Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 15

2013 in rugby union page started
2013 in rugby union page started, collaboration welcome--Feroang (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * alineated, conected, categorized, 2012 in rugby union, 2011 in rugby union, 2009 in rugby union and 2008 in rugby union; I can not find 2010 in rugby union or Rugby union in 2010--Feroang (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2007 in rugby union and 2010 in rugby union created from what i find in 2007 in sports and 2010 in sports, expantion needed, we can just copy the style or the good years 2009 and 2010 and feel it with the right results of course. --Feroang (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, but the 2013 in rugby union, 2012 in rugby union and the 2011 in rugby union, articles are a complete an utter mess. The 2008 in rugby union and the 2009 in rugby union articles have a good layout. Ofcourse I prefer the article I created, but if we are going to change, atleast change it to the way the 2009/2008 article are. Rugby.change (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, it is started, and far away of finished, but your collaboration is very welcome, also I just today categorized those rightly, those were lost in wipedia in some dark corner, now we gonna work on it, good articles and good table-articles need a lot of work you know it--Feroang (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:British and Irish Lions 1997
Hello, while writing the Italian article for the said tour, I noticed that also Kyran Bracken took part to the tour (his entry at Lionsrugby.com) though as late replacement (here the source). -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 16:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I have added Bracken and also Tony Diprose (likewise missing) to the 1997 tour template. Both were listed in the tour article itself. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, Tony Diprose too. The list should contain 40 players (21 forwards and 19 backs) -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 02:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

File:RWC 2011 final FRA - NZL Trinh-Duc and C Smith.jpg
Hello, a question. I've just uploaded the said photograph. I recognised François Trinh-Duc, Ma'a Nonu and Conrad Smith, but didn't manage to recognise the player with the black headband on the left. Does anyone recognise him? -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 16:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A bit of research into the All Blacks line-up from the match, plus the tape around his thighs, would have revealed that he is New Zealand lock forward Brad Thorn. – PeeJay 18:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I looked into the line-up but didn't find a clue.. thanks! -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 00:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * who doesn't know the GREATEST EVER rugby player? :P btw, i think you should upload the whole set, its a shame we do not have pictures from the RWC2011 Final..--Stemoc (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Currie Cup First Division - fully pro?
For the purposes of WP:NRU, is the Currie Cup First Division a fully professional league? Hack (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm someone that believes WP:NRU is basically useless. It's really a poor guideline and looks like a copy-paste from WP:FOOTY. Use the General Notability Guidelines if you want to determine whether a subject is notable or not – it's far superior. If an article meets GNG, it shouldn't be eligible for deletion. – Shudde  talk 08:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Around the world, would many national league players be subject to significant coverage in reliable sources? Hack (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that depends on the player and on the league. In New Zealand for example, there is widespread coverage of provincial rugby, and even heartland championship rugby, so the number would be very high. But in the United States the number will be a lot lower, even though it is a much larger country (and has broadly comparable numbers of players). Anyway if you're looking at writing an article on a player, then you're going to need sources regardless. If those sources are suitable, then the article will meet GNG. -- Shudde  talk 09:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really only familiar with Australia where there's no national-level rugby. I'd suggest there'd be few Super Rugby players here who would struggle to meet WP:GNG. Has there ever been a discussion on tightening WP:NRU? Hack (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My main problem with WP:NRU is that it doesn't take into account that rugby has only been professional less than 20 years, but has been played internationally since 1871. It's especially a problem for clubs, teams, selections etc rather than individual biographies. I don't think it needs tightening more than it needs to be clear it's a guideline, and is useful for assuming notability. It shouldn't be used as the sole rationale for deletion – that has caused a few problems. Most Super Rugby players would meet WP:GNG, but getting those sources (rather than just googling) would be hard for most editors. -- Shudde  talk 08:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was involved in the formulation of the guideline so I feel I should defend it somewhat. A lot of talk went into deciding the guideline from half a dozen of the more prolific rugby editors at the time, it is not a copy and paste job. It is mentioned that it is a guideline on the rugby wikiproject specific page and the whole Notability (sports) page is a guideline (this is mentioned on both at the start of the first paragraph). Care was taken to account for the professional and amateur eras, but it adds a level of complications that can not easily be solved in a one size fits all that these guidelines demand. For what its worth, I would rather see no specific notability guidelines and rely solely on the WP:GNG, but that is not the way consensus has fallen so we have to do the best we can. I personally see these guides as being only really useful for wikipedians that clean up new articles and are unfamiliar with the sport. AIR corn (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that work went into drafting the guidelines, but I just wonder whether they are more trouble than they're worth. I agree that GNG is superior, it's pretty hard to write an article without at least two reliable sources anyway. Your last comment probably reinforces my complaint about the guidelines, they're too crude to be of much use to those unfamiliar with the sport. I'm not trying to attack anyone, and do realise that no guideline is perfect. – Shudde  talk 11:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the original question, is the league in question fully pro? Hack (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is (in the most part). Teams would give professional contracts to a core number of players, even though amateur club players might be drafted in as injury replacements. Finances do play a part. The, for example, are bankrupt at present, so they only have a handful of contracted players at the moment. A few years ago, the didn't contract players full-time as a cost-saving measure, last season they reverted back to full-time players. So the league is fully pro, but at times, circumstances would dictate that one or two teams might revert to a semi-professional status for a period of time. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Try and Template:Kick
What is the purpose of Template:Try and Template:Kick? As far as I can see, their only purpose is to add an icon of either a ball (for a try) or a set of posts (for a conversion, penalty or drop goal). I can sort of see the relevance of the posts icon for a kick at goal, but the ball is almost completely abstract; sure, you have to ground the ball to score a try, but it's not immediately obvious that that is what it means. What does make things immediately obvious, however, is the use of the words "Try", "Con", "Pen" and "Drop" in the rugbybox template, making the icons completely redundant. Since the icons are completely redundant, they must be there to provide decoration to the article, something that is discouraged according to WP:ICONDECORATION. Therefore, the first stage of this suggestion is to remove the icons from the templates. Without the icons, then, what do these templates become? A shortcut to make typing easier? That's not what templates are for. If the templates contained a link to an article that is often renamed, I could see a point, but it's literally just plain text with a bit of code to add an apostrophe and a comma after each number. These templates should be replaced with plain text and then deleted. – PeeJay 12:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course making typing easier is one of the purposes of templates – even you used the undefined template in your comment above to make typing easier. I do agree it's mainly decorative though, but there are two benefits to using the template. The first (and lesser) one is that it makes the format for tries and kick similar to the ones for cards, i.e. sin bin, sent off, etc (where the templates are necessary to distinguish between them, since both are listed in the "Cards" section). So all the events listed for the match are consistent, i.e. player name, icon, minute. The second benefit is that those templates changes the font size to 10px. This is consistent with sin bin, sent off, as well as templates used in WP:FOOTBALL, such as goal, subon, etc. etc. It will be a nightmare having to do that for all scores. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to add icons to the scoring templates though. The ones for the cards are necessary as they differentiate between yellow and red cards, but as I mentioned above, we already list the scores under headings of "Try", "Con", "Pen" and "Drop", so there's no need for an icon there. Furthermore, I don't actually think we should be listing cards in either of the "rugbybox" templates; they don't contribute directly to the scoreline, so why are they there? Also, why is the font size reduced? The native font size in the "rugbybox" templates and the line-up tables is fine as it is, plus reducing the font size further presents issues with regard to accessibility. – PeeJay 17:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No idea why the font is reduced, by like I said, that is common practise in several other templates, so it's consistent. The icon can easily be remove from the templates, which should fix your WP:ICONDECORATION concerns. I do think listing cards will give the reader a better impression of the game, eg. if a team scored several tries while a player was sin-binned. Cards are not a direct contribution to the scoreline, though, neither is the kick conversion rate (i.e. a player kicked 2 out of 5 kicks), which is usually listed, but both those would indicate that a team contributed to their own downfall in a game, so I feel there is a value-add to having it. Obviously, listing the starting line-up, subs coming on, etc., would be of similar value, so maybe it should only be used with full match reports. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what other templates do. If we determine that the larger font size is better for our set of templates and the community agrees for the wider set, it can always be changed. You're right about the kick conversion rate, though that is at least intelligible (unlike the icons), only adds a maximum of three characters to the article and isn't at all obtrusive. As you point out, if we have the full line-ups on the article anyway, there's no need to list the cards in the rugbybox template. – PeeJay 19:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter Nelson (Rugby Player)
Dear rugby enthusiasts: This old abandoned Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Should we let it go, or is this a notable player? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He has played professionally for Ulster so he is notable (the article is not a hoax -- I checked). So should be moved into mainspace if/once it's referenced properly. -- Shudde  talk 11:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Shudde, it's in mainspace now. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Tri Nations Series champions

 * I know almost nothing about rugby, but I did notice that the Tri Nations Series has recently been renamed The Rugby Championship. Should the list of the winners, Tri Nations Series champions, be renamed as well? I would have proposed renaming it myself but calling it The Rugby Championship champion seemed odd.—Neil 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rhys Edwards
Dear rugby fans: Here's another of those old abandoned Afc submissions that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable coach, and should the article be kept? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Balmain Rugby Club
Hello rugby experts! Here's an old Afc submission about a rugby club that is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable club? Should the article be saved? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A bit of help with an article
was brought to my attention via OTRS in September of last year. Basically the person who wrote was concerned about whether or not the subject merited inclusion, and whether the article was being used to legitimize him in the real world. I agreed that it did not, since as far as I could tell he played with a U21 squad only, and I was unable to source the rest of the claims in the bio. Beyond that it seems he's coaching another amateur team in Austin now. The article was deleted, and recreated again about a month ago. I have a bit of concern regarding the creator's account, but before I take this to AFD I'd like a strong second opinion by a subject matter expert as to whether or not he meets the notability guidelines, assuming the claims in the article are true. Thanks! § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the article and there's nothing to suggest that the subject merits inclusion, so I would support a deletion. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daf Jones
Hello again rugby enthusiasts! Is this old Afc submission about a notable player, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Anne. I think Rhys Edwards and Balmain Rugby Club (listed above) are both notable enough for articles, but Daf Jones is not. The Rhys Edwards and Balmain Rugby Club articles will need to be properly overhauled to make them of sufficient quality to be published to the mainspace. – PeeJay 00:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will postpone deletion of the first two and leave them as drafts, and I will nominate Daf for deletion. Thanks for taking the time to check this out.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Gould (rugby union) at FAC
Members of this project may be interested to know that Arthur Gould (rugby union) – the famous Welsh rugby union player – has been nominated at WP:FAC. The nomination page can be viewed at Featured article candidates/Arthur Gould (rugby union)/archive1. -- Shudde  talk 23:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simon McIntyre
Hello rugby fans! Here's a brand new submission at Afc. Is this a notable player? Should the article be accepted? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bill Morris Welsh Rugby Union International
Hello again rugby fans. There seem to be a number of players named Bill Morris. Is this a different person from the others, and if so is this a notable player? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes he is notable, but there are several issues with the article. This Bill Morris played twice for Wales at international level (thus notable), but he is one of three Bill Morris' to achieve that, so we would need to dab the already existing player. Also the text is lifted straight from the blackandambers web site, so we can't use it anyway. So yes notable, but delete as a bad job. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, b*gger it, I'll do it myself, though it will mean missing Pointless. Creating article. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Created Bill Morris (rugby union player born 1941). FruitMonkey (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have nominated the old draft for deletion. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

IRB naming conventions
Iterations of IRB tournaments are correctly written as 'Rugby World Cup 2011' and 'RWC 2011' etc. not '2011 Rugby World Cup'. The incorrect format is used throughout Wikipedia. This applies to Rugby World Cup, IRB Sevens World Series, Rugby World Cup Sevens, IRB Junior World Championship, IRB Junior World Rugby Trophy,Women's Rugby World Cup, IRB Pacific Nations Cup and IRB Nations Cup. Not only is this form the correct tournament name but it is also the most commonly used - 3.9 million Google results for the "2011 rugby world cup" as opposed to 18.2 million for "rugby world cup 2011" for example.

It is part of the verbal distinction between rugby and soccer which uses the '2014 FIFA World Cup' format.

Also, the correct name for the Rugby World Cup trophy is the Webb Ellis Cup. It is not the William Webb Ellis Cup as it is called on Rugby World Cup.

Fleckee15 (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it can be either "2011 Rugby World Cup" or "Rugby World Cup 2011" depending on context; for example, you could say either "New Zealand won the 2011 Rugby World Cup" or "New Zealand won Rugby World Cup 2011". However, I believe that the former is preferable. – PeeJay 19:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a case of preference. All IRB competitions and their iterations are brands and as such have a definitive name which is in the format 'Rugby World Cup 2011' etc. This is evident on all IRB/RWCL properties and stated within brand guidelines that teams, sponsors, broadcasters, etc. must comply with, including the correct form for editorial use. The IRB guidelines aren't in the public domain however, some of the sponsors' own tournament specific brand guidelines are - such as Barclay's for 2011 http://www.barclaycardworldoffers.co.uk/assets/offers/382d4d56-64d0-8be8-7af9-0000121f7ac1/Creative_Guidelines-1.pdf. The wider media also predominantly adhere to this form as per media guidelines and as the vast difference in number of Google search results for each exact phrase confirm. Fleckee15 (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is a big deal. English Wikipedia doesn't have to follow the IRB's guidelines on this. Some media outlets may do so, but many don't. Quick google search found several titles containing "2015 Rugby World Cup". I think this is a matter of preference. Maybe if this was ten years ago we'd go around changing all the titles, links and redirects. But we've settled on a convention, and I don't see a great reason to change it. --  Shudde  talk 06:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sergio Lanfranchi Stadium
Hello all, have I cited well? -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 09:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Flag usage on sports articles
A discussion has begun to outline usage of flags on sports articles and to review their usage. Sports articles have long diverged from what is stated in the manual of style. Please comment on the proposals and add suggestions by contributing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Thanks. SFB 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * On a related note, what is the projects opinion on having a flag on this template AIR corn (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate it. But I generally find flags distracting and unencyclopaedic. I'm not completely opposed to them, but think they're abused, and find they're not actually very valuable. They add little, and sometimes add nothing other than decoration. -- Shudde  talk 12:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with a little decoration, in my opinion, provided that the icons used to represent teams are free and not the result of original research, as in the case of icons such as File:Wigancolours.svg, as used by WikiProject Rugby league. Maybe I'm out of touch with rugby league and they actually use icons like that to represent the teams all the time, but in all the TV broadcasts I've seen, national teams are almost always represented by their national flag, while clubs use their own crests, not some fabricated stripy box. But that's a debate for the rugby league project, not here. So in short, yes, I support including a flag in Template:ru. – PeeJay 23:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wheelchair rugby
Recently (well 2012) the IRB signed a memorandum of understanding with the International Wheelchair Rugby Federation. However the game features little to link it to rugby football in general or indeed rugby union. Should it be included in the category Category:Rugby football and on Team sports be listed as a variation of union? Gnevin (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, it is a hybrid sport, but it is remotely related to rugby football, so I have no problem with it.-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So maybe remove from Rugby union brackets on the template but leave it in the Rugby section? Gnevin (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Help on Scottish & Oxford quartet
I've been looking at expanding all the articles on the famous Scotland and Oxford three-quarter line of 1925 (the first Scotland team to win a Grand Slam) and am looking for help with sources. The four were George MacPherson (also known as GPS), Ian Smith (Scottish rugby player born 1903), George Aitken (rugby union), and Johnnie Wallace. The Smith article is looking okay, the MacPherson one does not do him justice, but one problem I'm having is that Aitken played for New Zealand, and Wallace for New South Wales before or after playing for Scotland -- so many of the sources I have for those two focus on their careers other than Scotland! Any of you got some good stuff on old time Scottish players? Would help me expand the articles enough to think about Good Article status. Also any public domain/free licence images of these four would be awesome. -- Shudde  talk 11:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese club

 * Hello, two questions please:
 * (1) Following an question I made here around 20 Feb 2013 regarding an editor's concern that Category:Portuguese rugby union teams weren't notable, and answer here that they were, an editor moved Associação Académica de Coimbra (rugby union) to Academica Coimbra – rugby. But is " – rugby" the correct dab to distinguish from the soccer club?
 * (2) Lonely Planet Portugal 2003 p324 "Académica is the name of Coimbra's second-division football team and its first- division rugby team, both of which play at the Estadio Municipal" indicates that the rugby union team is the same name as the football team Associação Académica de Coimbra – O.A.F. and it is not clear why the rugby union team now has a Portuguese word in simple ASCII font without the stressed "é" indicating how to pronounce the Portuguese word as the title. As far as I know, rugby teams with foreign words as names do not normally strip the accents.
 * Thanks for input. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer the former name of the page; there are several team pages that have a suffix of "(rugby)", "(rugby team)", "(rugby union)", etc., I've never seen the dash being used. I'd also keep the "é" in the name (a redirection page can be created without the accents and non-standard letters). TheMightyPeanut (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:TheMightyPeanut, Thank you on (1). On (2) that seems to be universal practice. Then I will list as RM to restore it. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Newsletter
I'm hoping to get another issue of the Project Newsletter published and am looking for any help I can find. Anyone that has any ideas (this could be anything, book review, opinion piece, news of any kind) don't hesitate to contact me. Also still trying to decide on a name -- any suggestions for that are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Newsletter. -- Shudde  talk 10:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Iffley Road
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iffley_Road_rugby_football_ground#Iffley_Road_rugby_football_ground

Having trouble with someone who has had this article deleted once and is trying to do it again. The article is being deleted as "an eminently non-notable football ground". It's the home of the Oxford University rugby union team and has hosted internationals in the past (see Iffley_Road_rugby_football_ground. Please vote.GordyB (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed non-free copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located at Contributor copyright investigations/GordyB.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Be aware that a large number of rugby related articles may be deleted or scrubbed due to copyright concerns.
After looking at a few of the articles and edits at Contributor copyright investigations/GordyB I'm really concerned at the number of rugby union-related articles that may be affected. If you have articles you edit heavily, you may want to check whether they're listed at the investigation. From what I know, because of the mounting evidence regarding GordyB's edits, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations (see here). I've already had a look at Australia national rugby union team and France national rugby union team and fixed any problems there, but there are hundreds of other articles that may be involved. Don't be scared to help out, especially if you have a close attachment to some of the articles. -- Shudde  talk 08:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wales national rugby team tours
Hello, the said category should be renamed Wales national rugby union team tours. -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 14:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Old Mission Beach Athletic Club RFC and Metropolis Rugby
Dear rugby experts: I have had a complaint from an editor interested in the Metropolis Rugby club (http://www.metropolisrugby.com/myhome) stating that the Old Mission Beach club is their rival, and so if this club has a Wikipedia article they should have one. I unfortunately know nothing at all about rugby. Copyright issues are being checked out, but my question is: Are these two clubs  notable according to the guidelines for inclusion of sports clubs, and are they of comparable prominence? The OMBAC article certainly doesn't have any independent sources to pass WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs)
 * Just looks like an Other stuff exists argument. It's hard to know for sure how notable they are -- for an American club 1966 is quite old, and rugby was amateur until 1996 so professionalism can't be used to establish notability. If it fails GNG then it is probably not notable. I'll do a google search and see what I can find. -- Shudde  talk 11:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Old Mission Beach Athletic Club RFC have won six National club championships. As well,  makes me think it would comfortably pass GNG. That does not mean Metropolis Rugby club is notable though. The user concerned should try and establish that it'll pass GNG rather than complaining that other stuff exists. --  Shudde  talk 11:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I added your LA Times URL to the OMBAC talk page. Perhaps an interested editor will use it to create some citations.  I referred the Metropolis editor to this project for help. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Reporting
Not sure this is the right place to report this. An anon has been making some strange edits to various Rugby related pages. I don't know if all (any?) of their edits are valid or not, since I know almost nothing about Rugby. Fei noh a  Talk 03:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All those edits are to articles around rugby league, rather than union - they have a similar page to this, WT:RL, if you want to raise it with them.--Bcp67 (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Name of the section which includes the citations
Should it be called "[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Anae&oldid=612634982 References]" or "[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Anae&oldid=612620565 Reference list]" or something else. all input is welcome at Talk:Albert Anae. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

New member and proposals
Hi all, I'm a new member of this project, although I have been editing rugby-related pages for some time now (including league). I'd like to improve some smaller teams' articles, namely Performance teams, seeing the bigger ones already have a good amount of users helping out. Is there anyone who would be willing to contribute? Also, I'd like to know if we should create an article for the Japan A rugby team as the Japan Rugby Football Union didn't award caps when touring or even playing in stages of international competitions, some of which were relevant to World Cup qualifiers, much in the way the Scottish Rugby Union did with Scotland A before. In the scrum.com database some nations' test matches list a Japan XV team. Thanks! Tibullus (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Rugby Union At Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Transfers on club articles
I've noticed that loads of English club articles feature "Transfers 2014-15" sections. This seems to be an example of recentism and shouldn't belong on these pages. It has been found that for articles on association football clubs such sections do not survive good article reviews, and I note that very few rugby union club articles have managed to achieve such a status. I did try removing from the Bath Rugby and Bristol Rugby articles, but my edits were swiftly undone. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. People have been trying to add such a section to the Scarlets article but I quickly undo them. WP:RECENT is the guideline to latch onto, so you're totally right to remove this info. If people want to add recentist info to rugby club articles, they should create season-by-season articles that are designed for just this purpose. – PeeJay 11:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still torn re this. Surely, having a "Current squad" section in an article is an example of WP:RECENT (i.e. why does the current squad warrant inclusion in the article and the squad from two years ago does not?) and should really be moved to a season-by-season article too? I think a "transfers in/out" section adds valuable information to the "Current squad" section and it makes sense to have those sections together. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing about the current squad is that it's not particularly transitive. Players continue in the current squad until they're transferred away or retire. Conversely, a section on the club's most recent transfers is extremely transitive. When does a player cease to be a recent transfer and actually become part of the squad? The fact that a player is a recent signing is only relevant for a very short amount of time, and any departures are pretty irrelevant once the player has left, whereas the current squad may endure (for the most part) for several years. – PeeJay 11:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment, but you're not exactly comparing like with like. The transfers section is equally as transitive as the squad section. A player will only get listed once in the "Transfers In" section when he joins and once in the "Transfers Out" section when he leaves. The issue is that some kind of cleanup must be done periodically. When do new players get added to the squad? When does an article for the new season get created and the "Current season" link pointed to the new season? Those are clean-up tasks that will always have to be done if there are references to "current" in an article. The transfers could be updated at the same time. Having said all that, it definitely make significantly more sense to have it on a season-by-season page. But it also makes sense to have it by the current squad. (I'm still torn!) TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that the transfers sections are useful and informative and should be kept. If we are going to get hung up on recentism then a lot of RU articles will be reduced to stubs as stuff gets pruned out - current squads / academies, management & coaching staff, league tables / current standings, etc. etc.
 * BTW, I would suggest that removing the transfer sections from the Bath Rugby and Bristol Rugby articles while this matter is being discussed here is not showing wp:good faith. Hamish59 (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I say, though, a list of the club's entire current squad/staff wouldn't be subject to much change and therefore not really affected by WP:RECENT. Current league tables should definitely not be included in a club article either, but rather in a season-specific article. – PeeJay 22:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PeeJay is 100% correct. They violate WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Quality articles never have them (from any sport). They should be removed, as should season tables. -- Shudde  talk 01:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, league tables do indeed violate WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The other problem with the transfers bit is that any players who join a club are listed twice in succession - once as part of the squad and once as a transfer in - which seems kind of clunky and perhaps tautological. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's just routine news when we've got a list of "transfers" (not a term very widely used in rugby btw) so a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. This is the same reason we removed the sections "Recent fixtures" and "Upcoming fixtures" that used to be all over many team articles years ago. It's mainly European team articles that still have transfers and league tables, and they should be removed. -- Shudde  talk 10:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I note that WP:RECENT is
 * Hamish59 (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right that WP:RECENT isn't policy. But it's a specific example of applying undue weight to certain aspects of a topic, and this is against policy. People probably shouldn't act like every word of that essay is gospel, but the premise of the piece is backed up by policy 100%. -- Shudde  talk 23:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In an attempt to widen this discussion beyond just 5 people, I have invited authors who have added to or removed from "transfer" sections of various Clus articles to join this discussion:User talk:NikeCage68‎, User talk:Scewmadden‎, User talk:LeinsterLad‎, User talk:MunsterFan2011, User talk:Pwimageglow‎, User talk:Rugby.change‎, User talk:Stemoc‎, User talk:Noq‎, User talk:MSR-Worcester‎. I note that the majoriy of these types of edits are being carried out by IPs. Hamish59 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel that having 'Transfers In/Out' sections does add useful information, however, the questions raised, such as how long that section should stay or where it should go, seem valid. Personally, articles would be worse off for missing information on who has moved to and from that club for a season, either the previous or forthcoming, though again, this raises the question of when these sections should be removed. I would like to see the 'Transfers' sections stay, as for someone interested in that information looking at the article, this can be a quick and simple way to find out. I don't know enough about Wikipedia policy to comment on what is and isn't allowed, but perhaps a solution is to place a time limit on how long these sections stay. For example, the 'Transfers' section for the forthcoming 2014-15 season should be removed by December 2014, or as soon as a transfer for the following season is confirmed. MunsterFan2011 (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Until we start having lists for all the top 4 competitions (Top14, Super Rugby, Aviva Premiership, Pro12) every year, people will continue adding and removing that info...It actually does add a bit of information to the related article as it allows the reader to find out which players won't be around next season and which will be joining the club..we are building the wiki for an average, we have to think from their perspective, we might feel it borders on 'recentism' but its actually quite a useful information to add (provided its cited). Being part of many rugby forums, I see users on those forums used the info provided on the wiki as well..there is currently a list for SupeRugby, there was one for Top 14 last season which people tried to get deleted because it bordered on recentism..Even when a transfer list is created, its not actually linked anywhere so only Rugbpedians are aware of it, we should try to get it added to individual club articles in the future....--Stemoc (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that should definitely be done if such a transfer article exists. Soooo, would those people that are pro having transfer in/out be against having a single article for all transfers pertaining to the competition/country (with a section for each club) and a link from the club page to the transfers article (as an example, see this article and the links at the top of the section). That way, the transfers are listed in a separate article that is season-specific and without any WP:RECENT issues? There would also be no removal of information required, the article link should just be updated once a season. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think either have them in season-by-season articles (for example 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season has transfer lists, but Norwich City F.C. does not) or in one list for each competition per season. But please be careful of original research -- many of those articles are just fan-compiled OR rather than encyclopaedic lists. -- Shudde  talk 12:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of those ideas would suit me down to the ground. Information that relates to a specific period of time, i.e. an individual season, should be in articles devoted to that period of time. Since club articles relate to that club's entire history, having information that relates only to a single off-season window doesn't really belong there. – PeeJay 12:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this idea is a good one. I think it satisfies both points of view.  This is a first cut.  Problem is, there are a lot of duplicate references.  For example, James Short from Saracens to London Irish.  I was thinking of meting this down into a table, so made a start here.  This might get very unwieldy, but clicking the sort buttons will very quickly show who has left or joined a given Club.  Hamish59 (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Policy can't be over-turned by a local consensus, and definitely not by one where like-minded editors have been canvassed to participate! Transfers can go in individual season articles, WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Like I said, this applies to all sports articles, not just rugby ones. Wikipedia-wide consensus is clear, Transfer lists do not belong in team articles. I haven't checked every single one, but of my random sample of FA quality sports team article, none have transfer lists: So if someone wants to start an Request for comment to try and overturn the consensus that transfer lists are not allowed in sport teams articles then great. But until then, we don't have them on rugby articles, just like every other sport on en-wiki. We don't need consensus to remove them, we need site-wide consensus to include them. -- Shudde  talk 12:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Liverpool F.C.
 * Crusaders (rugby union)
 * Arsenal F.C.
 * Seattle Sounders FC
 * New Jersey Devils
 * Calgary Flames
 * Gillingham F.C.
 * Carolina Panthers
 * Just to clear something up: where like-minded editors have been canvassed to participate! I went through all Top14 / D2 / Pro12 / Premiership / Championship Clubs article edit histories looking for editors who edited "Transfer" sections.  I was not looking for "like-minded editors" only interested editors, i.e. those who had made changes regardless of whether they were additions, deletions or corrections.  Please be clear on this.  Hamish59 (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone edits transfer sections there is going to be a higher chance (relative to other editors) that they support including such a section. So it's canvassing. -- Shudde  talk 21:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please contribute to this discussion instead of simply reverting me at Bristol Rugby. – PeeJay 21:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the big problem of putting transfer sections on rugby union club articles? These sections have been done for the last several years and all of the sudden, for this year, they are getting deleted because several users are making a big fuss about it, because of it been a problem. It was supposed to help any person, preferably, rugby union fans of which players from professional rugby union clubs are in/out for next season. I am generally confused and don't understand this. Just tell me what the problem is in simple terms. Hopefully, there can be some agreement to this. NikeCage68 10:41 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Read above. They've never been okay on team articles -- they have a place (see above) but not in the main team articles. Season-by-season articles are fine, and competition season articles are okay. The reason is they aren't particularly encyclopaedic (see WP:NOTNEWS) and add undue weight to recent events (which is a huge problem as is -- not made better by the transfer sections). No other sports have them (including association football -- where they have more formal and well-defined club-to-club transfer system). This is a site-wide thing and can't be changed by any discussion here at WP:RU. -- Shudde  talk 10:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple terms – article content should not be weighted any one aspect, in this case recent transfers. The club's article page is not the right place for it to be (an article dedicated to information regarding the 2013–14 or 2014–15 seasons, however, would be the perfect place to put this, with a link to that article on the club's page). I don't agree with the transfers being deleted either though, they should be moved and a link added in. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Spot on, TheMightyPeanut. I strongly disagree with people ripping these sections out and not bothering to create the appropriate "Transfer 2014-15" article.  It is not difficult, but has been made harder by having to delve back into edit histories.  But that is OK, I will do the scut work.  Hamish59 (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also we never used to have these sections, and they've been consistently removed from Super Rugby team articles. It's actually a more recent thing to have the enormous amount of squad, transfer, and individual statistics in such articles. We've seen a massive growth in this material, but the amount of prose has remained more-or-less static. Would be good to have some more prose, and less cruft in some of those club articles. -- Shudde  talk 10:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the transfer sections have good value on rugby pages. There is no other source which provides this collective information, I have heard from numerous people that they rely on these sections to keep up to date. The idea of adding separate season/transfer pages will not work, as rugby does not have the same fan base to keep all pages reliable. MSR-Worcester (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's clearly bullshit. If people are committed enough to update the info on the wrong pages, they sure as shit can be bothered to update it on the right pages. – PeeJay 13:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Images from the IRB site
Be advised, images from the IRB sites and any of its sub-sites are not free (cc-by) so please do not upload them. Its apparently "royalty-free" which is not a free licence so it cannot be used on wikipedia and also, I have also set up an IRC channel for our project at #wikipedia-rugby incase we need to discuss stuff online..--Stemoc (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: the IRC channel, isn't that what this page is for? – PeeJay 19:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

To be merged?
Hello, I suppose this and this should be merged, what do you think? -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 21:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was absolutely no content in the "William Ripia" article that wasn't in the second one. So no need for a merge as such, I just redirected the former to the latter. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. I prefer to report only these situation as I am not usually on en.wiki, thus I'd better let someone who edits usually here to decide what's better. -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 22:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for letting us know! TheMightyPeanut (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

RM New Zealand national rugby union team to All Blacks
See Talk:New Zealand national rugby union team -- PBS (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ronan O'Gara's birth place
I read everywhere that ROG is credited to have born in San Diego, California, but today looking at his own biography I read that he was actually born in Sacramento, California... (see here). -- <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#C00000">SERGIO  <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#000000">aka the Black Cat 18:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

New photos on Commons
Hello, have been recently uploaded on Commons several photos of people of Zebre Rugby: players Marco Bortolami, Kelly Haimona, Brendon Leonard, Quintin Geldenhuys and Hennie Daniller; head coach Andrea Cavinato and team chairman Pier Luigi Bernabò, former Italian international and father of Valerio Bernabò. -- <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#C00000">SERGIO  <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#000000">aka the Black Cat 13:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Gould at Today's featured article/requests
I've nominated Arthur Gould (rugby union) to be Today's featured article for 10 October at Today's featured article/requests. That day will be the 150th anniversary of his birth. Feel free to review the blurb and add any comments at Today's featured article/requests/Arthur Gould (rugby union). -- Shudde  talk 02:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to everyone involved in getting Arthur onto the front page today - great to see a rugby article there!! --Bcp67 (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Egerton Wasps
Does this meet your notability criteria, please? Ideally, please review the draft, accepting or declining it. Fiddle  Faddle  08:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Rugby union articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming and recent fixtures
I propose removing from the WP:RU Style Guide the section that says national team pages should not include sections on upcoming and recent fixtures. I don't think it reflects the consensus of this WikiProject. This section mentions that "consensus has been reached between the project members" that they should be removed, but I don't think such consensus exists. The section cites this discussion as evidence of consensus. The supposed "consensus" is a proposal from one editor that they be removed, a second proposal from a second editor regarding a different way of presenting the information, and then further discussion about the second proposal with no meaningful discussion of the original proposal regarding removal. Several national rugby union teams have these sections, and I find them informative. Additionally, these sections are in many national football team articles, further suggesting that these sections do not violate Wikipedia principles. Barryjjoyce (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry but this has been the case for a long time. We aren't a news site (WP:NOTNEWS) or guide for upcoming events. As well, there may be several national team articles that still include these lists, but those that have gone through the Featured article process (England, France, New Zealand and Wales) do not have them, nor did they during WP:FAC. In fact I'm not sure of any FA-quality sports team articles that include a list of recent and upcoming fixtures, although I haven't checked them all, so this may say something about the Wikipedia-wide view on such things. Also, this talkpage here is a bit quiet. I'm not sure how many people would even have noticed your post. If you want to bring this up and over-turn the current convention, I'd take it to WT:RU and you may find a few more editors active there. -- Shudde  talk 03:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am aware of at least three national rugby team articles that have sections on recent fixtures; this indicates a lack of consensus that these sections should be prohibited. And it's a rather weak argument to say that their absence from four national rugby team articles with FA status reflects a consensus that they must be prohibited for all national rugby team articles. Further, these sections do not violate any wider Wikipedia principles. There are at least two association football (soccer) national team articles (Croatia and El Salvador) that have Good Article status that contain these sections.
 * I don't understand what exactly about these sections trouble you. If you spell out what aspects of them bother you most, and what aspects if any you can live with, we may be able to come up with a sensible compromise together. Barryjjoyce (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll post a more detail reply when I have a bit more time. However WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not establish that there is somehow a consensus allowing these sections. Those that currently have them should have them removed. As for the FAC examples, it just establishes that the wide variety of editors who reviewed those articles were quite happy with their layout and content (at the time of the FAC) so we should take that to be a wider-community endorsement of their structure -- this compares to a more local consensus established on an article talkpage, or here, for example. As for those two association football articles you have listed, neither had those sections when they were promoted (for El Salvador), or the last time their GA status was reviewed for Croatia) -- just because an editor has snuck in these sections since their review doesn't mean that it would be accepted when re-reviewed or re-nominated. Still haven't found an FA or GA quality sports team article that had these sections at the time of their promotion. Will add something more detailed later. -- Shudde  talk 00:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I have misunderstood your points above, but it appears that you identify other articles to help prove your point, but when I do the same, you quickly duck behind OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your argument about what the FAC review process for four national team articles means for the wider set WP:RU articles is beyond puzzling, particularly since it seems that this issue was not discussed during the FAC review process for most of those articles; I don't see how any reasonable person can infer that a lack of discussion on a certain topic among a small group of editors binds the entire Wikiproject. The diff of the El Salvador GA article that you helpfully linked above seems to me to have had a section titled "Recent results and upcoming fixtures" at the time of GA review — can you take another look at that, because one of us is misreading that one. Returning to my original point at the top of this discussion, I don't see a consensus among rugby contributors supporting your viewpoint. In fact, I see from this edit history and the associated talk page comments that you recently lost this debate with two editors at the Canada national team article. Barryjjoyce (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points. I'm not saying because some random articles don't have the section that this means it should be omitted (OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I said that articles that have gone through a rigorous review process (FAC) don't have them. And I'm talking about all sport team FAs -- I just listed the rugby ones if anyone wants to check their specific FAC reviews. The recent discussion on the Canada team talkpage is hardly evidence that consensus has changed. Certainly doesn't displace a more centralised discussion -- there is no grandfather rule regarding consensus. As for the El Salvador example -- I made a mistake -- but that you've found only one GA (a process where there is only one reviewer btw -- hardly comparable to FAC) that has this section is pretty heartening to me. There must be hundreds of GA and FA team articles, and to only find one that has this section has to mean something. -- Shudde  talk 05:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Shudde — You had mentioned triumphantly in your second-to-last post: "Still haven't found an FA or GA quality sports team article that had these sections at the time of their promotion." So I went and found one. And now that the facts don't support your position, you change your argument and claim that it doesn't matter. Quite slippery indeed.
 * If you do put weight on the views of the "wider-community" and the "Wikipedia-wide view", as you suggest above, these results & fixtures sections have been discussed approvingly here on the WP:FOOTY talk page. Furthermore, a check of the national football articles of the top 10 ranked teams shows they all have these sections. These national team pages were widely viewed (and widely edited) during the recent 2014 FIFA World Cup, so if there were something horribly unencyclopedic and violative of Wiki principles about these sections, I think folks would have noticed by now. The WP:FOOTY talk page discussion plus the practice of the football team articles indicates there is a consensus that these sections are fine. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Such sections in other articles exist, some even with good article status, as pointed out above. There's nothing in Wiki guidelines that prohibits it. The biggest argument against allow ing this is WP:NOTSTATSBOOK - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and articles should not be an excessive listing of statistics. However, I don't think listing a few recent and upcoming games is indiscriminate. Surely it's very WP:DISCRIMINATE. And to tell the truth, I find it particularly useful. I don't see the WP:HARM. 16:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Recent fixtures and upcoming fixtures should not be included in rugby team articles
We've had a long-standing convention against including these sections. But the last discussion was in 2007 (here). I propose that we remove, from any articles that still include them, lists of recent and upcoming fixtures. Further discussion and arguments why can be found below. -- Shudde  talk 04:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support as per points raised below. --  Shudde  talk 04:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per most of the points raised below. Especially the fourth one "Including such sections would require constant updating" – why go to the trouble of adding something to an article when you know it will be removed in the near future (once it not deemed "recent" anymore, which is a vague enough timeframe as is)? Rather (as mentioned below), have a page such as those at Category:Lists of national rugby union team results and have a link from the rugby team article to that page. While I don't agree with the final point listed below, which is exactly a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (plus a bit waffley, if terms like "I'm not aware" and "imply" are used), but I agree with the remainder of the points. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. The bot sent me. Per points in discussion below. It's not encyclopedic. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Not encyclopedic. More like news or commentary.  Nelson50 T   19:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That last point is not meant to prove anything (hence my careful use of the word imply), or state that the FAC discussions explicitly forbade the inclusion of these sections (they did not, because the sections were not present, and did not come up in the discussion), however at no point during those four discussions was the fact these lists are absent raised as a point of objection. Don't know how anyone sees an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in any of that. To put it more simply: the absence of an upcoming/recent fixture section was never raised as a problem in any of the four FACS (five if we include Crusaders).-- Shudde  talk 07:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you're trying to imply that articles that reached GA status has no additional room for improvement, which is definitely not the case either. I just think the last point is detracting from very valid ones. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, where below did I mention GA? -- Shudde  talk 08:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles that went through FAC. 08:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * FA and GA are quite different and shouldn't be confused. And I'm implying that FA articles meet the criteria, which includes being "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". -- Shudde  talk 09:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet has room for improvement. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said that. You just inferred it. -- Shudde  talk 11:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I said that. An article - even an FA – has room for improvement. Just because a section isn't deemed necessary to add to the comprehensiveness of an article, doesn't mean that adding that section won't improve the article. To me, that is simply not a legitimate reason to call for the removal of a section. (By the way, why do you request comments and then when people disagree with you [with one of five points raised, a reasonably immaterial one at that], you tell them to "move on"?) TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You somehow inferred that "articles that reached GA [sic] status has no additional room for improvement". But I never implied that. I don't think including these sections will improve an article (why would I start this RfC if I thought otherwise?). I also said they're not necessary to comprehensiveness (not the same as improvement). So what are you saying, these sections improve an article? I initially replied to rebut your OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line and clarify what I meant in point five. Now you've gone off on a tangent and are saying I think FAs can't be improved?! So when I said move on, I meant from putting words in my mouth. I want people to express their opinion, not tell me what mine is. -- Shudde  talk 21:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "So what are you saying, these sections improve an article?" Who's putting words in whose mouth here? I never said that, thanks very much. You proposed that recent fixture sections to be removed. And as a reason, you're saying "it wasn't added into other articles during the featured article process, so it's unnecessary to have.". Is that a correct interpretation on my behalf? As Barryjjoyce pointed out, sections like these were found during the featured article process for other articles ... and deemed worthy of retaining in the article. They weren't specifically added in to other articles. Why not? Were their inclusion considered and then rejected for some reason? Or were they simply not considered at the time? I do not find an argument that sections "should be removed everywhere because they weren't added in somewhere" as a valid argument. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked a question, that's not putting words in your mouth. Barryjoyce never showed that articles had these sections at FAC, re-read what he wrote and check the links. -- Shudde  talk 07:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I still do not find an argument that sections "should be removed everywhere because they weren't added in somewhere" as a valid argument. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea how FAC works? You seem very confused about it. It's basically an external peer review, where everything is scrutinised, including comprehensiveness, by uninvolved editors. At no point has anyone objected to a sports team article being promoted to FA because it lacks this section -- so yes, they're saying it's not necessary. What do you expect, someone to say "Nice article, good thing it doesn't have a, b, or c otherwise I'd object to promotion"? But they are going to say, "it's missing this, why doesn't it have that, there is no discussion of X or Y". But you've lost me completely with some of your comments. You've clearly missed my point, but as you just completely misread Barry's comments, maybe it's not just me. That's probably why this conversation has all the hallmarks of a horse and stick situation. -- Shudde  talk 08:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It reached the horse and stick situation after my first reply when I said "I just think the last point is detracting from very valid ones." You're continuously making what is (in my opinion) an incorrect assumption; you're saying that, following an FA review "they're saying it's not necessary". I fully agree with that statement. Yet, then you derive from that "so it should be removed everywhere" (I assume, since you use this as a reason for supporting the removal of the section). As I said before, even articles that passed an FAC can be improved further, i.e. even though something wasn't deemed necessary at some stage to add to the comprehensiveness of an article, doesn't mean that it won't enhance the article nonetheless. You've clearly missed my point. Pot, kettle. Summary: ("not necessary" does not equal "should be removed"). TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't reach that point, you kept replying! It doesn't enhance the article, I wouldn't have started this RfC otherwise, I believe it damages it. I never implied nor said that adding information to FA-quality articles cannot improve them. Although in this case that is absolutely true. I'd bet money that taking an article with these sections to FAC would fail (unless they were removed before promotion), and have no evidence to suggest otherwise (such as articles that have included these sections being promoted). We have articles that include these sections littered throughout the encyclopaedia, but none of FA-quality that include them; is that a coincidence? It's possible, but very very unlikely. So if your point is that it is possible, then that's true, but it's possible that anything could pass FAC, doesn't mean it's likely to happen. Statements like "Were their inclusion considered and then rejected for some reason?" does make it hard to understand you, so does mixing up FA and GA, completely misreading comments etc. But we're not getting anywhere here, if you don't understand what I'm saying at this point, then it's unlikely to change. So time to lay this conversation to rest. -- Shudde  talk 09:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully understand what you're saying, thanks. The opposite is obviously not true, since you keep on harping on about points of the argument I've said a few times I fully agree with. I just don't agree with what I see as an invalid leap of logic. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And as for putting this to rest, sure. I supported your proposal to delete these sections after all. This conversation shouldn't've been started in the first place. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose — for the reasons stated in the other ongoing discussion on the WP:RU talk page. I'm not sure why a second parallel discussion was started on the topic, but in any case I don't think it's necessary to restate here the commentary from the other discussion. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Such sections in other articles exist, some even with good article status, as pointed out above. There's nothing in Wiki guidelines that prohibits it. The biggest argument against allowing this is WP:NOTSTATSBOOK - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and articles should not be an excessive listing of statistics.  However, I don't think listing a few recent and upcoming games is indiscriminate. Surely it's very WP:DISCRIMINATE. And to tell the truth, I find it particularly useful. I don't see the WP:HARM. Perhaps there is a case for not including if there is a sub-article that lists recent and upcoming fixtures - but for many (if not most) national teams - there is no such article. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I'll repeat a few of the points I've made before as to why I believe these sections should never be included in team articles. Hopefully I've established that these sections violate policy, particularly WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. -- Shudde  talk 04:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Including such sections, that change frequently, is simply routine coverage (as per WP:ROUTINE) and as such have no place within the main article of a team. They are not encyclopaedic. Coverage of recent matches also seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS.
 * As per WP:UNDUE, these sections place undue emphasis on recent results; why are recent results more notable than earlier ones? This simply reinforces an already serious problem with systematic bias that we have where more recent events are emphasised at the expense of historical ones -- this is natural because contributors born a century ago are not editing Wikipedia -- but why exacerbate it. A summary of this kind of problem on Wikipedia can be found at WP:RECENT. All-time records, and competition records do not suffer from this problem, and can be found in most articles.
 * Wikipedia is not a guide or directory for upcoming sporting events. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Team articles already have squad lists that link to the most recent, or upcoming, matches (e.g. 2014 end-of-year rugby union internationals), or for domestic teams, the infobox has a link to the most recent season. Guides for when and where a team is playing next is not the role of an encyclopaedia, teams have websites and TV guides for that.
 * Including such sections would require constant updating, which is already a challenge as is.
 * Not having these sections does not prevent linking to, creation of, or maintenance of lists of results such as those found at Category:Lists of national rugby union team results.
 * I'm not aware of any sports team articles that have gone through the Featured article process including such sections. This does imply that he wider community finds these sections to be at worst unencyclopaedic, and at best unnecessary for a comprehensive and neutral article (rugby team FA's are: England, France, New Zealand, Wales and Crusaders).

Tiers
I was going to update Rugby union in as some of the unions are in the wrong tiers but this applies across the board where we use these groupings. To update the template I was going to use the WR bands however High Performance as we currently have it listed has a massive gulf in standards. I considered using 6 nations and Rugby Championship and then the rest but that feels like a bit of a WP:OR split. Some research here further muddies the waters and claims the entire list is sort of made up and very fluid   So without an official list, here is a best guess at what the IRB regards the categorisation as.


 * 1) Should we continue to use the defunct tier system?
 * 2) If we use bands should we create a split at High Performance?
 * 3) Should be use no grouping at all? Gnevin (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion you could split it into nations that have won the WC, nations that have reached the knock-out stage and nations that have never made it past the group stage. Calistemon (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point in having the tiers; I would suggest removing it. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed and updated Gnevin (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Lancashire Cup
I've put a requested move up on Lancashire Cup Rugby Union if anyone would like to comment, support or oppose. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Rugby balls
Most of the references in Gilbert (sports equipment) need to be updated (possibly using https://archive.org/web/ ) -- PBS (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Rugby Articles for deletion
has listed a number of articles for deletion related to Canadian rugby.


 * Articles for deletion/Rugby Alberta
 * Articles for deletion/Rugby Manitoba

Also listed under Rugby Alberta are:
 * Calgary Rugby Union
 * Edmonton Rugby Union
 * Calgary Mavericks
 * Calgary Canadian Irish Athletic Club
 * Edmonton Gold

-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

He's also added an AfD for Ontario Rugby Union, although it didn't show up here because it wasn't part of the WikiProject for some reason. On top of that, he's bundled it with a Rugby League AfD: Articles for deletion/Ontario Rugby League Competition. Grande (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability: Governing bodies
As noted above at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union, one editor has proposed deleting many Canadian rugby articles. Several of these articles discuss regional governing bodies in Canada. The WP:RU Notability Guideline does not set forth any criteria regarding notability of governing bodies. If WP:RU members think a guideline on this would be helpful, feel free to proposed some suggested language. If nobody else volunteers, I may suggest some guidance. I already mentioned this idea to the editor in question, but he declined to initiate a conversation here. Barryjjoyce (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

See the following AfD's, each of which proposes deleting several articles, including one or more articles regarding governing bodies:
 * Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saskatchewan_Rugby_Union (proposed deletion of 5 articles)
 * Articles for deletion/Rugby Alberta (proposed deletion of 6 articles)
 * Articles for deletion/Velox Valhallians (proposed deletion of 8 articles)
 * Articles for deletion/Ontario Rugby League Competition (proposed deletion of 9 articles)

Pinging editors who have weighed in on these AfD's: McMatter ~ MacRùsgail ~ Margin1522 ~ talk nerdy to me ~ Grande ~ SkyGuy747

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

John Robinson (sportsman)
Robinson was an early England international with four matches in 1893 and in 1902; he also played first-class cricket at Cambridge University. I can flesh out his cricket career from the various cricket databases. Can anyone help on the rugby side? Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Chris Smylie
Would someone please check recent edits at the above. I'm inclined to revert it all, but someone who understands the topic would be better. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

National team infoboxes
What do folks think about adding the following parameters to national rugby union team infoboxes?
 * current ranking
 * highest ranking (year)
 * lowest ranking (year)

I think many readers would find these informative. If you want to visualize what these might look like, the national football team infoboxes include these. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently rankings suffer from WP:RECENTISM, is England's current 3rd ranking important? Not really Gnevin (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say a country's current ranking is more important than its highest and lowest rankings. We could update it every time the World Rugby rankings are updated. WP:RECENT doesn't really apply since it's not giving undue weight to recent events; the most recent info gets overwritten every time there's an update. – PeeJay 14:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've no strong opinions either way Gnevin (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Joe Maddock
I'm happy for him but are we sure that this is an encyclopedic issue? -- <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#C00000">SERGIO  <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#000000">aka the Black Cat 10:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

ARFU Asian Rugby Championship
Hello, I noticed that the new Asian championship's name is just ARFU Asian Rugby Championship. Would you consider make two separate articles, the first for the 1969-2004 tournament and the second for the current one? -- <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#C00000">SERGIO  <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#000000">aka the Black Cat 15:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * All of the articles, A5N included have been merged. They are technically the same tournament, just different names and formats. No need to have different articles for each "tournament". Rugby.change (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Excessive lists of stats
I was just looking at the 2015 Six Nations Championship article and it seems like the stats section is way too expansive. Why are we listing every single point scorer? Surely the top 10 is sufficient? What say you, WT:RU? – PeeJay 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Top ten is sufficient. This subject has been discussed by a few editors at Talk:2015 Six Nations Championship. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was one of them, but I didn't think the discussion there had ever reached a conclusion, so I brought it here. I doubt you'll be the only person to agree with me, but let's allow this to play out just in case. – PeeJay 02:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, I seen no problem with listing the all scorers. I fully understand why you would say for just top 10, but as editors we should be providing the facts. It's not up to us to say how little or not the detail of the facts are. By placing the statistics at the bottom, they are out of the way. Readers can simply scroll down and look at them should they wish. If readers only want to read 10, then they'll read the first 10. So basically if we give the full facts (Statistics), then readers can choose if they want to read the first 10, the last 10 or even just the top 1. Atleast the option is there for readers to see all of them. Rugby.change (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Too many stats for me, we don't have to provide all the stats - have a look at WP:NOTSTATS. The article is also up for discussion at WP:ITN/C, and although there are both favourable and unfavourable comments, there does seem to be a view that there are a lot of stats and tables and some more prose and reporting would be an improvement. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to do the work and provide all the scorers why not let them get on with it. Readers can choose how much they want to read. Jowaninpensans (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Murrayfield article
The article has been moved to BT Murrayfield without any discussion - I've put my thoughts on the Talk:BT Murrayfield page if anyone would like to add theirs. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Making a controversial move without discussion is reason enough to revert, at least for now, so that's what I've done. – PeeJay 19:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Merit Tables
I came across this draft article, but I can not evaluate it.  DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Justin Fitzpatrick
Hello, I noticed that the said article needs verification. If that may help, having I to write it from zero on it.wiki, have collected a lot of sources (here). -- <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#C00000">SERGIO  <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#000000">aka the Black Cat 18:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)