Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 24

Article Sizes for End-of-Year and Mid-Year rugby union internationals

As a casual rugby fan and reader, I've been looking in the last week or so at some of the pages on the end of year and mid-year internationals. When I've done so on my mobile, however, I've found them almost unreadable due to their size; I've given up and looked at something else. Today, using my desktop, I can see that many of these articles are well over 150,000 bytes in size. For example since the 2015 World Cup:

• 2016 June rugby union tests - 143,212 bytes
• 2016 end-of-year rugby union internationals - 236,534 bytes
• 2017 June rugby union tests - 160,195 bytes
• 2017 end-of-year rugby union internationals - 168,542 bytes
• 2018 June rugby union tests - 115,645 bytes
• 2018 end-of-year rugby union internationals - 170,645 bytes

As you can see, this mainly affects the end-of-year internationals, but the June matches are not immune from it either. By way of comparison, Special:LongPages shows that the biggest of these articles, the 2016 entry,is the 1283 biggest article on Wikipedia, out of 5,758,490 - that puts it in the top 0.025% of articles, sitting next in the list to the Economy of the United States; one could argue that these are differently important topics(!).

To be fair, looking at that list it's not uncommon for sport season articles to be lengthy (for example 2010 ATP World Tour is below the 2016 Autumun internationals in the list) but still I think it's worth considering if rugby articles really need to be in the top quarter of a tenth of a percent of articles in size; and if they do, how they could be more manageable.

I'm not a regular editor of these pages so I think it's up to the regular users to consider if they want to change practice or not. I'd make a couple of observations:

1. An easy help would be to have more top-level section breaks. That 2010 ATP World Tour article has 12 top level sections; the Economy of the United States has 27; the 2016 end-of-year internationals has 5. The most recent 2018 end of year article has just 3! The section breaks make it much easier to load a page, even if this is just converting the week-by-week sections into top-level sections.

2. The obvious cause of the size is the inclusion of full teams in matches. I did test edit removing teams from the 2010 end of year page and it reduced from 173,027 bytes to 56,366 bytes. I don't think that's desirable but one option to cut size would be to remove team details from matches not involving at least one tier 1 nation. I'm sceptical if team details are really needed for (for example) Dragons 'A' v Hong Kong, as is provided in the 2018 article.

Either or both of these steps would probably solve the issue without really damaging what the pages are trying to do! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think only matches involving Tier 1 or 2 nations should be included, with the possible exception of matches featuring teams like the Barbarians or French Barbarians. Hong Kong against Dragons A or Crawshays, and Romania A against Kenya has no place in a list like this. Even Uruguay's matches against Cardiff Blues and Ulster shouldn't be on there in my book. – PeeJay 14:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that any matches involving club teams should be removed. This is not the place to record exhibition matches for Pro14 clubs. CUA 27 (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Well as a sort of test, I've edited the 2018 Autumn Internationals, to list matches between Tier 2 sides without team sheets, and matches between Tier 1 sides with them. I've removed all matches that don't at least involve 2 Tier 2 sides, with the exceptions of Barbarians/World XV teams. The result was to cut around 60k from the page which I think makes it more accessible. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a great start. I would probably remove Romania "A" vs Kenya and Chile v Maori All Blacks too, since Romania "A" isn't a senior side and Chile is only a Tier 3 nation. I'd also lean towards getting rid of USA v Maori All Blacks, but that one's a coin flip for me, since the USA is a Tier 2 nation and the Maori All Blacks are a pretty prestigious side. Not quite the Baa-Baas, but almost there. – PeeJay 14:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the issue with Tier 3 teams, just because they aren't a regular test nation during November and June doesn't mean they shouldn't be covered. Perhaps then, if there is a lot of matches with little links to players, usually Tier 3 nations, then we leave the team details out and simply list the score, point scorers and a report link where people can see the team sheets? Rugby.change (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I would keep the details of all internationals (including Tier 3), but I think that games that are not full tests should not be included, unless they are particularly prestigious e.g. v Maoris or Barbarians. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2018

But games like Chile v South American XV aren't even listed here, so why should we? Maybe we shouldn't get rid of Brazil v NZ Maori, but if a game doesn't make ESPN Scrum's list of matches, it has no place here. – PeeJay 10:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A very similar discussion about these articles was only just archived. That talked about deleting them all wholesale. There is no clear inclusion and exclusion criteria that we have ever been able to reach a proper consensus on.Skeene88 (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, how about the inclusion criteria I've just suggested above? If the match is listed as an international in ESPN Scrum's list of fixtures, we include it; if not, we don't. – PeeJay 19:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m not a huge fan of having one external website be the sole criteria for inclusion or exclusion. I thought we had already achieved here something resembling a rough consensus:

1. Tier 1 & Tier 2 tests — include match reports including lineups
2. Tier 3 tests — include summary match reports
3. Club matches — exclude
4. Exclude matches with invitational teams or other teams that are not national teams, except high-profile teams (I.e., Barbarians and NZ Maori).

Does that work? If not perfect as is, could we make it work with a small tweak or two? CUA 27 (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that simply using ESPN as a definitive list is unsatisfactory, they randomly include or exclude games not including the "big 8", on club matches what happens when we have clubs playing major Tier 1 nations as part of their tours? Its gone a bit out of fashion since 2009 but in that year Australia and South Africa played them as integral parts of their tours. The Barbarians are also a club, why treat them differently? At least this "Nations League" proposal will solve this debate if it ever happens!Skeene88 (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we should use more sources than just ESPN and not limit options. With regards to Barbarians games, they are more a representative team than a club, although I see your point. Also, I'm not sure if playing against the Barbarians/Maoris for your country results in a full cap - can anyone enlighten me to this? Personally, I think we should include Barbarians and Maori fixtures due to their importance in the rugby calendar. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2018

@Jgjsmith006: unlike, say, cricket, where "Test status" is determined by the world governing body (ICC), rugby allows each national union to award Test caps by their own criteria. As an example, Wales have awarded Test caps in the recent past for matches against the Barbarians whereas most other Tier 1 nations do not. By extension, even for matches ostensibly between two national teams, it is possible for just one (or both or neither) side to award their own "Test status". Admittedly, such cases are uncommon but they do exist. -- Ham105 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ham105. Very interesting. With this in mind I would certainly consider keeping the Barbarians and Maoris fixtures regardless of their test status but I guess it is down to what others think as a whole. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 21:032, 4 December 2018

I understand you guys' concerns, but if we don't implement some sort of criteria, then we'll get nowhere. I nearly suggested the BBC's fixtures list, but decided against it because of their bias towards Britain. At least ESPN is a global source with no particular bias. To answer Skeene88's point, I would say that obviously any matches involving club sides should be excluded from these lists. If we have articles specifically about a nation's autumn tour, obviously we would include all of their matches, including ones against club sides, just as we do for Lions tours, but this is supposed to be some kind of all-encompassing list, which brings us back full-circle. We can't include everything, so we have to set some kind of parameters on this. We can't just pull these parameters out of our asses because that would be some kind of original research, but you guys are already picking holes in the only independent source that has thus far been provided. Would anyone else care to proffer one? – PeeJay 23:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, check out this page on the World Rugby website and navigate to page 9. By that point, you'll have seen the Barbarians v Argentina game listed, and every match listed for 24 November involves either a Tier 1 or Tier 2 nation (with the exception of Netherlands v Switzerland, which is already included in the 2018–19 Rugby Europe International Championships article. – PeeJay 23:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that list of fixtures filters by event and very clearly doesn't have any sort of "end of year" or "mid year" filter and instead filters by "2018 Argentia tour" or equivalent I really can't see how it can be used as a source claiming these games all fall under the same topic. I've slowly come around to the view that these articles are Wikipedia:SYNTH or maybe original research as independent sources simply do not list these matches together as one topic. That link also includes the disputed games e.g. Dragons v Russia and Cardiff Blues v Uruguay!Skeene88 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well the 'End of Year/Autumn Internationals' and 'Summer Internationals' are established things. Just because they don't have a fixed definition, doesn't mean that they're not real world items - most major sports outlets that cover rugby union refer to them directly. Remember that my original complaint here was not inherently about inclusion, but about navigability and accessibility. Another way of doing things would be to include as much as possible, but in a lower-data format. If we took the World Rugby page - which has the advantage of an 'official' status to some degree - and filter by '2018 Men's Internationals', this does basically list the summer and autumn internationals. Perhaps then all matches involving one Tier 2 team or lower (eg Tier 2 v club, Tier 3 v Tier 2 etc) could just be included in a simple table, like the entries at International cricket in 2018–19. We keep the bigger-data template for other matches, include squad lists only where one Tier 1 nation is involved, and make healthier use of top level section breaks and the issue is probably fixed without removing content. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with Super Nintendo Chalmers's suggestion (and was going to suggest something similar). I think the fact that matches are ordered chronologically also contributes to making it feel bulky. If it's split by Tier 1 touring side (following the World Rugby fixtures page's lead, eg. "2018 Argentina tour", "2018 Australia tour" etc.), it will also group related information together better, and minor tour matches (eg against club sides) can easily be given a brief mention in the section. Other matches between Tier 1 sides (i.e. the Bledisloe Cup and Doddie Weir Cup can be be listed next), followed by "Other internationals", i.e. other matches covered in the results section by reliable sources such as World Rugby, ESPN Scrum, BBC etc., which can have less details than the Tier 1 matches.

Something that's also missing from these articles are other competitions being played during the same time period; there should be a mention of the World Cup repechage matches (which is currently listed in the "See also" section", but should probably have a short paragraph inserted, with a link to the main article), the Rugby Europe Trophy Conference matches, the Africa Silver Cup final, all held in the same international window, all listed by World Rugby, but missing in these articles because it's covered elsewhere. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

My only hesitation with your final paragraph is that this becomes a page on International rugby union in 2018, which is a slightly different topic. Given that these are already huge articles, I'm not sure of the merit of adding material that's covered elsewhere. However, I can fully get behind the more thematic organisation of the page. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Article already exists

Ernest Booth is the same person as the older article Ernie Booth. I'm not sure what to do? Merge and do a re-direct? How do you actually do that?Skeene88 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:MERGETEXT has all the details. I've done it just so it's done and you can see an example (diffs). I will note that there is a little fact-checking to do, since the old infobox had different numbers/info than the new one. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the Hong Kong Sevens and Qualifier articles

So I was thinking about the possible split of the main tournament in the Hong Kong Sevens to the qualifier of the main series as its essentially two separate tournaments into one page. So what do people think of that idea? Matt294069 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Matt294069, I think I might be mis-reading your suggestion; are you saying that we split Hong_Kong_Sevens#Qualifier_results into its own article? Doesn't seem to be much there, unless you were planning on expanding it significantly. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

I do suggest that maybe the qualifier results can be it's own separate article so that you have the main tournament as one article and the qualifier as a separate article. Sort of what Ham is suggesting further down. Matt294069 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Support: I think separate pages would be appropriate for –

1. World Rugby Sevens Series qualification, and for each each annual qualifying tournament – e.g.
2. 2019–20 World Rugby Sevens Series qualification for next weekend's qualifying event – noting that the 2019–20 qualifier is played during the 2018–19 season.

In 2013 the series qualifier event took place in London, so this event is not intrinsically part of the Hong Kong Sevens. While the CEO of the HKRU recently expressed interest in continuing to host core team qualifiers into the future, he indicated that this was still subject to World Rugby review. -- Ham105 (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

So I have slowly been working on the summary for the tournament with my working knowledge and as of right now, it's has creep over the fifty thousand bytes for this article and will properly be another two thousand or so bytes at the minimum before this article is complete. So anyone else want to chip into this discussion. Matt294069 (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Melodie Bosman vs Mel Ngatai

Hello, I think that you wrote 2 articles for the same person. Actually Ngatai is the maiden name and Bosman is the name after her marriage... -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 16:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Seasonal rugby squad navboxes TfD

I've nominated a set of seasonal club squad navboxes for deletion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). You can participate in the deletion discussion here. – PeeJay 22:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Israel Folau Hell tweet support

Billy Vunipola posted a message on social media supporting the hell tweet, yet there is no mention of it in his page. Bundee Aki also liked the hell tweet before doing a u-turn, that is not mentioned on Ali's page. I am not saying it should be in the lead but I think it should be in their pages. (78.17.78.31 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC))

Why? – PeeJay 15:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Other sportspeoples views on homosexuality are in their personal life section. I looked at Billy Vunipola's history & saw that Vunipola's support was in his article before hippo removed it. Bundee Aki is claiming he liked Folau's message without reading it properly. (78.17.78.31 (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC))

Why is this conversation here? It seems better to discuss at the talk pages for those individuals. This is not a question that applies broadly across most rugby union articles. CUA 27 (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Also why is it even relevant for inclusion? A minor tabloid issue over a storm in a teacup which will be forgotten in a few months. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The consequences for Vunipola and Aki seem very minor. The topic is relevant to Folau's article because he lost his job over it, but otherwise the issue is a non-issue. – PeeJay 05:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Trivial, tabloid clickbait. --hippo43 (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

London Welsh RFC and London Welsh Amateur

Hi guys, I wonder what you think about these two pages. To my knowledge London Welsh RFC (when still a functioning professional side) had an amateur team that was in the Herts & Middlesex leagues. Since the professional side folded, a phoenix London Welsh emerged, taking the amateur team's place in the London regional leagues. This has caused some confusion on Wiki, with regional league titles being applied to both pages, including by myself as I wasn't really sure which page to attribute what titles to. It would be good to hear what other contributors think as to whether we keep them as separate entities or combine into one. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2019

They are two separate teams, something the RFU recognise just like London Irish and London Irish Amateur and Wasps RFC and Wasps FC. There was no new club taking the amateur team's place in the league, all there was was a rename of the amateur team to use the liquidated team's name. Attribute the National league titles, pre-professional titles to the professional side and anything post 2017 to the amateur side. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the London Welsh RFC page should read - "was a rugby club formed in 1885" as opposed to "is". Thanks for the advice - will update accordingly. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2019

MOS:PRESENT says otherwise, Jgjsmith006. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Two month virtual editathon on Women in Sports

WikiProject Women in Red is devoting the next two months (July and August) to a virtual editathon on Women in Sports. Please take this opportunity to write more articles about women in rugby who lag far behind men on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Allianz Park

I was wondering if the stadium should be split out of the Barnet Copthall. Barnet Copthall is the area which also houses Football playing fields, another rugby field, gym swimming pool complex, golf driving range, pitch and putt. etc. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Justin Collins

Hello,

The page of Justin Collins, a rugby league player better known as "Steve Collins", is wrongly linked via wikidata to the french wiki page of his namesake Justin Collins, wich is a former Northland and Blues loose forward. Moreover, it seem to be a confusion between these two players in these pages (and sources on the web), because we can reed that they are both born in Tasmania and shares the same birth date, wich is very unlikely. So, where is the truth ? The arabian's page is also a strange mix between the two players.

Sorry for my broken english. Ginkgobiloquad (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ranfurly Shield 2010–19

Can someone help me determine what exactly happened to all the templates for the matches after September 2017 for the Ranfurly Shield 2010–19 article? When I updated this after the previous Ranfurly Shield match it all seemed fine but for some reason dozens of templates are not showing correctly at the moment, making this a visual nightmare. Not sure if there has been a template update somewhere which has caused this bug. Cheers. JaumeBG (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Quarter final, quarter-final, or quarterfinal?

I've seen quarter final, quarter-final, and quarterfinal written inconsistently across WP:RU articles. The term is often prominent in rugby tournament articles, as it is often the name of a section heading. Ideally we would spell the term consistently across WP:RU articles. Looking at MOS:HYPHEN, it appears that "quarterfinal" is the preferred way to write the word. Do folks agree? If so, we can add a sentence to the WP:RU style guide. (Same question goes for semi final, semi-final, and semifinal). CUA 27 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It should always be "quarter-final" and "semi-final" except in US-centric articles. – PeeJay 19:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. Can you share a bit more about your thoughts? Why do you view hyphen as the standard, and why the exception for US-centric? Is this a case where WP:ENGVAR trumps the guidance at MOS:HYPHEN? Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I had a look at MOS:HYPHEN and I don’t see where it gives any guidance about how to write these words. I’m basing this on how the words are actually supposed to be written. See here. – PeeJay 09:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The tournament organiser World Rugby uses a hyphen (quarter-final; semi-final) and I think the best approach would be consistency with that. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Rotherham player categories

Hi rugby union chums, there are two categories for Rotherham players; [[Category:Rotherham R.U.F.C. players‎]] (76 Players) and [[Category:Rotherham Titans players‎]] (4 Players), should they be combined, or have they been purposefully separated? Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, that's clearly an error, Rotherham Titans is the correct one so Rotherham R.U.F.C. players should be folded into it.Skeene88 (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to put players who played for the club after its name change to the Titans in 2003 in the Titans category, and players who only played before this can go in the RUFC category. A little complicated but most accurate. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I have updated all of the player pages to be included in the Titans category as I think it's important that they're all in the same place. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Greetings RU enthusiasts. There's a discussion over at AfD which might benefit from the insights of your group. It can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kellen Gordon. Thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi. There's a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) which might be of interest to members of this project. You can find it HERE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Director of Rugby...

Hi rugby union chums, would you consider the role of 'Director of Rugby' to be part of the '...rugby union administrators' or '...rugby union coaches' category? DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say it fits better in the administrators category, which is broader in meaning. Directors of rugby don't usually do any actual coaching. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It's equivalent would be NFL head coach or soccer's manager. I would say it is more an extension of coaching and not administrators which is surely more for behind the scenes types like CEOs, directors etc?Skeene88 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It isn't like a football manager, it's more akin to a football chief exec. He's responsible for recruitment of the coaching staff etc. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Its equivalent to a football manager in that almost all of them select the team. Football managers also hire the other coaches too in any case. To be frank I don't think they really sit in either box and should really have a category of their own. Its a fairly common position in rugby and as discussed doesn't neatly fit into either category.Skeene88 (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Rugby Premier League

The Russian league is included as one of the fully pro leagues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria but it's unsourced, I can't find any sources demonstrating that the league is indeed fully professional, and the league's article even says Many of elevated clubs were semiprofessional or even amateur in nature, which lead a lack of competitive balance which suggests even if the league were fully professional, it hasn't been during the entire extent of its tenure. Anyone have any sources on this? SportingFlyer T·C 07:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

‘Northern Irish rugby union players’ category?

Hi rugby union chums, this could be a bit controversial, but please bear with me… I realise that in rugby union (and rugby league) ‘Ireland’ means ‘All-Ireland’, but the parent category of the ‘<insert nation here> rugby union players’ categories is ‘Rugby union players by nationality, and as ‘All-Ireland’ isn’t a nation, were associating Northern Irish footballers with the Republic of Ireland, which isn't correct, should there be ‘Northern Irish rugby union players’ category? Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No. The parent category is incorrect. Rugby union players are not delineated by nationality, but by union membership. For example CJ Stander is South-African born, however he belongs in the category "Irish rugby union players". In the same way, Sevu Reece was born and raised in Fiji, but is most certainly a "New Zealand rugby union player". It is also notable that this argument recurs frequently only in relation to Irish rugby union players. Khavakoz (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

If "No", then the parent category is misnamed, as it called ‘Rugby union players by nationality'. Also, if Sevu Reece was born and raised in Fiji then he his Fijian, unless there is secondary source indicating a change of nationality (unlikely), so he is currently, and I believe correctly, assigned to the 'Fijian rugby union players' category, as far as I'm aware, playing for New Zealand doesn't necessitate a change of nationality, nor does playing for New Zealand cause a change of nationality, and he is correctly assigned the 'New Zealand international rugby union players' category. I'm unaware of any of any bias against/towards Irish rugby union players. Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I think there probably should be a Northern Ireland category. The most intuitive understanding of "...by nationality" is in reference to the individual's nationality, rather than membership of a sporting union. Going with the analogy above, it feels completely unnatural to describe CJ Stander as Irish, and much more intuitive to describe him as South African. Also, the description of players as Irish on the basis of the all-Ireland union quickly becomes less relevant below international level, and lots of the players in the category (I assume) do not compete at international level. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

By that rationale, almost all of the New Zealand players should be categorised as either "Fijian" or "Samoan". If this is a standard to be applied then it needs to be done across all nationalities, and not just, as per usual, singling out Irish rugby players for reassignment.Khavakoz (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I would totally agree with that. And I'll thank you for refraining from implying I'm prejudiced: not that it matters, but I'm personally in favour of a united Ireland ;) ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that my choice of words was poor, and have deleted the offending words. No comment on your own statement/participation was meant, and I apologise for my carelessness.Khavakoz (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no "Northern Irish" nationality in rugby. There isn't even such a nationality in general life, since Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state. The purpose of the category is to group together all the players who are qualified for the Ireland national rugby union team, colloquially referred to as their rugby "nationality". Hadleigh Parkes and Johnny McNicholl are not Welsh and I don't believe they have British passports (which would not confer them Welsh nationality anyway), but I would have no problem putting them in Category:Welsh rugby union players since they play for the Wales national rugby union team. I agree that the issue of nationality is problematic, especially when rugby's representative nations don't match up with internationally recognised sovereign states, but I don't think creating a category specifically for Northern Irish rugby players is going to solve that issue. – PeeJay 11:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe try something along the lines of "Ireland national rugby union team players", that way it avoids us having to use Irish or Northern Irish which I would associate with nationality. There can always be a separate category to denote nationality. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

According to the Good Friday Agreement, anyone born in Northern Ireland is entitled to a Republic of Ireland passport anyway, so I don't see any issue with having an "Irish rugby union players" category. – PeeJay 11:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

But then you have to have a Northern Irish one too. I wouldn't call Rory Best (Officer of the British Empire) of Craigavon, Northern Ireland as being Irish in terms of nationality. I think if you clarify national team, then we avoid the troubling nationality issues. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not my point, I'm saying that it's fine to refer to anyone from the Republic or the North as "Irish", regardless of whether they're a republican or a unionist. Besides, once you add "national team" to the category name, it implies those players have actually played for the national team, which 99% of them haven't. – PeeJay 11:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think the category automatically and clearly relates to union membership. I think the most intuitive understanding of the category is the individual’s nationality. Also, whilst it is true that there is no such thing as Northern Irish (or Welsh/Scottish/English) ‘’’citizenship’’’ (which is a legal concept), there is such thing as Northern Irish nationality. Finally, though all Northern Irish people are entitled to Irish citizenship, a large number (a majority) of Northern Irish people have not applied for Irish citizenship and do not identify as Irish, and so describing all people from Northern Ireland as “Irish” is not accurate or true. There is a clear individual national identity in Northern Ireland and the most neutral way to describe players from Northern Ireland is to say exactly that, rather than include them in a category which gives the impression they are in fact from another country. I think describing Hadleigh Parkes as Welsh would be wrong. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, I didn’t say all people from Northern Ireland should be considered Irish; what I’m saying is that due to the Good Friday Agreement, it is not beyond the realms of understanding that people from Northern Ireland are considered Irish in a rugby context. Also, you’re wrong about English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish being nationalities; they are sub-national identities, but not nationalities themselves, at least in a citizenship context. I also think that by reducing this to “the most intuitive understanding” is to miss the nuance of the situation; the categories do not refer to players’ passport identities. These categories are meant to be a way of categorising rugby players, and for that to make sense, we need to treat the nationalities we refer to in a rugby context; with that in mind, “Northern Irish” would not be a nationality covered by this category tree. – PeeJay 23:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

My 2 cents: wouldn't be better to classify sportspeople whatsoever by "Sports nationality" (for sports purpose only, of course) so George Best would be Northern Irish and Rory Best Irish in spite of being both British nationals? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 18:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

1988 Five Nations Championship

Hello, there's a mistaken statement in the article, or at least misleading: whereas it's undisputably true that it was the last shared Championship, the following statement lets the reader suppose that since the following edition the points system had changed (In future tournaments, overall points difference would be used to separate teams with the same number of points so that the tournament would be more likely to have an outright winner.): actually it was not before the 1994 Five Nations that the shared victory would no longer be allower, until 1993 it was theorically possible to have more than one winner in the same edition.. (see The Independent in a 1994 article). -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 18:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

According to Six_Nations_Championship#Format it still can be a tie; I've removed that and reworded. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I've made a further small change in wording to reflect the fact that 1988 might not be the "final" tied championship - although I suspect it will be, given the small likelihood of a tie on match points, game points and tries scored. Can you have a look and see if it reads ok, please? --Bcp67 (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

You mean a championship in which 2 or more teams ended up topping the table with the same amount of points? In this case it is still possible but the winner is only one, that was my point. 1988 was the last ever edition in which two or more teams shared the victory of the Championship, not that two or more teams topped the table at the end of it. My concern was that someone could be led to suppose that 1990 was the first tournament that didn't allow shared victory, whereas it was actually 1994. But I don't judge myself that skilled in English language to be able to word it in unambiguous way. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 22:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the wording which said that 1990 marked the end of shared titles was wrong. But as Primefact has found, it is still possible to have joint winners - the Six Nations rules allow for this after a number of tie-breaking criteria are applied to teams with equal match points. So it would be incorrect to say in the 1988 article that this was absolutely the final shared title, and that from 1994 it could no longer occur. I think we what have now in that 1988 article is about right. --Bcp67 (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Rugby Sevens

How are the 5th to 8th placed teams determined in Rugby Sevens?

Scotland came in 8th place in South Africa last December, with Argentina in 5th, Ireland in 6th, and Kenya in 7th places. May I be reassured that Wikipedia hasn’t lost the ability to properly record the results of Rugby Sevens Tournaments?

What I mean is that Scotland technically did better than Argentina if you look at the results closely of the Pool statue, as we had 8 points as opposed to their 7. Also, why isn’t Wikipedia recording the results of the 9th place thingy?

I can’t see how it is possible for Argentina to be above Scotland when the two teams hadn’t met at any point in this tournament? What in the name of goodness is going on here?

I look forward to your replies, I hope to hear from you soon. Pablothepenguin (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you please provide a link so we can see what article you're referencing? – PeeJay 14:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

2019 South Africa Sevens is what I am referring to. Pablothepenguin (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so what do you think the placings should be? According to World Rugby, Argentina, Ireland, Kenya and Scotland are correctly recorded as 5th-8th place respectively, and the article shows you the placement matches for 9th-16th, so what's the issue? – PeeJay 15:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The issue is with the lack of clarity as to the exact rules which are used to determine 5th to 8th place. In addition to this, the article seems to be missing the usual play off bracket for 9th and 10th place, usually there is a specific playoff for this, which resembles the 1st to 4th place knockout bit (which consists of two semifinals, one third place playoff and the final).

Essentially, Scotland should not be in 8th place, as no matches were played by them immediately after the completion of the round robin matches which served to rob them of their ability to pursue in this tournament a place in the semifinals. That is to say that, they have just as much right to be in 5th on the grounds that they at no point played Argentina in this tournament, nor were they matched against Kenya or Ireland, plus they outrank at least some of those teams in Rugby Union World Rankings. As they haven’t recorded a game after the round robin stage, their place cannot possibly have been determined, as it is illogical to imply such a comparison between them and, indeed, a team they have not played, when no logical excuse can be conjured to quantify the alleged performance of them in this tournament. As far as I am concerned Scotland and Argentina, along with Ireland and Kenya, can be considered to be in joint 5th, as they all lost their round robin games in precisely the same manner.

Finally, I will state here that the exact pairings were determined purely at random, therefore no bias can ever be implied that will attempt in any way to kludge together a set results based on such encounters. In other words, the round robin stage cannot, in and of itself, be said to determine in any way the final placing a of this tournaments, there is simply insufficient information to make such a listing.

Oh, and Scotland are just plain better than Argentina, that’s just the way it is. Pablothepenguin (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Look, clearly your issue is with World Rugby, not Wikipedia. We have reflected the results exactly as World Rugby have, so if you have a problem with Scotland being ranked 8th, I suggest you take it up with them. – PeeJay 16:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, did you miss the fact that all four of those teams did play matches after the round robin stage? They all played quarter-finals. And if you look at their overall points difference totals, you'll see Scotland's was the worst. That's probably why they were last. Feel free to consider them all joint fifth if you like, but that's not the case. Cheers. – PeeJay 16:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment are noted, I still think there should have been an actual match to determine 5th place. Pablothepenguin (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

See, you say my comments are noted and yet you continue the conversation. Take this up with World Rugby. Thanks. – PeeJay 17:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much any system is going to have people complaining it's unfair because of X. The Sevens series are notable for actually bothering with some placing matches for lower levels, something many sports don't bother with. The short matches makes this easier, still sponsor and audience demands etc means there are time pressures, part of the reason quarter finals were eliminated for the Hamilton and Sydney [1] and Paris? [2]

Worth noting perhaps that despite the OP's claims of Scotland being better than Argentina are wholly unsupported. If we look at the history, Argentina has come out above Scotland in all these 1999–2000 World Sevens Series, 2000–01 World Sevens Series, 2001–02 World Sevens Series, 2002–03 IRB Sevens World Series, 2004–05 World Sevens Series, 2005–06 World Sevens Series, 2007–08 IRB Sevens World Series, 2008–09 IRB Sevens World Series, 2009–10 IRB Sevens World Series, 2010–11 IRB Sevens World Series, 2011–12 IRB Sevens World Series, 2012–13 IRB Sevens World Series, 2013–14 IRB Sevens World Series, 2015–16 World Rugby Sevens Series, 2017–18 World Rugby Sevens Series, 2018–19 World Rugby Sevens Series. Especially in the early ones, they often had double the points of Scotland. It's often a bit closer now, but still Argentina often had 50% or more points. The point difference is such that it cannot simply be accounted for by Argentina always getting 'luckier' in the groups stages and in any case them always getting 'luckier' would suggest it's not simply lucky.

The only times Scotland were ahead was in 2006–07 IRB Sevens World Series but only barely, 2014–15 Sevens World Series a bit more but still not much and 2016–17 World Rugby Sevens Series even more but still not that much, actually I think few points ahead than any time Argentina beat Scotland although I didn't check carefully.

Argentina national rugby sevens team also notes their performance especially in the first decade of this century. Scotland national rugby sevens team's record seems less stellar. Admittedly I'm not sure if Scotland attended all the events of the series earlier on for financial reasons.

Maybe also worth noting that the OP initially claimed Scotland had 8 points in the group stage as seen above or [3], something clearly wrong. Yet later in this thread, they seem to have completely forgotten how they were arguing it was unfair because Scotland clearly performed better than Argentina at the group stage even though we know that in fact Argentina performed better at the group stage. Ireland and Kenya did finish on 8 points (but still fewer points scored whether in the group or after the quarterfinals), so by some definitions you could argue they actually did do better than Argentina, unlike with Scotland. But the OP seems to have forgotten about their earlier arguments of relative group stage performance later on. There are probably strong limits on the OP commenting on Ireland and Scotland in the same thread since it would potentially violate their topic ban Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Final warnings / Unblock conditions, so maybe this is why they are largely ignoring Ireland and Kenya, I don't know. But the OP seems to be putting aside the evidence that actually exists that Argentina has generally had a better sevens team than Scotland. And for that matter, anything else that contradicts their claims even contradicting their earlier arguments, to continually argue that Scotland was unfairly treated in that one particular tournament. (And from what I can tell the Scotland women's national rugby sevens team is probably even further from the Argentina women's national rugby sevens team, although the latter is also quite far from their men's position on the world stage.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope you’re aware of the fact that there are a distinct lack of quarter finals here. Pablothepenguin (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse others of ignorance, it helps to get your facts in order first, else you end up hoist by your own petard. There were indeed quarter-finals at the 2019 South Africa Sevens. – PeeJay 18:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In that case, may I indeed state that the real issue was with the distinct lack of play offs to be played by the quarter-final losers, with the intention being to properly sort 5th to 8th place. These play offs, as featured in previous Sevens Tournaments, are arranged in a similar manner to the semi-finals and final, with a 3rd place play off between the losers of the semi-finals. In the case of the losing quarter-finalists, this play-off would effectively be a 7th place playoff, with 5th place and 6th place being determined by a match between the winners of the semi-finals. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

South Africa President's XV

Why on earth does this article exist? The article itself makes the link: the "President's XV" is basically just the South Africa A team by a different name (c.f. Junior Springboks/Emerging Springboks). Anyone got any objection to merging South Africa President's XV into South Africa A? – PeeJay 12:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The "President's XV" is definitely not just the South Africa A team by a different name. South Africa A / Emerging Springboks are generally younger players just outside the South African national team set-up, while the South Africa President's XV is an invitational team that pops up from time to time to play in tournaments such as the 2013 IRB Tbilisi Cup. The team also previously played matches in 1964 and 1982. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, do we really need an article about a team that has only appeared three times in 56 years? It also appears to have different selection criteria each time, as the President's XV selected for the 2013 Tbilisi Cup definitely seems to be a "South Africa A" side. You yourself made the comparison when you first wrote the article in 2013! – PeeJay 14:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The "comparison" you're referring to is a bit of a stretch. "Team A played in a competition one year, Team B played in the same competition in a different year" does not mean that Team A = Team B. Again, the President's XV selected for the 2013 Tbilisi Cup was definitely not a "South Africa A" side. Players for the "South Africa A" side generally come from Super Rugby sides, Currie Cup Premier Division sides or playing overseas. This President's XV was selected from players from the second-tier Currie Cup First Division. To equate this to similar(-ish) football teams, you have the England national football B team, which is a secondary team to the national team. Then you have the England national football C team, which is a selection of players playing at a lower tier, given the opportunity to get international representation. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The two teams may not be identical, but the function they serve(d) appears to be. The previous incarnations of the President’s XV seems to have been similar to the Barbarians, but the team that competed in the Tbilisi Cup seems to have been closer in function to the South Africa A team. – PeeJay 00:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hubert Lefèbvre

The article Hubert Lefèbvre has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minecrafter0271 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Prominence of the Six Nations in national rugby union team articles

The first sentence of the France article reads "The France national rugby union team competes annually against England, Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales in the Six Nations Championship." It seems like this is undue weight on this competition. Some of the other five focus on it in the second sentence. That also seems undue. Would there be any objection if I moved Six Nations a little further down in the leads of these articles?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I've had a go at a change to the France one. – PeeJay 23:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Scoresway replacement?

Hi all, visiting from wp:footy where I'm currently on a mission to replace defunct Scoresway links across wikipedia (the majority of these being simple changes directly to sister site Soccerway). I've come across pages where Scoresway was used in a Rugby Union context (eg Argentina national under-20 rugby union team) and was wondering if you guys knew of an equivalent WP:RS that has the same breadth of data. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC) Please ping in responses.

Major League Rugby

I've gone ahead and removed the two U.S. leagues from the fully professional list - as far as I can tell (and I've looked to make absolutely sure) they were added without discussion, and the brief discussion here shows evidence MLR isn't "fully professional" in the way we would consider a league fully professional (ie, all players make a full time living from the league, as opposed to a semi-professional league.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This should not have been removed from the list without discussion. The Russian professional league has similar degree of professionalism and media coverage (in English language at least) has been kept on the list. I have reinstated until this discussion reaches consensus.

Rpsmith1988 07:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - looks to be a fully professional league. Teams have professional managerial structure, the league has a U.S. TV deal (CBS), and a salary cap structure (see this article). In addition, ESPN lists them as a professional major league team, along with the other teams on the NRU list. Articles such as this, this, this article which shows that the teams are building stadiums, this, and this also indicate it is a professional league. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• I think would be best to include MLR in the fully professional list. I think there are sources to back this up already and the league is only going to grow from here. People are likely to come to the site looking for articles on these players and I think our notability criteria should reflect this. I realise rugby is a minority sport in the USA and coverage is sometimes thin, but that's a separate issue and articles will still require good sourcing. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• If coverage is admittedly thin, we should not have a SNG which presumes players are notable - we should require players to pass WP:GNG.
• I've also responded more thoroughly [4]. This is not a fully professional league. SportingFlyer T·C 12:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer, Rpsmith1988, and Onel5969: First off, it should never have been added to the list in the first place without prior WP:CONSENSUS as the list is currently used as a Notability Guideline. And as a Sports Notability Guideline it must meet WP:NSPORTS#Applicable policies and guidelines: All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles.

This does not appear to have been properly vetted like the other Wikiprojects. This is the time to do so. Please provide references that even the least-used players can meet WP:GNG. Generalized player pay, overall league professionalism, and other un-vetted league's inclusion (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) are irrelevant. I'll keep the discussion about adding the leagues on this talk page. If the entire SNG needs a drastic overhaul, then WT:NSPORTS might be better. Yosemiter (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we can only go on what is happening currently and what has happened in the past. On that basis I think MLR is a professional league (per above it is widely described as such) but large number of players do not yet meet GNG. I would suggest reviewing it going forward as, from my own view of the league, independent media coverage is growing so in another year we may be able to consider all players generally notable due to an increase in sources. To be clear Remove for now.Skeene88 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Based on the above criteria the following leagues ALL need removing: RFU Championship (there are part time players in most the teams & all players in the case of Richmond who played in the league last year. Top League (all Japanese players are part time working for the company who owns the team) & the ITM Cup which again has semi pro players on the roster. I think common sense needs using as to what rugby union leagues are notable. If that means an overhaul then so be it but that needs to include people who are acquainted with rugby to maintain a sensible balance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpsmith1988 (talk • contribs)

Subjects for review in MLR

@SportingFlyer, Rpsmith1988, Onel5969, and Skeene88: (and @Elahrairah: sorry I missed you in the previous pings. Yosemiter (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)) Per the above suggestion I gave, both Kellen Gordon and Kody O’Neil were recently kept for what appears to be solely based MLR having been listed in WP:NRU and not based on a full discussion of the sourcing for WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kellen Gordon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kody O’Neil). So let's do an unofficial source review if these pass GNG (SportingFlyer may know of few more to add and please do, they do not necessarily have to already gone thru the AfD process). This is how I have encouraged other Wikiprojects to analyze including new leagues in certain sports such as ice hockey and basketball, and it is good thought experiment in general on Notability. Discuss each subject's source in detail below: Yosemiter (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Yosemiter - not really that interested in doing a deep dive on rugby, so I'll let users who belong to the project weigh in. My .02 is that the league is clearly a professional league, it's listed on ESPN as a professional league, and has a major TV network national TV contract. Amateur leagues (not college sports) don't get national tv contracts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Fair, but NSPORTS is about players, not leagues. This article might of interest as it pertains to the future of that expiring contract and the league itself, as well as most team's attendance struggles. The high was 4000/game, most were closer 1000, and is less than minor leagues such as the USL for football, ECHL for hockey, and G League for basketball. None of the aforementioned leagues' players are given presumed notability via participation due to lack of coverage, which is somewhat tied to lack of attendance (intended audience for media). For players' notability, if no one is coming to the the games or writing about the players, are they really notable? (À la, "if a tree falls in a forest...") Yosemiter (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Kellen Gordon

Kellen Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Source analysis, starting with the ones in the article:

• America's Rugby News - Canadian rugby blog, doesn't seem unreliable but appears self-published, and in any case this is just a squad list - not WP:SIGCOV
• Seattle Seawolves - WP:PRIMARY
• DJ Coil Rugby - this is a blog without any editorial standards
• Aedelard is a Canadian men's clothing website founded by rugby players, the Aedelhard story is clearly sponsored content.
• Gordon was an alumnus of CWU, this is the alumni blog, and Gordon is only mentioned twice
• This appears to be a press release on the league website, not sufficiently independent
• This is interesting but not WP:SIGCOV

Gordon is also briefly mentioned here. What is lacking, however, is significant coverage of Gordon in reliable source coverage - there's really not all that much else, and that includes WP:PRIMARY sources.

Compare the level of coverage to minor league soccer player Shandon Hopeau, who I picked at random from the Tacoma Defiance roster. The Defiance are the Seattle minor league soccer team. Hopeau has been covered by the Tacoma News-Tribune, FourFourTwo, and the Honolulu Star-Advertiser (though I think the last one is prep sports) along with a slew of game coverage, database coverage, and some non-RS blog posts which wouldn't count toward WP:GNG.

I tried to get lineups from here for a random league game but none of the statistics loaded, just the final score. I ended up looking at Daniel Trierweiler, whose three sources are the America's Rugby News squad list, the Seawolves website, and a DJ Coil blurb - there's another Seawolves source and a couple blog posts mention his game participation in passing. Looking at the worst team in the league - for an SNG to exist for a league almost all players must pass WP:GNG - I looked at Mason Pedersen, who has two sources - the America's Rugby News roster, and his USA Rugby profile. There's a smattering of coverage for him from the usual blogs and a few game report mentions - including one from Australia but unfortunately is WP:ROUTINE/fails WP:SIGCOV - but not much else out there, which isn't surprising. The league really isn't well covered by the media, and it doesn't mean we can't have articles on players in the league - just means they'll need to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Kody O'Neil

Kody O’Neil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other new MLR pages created

@SportingFlyer, Rpsmith1988, Elahrairah, and Skeene88: I see some stubs have appeared with only stats and transactions used as sources. Anyone want to evaluate the GNG value of these players? Most seem to have played in other second tier leagues before joining an MLR side. Yosemiter (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Tai Tuisamoa (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rory van Vugt (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Draft:Codi Jones (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Draft:Shawn Riley (rugby union) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Jope Motokana (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nicolás Solveyra (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Josh Thiel (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is also a new top level league and teams that need evaluating: Yosemiter (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Súper Liga Americana de Rugby (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• @Yosemiter: Of the list, only Tuisamoa and Riley might pass WP:GNG from a spot check of the article (haven't done a before search.) I have no issues with the league/clubs at Súper Liga Americana de Rugby as a Spanish-language search brought up results in mainstream publications such as [5]. SportingFlyer T·C 02:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Tour squad navboxes

Can we get some more input at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#South Africa rugby union tour squads please? User:TheMightyPeanut and I aren't going to get anywhere just talking among ourselves, so a few more voices would be appreciated. Cheers. – PeeJay 11:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been relisted here if anyone else wants to comment. – PeeJay 19:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Still seeking comments on this. Thanks. – PeeJay 18:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro national rugby union team

It's currently redirect to Serbia national rugby union team, but it could be a seperate article as it was a seperate team. It also seems there are sources at Serbia's article +some content. Some sports already have an article about Serbia&Montenegro teams (see {{National sports teams of Serbia and Montenegro}}). Do you think this also deserves an article and can someone create a stub? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Well if you look at the national football teams, they have separate articles so I would say yes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it depends how intertwined the histories of the two teams are. I'd say it's reasonable to cover the entire history of the Serbia national team in one article (including its time as Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro). – PeeJay 10:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I didnt propose to delete it from Serbia's article. It can be in both articles. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well that just seems like overkill. There wouldn't be much point in having a spin-off article to cover exactly the same content. – PeeJay 15:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: In regards to content split, as long the subject meets WP:GNG there is nothing explicitly wrong with splitting out the article. But I agree with PeeJay2K3, if the content is basically the same, there is no reason too. There simply is not much prose in that article as is, and per WP:NOTSTATS, simply having statistics is not a valid reason for a split. I'm not sure about rugby, but Serbian teams carried over most of the international team rankings when they split the teams and Montengro was considered a new international team. Yosemiter (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Mat Protheroe

Hi all, please could I get some opinions on a nationality issue regarding Mat Protheroe? @NikeCage68: is arguing that the fact that Protheroe has been capped at under-18 and under-20 level for England means he is English, but Protheroe was born in Swansea, Wales, and only qualified to represent England after being educated at Hartpury College near Gloucester, which isn't very far at all from Wales, and then going on to play for Gloucester and Bristol. Again, neither of these clubs are very far from Wales, my point being that it wouldn't be unusual for a Welsh person to attend school in that area. Protheroe himself refers to himself as Welsh in this source], and this source also refers to Protheroe as Welsh. My opinion is that Protheroe is Welsh. It's where he was born, and I'd say that him representing England at under-18 and under-20 level was a matter of circumstance, and perhaps being overlooked by the Welsh Rugby Union at the time, rather than Protheroe identifying as English, and the fact that he is returning to Wales, the land of his birth, and the aforementioned BBC source, proves that he has ambitions of representing the country at senior international level, something he has never done for England. MunsterFan2011 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you MunsterFan2011, everything there says he is Welsh. In the BBC source he refers to himself as "a Welsh kid". We all know plenty of cases where a player has worn a country's shirt but not been a national of that country, this looks like another one.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally of the opinion that he should be listed as English currently due to his Under-20s caps. In other sports such as football if a player is capped internationally at under-21 or under-18 level they tend to be listed as being of that nationality even if they are born and 'identify' as of another nationality. I see also that Max Clark and Callum Sheedy are both listed as English, with them also being in the same situation as Protheroe, although someone like Alex Dombrandt is listed as English despite Wales under-20 caps. If he was to be listed on the Ospreys team page I'd imagine he'd be listed as English with an '*' for Welsh qualified.--Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstly our "opinions" on nationality don't matter so let's all park that strand. We do over play nationality in the rugby articles, we put far too many flags in most articles, myself included. I can't find it but I'm sure there was a previously agreed consensus that players of dual nationality that were not cap-tied should default to their last representative side, or place of birth if there is no representative side. If we have a good quality neutral source saying the nationality we can use that, but reference the other nations representative games. So I think changing Protheroe to Wales with the source is 100%, though noting on talk page would be sensible. This is what is done on Alex Dombrandt, he qualified for Wales U-20s as a resident student not on any way that would qualify him for their full side. That is what is in the article. On Callum Sheedy, he last represented England's full side in a non-cap match so until/unless he is capped for Wales or plays in an equivalent match he should be left as England.Skeene88 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your contribuations, much appreciated. I do recognise the validity of the argument that the last representative international team played for could define the nationality, and I agree that in certain circumstances it would be applicable, but I do feel that in this particular case, the fact that in a very recent interview the player himself has stated that he is Welsh is critical evidence, particularly when coupled with his place of birth, but that is just my opinion, and as has been said, that isn't the main factor in the grand scheme of things. It would seem to be an sensible idea to strip out the nationality flags against players on articles such as season transfers. I'm extremely hesitant to get involved in how we define nationality on individual player and club pages, but regarding the season transfers articles specifically, it would likely remove any room for disagreement, and anyone curious as to where that particular player came from or represents internationally could simply view that players article. What do people think? @NikeCage68:, would you like to contribute to this discussion? MunsterFan2011 (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to specify his nationality in the first sentence, especially due to this exact scenario. It is enough to say he is a professional rugby union player. The convoluted nature of his international eligibility can be explained later in the article. – PeeJay 17:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Have found what looks like a decent source for his "qualification" for England, which basically amounts to England picking anyone for age group rugby who plays for an English club, with the exception that they will only pick properly qualified players for the U20 World Championships. Have added a line and ref to the article.--Bcp67 (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Attendance data at 2020 Rugby Europe Championship

I have so far failed to get a satisfactory response on the article's talk page, but User:Stmky appears intent on adding summary tables of the tournament's highest and average attendances for no other reason than "it's been in all the previous articles". Until now, they have simply been content to revert me without comment, but they really need to provide a better reason before adding the content again. Could someone else please weigh in on the discussion at Talk:2020 Rugby Europe Championship#Attendances? – PeeJay 10:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Could someone please weigh in on this? Stmky and I can't sort this out by ourselves, so we need someone else to say which one of us is barking up the wrong tree. Here's a hint: it isn't me. – PeeJay 19:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? – PeeJay 08:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)