Talk:2015 Rugby World Cup/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removing unsourced countries

In the AfD, I said the article should be kept, as long as the pure speculation's removed. The only countries with concrete info I've been able to find are Japan and Scotland. Any rugby fans out there who know anything about the other countries? If we can't find anything, those countries should be deleted. We don't need anything definite. Hell, I'd be happy with a quote from a notable rugby commentator, saying who they think the likely candidates would be. At least then, we could say, "Commentator Bob suggested on his TV show that Argentina and South Africa are both contenders for 2015". That's still a lot better than what we've got now. Quack 688 11:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the countries should be divided into those whose governing bodies have explicitly expressed an interest and countries who are merely the subject of speculation, with sources for both. --Number 77 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Scotland's population

"Scotland, a nation of little over five million, is seen as lacking the venues or infrastructure to host a tournament of this size." - I don't think the population is the issue. Wales and NZ have lower populations but have hosted successfully (NZ with Aus, and soon on its own) - this is due to the popularity of the game there.

However, if football grounds could be converted, then yes, there would be the venues. I'm not sure what "infrastructure" means here, but it's a bit of a weasel word. --MacRusgail 02:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

India - Sri Lanka

Since when has rugby been the 2nd most popular sport in Sri Lanka.

I suspect the Sri Lanka proposal is mistaken. Are there any cites for the claim? The Nigeria-Zimbabwe idea seems like a joke as well. Wikipedia says "be bold" so I'm going to delete them, if I'm mistaken someone woth a cite can put them back.--172.203.26.20 23:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually rugby union in Sri Lanka is very successful. It's just that they have little or no success at international level.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Qualified Teams

England are the only host nation like it was in wales 1999 and france 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.208.3 (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

South Africa's Bid

Just a quick grammar thing. The South Africa Bid section is still all written in the present tense, including the bit about how it is still building stadiums for the 2010 Football world cup which now took place last year.86.178.73.200 (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

The Millennium stadium is not in Somerset

—195.27.12.230 (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 Declined — Cannot reproduce the problem, coordinates appear to be correct and clicking on them, then using Wikimapia or Acme maps points directly to the stadium in Cardiff. Please be more specific and restore the geodata-check tag. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Pool stage

What was the reason for the current order of qualifying countries in the pool section tables? It seems to me that alphabetical order should be applied, and not the previous editor's personal preferences as to who will actually move on to the next stage, as it currently appears. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that the person who has created the tables has done them in the order shown on the RWC Website, I have put them in alphabetical order as they should be. Ciaran106 (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for that. There's often a lot of bias regarding pool positions and such. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the order used on the RWC site not based on seeding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.148.215.156 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the order used on the website, and originally on here was based on the order teams were drawn - e.g. Pool A: Australia were the Tier 1 team drawn to the pool, England the Tier 2 team, Wales (by virtue of their poor form in 2012) the Tier 3 team, and so on... HitmanStanners (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Team jerseys

Would it be worth having a section, or a separate article connected to this one showing all the jerseys. Could even include it on the 2015 Rugby World Cup squads article. Either we have it in the way jerseys are shown on the Wikipedia, or use the press release images when the jerseys are announced. Rugby.change (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. There's no particular notability to jersey designs beyond marketing value, and we're not here to do Nike/Under Armour/Adidas' job for them. The jerseys will be displayed for each match on the pool stage and knockout stage articles, so there's no particularly pressing need to include them anywhere else. – PeeJay 19:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. That basically sums up how much of a bad idea I had :D Rugby.change (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't put it that way... – PeeJay 10:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My rephrasing of "England chosen to host the competition in July 2009"

Hi PeeJay2K3, the reason for my rephrasing of "England was chosen to host the competition in July 2009" was for this statement not to be mistaken in that the competition was supposed to take place in July 2009, but mearly the date on which England was chosen to do so. If this clarifies it, please revert back your change. Regards, Aliwal2012 (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone would read the sentence and assume that the 2015 Rugby World Cup was originally scheduled to be played in 2009. – PeeJay 14:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Media coverage

I have a problem with the media coverage table. It is very weird having participating nations and non-participating nations. Let's bring them together shall we? Wonderwizard (talk) 12:00, September 17 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better as a list of countries and which station is covering them. (It took me quite a while to find Germany!) TINYMARK 18:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for References to be sorted out

Please can some one sort out the references - I don't know how M00036 (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Change of Title

The title for the article is as currently stands is "2015 Rugby World Cup" and I would like the title of the article along with all past world cups to be changed to "2015 IRB Rugby World Cup"'. (46.65.20.77 (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC))

So what about the next one, do you want it to be called the 2019 World Rugby Rugby World Cup? Boothy m (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be known as the 2019 WR Rugby World Cup but joking aside we do need to change this. (46.65.20.77 (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC))

Not really IMO, Rugby World Cup counts as a common name surely?... Even World rugby never really called it the IRB RWC, as I recall... HitmanStanners (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to log this via the process at WP:RM. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

point assignment in the Pool Stage

This information seems to be missing. I cannot figure out how come England and Ireland get five points and other teams only get four and the losers get one or two points! TINYMARK 17:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Why has S. Africa got two bonus points in a match they lost by two points. According to the article text, a team scores one bonus point if it loses by seven or fewer points, not two bonus points. Jodosma (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A bonus point is also awarded to a team scoring four or more tries, so South Africa gained one of those as well as the one for a narrow loss. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

TINY and Jodosma: If you both made that question, please don't touch anything in the article!!! You only need basic knowledge of rugby for know the answer. Thanks--186.137.208.9 (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If I find any grammatical or spelling errors I will correct them. You don't need to know anything about rugby to do that. For your information the bonus points system is not used in the Six Nations, neither is it used in rugby sevens. Jodosma (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps clarify where bonus points come from - It might not be immediately obvious why (for example) South Africa have 3 BP from 2 games [from above, at least 2 people are confused as to which games BP come from] - footnotes maybe? 90.202.194.48 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Already explained in the article: Teams are awarded four points for a win, two points for a draw and none for a defeat. A team scoring four or more tries in one match scores a bonus point, as will a team that loses by seven points or fewer.[33] Hamish59 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Champion Namibia?

Anyone Googling RWC 2015 will see Namibia coming up as Champion on the right. Please correct, New Zealand are the defending Champion, there is no winner of the 2015 event yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.9.199 (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not responsible for Google's incompetence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Corrected now, not a google issue, wiki error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.128.7 (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a diff for the edit that fixed it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Table Background coloring

Please include a colour code on the tables for teams that cannot qualify to the QF but might still finish in the top 3. For example, Canada will fit this scenario. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This was done yesterday, but seems to have been taken out now. There were background colours, which is easier to understand, instead of the green and blue underlining, which is not clear. Mr splosh (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This still appears to have problems - now there are background colours, but no explanation of them. Worse, France have a green colour, which I believe mean they have guaranteed advancement to the quarter finals, which they haven't yet done. (In particular, they can tie with both Italy and Ireland on 14 points and be eliminated by points differential). 160.39.58.99 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, France beat Italy so they would qualify ahead of them if they both tied Boothy m (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, in a 3-way-tie, the head-to-head between France and Italy wouldn't count!--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 16:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The key explaining the background colors has now reappeared, and France are now yellow meaning they are assued only a top-three pool finish and qualification to RWC2019. I cannot see any discussion or talk on why some people add the colors and others revert them back. What and where are the guiding principles on this? Mr splosh (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I know that on football (ie soccer) pages, the standard is that if, say, the top two advance, then the backgrounds of the top two positions are green right from the start of the tournament, whether those teams have actually guaranteed qualification or not. This is obviously awful - you need to be able to see whether a team has guaranteed qualification or whether they are just currently in the position they need to ultimately be in to qualify. A lot of people don't like it, but it's a standard set somewhere by someone that other people enforce. I think the best way is how it currently is on this page (and the way it used to be on football pages): coloured lines show the qualification thresholds (eq top 2 qualify for the quarterfinals, top 3 qualify for 2019) and coloured backgrounds show that a team has guaranteed that they will finish above each threshold. That's the clearest way to give all the needed information. I have no idea if rugby also has some much sillier and less-informative standard that someone will insist on enforcing, though.Jeremy1986 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jeremy, that is a very good explanation and I hope that is what people will stick to on this page. However, it seems that as soon as someone colors in the background, even if correctly done, someone else removes it. If that happens, maybe we can point them to this discussion page. Mr splosh (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are England and Uruguay both able to get 3rd place in pool A according to the colours. Urugray cannot get 6 points from their only remaining match against England.109.153.142.132 (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Uruguay has 2 remaining matches.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 21:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

DOH! 109.153.142.132 (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, shouldn't Scotland also be yellow as of now, along with South Africa? I realise that the US have two matches left but one is against Japan, so I don't think both the US and Japan can overtake Scotland. Anguswalker (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: no, I take it back! If Samoa beats Scotland by such a huge margin that its points difference is worse than Japan's after having been beaten narrowly by the US (i.e. by a margin of around 54 points), then Scotland could end up fourth. Anguswalker (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

But USA can't make to 1/4. It should be on blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.33.11.153 (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

USA mathematicaly can make it to the 1/4, so they are not blue!--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 14:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

All the pool matches are completed, but the colour coding has been removed, it should be put back asap. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Photos

Can we please have some photos added to the article to enhance the page. (46.65.245.53 (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC))

Certainly. Go ahead. Hamish59 (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I would love to put some photos up but sadly I haven't been to any of the matches so I would like to ask anyone out there if they have some they are willing to upload to please do so as it looks sad that the tournament is been going for three weeks so far and not a single picture has been uploaded. (46.65.245.53 (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC))

Have you looked in Commons? Hamish59 (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I did check Commons yes but there wasn't a single photo to be had. (46.65.245.53 (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC))

none? Hamish59 (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please send me a relevant link (46.65.245.53 (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC))

Click on the link above - where it says "none?". Hamish59 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

New Logo for Uploading

I have found a much better logo on the following webpage which would look better on the main article page. The current logo doesn't name the host nation where this one does and I believe makes it much more relevant. http://roseandcrownascot.co.uk/sports-events-at-the-rose-and-crown/ (46.65.245.53 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC))

If you can find a source for which World Rugby uses that image, then go ahead. But the current logo is what is used at rugbyworldcup.com. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 00:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)