Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Templates

Template:National rugby union
Have wondered whether anyone would object to a modification of this template to bring it more in line with Template:Infobox company with regards to the fields like 'headquarters', 'Revenue, 'Operating income', 'Net income', 'AUM', 'Total assets', and 'Total equity'.?

National Unions are typically companies that do business, and I think that this would be valuable addition to the template.SauliH (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Highly irrelevant. Not needed Gnevin (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think SauliH has a point and that this is relevant, rugby is a professional and amateur sport. For national unions and clubs that are professional their financial details are important to their functions and even existence.  I would like to know how much money the Tanzanian Rugby Union operates on compared with South Africa or England.  I would also like to know the breakdown of where this money comes from too, match reciepts, memberships from clubs and individuals, sponsors, grants from governments and IRB etc, and where it is spent.  Unfortunately even American football, association football and baseball teams don't even do this.
 * RU is no longer the non-profit deal it was years ago (if it ever truly was), and while these details might be irrelevant to the sports enthusiast, to the business person, or to someone who realizes that corporate resources are a measure of strength/stability/etc they are valuable details. I think a summary in the infobox is a valuable addition for this reason. SauliH (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tier 1 and 2 should have their own templates definitely, not so sure about some of the smaller ones. Many Tier 3 nations probably operate out of someone's house! However, there is a serious issue with keeping the information updated. Someone is going to have to do the rounds annually, which is a lot of work.

It should be borne in mind that some fairly important rugby unions still have largely amateur structures. I would include the three major South Sea island nations (T, F & WS), Japan (allegedly), Canada, USA, Romania and Georgia in this category. Scotland too, is still largely amateur - two professional sides, but quite a few notable amateur sides. Italy is in the same boat, although there are quite a few more professional sides.

As for Tier 3 nations which have not qualified for the world cup, there are perhaps several fairly notable examples - Sri Lanka (by virtue of its age, and there are others in that category), Hong Kong (if only for its connection with the sevens tournament), Russia (as main inheritor of the Soviet structure, and for several other reasons), The Netherlands and Germany (both seem to be well funded AFAIK, and have a good domestic structure). Difficult to think of any others off hand. Madagascar has a large number of players but presumably runs on a shoestring.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MacRusgail, I am not sure how your comment connects with the discussion of adding financial fields to the template? Were you saying that not all countries need them, or their possible introduction should be limited to teir 1 and 2, or was it simply in response to the question above regarding Tanzania? Or were you arguing that not all country's unions should even use an infobox? SauliH (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)