Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 24

Sin Bin icon
General question on use of and yellow: 1'.

There needs to be better continuity in which of these should be used. The sin bin template means you put the duration of the card within the card, however there are many times a player doesn't actually return within that time frame. Editors therefore often just to 1-11 (11 being the time they should return) or do 1-13 (13 being the time they actually return). The latter isn't the purpose of the template. It also looks weird when you get a card in the 78th min and editors do 78-end or 78-80. I appreciate there has been some games where the game has gone on so long a YC returns whilst the game is in overtime, which means you may even see 78-80+8.

General question on my front - not over precious on it - do we just use the yel icon as a consistent? Do we need to specific in doing 1-11 when actually the card is the thing we are trying to denote? Broadcasters certainly don't show 1-11. Rugby.change (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * My immediate thought is to only have the time they left the pitch, because a ten-minute sin binning is a ten-minute sin binning. If they happened to come back at a different time than 10:00 minutes later, that is irrelevant. I don't think we can (or should) change the template since it is used by other sports, but on rugby articles we should only have the time a player got sent off. Primefac (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I seem to recall I said this at the time too. I think we should just use yel and get rid of sin bin altogether. – PeeJay 16:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * My thinking was more to use the yel completely in stead of sin bin. It wasn't a suggestion to bin it at the expense of other sports, purely discussing what is the better means to show the card. Completely agree with you Primefac on having just the time of card being issued - little point in the timings after especially when it's so dependant on the game and therefor editors aren't always consistent in how they show the player coming back on. Even more so confusing when you factor in sin bin of a player 1-11 but doesn't come back on until 13 and is a front row is shown to come on and off for that reasoning too. Rugby.change (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree that it's unnecessary to note the time of return. Nearly all deviations from the normal ten minutes are trivial, and even if a particular instance is not trivial, it can be appropriately noted in the article. Rugby union articles should otherwise use Yellow card. — AFC Vixen 🦊 14:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with only using yel, but how do we achieve consistency among editors? I recently noticed an editor using again and that's totally unnecessary and ugly, but some rugby editors won't change their habits unless there's a clear guideline that tells them to use yel instead. Ruggalicious (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a clear agreement here to use Yel for rugby union matches. In my opinion, we should accordingly update the documentation for Sin bin to notify editors to use Yel for rugby union matches instead. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just point them to this discussion. If they disagree, they can discuss it, but this feels like a consensus to me. – PeeJay 11:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a consensus actually just a stake discussion. Why eliminate what actually happens and why make things confusing to those who are not intimately acquainted with the rules here…this feels very much insiders talking to others about technical issues of rugby…this is fog creating to those who are not already in the know. 2607:FB91:1715:90CD:D901:5CFC:964D:1E9A (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Where exactly would you source the information for the player's return to the field after their yellow card? It is very rarely actually recorded in match reports, so you'd be relying on the match broadcast, which isn't always available after the fact and is the very definition of a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. – PeeJay 09:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion of the use of random letters and not including all the information when the template is being used
The relevant talk page discussion is on the main Rugby World Cup 2023 talk page 67.149.160.101 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Listing of international tries in player articles
Is there a consensus on listing international tries in player articles? I see a good article like Richie McCaw does not have such a list. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Another RfC on capitalization of all our articles
I thought this was a done deal back in this 2022 RFC but obviously not. A handful of editors did another rfc with no sports projects input at all. And it's being challenged because we just noticed it. This could affect almost every single tennis and Olympic article we have, and goodness know how many other sports. Some may have already been moved it you weren't watching the article. And not just the article titles will be affected but all the player bios that link to the articles. Sure the links would be piped to the right place if thousands of articles moved, but if the wording in a bio still said 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre backstroke that would likely need to be changed by hand. There is also talk of removing the ndash completely.

Perhaps this is what sports projects want and perhaps not. Either way I certainly don't want projects ill-informed as the last RfC was handled. Express your thoughts at the following rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

List of South Africa national rugby union players
Hi. Does anyone know what is wrong with List of South Africa national rugby union players? It's only displaying Cap No. 374 onwards, even though the data is there for previous players. Appears to be something to do with. Thanks! Jevansen (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Mmm, I see what you mean. Looks to me that players 1 to 373/374 need to have the spacer symbol in html removed after Player so html reads like this .I'm not sure how to do such a "global edit" but could fix it by doing each of the 373/374 lines individually....but it'd take me a while ! I expect there is someone who has the skills and experience to achieve result more efficiently. RossRSmith (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ross. I've made the change (pasted the list into Microsoft Word and did a find and replace). Jevansen (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh... yes and no. We should not have #if statements in the article space, so I have removed them entirely. While your change made it work, Jevansen, it's technically not correct (a case of "right answer but the wrong solution"). Primefac (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

IRFU Interprovincial Championship
Another problematic Irish rugby article, IRFU Interprovincial Championship. As well as tables for each actual instance of the championship from 1946 until it was discontinued in 2002, and it also posts tables of "unofficial" championships made up of Celtic League/Pro12/Pro14/URC matches between the provinces, which is obviously original research.

There are also articles on interprovincial rivalries: History of rugby union matches between Connacht and Ulster, Leinster and Ulster, Munster and Ulster, Munster and Connacht, Leinster and Connacht, Leinster and Munster, all sources to pages that are no longer on the IRFU website, but can be found via the Internet Archive. So basically you have tables for the Interprovincial Championship on one page, and the matches from those tournaments spread across six other pages.

So my suggestion - consolidate it all onto one article on the Interprovincial Championship. I've made a start - draft in progress in my sandbox. I've consolidated the tables and results, and I'm going through the British Newspaper Archive and the Irish News Archive to establish dates, home teams and scorers, but there's a long way to go, and on top of that a decent prose article on the history of the championship will need to be written.

Also, the current article says the championship began in 1946, but the newspaper articles I've been reading for the 1946 championship say Ulster were the last champions before the war, so it seems there was an Interprovincial Championship before that. It remains to be seen if sources can be found. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The all-time league tables look like original research to me as well. I can see from your sandbox draft you've made that a win-loss record section, which seems a better way of putting it. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

England Students?
There are a couple of links to the redlink England Students, and a number of other rugby player articles (most union, but I think some league) mention that they played for that team (without linking). So it seems like a modestly notable article subject. Do we have an article about England Students (by another name)? If not, should we? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like there is an article, and for me I don't think its notable enough for its one. Sourcing might be difficult too. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"History of rugby union in England" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_rugby_union_in_England&redirect=no History of rugby union in England] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Wanting to make lists of rugby union results more digestible/clean them up
Hi, just reposting a question I posted on the Teahouse recently here as I was directed here in a response:

''"Hello, I was wondering what the most acceptable way to redo some of the pages for lists of rugby union results - as the sheer volume of results, to me, is not easily digestible and difficult to read. Specifically, I had wanted to start with making the list of Wales results look something like the pages for England - with a 'hub' main page and several pages listing the results by decade. Eventually, the hope would be to have uniformity across the pages for the results of national rugby union teams. Understandably, my draft for a list of Wales rugby union results between 1881 and 1889 was rejected due to currently being redundant. I just wanted to know what is the best way to go about trying to achieve creating a hub page for Wales results with links to smaller, more digestible, pages like my draft, without getting rid of the current list page that otherwise makes my draft pages redundant. I wouldn't want to edit the current page to remove what would make my draft page redundant until my draft page was approved, as then there would be no way to access the results in question - if that makes any sense. Thanks for any help in advance!"'' WalesRugbyGuy (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're wanting to SPLIT the page, which only requires that it's clear that the content is being copied from one place to another. Really all that's needed is a consensus (or SILENCE) that a given page is too large and should be split into smaller pages to be easier to read. Make sure anything that's directly copied in a split gets attributed with split article. Primefac (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All for splitting the article, 747 matches is too much for one page but I'd suggest not splitting by decade. You can include more than the 19 matches from 1881 to 1889 in one article and still keep it digestible. I don't see the need for splitting the list by year though, especially for that time period where only two or three matches were played each year. I feel it would be more user-friendly as a single table. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest 1881–1914, 1919–1939, 1945–1966, 1966–1987 and 1987–present. Open to other suggestions. – PeeJay 11:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Those seem like rather arbitrary dates. I would rather see a consistent split, like 20/25/50 year chunks. Might be worth sandboxing the different split sizes to see which one(s) make the most sense. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Explanation given, makes sense, going back to lurking. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They're definitely not arbitrary. 1914 marks the start of World War I and the first major break in Wales' international record. They resumed in 1919 and continued until World War II started in 1939. The next grouping takes you up to the appointment of Wales' first full-time coach, then you go all the way up to the start of the Rugby World Cup era. Could break 1987–present down further. No need to stick to round numbers when there are natural breaks in other places. – PeeJay 12:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly split 1987–1995 and 1995–present to mark the split between amateur and professional eras? --Bcp67 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for the input. I'm more in agreement with @PeeJay's ideas of boundaries for which to split the results in to. I do think that one more split should be in there past 1987, due to the increase in volume of matches played per year. I'll have to give the exact numbers a look, because I'm not sure if @Bcp67's idea of 1987-1995 and 1995-Present trims that down enough? Having said that, I am unsure where another split could be that wouldn't just seem a little bit arbitrary. Perhaps instead of cutting off a section at 1987, we would instead do 1966-1992 to mark the change in the scoring system? Then another section from 1992-2020 as the pandemic marked a significant break in matches for a lot of teams (if uniformity is a goal, this makes sense to me), and it future-proofs having to find another arbitrary place to split for a while. Otherwise we would be looking at a section of 30+ years with a lot more matches played per year than in the current proposed largest section in terms of years covered. WalesRugbyGuy (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the huge increase in the number of matches in recent years, I would suggest another split for the Gatland era (2008-present). If we could work out exactly how many games would be included in each of those splits, that might help. – PeeJay 17:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My 87-95 / 95-date idea probably isn't ideal, as the first section would include a relatively small number of matches per year, followed by a second section with an enormous number. @PeeJay is your idea there an extension of that, so 87-95, then 95-2008, then 2008-present? Bcp67 (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that splitting at 2008 makes sense for Wales results. But as I have mentioned before, if we wanted to make the pages for results for other teams uniform then it wouldn't make sense for those teams. Granted, one of the proposed splits is at when Wales appointed their first head coach. Maybe we could do 1947-1971 or 1977 instead to mark the change in scoring in those years? There weren't any Wales matches in 1945 or 1946 unless I am mistaken. Splitting at times where the change in scoring would also make it so that any tables that show points scored etc. don't mix points scored under two different systems. So post-WW2 we would have sections of 1947-1971, 1971-1992, and from then either 1992-2008 if we split at Gatland, or 1992-2020 if we split at Covid. As I said before, I think the 1992-2020 split makes more sense if going for uniformity. WalesRugbyGuy (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Having done the counting between all possible places suggested to split:
 * From 1881-1914: 102 matches
 * From 1917-1939: 77 matches
 * From 1947-1966: 88 matches
 * From 1967-1971: 25 matches
 * From 1972-1977: 26 matches
 * From 1978-1987 (inc. RWC1987): 57 matches
 * From 1988-1992: 33 matches
 * From 1992-1995: 28 matches
 * From 1995-2007: 143 matches
 * From 2008-2020 (up to and inc. March 2020): 153 matches
 * From 2020-Present: 43 matches
 * Which kind of shows the jump in number of fixtures. I suppose splitting at Gatland makes a lot of sense, and for the sake of uniformity we could say the split is for the end of the 2007 RWC? Then the section 1988-2007 would contain 5 World Cup cycles, and we could do the same in the future? Eg. 1987-2007, 2008-2027, 2028-2047 etc. each containing 5 World Cup cycles - assuming that the 4 year cycle remains the same? So we could do 1881-1914 (102), 1917-1939 (77), 1947-1971 (113), 1972-1987 (83), 1987-2007 (203), 2007-2027 (197+). WalesRugbyGuy (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You do bring up a good point, though, regarding other teams. We should come up with a set of splits that makes sense for any/every team, so splitting semi-arbitrarily by head coach will make for uneven splits. The Wars, amateur/pro, and points changes are good split points, as is the COVID suggestion, we probably just need one somewhere in the 2000s so that the last split isn't huge. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we just have to split in sensible places for each team. If that means we split in different places for each of them to make for manageable articles (for readers and editors), so be it, IMO. – PeeJay 20:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, splitting after the end of the 2007 World Cup works for the purpose of uniformity and splits it up nicely in Wales' case. It just adds one extra game to the 2007-Present section, one being after the 2007 RWC and before Gatland took charge. WalesRugbyGuy (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would be weird to split off one game from 2007 for the sake of having the World Cup final as the cut-off point. It would be like omitting the Wales v Barbarians game scheduled for this November if we decided to start a new list after the 2023 final. – PeeJay 20:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I think splitting off after a World Cup final makes sense for all nations. Especially if lists were made for nations that didn't make certain World Cups. It just cleanly cuts for World Cup cycles. It would feel weirder to me to have the section 1987-2007 up until the end of the 2007 World Cup and then having the match against South Africa appended on the end than to have a post 1987 World Cup to 2007 World Cup section and then start anew with the South Africa match on until present. Furthermore, that match was coached by Nigel Davies in his only match as interim coach. It wouldn't disrupt anything, and starting in 2008 instead of including that one match feels more arbitrary in my opinion. WalesRugbyGuy (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it's only one match, I'm not going to quibble over it. Just wanted to propose an alternative that others may not have considered. – PeeJay 10:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Breaking it up by the different scoring systems sounds like a great idea. Outwith that however, I think we should be open to not being uniform. Some nations may have valid reasons for an earlier or later split. For example, Western Samoa/Samoa should be split in 1997 when the country changed its name. That split wouldn't make sense for any other country. On the other hand, it wouldn't make sense to split Italy at WWII as the number of matches played before it is small enough that it could easily be included with results post WWII up to the change in the scoring system. Don't get me wrong, you'll probably get uniformity for the home nations quite easily but that shouldn't force other countries to be the same if it doesn't make sense. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Article proposal
I am contemplating making a draft article on the "Farrell-O'Loughlin family tree" and it's impact on rugby, both league and union, but to start I'd need a family tree and I am having trouble with the code. I will post what I have so far and if anyone can give me s better alternative it would be most appreciated. Mn1548 (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keiron O'Loughlin
 * Andy Farrell and Colleen O’Loughlin
 * Owen Farrell
 * Phil Farrell
 * Sean O'Loughlin
 * Unnamed sibling and partner
 * Liam Farrell
 * Connor Farrell
 * Kevin O'Loughlin

I'd ideally need something the better displays multiple ancestors. Mn1548 (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Records and statistics of the Rugby World Cup to Remove Some Statistical Tables
For those interested, there is currently a discussion on the Records and statistics of the Rugby World Cup talk page on the removal of some statistical tables, more specifically the Head to Head tables. Your comments are welcome and, of course, the consensus of the community will be abided by. 79.154.65.115 (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just bumping this; we seem to be at an impasse. Primefac (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of Module:Sports table/Rugby
A consensus was made recently to replace a wikitext table for the 2022–23 Top 14 with one based on the widely-used and standardised Module:Sports table, though this issue was relitigated at Draft:2023 WXV. I thought it best to raise a wider discussion with the community here. Paging as previous discussion participants;  as frequent contributors to the tables on 2022–23 European Rugby Champions Cup and 2022–23 Premiership Rugby; and  as the creator of Module:Sports table/Rugby.

I believe Module:Sports table/Rugby to be better than proprietary wikitext to present tables for rugby union articles. A standardised template is easier for editors to learn, understand and update, and automated features help prevent mistakes. Readers familiar with sports tables in articles across many sports will also acclimate easier to a simple rugby variant of it. In comparison, many of the wikitext tables are difficult to understand from both a reader and editor perspective, due to information being presented and coded in a very inefficient and cumbersome manner. Some examples of this in include: • Qualification/relegation being unnecessarily explained at great length at the bottom of the table instead of simply indicating qualified and relegated teams in a "Qualification or relegation" column, as the sports table already does.

• Values being coded in unlabelled cells, e.g., instead of clearly marked cells that would make human error less likely, e.g., as the sports table already does.

• A team's match points difference and competition points needing manual input instead of automatic calculation using inputs for a team's wins, draws, and points for and against, as the sports table already does.

To further illustrate, here is how the current wikitext table for the 2022–23 Premiership Rugby season looks and works:

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed""
 * + class="nowrap" | Code
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
 * colspan="15" |
 * colspan="15" |

!style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"| !style="background-color:#efefef; width:160px;"|Club !style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"|Played !style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"|Won !style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"|Drawn !style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"|Lost !style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"|Points for !style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"|Points against !style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"|Points diff !style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"|Tries for !style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"|Tries against !style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"|Try bonus !style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"|Losing bonus !style="background-color:#efefef; width:20px;"|Points
 * - style="background-color: #d8ffeb;"
 * 1 || style="text-align:left;" | Saracens (CH) || 20 || 15 || 0 || 5 || 622 || 513 || +109 || 78 || 64 || 13 || 1 || 74
 * -style="background-color: #d8ffeb;"
 * 2 || style="text-align:left;" | Sale Sharks (RU) || 20 || 14 || 0 || 6 || 576 || 423 || +141 || 75 || 53 || 10 || 3 || 69
 * -style="background-color: #d8ffeb;"
 * 3 || style="text-align:left;" | Leicester Tigers (SF) || 20 || 11 || 1 || 8 || 560 || 490 || +70 || 73 || 66 || 9 || 4 || 59
 * -style="background-color: #d8ffeb;"
 * 4 || style="text-align:left;" | Northampton Saints (SF) || 20 || 11 || 0 || 9 || 620 || 611 || +9 || 84 || 86 || 11 || 3 || 58
 * -style="background-color: #ccccff;"
 * 5 || style="text-align:left;" | London Irish || 20 || 10 || 0 || 10 || 543 || 485 || +58 || 69 || 65 || 8 || 7 || 55
 * -style="background-color: #ccccff;"
 * 6 || style="text-align:left;" | Harlequins || 20 || 9 || 0 || 11 || 546 || 551 || –5 || 78 || 75 || 11 || 4 || 51
 * -style="background-color: #ccccff;"
 * 7 || style="text-align:left;" | Exeter Chiefs || 20 || 10 || 0 || 10 || 450 || 513 || –63 || 61 || 68 || 4 || 4 || 48
 * -style="background-color: #ccccff;"
 * 8 || style="text-align:left;" | Bath || 20 || 8 || 0 || 12 || 528 || 540 || –12 || 68 || 72 || 8 || 7 || 47
 * -style="background-color: #ffff9f;"
 * 9 || style="text-align:left;" | Bristol Bears || 20 || 8 || 1 || 11 || 515 || 536 || –21 || 72 || 65 || 9 || 4 || 47
 * -style="background-color: #ffff9f;"
 * 10 || style="text-align:left;" | Gloucester || 20 || 7 || 0 || 13 || 435 || 504 || –69 || 61 || 66 || 6 || 7 || 41
 * -style="background-color: #ffff9f;"
 * 11 || style="text-align:left;" | Newcastle Falcons || 20 || 6 || 0 || 14 || 399 || 616 || –217 || 52 || 91 || 4 || 3 || 31
 * -style="text-align:left;"
 * colspan="15" style="border:0px"|
 * -style="text-align:left;"
 * colspan="15" style="border:0px"| Note: Worcester Warriors and Wasps were suspended from the Premiership, after both clubs entered administration during the 2022–23 season. They were each automatically relegated, in accordance with RFU regulations, for the 2023–24 season, and their results were expunged from the league table.

Green background (rows 1 to 4) indicate teams that qualify for the play-offs, which also earn a berth in the 2023–24 European Rugby Champions Cup. Blue background (rows 5 to 8) indicates teams outside the play-off places, but which also earn a berth in the 2023–24 European Rugby Champions Cup based on their position in the table. Yellow background (rows 9 to 12) indicates teams that earn a berth in the 2023–24 European Rugby Challenge Cup.

(CH) Champions. (RU) Runners-up. (SF) Losing semi-finalists. (Q) Qualified for play-offs with home advantage. (q) Qualified for play-offs.

Starting table — source: Premiership Rugby Games cancelled due to COVID-19 will be recorded as 0–0 but a win and 4 points will be awarded if a club was able to field a team and a loss and 2 points awarded if they were not.
 * colspan="15"|
 * colspan="15"|

Tiebreakers for teams tied on points: 1) Number of matches won; 2) Difference between points for and against; 3) Total number of points for; 4) Aggregate number of points scored in matches between tied teams; 5) Number of matches won excluding the first match, then the second and so on until the tie is settled.
 * }
 * }

...and how it could look and work using Module:Sports table/Rugby instead:

I sincerely hope this necessary change to how rugby union tables are made and updated is more broadly accepted, so that these tables can be easier to read, and much easier for not just regular editors of rugby union articles, but all editors, to update. — AFC Vixen 🦊 09:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I find it unusual for there to be no response despite eleven editors being pinged, so I am pinging again in case the first ping somehow didn't work. Apologies in advance if the first ping did work and this is your second ping to this discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 04:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm all for this idea given the automation of the table - make little sense in doing it manually if there is an automation table available. I tend to cross reference with source websites first but the proposed idea achieves the same goal. Rugby.change (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the module has been designed for this use. Apologies for the late response AFC Vixen. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not a rugby expert by any means, but this certainly seems like it will make data entry/table creation a great deal simpler. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that automation can be helpful for some editors; I complete a wikitext-based table on a weekly basis myself and personally I don't mind using them as I use excel files to do the calculations and also always double-check with the primary source websites (the official competition websites). I also find the advantages marginal, because there are still quite a few calculations that you still have to make yourself (if you don't use excel) and I'd imagine there are still quite a few challenges to overcome for editors who are new to editing standings tables, even with this template. Nevertheless, I see merit in the template, but would like to ask/comment the following:


 * Is it correct that the Module:Sports table/Rugby template continues to allow separate "tries for" and "tries against" columns as well as separate "try bonus point" and "losing bonus point" columns? Not sure whether this is part of the proposal, but I'd be against extending the consensus that has apparently been reached regarding the Top 14 to other competitions, if those other competitions themselves explicitly use separate columns.


 * I'd also like some minor tweaks to the text in the template. I'd like to see "Rules for classification:" changed to "Competition points allocation:" as that better reflects what this is about. I'd also prefer the abbreviation for try bonus points to be "TB" instead of "TBP" and the abbreviation for losing bonus poins to be "LB" instead of "LBP", to keep it consistent with the use of abbreviations by the competitions that distinguish between both types of bonus points (for example, Premiership, The Rugby Championship and Super Rugby). I'd also like to ask to change the abbreviation for "played" from "Pld" to "P" or "PL", again for reasons of consistency with the abbreviations used by the competitions themselves on their official websites. Am I correct in assuming that "tie breaker rules" cannot be added at the bottom of the template and they have to be included/explained in the text about the competition format?


 * Finally, a problematic part of the Module:Sports table/Rugby template to me is the additional "Qualification" column. Although I can understand the reasons for it (simplification, especially for the casual visitor of these pages), it makes the tables quite wide. For competitions with two or more conferences, it may no longer be possible to present the separate conference tables next to each other. Visually, it is not very appealing either. Ruggalicious (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the qualification column, you can use Q instead. but, using only coloring to convey meaning is bad for WP:ACCESS. Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking re: tries for/against and bonus points, but I'll note that tries for/against can be removed using  and , and bonus columns can be merged using  ; otherwise all four columns are on and separate by default. "Rules for classification" is meant to describe tiebreakers, so are you proposing moving competition points notes from the article's prose — where it is typically written — into the table footnotes alongside tiebreaker notes? I've updated the sandbox to reflect your proposed names for the columns, and even changed "Pts" to "PTS" too; I'll let either or somebody similarly experienced with editing modules to verify that I didn't break anything. How it looks is illustrated below. Lastly, can you link to articles that currently use the setup you're describing re:competitions with two or more conferences, so I can better understand? Thank you.

— AFC Vixen 🦊 20:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, AFC Vixen. I meant exactly what I was asking: "Is it correct that the Module:Sports table/Rugby template continues to allow separate "tries for" and "tries against" columns as well as separate "try bonus point" and "losing bonus point" columns?". Your answer seems to be "yes". That's exactly what I hoped for and what it should be. The reason why I was asking is that you yourself link to a consensus reached with respect to the 2022–23 Top 14 season. Under "B" (Full Reasoning) it literally says "I am hoping that we can immediately, without discussion, remove the "tries for" and "tries against" columns, and merge the "try bonus" and "losing bonus" columns into a simple "bonus" column." That was the reason for my question, because I needed to besure that that consensus only related to the Top 14, and not to other competitions.
 * You say that "Rules for classification" is meant to describe tiebreakers, but the example given in the Module:Sports table/Rugby module documentation says "Rules for classification: 4 points for a win; 2 points for a draw; 1 bonus point for a loss by seven points or less; 1 bonus point for scoring four or more tries in a match". That's what was confusing me. Also, if it is meant to give the tiebreaker rules, maybe calling them "Tiebreaker rules" is clearer?
 * The first example of a competition with two conferences is the Bunnings NPC, which at the moment has two conference tables next to each other (at least on a wide screen). Another competition with two conferences is the Major League Rugby which currently has the two conference tables not next to each other, but one below the other. The NPC example is far from perfect, because it's not responsive (adapting to smaller devices) as it should be, but I like the idea of having them next to each other on screens that are wide enough. Ruggalicious (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I indicated above, there are competitions consisting of two or more conferences. The inclusion of teams in specific conferences may be geographically determined (Major League Rugby or the old format of Super Rugby), or based on seeding at the end of the previous season (New Zealand's National Provincial Championship). See the 2022 Bunnings NPC article for an explanation of the current NPC competition format. In these competitions, each conference has its own standings table, so the articles about these competitions include more than one standings table. I have made an attempt to apply the Module:Sports table/Rugby on the two standings tables of the 2022 Bunnings NPC season. I think I'm nearly there, but I'd be keen to get suggestions to solve a few small problems that I have encountered and other constructive comments. You can find them here: Ruggalicious' sandbox Thanks, Ruggalicious (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks really good btw. Agree with you about the source/status text. I'm used to the wee green messages, I get the same errors at 2022–23 Scottish Women's Premier League because of the midseason split so the individual tables don't add up but the combined table would. I tend to ignore them and just double check the source (I think that's why they are green and not red because it happens sometimes, red error messages are different). Agree with point 3 as well, it would be much easier when scrolling on mobile to have them above and below. I think it might need a solution where we combine the two tables into one template. I don't know how that would work though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue of verifying bonus points in the Top 14 table wasn't relevant here, so you'd probably understand my confusion. Thanks for clarifying. "Rules for classification" suffices to describe what it is, and I'd encourage editors not to deviate too much from the original Module:Sports table for the sake of consistency. Whoever wrote the documentation did not understand what  is meant for, so I've updated it to resemble Module:Sports table/WDL/doc more, with descriptive notes such as . As Stevie alluded to above, warning messages are just that: warnings. You can choose to ignore them. Multiple instances of these tables should be placed one below the other as it's more convenient for readers, especially on mobile devices, to scroll vertically instead of horizontally. Though, I do agree with you regarding source and status repetition. Upon inquiry,  a simple   parameter which hides the footnotes underneath a table if needed, which is exemplified below. How does this look?


 * — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Judging by your, I presume you are satisfied with the changes? — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi AFC Vixen, yes, I'm sorry for not replying sooner! I just discovered a few days ago, when I started drafting the article for the 2023 Bunnings NPC season (after that update to my sandbox), that they have again made changes to the format of the NPC. I needed to double-check it, but the result of the latest changes is ... one single competition table! The discussion we had (and the solutions found) will still be useful for other competitions with two or more conferences, such as the Major League Rugby, but for the NPC I can now use one table that will be very similar to the one shown on this page for the Premiership. Only a few minor modifications will be necessary, as you'll soon be able to see in my sandbox. By the way, as you said, the changes to the abbreviations (PL, TB, LP, PTS) in the names of the columns have been changed in the the Module:Sports table/Rugby/sandbox. I hope or someone else will be able to have a look at it soon and make them permanent in the module itself? Thanks for your help, Ruggalicious (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I don't think "PL" should be used for "Games played"; in my experience, it's almost always "P" or "Pld". Same for points; it shouldn't be all-caps "PTS", it should be "Pts". – PeeJay 13:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A number of official sources present the matches played column for classification as "PL", such as World Rugby, Six Nations Rugby, the EPCR, the Rugby Football Union and Major League Rugby, among others. — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should follow the examples set by the official standings tables. The Rugby Championship, Super Rugby and Bunnings NPC standings tables use "P" for "Games played". The Premiership and URC standings tables use "PL". I've never seen "Pld" being used. Personally, I prefer "P". Same reasoning for "points". The Rugby Championship, Super Rugby, NPC, Premiership and URC all use "PTS". Ruggalicious (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've updated and, and will be spending the next day or two going through Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Sports table/Rugby to update try bonus and losing bonus parameters in all uses of the module. — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , something is broken in the last example above - note that all of the discussion sections below this are part of the table! I cannot figure out why this is happening, but it would appear that the first #invoke:sports table (ostensiby because of the  code) is causing the issue. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I have converted them to cot/cob pairs to avoid the issue, which seems to stem from making an #invoke inside of a table. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the inconveniences caused. I'll be sure to use Cot and Cob in the future, now that I'm aware of their existence! — AFC Vixen 🦊 14:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been settled now, with the consensus to use Module:Sports table/Rugby? But yet, we still have editors reverting back to the old style which (a) doesn't check to make sure there are an even number of draws, matching numbers of wins/losses, (b) doesn't automatically caculating point differences, and competition points, and (c) uses color to convey information which is bad for WP:ACCESSIBILITY. can we agree to use Module:Sports table/Rugby? Frietjes (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we can all agree to use something here, but it doesn't stop anyone doing their own thing with tables. Bcp67 (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Rugby World Cup final is ITN candidate
I've nominated 2023 Rugby World Cup final to be featured on the main page in the ITN (In the news) section. For that to happen, somebody with interest and subject knowledge (the latter rules me out) would need to add to the prose describing the match. Without that effort, it won't feature on the main page.  Schwede 66  02:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup proposed move
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Rugby_World_Cup as to if it and any post 2023-World Cup articles, should be moved to Men's Rugby World Cup.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 07:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Alissa Ranuccini
Hello, I created this article about an Italian international player. Since I am not a native speaker, can someone check whether it's all ok? --  Blackcat  Ar Icon Contact.svg 18:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Went over article and changed some prepositions and word order to help with flow. Didn't make any decisions over content and didn't check references but all looks good. Sticky Wiky (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Emma Sing
I have been working on Draft:Emma Sing after the original author seemed to abandon the draft. It has been declined for WikiProject Rugby union/Notability even though it appears there are numerous similar articles that wouldn't meet the criteria. Any advice? LouisOrr27 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Those numerous similar articles that wouldn't meet the criteria should be improved or deleted, then. Being called up for the England squad gives an indication that she should be able to meet GNG, so I'd say keep working on improving the draft. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Pacific Nations Cup
Hey everyone,

Is it possible for the WikiProject Rugby union to take a decision about the 2023 World Rugby Pacific Nations Cup who don't take place this year ? There is no mention about this competition on the World Rugby website, the matchs are called "Men's Internationals 2023".

There was some questionning but only one people, apart me, gave a response at @Ruggalicious : there. The problem is, on the FR WP rugby union project some users continue to create the article who was deleted after a community decision, we statuate that the competition don't take place, but these users justify "Creation of the english article".

So can you just take a decision about that please ? The article can be recalled "2023 Pacific Nations Series" for example or you can include these test matches in the list of 2023 Rugby World Cup warm-up matches.

Sorry if I made some mistakes, English is not my native language, have a nice day ! Arn6338 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Highlanders (rugby union)
Highlanders (rugby union) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rugby
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rugby that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Fifita family
Hello - I have a query re: the Fifita family that I would welcome input on.

Category:Fifita professional wrestling family is about a family from Tonga that emigrated to the United States. However, one of the in-laws, Steve Fifita, is an Australian rugby union player.

Category:Fifita family is about a family of Australian rugby union players of Tongan descent.

My query is, are these two separate families that just happen to share a surname, or are they branches of the same family?

Any input welcome. McPhail (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Craig Joubert
Could someone else look over the Craig Joubert article. There are some Australian ips doing some revisionist history to the 2015 quarter final. Aircorn (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call that revisionist history, but then again I do think Joubert (intentionally or not) screwed over Scotland in that match. Either way, the changes are non-neutral and disruptive so I have protected it for a bit. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the protection. Definitely not intentional (mistakes happen), but the match and unfortunately for Joubert his career is known for how that game ended. To twist the narrative to say that awarding Australia a scrum instead of a penalty mid way through the second half that later led to a Scotland try is the more important call is mad. If someone can clean that up as I must be close to 3RR it would be great (I see it is mentioned in the lead too now). Cheers Aircorn (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Imagine finding a page where a ref made 2 mistakes that led to points for either side, editing out only one of them and accusing others of bias and revisionist history.
 * At the very least, the shocked pikachu face that you no doubt made when you discovered that not everybody in the world subscribes to the sob story you like to push will live rent free in your mind for many years. 210.84.14.181 (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sports table
In the last discussion I could find we agreed to use sports table for automatic formatting, consistency checking of rugby sports tables. Has anything changed since this discussion? I ask because User:Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel is continuing to revert tables back to the old format. I can understand if it is easier to update tables that are currently in progress, but seems strange to do this for tables that are no longer changing. these wholesale reverts are also re-introducing errors that need to be subsequently corrected like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_1_Midlands&diff=prev&oldid=1208942092 missing scores], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_1_Midlands&diff=prev&oldid=1208941879 typos and links to the wrong external results], ... if there is no longer consensus to update these tables to use Module:Sports table, please let me know. Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Frietjes, as I mentioned in a reply to an earlier message, it's all very well to say that something has been agreed to, but people will still carrying on doing their own thing. I personally like the sports table format, it's much easier to use, you don't have to keep changing rows for league position changes, and has the automatic checking, but I think you are fighting a losing battle there. Bcp67 (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not see where the actual agreement to exclusively move on with the module was actually made. I see only arguments for and against using it. That being said, the whole argument was brought up by a user who chose personal beef with me and has not been active since August. I say where the module has already been used, such as the Super Rugby competitions, it might as well stay, but with Six Nations, the Top 14, the URC, every English league where it just makes it uglier, no. Mikey&#39;Da&#39;Man, Archangel (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate you characterising me as "a user who chose personal beef with me" when the opposite is true. You started this with what an administrator described as "clear stonewalling" to prevent Module:Sports table from being used on the Top 14 pages.[1] An RfC was unanimous in upholding the change, but despite you claiming initially to accept this resolution to the dispute,[2] you later reverted it again.undefined You have since openly wrote about your hatred of me and your perverse thoughts about my motives,undefined called my contributions "gibberish",undefined "rubbish",undefined and "wasting time and energy",undefined called me "lazy" twice,undefined bullied me for a copying error,undefined and even (poorly) attempted to gaslight me by rewriting a reply, editing the page, and pretending an issue I had didn't exist.undefined You have also said many things coloured in battleground and ownership behaviour, such as "This is not broken, therefore it does NOT need fixing. Therefore it will NOT be fixed",undefined "I do not need you deliberately saying everything is garbage because it isn't",undefined "Stop wasting my time. We're doing it the same way [...] and that is final",undefined and "don't touch the stuff I touch."undefined
 * These pages and templates simply do not belong to you, Mikey. If you honestly thought you could continue to disparage me here many months after we last interacted, thinking that I somehow wouldn't be here to see that, then that's only further proof on top of what I've presented here of how little respect you seem to have for the dissenting opinions of others. — AFC Vixen 🦊 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The disruptive actions of a single editor shouldn't be construed as a "losing battle", or a change in the RfC consensus and the productive dialogue in the aforementioned discussion. Just revert their edits, and if they continue to engage in edit warring, there's always WP:ANI. — AFC Vixen 🦊 14:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for the support, but I have already tried Just revert their edits and it doesn't work if I am the only one doing the reverting and it doesn't address the root cause of the problem (just creates more work and edit warring). is the next step an (1) another poll here, (2) RFC to get more input, (3) ANI to get more administrators involved, or ... Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind 3, 2, and 1 in that order. There's no harm in gathering more opinions, further improving Module:Sports table, and trying to reach an even stronger consensus on its wider use. However, there'll be no point if an editor is allowed to continue using disruptive editing to prevent its usage. — AFC Vixen 🦊 08:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tagging me Frietjes. I agree with AFC Vixen, if one editor is going against consensus at RfC and engaging in disruptive editing then reporting at ANI is the way to go. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree with AFC Vixen (and Frietjes and Stevie fae Scotland). By the way, I have now used this rugby sports table template for a few competitions and it's so much easier to use than the old tables. I really don't understand why someone would be reluctant to accept this template. After all, albeit to be used sparingly, there is some scope for minor variations within the template to make it suitable for different types of competitions and tournaments. Ruggalicious (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

International caps
This might be a daft question, but would it make sense to have a template/module that stores the international cap/points information for the players on those teams? I feel like the international teams are more likely to have a good record of who played for them (at least moreso than the club teams) and would make updating the information in infoboxes etc a lot easier because it will all be in a central location (as opposed to for example updating the caps for each player on each team after a Six Nations weekend). I'm not necessarily wanting to talk about exact implementation or coding at the moment, just wondering if this is something that folks would find useful. Primefac (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Good idea I think, the issue is getting the accurate data. With ESPNScrum no longer reliable, there isn’t really a great pool to pull this data all from. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Bah... that's a good point. I was thinking of the teams' websites directly, but the second place I checked doesn't seem to have historical records (even for someone like Stuart Hogg who only just left). Primefac (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s very hit and miss. The WRU have a decent archive, but only display match details for players who have played within the last year. Itsrugby probably is the closest, but it has some accuracy errors. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Duhan van der Merwe
Some recent edits at the above are junk and I semi-protected the article for a week to reduce the excitement. However I'm not sure how much should be reverted and I'm hoping someone here can fix. Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, he most certainly doesn't weigh 100 tons :-p Primefac (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wales WRU board
After looking at the article Wales Rugby Union, I felt it needed some updating in comparison to other articles. Not every rugby nation has a specific executive article, in fact, upon inspection, only Wales, New Zealand Rugby, and Rugby Australia have articles specific for management and executive personnel, and Wales seems to be the only nation with a President list, albeit unsourced. I wanted to look into improving Wales' WRU article with relevance to updating the content and rewriting the article to bring it to a higher standard. Any suggestions or ideas on how or if this should be done? Cltjames (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)