeah, it came to light about ten years ago. Hack (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link! –&#32;

Notability of Portuguese Super Bock rugby clubs
I've just received a question about the notability of Associação Académica de Coimbra (rugby union) which I created (I admit rather casually in the process of housekeeping, primarily to replace an embedded link to the fr.wp article for the rugby club in the main Associação Académica de Coimbra article). Would just like to confirm the rugby club meets notability for a standalone article. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks clear-cut to me. Supported by an external source and meets WP:RU condition 1 for notability of clubs - plays in the top division of any national competition. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bcp67 thanks, sorry I didn't say thanks earlier. Also I have just realised the word "union" has gone. Per Category:Portuguese rugby union teams does the absence of "union" matter in this context? Quite happy to leave this with folk here, I have no opinion. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:1883–84 in Irish rugby union
Category:1883–84 in Irish rugby union and 104 other similar categories, which are all within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:1982–83 in Spanish rugby union
Category:1982–83 in Spanish rugby union and 24 other similar categories, which are all within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:1965–66 in Romanian rugby union
Category:1965–66 in Romanian rugby union and 45 other similar categories, which are all within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Seasons in Argentine rugby union
Category:Seasons in Argentine rugby union and its 57 sub-categories, which are all within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

RM
FYI RM here Talk:New Zealand national rugby union sevens team Gnevin (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

List of 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches nomination as Featured List candidate
I have nominated List of 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches as a featured list candidate. Members of this project may be interested in the discussion, which can be viewed here. Any comments or questions would be welcomed. - Shudde  talk 11:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

New sports related IRC channel.
There is now an WP:IRC channel for collaboration between editors in various sports WikiProjects. It's located at. Thanks Secret account 03:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Leinster
There is an edit war at the Leinster Rugby article, seems it needs to be discussed as to whether the Aviva Stadium should be listed as a home stadium or not. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 19:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And likewise on Aviva Stadium. I have opened discussions on the appropriate talk pages.  I will redirect them here.  Hamish59 (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that Leinster can play 13 Pro 12 games at home (11 + Semi + Final) and 5 H Cup games at home (3 group + quarters and semi) for a total of 18 home games a year. Now Leinster have often the 5 H Cup games in the aviva plus Ulster and Munster in the Pro 12. Playing nearly 50% of your home games in the Aviva would make it a Leinster home ground however . Tennant is not the same as home ground . Tennant implies some form of long term contract which I don't believe exists Gnevin (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gnevin, though your stats are way off. Nevertheless, Leinster play sufficient games at the Aviva to warrent listing it as one of their grounds.  I note that the main protaganist in this edit war is 86.40.3.133 - only editing Aviva and Leinster, removing Aviva as a Leinster Ground; this IP traces to Limerick, strangely enough... The IP's main argument is something along the lines of
 * Aviva is owned by IRFU and FAI. It is not a Leinster Rugby stadium and should not be listed as one.
 * By the same token, the RDS Arena is not owned by Leinster either so I guess that should also be removed? I think not.  Hamish59 (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ownership isn't the issue tenancy is. How are my stats off? Gnevin (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

''Now Leinster have often the 5 H Cup games in the aviva plus Ulster and Munster in the Pro 12. Playing nearly 50% of your home games...'' What they actually do is: play one HCup pool game at the Aviva and any home HCup knockout games they may get, plus the regular season League game at home to Munster. That is all. Certainly not Ulster / 5 H Cup / 50%. Note, they do not bother to go to the Aviva for any home playoff games in the Pro12 either (nor in the Amlin, come to that). In the three seasons since the Aviva opened:
 * 2010–11 Celtic League, 12 home games (11 regular season, 1 semi-final), just one at the Aviva (regular season game against Munster)
 * 2010–11 Heineken Cup pool stage, 3 home games - one at the Aviva (v Clermont)
 * 2010–11 Heineken Cup, 2 home knockout games, both at the Aviva (Tigers and Toulouse)
 * So, in 2010/11, played 4 of 17 home games at the Aviva
 * 2011–12 Pro 12, 13 home games (11 regular season, semi-final, final), just one at the Aviva (regular season game against Munster)
 * 2011–12 Heineken Cup pool stage, 3 home games - one at the Aviva (v Bath)
 * 2011–12 Heineken Cup, 1 home knockout game, at the Aviva (Cardiff)
 * So, in 2011/12, played 3 of 17 home games at the Aviva
 * 2012–13 Pro 12, 12 home games to date (11 regular season, 1 semi-final), just one at the Aviva (regular season game against Munster)
 * 2012–13 Heineken Cup pool stage, 3 home games - one at the Aviva (v Clermont)
 * 2012–13 European Challenge Cup, 1 home knockout game, 0 at the Aviva
 * So, in 2012/13, played 2 of 16 home games at the Aviva

In none of the three seasons have they gone anywhere near 50% home games at the Aviva. 4 / 17 = 23% is the best. Hamish59 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Not really the issue . Still a home ground . Gnevin (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. As far as I am concerned: do Leinster play a signigicant number of games at the Avaiva on a regular basis?  Yes.  So list the Aviva as one of their grounds.  Simples.  Ownership is also not the issue either (as implied by the IP editor).  As far as I can see, the "ground" parameter of the [ Infobox rugby team] template does not specify anything other than where the team plays.  Hamish59 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with you both (worrying amounts of agreement for this project!) - if Leinster had played just one or two games there over the years I'd say "not a home ground" - but its clearly a regular venue, and a trawl through Leinster Rugby's website shows a fair amount of detail about season ticket arrangements when (rather than "if") games are staged at the Aviva. For me, it's a home ground. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Ellison featured article candidate
I recently nominated Thomas Ellison as a Featured Article Candidate – the nomination can be viewed here. Ellison was a Māori rugby footballer who played in the late 19th century; he is probably best remembered for proposing that the New Zealand team adopt a black uniform. Sorry this is a bit late, I forgot to post a message to the project letting everyone know about the nomination. - Shudde  talk 11:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Formatting problem on list of participants
When adding myself to the list of participants I seem to have somehow created a formatting problem. I have tried to rectify it but without success. I am sorry - I'm not a very experienced editor and not very good with the technical aspects of editing. Hopefully somebody with more experience than me can rectify it without too much trouble. Thanks! Neljack (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything was fine except you accidentally deleted the closing bracket on the table. Was an easy fix . Welcome to the project. AIR corn (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Starting XV 2012-13
NorthwickP has added "Starting XV 2012-13" sections to various Premiership rugby teams: Northampton Saints, Leicester Tigers, Harlequin F.C. and Saracen F.C.. I cannot see the relavence of these new sections. In fact, I do not understand what they are supposed to represent - team that started the first game of the season? Players who have played the most often in the given position? First choice players for a given postion? The citation(s) given simply point to squad lists (either on StatBunker or official website) and do not clarify anything.

So I reverted all of them, and left a note on NorthwickP's talk page. Now an IP has waded in and reverted me on all four articles: 90.39.134.125 I have reverted again with anote pointing at this talk page per WP:BRD.

My contention is that the additions are 1) uncited 2) meaningless 3) mere decoration.

I do not want to start an edit-war, or break WP:3RR so I would be grateful of any illumination anyone here can give me. Hamish59 (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 21:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hamish59, this doesn't seem particularly complicated to me - starting XV means the players that started the most games in a given position. The citations point to squad lists wherein you may find all the necessary information to back-up these XVs. How this could be just "meaningless decoration" I don't understand - to be able to see the team lineups that professional rugby clubs chose for the season just ended is surely relevant and important information for an encyclopedia entry, otherwise we are just left with the whole squad list of players but no enlightenment as to which of them were most regularly selected. This would be a useful feature for all articles on major rugby clubs. The point of Wikipedia is to bring relevant, researched information to the public. Please explain exactly how my additions to these pages so disappoint your standards? (NorthwickP) 16:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC+01)
 * FFS, I thought this was just a football issue, but now it seems to be spreading to rugby. This info is pointless. So what if a certain player started more games than anyone else in the season? What if he only started that many because a regular starter was injured for much of the season? What about players who play in multiple positions? They might miss out on this fabricated starting XV because they start fewer games in each position. This information is not relevant or interesting, it is a nuisance. – PeeJay 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the sources used for the Northampton and Leicester starting XVs (I didn't look at Saracens or Harlequins) doesn't even indicate what NorthwickP is attempting to show. This goes down as original research in my book. – PeeJay 15:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The section name implied that this is the team that starts in all cases if they are available - this is simply not true in rugby and I doubt it is true anywhere. You can have a starting XV for a particular game, but not for a club generally. noq (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * NorthwickP, OK, I can see what the intention was here. In which case, perhaps naming it as Players that started the most games, 2012/13 would have added sufficient meaning (hence my "meaningless" point).
 * Secondly, the sources cite do not point to number of times a player has started, just squad lists. So, how did you derive the information?  I suspect that you will fall foul of WP:OR.  I would beware of "researched information" in this respect.
 * Finally, my note about "decoration" was a reaction to a chunk of uncited (or incorrectly cited) information that appeared to have no meaning, combined with a picture of a rugby pitch. Hamish59 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Starting XV is nonsense, not in any way notable and should be eliminated on sight. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Starting XV" is, of course, not worth listing. I support its removal without reservation –&#32;
 * All that's needed on these pages is the current squad, not a starting XV that may have never actually all played together at the same time. Any details like stats should be saved for season articles. Mattlore (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not suggesting that the Starting XV info be put into season articles! – PeeJay 23:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No! I was thinking more along the lines of tables such as this. Mattlore (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't actually have "per season" basis for each team in rugby union...Its OK in rugby league because there are only 16 teams, but if we start making per season basis for all teams that play in the TOP COMPETITION including Super rugby, Aviva Premiership, Pro12, Top14, Heineken Cup, Currie Cup, ITM Cup etc, there will be over 150 new pages created yearly which will be very hard to maintain. If anything, we should focus more on making seasonal templates which can be inserted into a persons's article if he was part of a team that year, for example for Leicester Tigers Template:Leicester Tigers squad will change every season and sometimes we forget to remove the template from one player who is no longer with the team page and even though the template gets updated, it remains on the players page..forever..unless someone spots it and removes it, why not make a template like this for a yearly/season basis? e.g Template: 2013 Leicester Tigers squad. That is one thing we can adopt from league, The "Rugby Union Pundits" here have already made those templates as ugly as possible. This could also apply to International rugby, I see its already being used here, why not use it for France tour to NZ, the yearly "The Rugby Championships" as well as "The Pacific Nations Cup" and other major international tournaments? I wish all rugby related articles on wikipedia had as many LINKS as possible to further justify the creation of these articles..--Stemoc (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Far from being "very hard to maintain", they are very simple indeed. We have 119 Category:English football club seasons by club, and some of those have dozens of individual season articles. It's not hard at all. In fact, a quick glance around the rugby articles, there are already a couple of Saracens F.C. season articles and five Cornish Pirates season articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, it's easy to make a season article, but it is quite hard to do a season article well. WP:NOTSTATS is an easy guideline to fall foul of when writing about sports, and a great many of the football articles do so with gusto. However, if a few dedicated individuals wish to maintain rugby season articles (as I once did for the Scarlets), that's great. – PeeJay 19:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be weary of adding seasonal squad templates such suggested by Stemoc to biographical articles. Even if we restrict it to World Cup and maybe Lions tours (or Grand Slams), it's easy for an article to accumulate four or five of these templates. If we include them for club/provincial seasons as well you could imagine ending up with masses of them. Don't want to have a similar problem to that in the past regarding succession boxes – where there were ten or so at the bottom of many team articles – it looked terrible! - Shudde  talk 11:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if its more than lets say 7 or 8 seasons, then they can be collectively put in one "collapsible" template. As i said, they will be hard too maintain The Rambling Man because unlike soccer and rugby league, there aren't that many rugby union editors. At any given time its probably about a dozen compared to 100+ football editors. The Top 14 is the biggest rugby union competition in France and yet is article for this season is very bare, compared to the French language version of that article. Unless we can get more editors to contribute a lot more there is not much that we can do. Trying to maintain a article and to make sure that it falls under wikipedia guidelines is hard. I remember back in 2006 we started "mini projects" to build on rugby related articles on different nations. It was a bit successful for a while until we started losing editors and interests. I prefer Mattlore's idea of adding how many matches a player has played and points scored in in a season rather than the Starting XV option started by OP but then where would we put that list? Rugby union is big in comparison to Rugby league so if we make a lets say 2013 Auckland Blues season article, the we would have to make an individual article for the Blues team dating back to 1996 when super rugby began. Anyone really up for that? and thats just one of the 20 teams that have played super rugby.--Stemoc (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just imaging the worst possible scenario – let us say a Richie McCaw or Brian O'Driscoll – they would have a template for their major domestic team, and then one for Six Nations or Rugby Championship, and then another for end-of-year and mid-year Test series; a player like such as McCaw may well have some provincial templates as well. That is 3 to 5 templates per season! I actually think it is easier to update the team templates you're complaining about rather than to do this; it's not ideal, but then nothing is. Would be great to have a bot that could do it, but if it's a big problem maybe at the beginning of the relevant season, and before any Test series (so all up maybe five times a year), this could be posted on the project talk page. The templates themselves have to be updated anyway, so I'm not sure why it isn't done at the same time. I understand your complaint about not enough editors, but what you are talking about is only the tip of the iceberg; have a look at the red-links in List of New Zealand national rugby union players – we are not a news service though, so keeping all these stats up-to-date is tough, but no more or less important than anything else. - Shudde  talk 13:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely opposed to your suggestion, Stemoc. Like Shudde says, players with long, distinguished careers could end up with mounds of these templates when really all that is needed is their current club squad and any RWC squads they were in. Anyway, why are we talking about this? I say we drop this suggestion as it is clearly infeasible. In summary, "Starting XV" sections are bad, season articles are good if done right, and we definitely shouldn't make individual navboxes for every club's annual squad list. – PeeJay 22:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)