Wikipedia

Talk:2013 British & Irish Lions tour to Australia

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
Learn more about this page

Organisational details

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does someone have access to the upcoming tours' dates, confirmation, schedule and other little semi-useless tidbits?Sahmejil (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think this article is probably a bit premature as I'd guess there is very little information about it known as the moment. It'll be built up but probably not any time soon.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Concerned article will end up a massive list

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago26 comments4 people in discussion

I'm worried this article is headed down the road of becoming a collection of large lists of statistics. We already have a huge table of player statistics, a list of management personal that seems unnecessarily detailed (does anyone care who the masseur is? Is this even encyclopaedic?). I'm wondering if some of this should be split off – for example I don't think the full match details are necessary in this article, and I certainly don't think the massive list of player statistics is useful. What about List of 2013 British and Irish Lions tour matches ? - Shudde talk 02:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's any need to split off any separate articles. I do think that the table of tour staff is a bit much, but the list of matches, the squad list and the statistics table all seem quite valuable. I will be opposed to anyone adding line-ups and the like to the tour matches (i.e. the non-test matches), so hopefully that section won't get too big. – PeeJay 14:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree with PeeJay. The matches will only include line-ups for the Barbarian match and the 3 tests. The tour match will be like any other non-test match, score, scorers and any cards. Rugby.change (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
However, I do like the idea that Hippo43 had of including the squads in a collapsible format, although I'm not completely sure how to do that. Rugby.change (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Something like this perhaps,

What do you think, probably need some tweaking. Rugby.change (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps someone could integrate the line-ups into a template so that not do the scorers get collapsbed, the squad dose aswell. I had ago bit I'll be honest, I haven't got a clue what I'm doing.

Template:Rugbybox line-up collapsible Rugby.change (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a fan of over-templating things. Plus, with the line-up graphic, I don't think there's that much whitespace on the page any more either. I really don't see what the problem is. – PeeJay 22:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
What dose everyone think about using the collapsed squad box above for non-test matches for the line-ups. Rugby.change (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Collapsible box looks good to me. I would use it for all games to keep that section legible. You should be able to read the date/score etc for all the games without having to scroll down again and again past huge lists and graphics. I would include scorers in the collapsible box so the only info I would want to be visible when it is uncollapsed would be the score, venue, date/time and link to a report. --hippo43 (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
This should be fine for the non-test matches. What do you think.

Although I strongly emphasize that this is not needed for the Barbarians match and the 3 tests. Rugby.change (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I'm sure everyone has noticed that the collapsed version is bold, at the moment I am trying to removed the bold on the text. Progress is slow lets put it that way. Rugby.change (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

All games should have the collapsed version visible. That way all the info is there for someone who wants to expand the box, and there is a legible list of games and results which shows the tour as a whole in one view, more or less. For that reason, the scorers should go in the collapsed version.
Whatever we decide to go with, the Barbarians game was not a test match and should not be treated as such. --hippo43 (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

So are we all in an agreement off using the above collapsible box for non-test match (including Barbarian match) and sticking to the original un-collapsed version for the 3 tests. If so I'll settle with that. Rugby.change (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, as above. --hippo43 (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
What are you saying no to? The collapsed line-up or the un-collapsed line-up for the 3 test like it is for the 2009 tour? Rugby.change (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm saying no to the whole lot. We have to stop ascribing equal value to the non-test matches and treat the test matches with the deference they deserve. Info for test matches, no info for others, no collapsible boxes since there's really no problem with the info as it is. – PeeJay 00:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok I'm up for that. The only line-ups that are required are the 3 tests against Australia and the opening match against the Barbarians. That's that sorted. Rugby.change (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Somehow I doubt that Hippo43 will see it that way. I'm just expressing my opinion the same as anyone else, not saying that my opinion is how it has to be. That said, I will be very unhappy if anything different is done. – PeeJay 01:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree, however, Hippo43 doesn't think The barbarians v Lions line-up should be on there. Personally, I think as the Baa Baas is seen as an international team, they deserve the respect as if the match was a test match. After all, its Hippo43's opinion that the line-up makes that section scrappy. Rugby.change (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree the tests are more important than non-test games (which includes the Barbarians). However, all this info (uncollapsed) makes it impossible to read the list of fixtures as a whole. We have to consider a general audience of readers. Are readers more likely to want to see the tour laid out clearly as a whole or want lots of info on individual games? I don't have a problem with readers having to drill down for more detail, whether by clicking on an external link or clicking to uncollapse a box. I suggeested collapsing boxes because they give both advantages, but I'm open to other ideas.
Looking at other rugby articles, it is only recent events that have this level of detail. It isn't necessary, it makes the article less readable and there is no consensus across other articles that this is how it should be done.
Either way, the Barbarians game was not a test and should not be treated like one. Rugbychange, I've no idea why you think it is equivalent to a test. --hippo43 (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
What are you trying to say Hippo43. Go back to the collapsed template for all non-test matches, and uncollapsed for test matches. What you wrote suggests to me, collapsed line-up template will only be used for the Barbarian match. If you are suggesting going back to the collapsed line-up template, we may as well use that for all non-test matches i.e Barbarian, Western Force, Queensland Reds, Brumbies, etc, and include all line-ups in the collapsed template, although, leave the test matches as it was in 2009 (uncollapsed). That wouldn't be to bad if you ask me. It shows the schedule more fluidly and people will not have to scroll and scroll just for the test matches. And with all non-test matches with collapsed line-ups gives readers the option to see those line-ups. Although I will emphasize my opinion on that this should not be applied to the test matches! Rugby.change (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
My preference is for the list of games to be legible as a whole, so with no lineups visible for any games. Lineups could be in collapsed boxes for all games, or just test matches, or not at all - I'm not too stressed either way. I don't have the time or desire to add all this trivia for each game, but I don't object to other editors doing so. It just shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of a readable article. More information is not necessarily better.
As an alternative, I would go for a simple list of games higher up the article, with all the geekery put in a stats section later. This, to me, is infinitely better than the catastrophe we will have here by the end of the tour. --hippo43 (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The approach in this article is also much better. --hippo43 (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I like this idea. At to top of the article a brief table stating math, date, opponent, venue, result and score, and further down we can use this template (go to my sandbox User:Rugby.change/sandbox) which will include all the nitty gritty things, and with line-ups collapsed by default, it gives the reader the option to see the line-ups should they desire. Yes or No? Rugby.change (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes for me.
I like your collapsible thing, but would add some sort of header labeled 'Lineups' or 'Team details' or something - the 'show' button isn't immediately clear to me. --hippo43 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
No problem. Rugby.change (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Just for the record (and I've just remembered this, so don't bite my head off for only bringing it up now), but collapsible templates aren't exactly compliant with WP:ACCESS. Nevertheless, I agree that a small table at the top of the page would be a good summary of the tour, and then match details (plus a prose summary of each match) can go in a separate section as per the 2005 tour article. – PeeJay 11:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

New design with small table etc

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

IMO the new layout is an improvement - good work Rugbychange. I added a border to make the collapsobox stand out more. It's a bit ugly but I don't know how to make it pretty. Also for the small table the columns should be, in order (IMO): date, opponent, venue, result, score. We should ditch "Match 1", "Match 2" etc because these terms are not used anywhere officially - putting them here amounts to original research. --hippo43 (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is going to fix the problem with WP:SIZE and readability. I feel for people trying to view this page on a mobile device. Having two tables for the players one after the other looks ugly and redundant, and I don't know why only having player lists for the Tests and Barbarians matches (why are the Barbarians special by the way?) solves anything. Better to leave the main article in summary style. Combine the two player lists (so add matches players, points scored to the first one), and split off the team line-ups (for all matches) and detailed player stats into a separate article. I was thinking something like 2011 Rugby World Cup#Knockout stage and 2011 Rugby World Cup knockout stage. The first is an attractive summary, and the second separate article more detailed for those that want it. Everyone wins, and we can then quit some of this silly edit-warring. - Shudde talk 12:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Does the Barbarians match not have Test status? They have done in the past, or is it just ad hoc as to whether Barbarians matches are given Test status? – PeeJay 12:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
There's really no need to have a separate article for the stats. I've changed the border around the line-ups, although I'm not completely sure the border should be there, but never the less, the article is much better now. Rugby.change (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's up to the country playing the Barbarians as to whether they award caps. England never have, but Wales usually do. The Lions have played the Barbarians only once before, in 1977, and that wasn't a capped game. This one isn't either. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dylan Hartley

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Dylan Hartley is in and out of the Lions Squad section like a fiddlers elbow. Per WP:BRD discuss it here. Do not revert again until concensus is reached here. Hamish59 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I contend that as he was selected for the Lions Squad, he should be listed in the table of players. That he did not play, or even tour, is immaterial. Hamish59 (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Why is it immaterial? Because you say so? According to the Lions website he is not part of their squad. They are a very good source. --hippo43 (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
A footnote stating that he was originally selected, but later replaced would work I think. Having him in the squad implies that he was in the team, but he never really got that far. It's kind of pointless including him in the squad (because he was omitted before the team even played a match), but having a footnote would be very worthwhile. - Shudde talk 12:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
To me, the explanation in the text above the table seems fine for this purpose. --hippo43 (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hippo43, kindly undo your last reversion. To revert while a discussion has barely started is not wp:good faith Hamish59 (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
No thanks. This has nothing to do with good faith or BRD, but what appears in official sources. The Lions do not include him in their official record of the squad. Why are you fighting it? --hippo43 (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes it is bad faith. A discussion is ongoing and you just jump in and revert. You keep bandying about the "Lions official site". So, cite it. Beware WP:PRIMARY Hamish59 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Again, why is it bad faith? Because you say so? Please be aware of WP:AGF.
The onus is on you to provide references that Hartley is in the squad if you want to add the information again. Nobody here has agreed with you. Simply stating that the discussion is ongoing does not justify repeatedly adding unsourced, inaccurate information. --hippo43 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
1. I am not saying the Hartley is in the squad, but that he was per BBC, Mail, etc., etc. Or are you proposing to remove Cian Healy and Gethin Jenkins?
2. Nobody here has agreed with you - you, me and Shudde have contributed to this discussion; hardly overwhealming.
3. It is up to you to provide references for why you are removing the information. Which you have failed to do.
Finally, you have broken WP:3RR. 20:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
1. Of course he was selected for the initial squad - the article already covers it. He was then withdrawn and did not tour as he was ineligible to play in any of the games. None of that is contentious. I haven't suggested removing any other players - an obvious red herring.
2. You are right, this hasn't attracted much debate, as it is a fairly trivial point. However, no consensus has emerged for your view, while some opposition has. Why you are accusing me of bad faith etc over such a small point is beyond me.
3. No it isn't up to me. The idea of providing references for removing material is a new one. The fact that he is not in the squad is not contentious, nor is the fact that he did not tour and could not play - he was removed from the tour squad before he left. It is simply a question of our judgment as editors whether we include him in that list, with a note which redundantly repeats the existing explanation, or not. It is obviously significant that the Lions do not list him in their squad, but do list replacements (including his own replacement) and players who have left the tour because of injury. WP:PRIMARY clearly allows primary sources to be used with care. There is no reason to distrust the Lions own publications, and no reason to be unduly cautious about using the source over such a small point. --hippo43 (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Harley was in the table before you boldly edited him out. You were reverted. The discussion here has not reached a concensus for removing the information, therefore it should be remain in the article until and unless there is a concensus to remove it. Can you kindly put the information back in, please. Hamish59 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
No. Leaving it out is correct.
BRD is generally a good rule of thumb to follow, but on a minor point like this when the answer is obvious and backed by the Lions own publication, it should just stay in. My good faith edit, on such a small point, was not really bold at all. This has been a fast-moving subject with lots of changes to the article - I disagree that there was ever a strong consensus for its inclusion in the list. --hippo43 (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I thought that would be your attitude going by past performance. No worries, I will fix it for you. Hamish59 (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm all for keeping Hartley listed. He was in the original squad named for the tour and we have a notes column on the far right of the table for just this purpose: to make notes in unusual situations. We have sources that say he was in the original squad, we have sources to say he was removed, I don't see any problem. – PeeJay 21:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Having a source said he was in the original squad doesn't preclude us from omitting him from that table. We're going to say he was in the squad before being replaced (which can also be sources). My main objection to including him in there is that he played no part in the tour at all – and the table implies otherwise. Everyone except him and Jenkins – who actually made the plane to Hong Kong – have already participated in at least one match. Unfortunately for him, Dylan Hartley made absolutely no contribution to the tour. I do think that he should be mentioned in the prose above the table however; it should be clear to any reader he would have toured had he not been banned. - Shudde talk 07:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Brian Cunniffe

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I notice a country flag keeps getting added/removed from Brian Cunniffe. From what I can see online, he's previously worked with the WRU (though most recently was working with the British Olympic Association). Tastyniall (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

As far as I understand it, he previously worked with the WRU, but not currently. Not sure if that means he should be considered from the WRU or not - I'm probably inclined towards no. Either way, he shouldn't have an Irish flag or an English flag while the table refers to 'Home union'. --hippo43 (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
The same could be said for Andy Irvine, he's not currently employed or associated with the SRU, and Feehan is full time CEO of the Six Nations, not employed by the IRFU. Tastyniall (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK, in that case I think we should remove the flag icon things from them as well. Or change the whole thing to nationality. Or remove that column altogether. What do you think? --hippo43 (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Delete the column, I reckon. It's largely irrelevant anyway. – PeeJay 09:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Agree. --hippo43 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Flags

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago47 comments7 people in discussion

I actually think many of the flags should be removed from the team details sections. MOS:FLAG is actually quite long, but the section on sportspeople is quite clear:

Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise. Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with. For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags). If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used. If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then a reliable source should be used to show who the sportsperson has chosen to represent.

I'm thinking of the non-text matches here. If the players for the Waratahs, Brumbies etc haven't played for a national team, references need to be provided. Just as an example, has Henry Speight declared he will play for Fiji, or is he waiting to fulfill the residency requirement for Australia? MOS:FLAG goes on to say:

If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.

My feeling at the moment, is that if a player hasn't played for an international team, then the flag is removed unless an acceptable reference is provided. - Shudde talk 10:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree - get rid of them. For me, the more flags we remove, the better. I don't understand the obsession with adding them everywhere - there are so many cases like this where they are not helpful. --hippo43 (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I know that this page gets a lot of views, so I'll take the lack of opposition to my proposal to mean that everyone is happy with it. I'm going to remove the flags from all players in the non-Test matches. Maybe we can re-add flags for players that played for a national team (Test or non-Test) prior to the date of their match; and have a note making clear that this is what the flag indicates. I'll leave that for later though. If you think I've misinterpreted the MOS, then rather than revert my changes discuss it here. I've given a bit of time for opposition, so don't think I'm doing anything controversial. - Shudde talk 07:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Personally I'm no fan of flags generally although I do accept that they can add value sometimes - in the Lions squad list it can be helpful to have a quick visual indicator of which country a player represents. In my opinion I'd go further and wouldn't include them at all in the team details - for the Lions players their flag is shown in the squad list anyway and in the games they are all Lions (regardless of nationality), for their non-international opponents its not relevant and for Australia, it'll be Australia! --Bcp67 (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I see Rugby.change (talk · contribs) has added flags for the Barbarians match – despite this discussion, despite it being a MOS violation, and despite my request to discuss before reverting my changes. To make it worse the choice of flags is unreferenced. No wonder we are having problems with rugby related articles. - Shudde talk 09:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree with removing flags for the Australian teams, however, flags are consistently used for Barbarians players and coaches to identify the nationalities. Rugby.change (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Don't see why we need flags for the Barbarians - they are an invitation club team, the players' nationalities might be interesting but it's not relevant to the team selection. Also, there will be always be at least one uncapped player in each Barbarians team which brings the issue of referencing mentioned above into play. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I thought the flag was for which country they are representing; not which rugby union i.e in case of the Barbarians. In Henry Speight's case, he was born in Fiji and remains uncapped so its wise to show his country of birth flag. So unless a player is capped, its wise to use the flag of the country of birth, not the country he is eligible or not yet eligible too..that is why we use the Australian flag when Tevita Kuridrani played the Lions because Kuridrani has been capped by the Australia 7's team and thus per IRB Rules, is only eligible for Australia, either he ever plays for the Wallabies or not...just my 3 cents....Barbarians is not a CLUB team so lets not make the same comparison to Brumbies. Same applies to the now defunct Pacific Islanders team.--Stemoc (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely the Barbarians are a club team, the official name is Barbarian Football Club - this quote from their own website explains their philosophy ...;"Who are The Barbarians? The Barbarians are a rugby club which brings together players from different clubs to play a few matches each year to enjoy the camaraderie of the game and play attacking, adventurous rugby without the pressure of having to win.". Link here. [1]. They aren't the same as the Pacific Islanders, which was a multi-national test team on the same lines as the British and Irish Lions. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I can't believe we are having this discussion with editors who claim to know about rugby. The Barbarians are a club team. --hippo43 (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello, That was to reflect that the Barbarians are NOT a club team that competes in some rugby competition unlike the Brumbies that compete in Super Rugby. The reason why we use flags for the Barbarians team is because it changes everytime they play, they never use the SAME team and the players that play for this team represent their nation (unless capped for another nation), whereas for Brumbies, they are a competitive Australian team that competes in a MAJOR competition unlike the Barbarians who DO NOT PLAY in ANY competition but get "formed" sometimes twice a year to play a certain number of 'matches' against International TEST teams....--Stemoc (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, take your point that the Baa-Baas aren't a club like the Brumbies, or Leicester, or Toulon, with a fixed squad - so they are a slightly different type of "club". Their players don't represent their countries though when playing for the Barbarians - I think that's partly the reason behind them wearing their own club's socks - they are just players, not "England players" or "South African players" etc. I don't see any great need to indicate a Barbarian player's nationality with a flag.
Back to your point about nationality. You say "So unless a player is capped, its wise to use the flag of the country of birth, not the country he is eligible or not yet eligible too..". Shudde dealt with precisely this point in his opening statement above, from the WP:MOSFLAG - "If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used. If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then a reliable source should be used to show who the sportsperson has chosen to represent.". We have a clear guidline here which we ought to stick to unless we feel there's some compelling and justifiable reason to do otherwise. Your point re Kuridrani is correct, he has represented Australia internationally at some level, so we can use the flag to denote his nationality in this article if we eventually decide to go with flags at the end of this discussion. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, so this is slowly taking shape. Remember when we hover over those flags, it doesn't link to a rugby union body, but a country. Speight can be used as Exhibit 1 cause he was also eligible for NZ at a point in time but he was never listed anywhere with a NZ flag and his place of birth (Fiji) was used instead. I feel the flags play an important part and as Shudde said above, in case of the Barbarians, they sometimes play an uncapped player and since those flags used denote their "country" and not rugby union body they are affiliated or not yet affiliated to, so I say we continue using flags where its necessary...--Stemoc (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
This makes no sense. I'm not sure at all what you are saying. You seem to be both agreeing with me and disagreeing with me. Please read MOS:FLAGS – it says at one point: "Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death". This is what is being done at the moment. Uncapped players are simply having their place of birth used rather than their nationality: their nationality is not being established (through verifiable sources) – which is why simply removing all the flags has instead been done. - Shudde talk 13:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The flags should stay. Club teams always include flag to denote union. In some of the Australian teams, you have players from Fiji, South Africa. The Barbarians should definatly have flags. Through the articles the Barbarians consistannty have flags to denote union/natinolity. If a player is capped, flag denotes union. If player is uncapped, flag denotes nationality, this isn't rocket science. Rugby.change (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The last four words of your above reply exactly illustrate my point about sensible debate. You've got a view on flags, fair enough. Don't drag comments like that in, please - make your point, back it up with rational argument and leave it at that. And while on the subject, just because something has "always" been done in a certain way, that's not a compelling argument for it being done that way somewhere else. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok on a civil note, I think that due to that all club sides and the Barbarians are technicllay a club side, flags should be used. If the player is capped then flag will denote union, if the player is uncapped then flag will denote nationality. For example, Henry Speight (Brumbies) is expected to represent Australia, but currently is represents Fiji as he is uncapped. The same for Sam Jones (Barbarians). Rugby.change (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think having flags for club teams is a good thing. Clubs come from a particular country, sure, but there is nothing to say that their players have to be from that country too, and adding the flags lets people know what country the players are from. Obviously there's no need to include the flags for national teams since it's obvious where those players are from, but the Barbarians, Force, Reds, Combined Country, Waratahs, Brumbies and Rebels should all have flags IMO. Furthermore, the coaches should have flags too as a way of indicating that they are not from that country either. Furthermore, without the flags, we just have a mass of text; I know aesthetics isn't a great argument, but I know I'd rather have that little bit of colour making the article look interesting. – PeeJay 12:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks to Rugby.change for coming back with his thoughts. One of my own arguments against flags is the counter to PeeJay's aesthetics one - I'm not too bothered about making it visually interesting, as long as the facts are there. But maybe I'm just a bit dull like that! I'd like to see a few more people's opinions on this. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
May I counter by saying that if you're not that bothered, then it doesn't really matter. The essential facts are all there, and we are adding to them by taking advantage of what would otherwise be unused whitespace to give readers information that they might find interesting. – PeeJay 12:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Visually, aesthetically, I am bothered. Cluttering the article with flags everywhere makes it look awful and hard to read, and gives undue weight to the Shiny colourful flags in comparison to the text. --hippo43 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. People aren't stupid, they know that the important information is the player's name etc. It's not even clutter when we have so much whitespace going unused. I'm not saying we should fill in all whitespace with information because that would look silly, but people will most likely wonder why we're not including information about players' nationality. Plus, it's not controversial to say, for example, that Henry Speight should have a Fiji flag next to his name since he has represented Fiji at youth international level. Likewise for Sam Jones, he has played for England Under-20s, meaning that his nationality (in a sporting context) is incontrovertible. As MOS:FLAG says under the section titled "Use of flags for sportspersons": "Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with. For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags). If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used." Seems pretty clear-cut to me. – PeeJay 14:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately it's not clear cut at all (which is the main problem). Aesthetically I think they add little, and cost a lot. They are causing more problems then they solve. At the moment we're having to worry about whether they're accurate (so verifiability), whether they are placing undue weight on a players nationality (does nationality matter more than a player's other attributes? "Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." - MOS). Unfortunately for us, the eligibility rules for the IRB mean that even having played U20 for one country, a player may still be eligible for several others (Clyde Rathebone was capped U20 for South Africa then played test rugby for Australia as an example). Eligibility only becomes simple once they've been capped internationally, because after that they cant be capped by anyone else. Sam Jones could still play for a country other than England (esp. if he has parents or grandparents born outside England). So as per the IRB eligibilty criteria, what countries is Sam Jones eligible for (there could be several), and if he is only eligible for England, where is the reliable source saying this? - Shudde talk 06:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
But flags don't indicate permanence; they should simply indicate which country each player is affiliated to at the time (i.e. either which country they represented most recently, or the country with which they are most associated). Of course, this should always be sourceable (not necessarily every time, but we should at least be able to prove an affiliation. True, Clyde Rathbone played for South Africa at youth level, so in historical articles, we should use the South African flag for him, but only up to the point when he first played for an Australian side. Likewise with Sam Jones, at the moment he is English, but if he plays for another country at senior level, all articles in the future should use the flag of that nation. We had a similar problem with Rodrigo Possebon, who had not played for an Italy youth team when he was named in the Man Utd team for the 2009 Football League Cup Final, but once he had, all future articles used that flag. So to sum up, we don't need to worry about the possibility that a player could play for another country in the future because we only need to worry about the situation at the time. – PeeJay 12:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
You say their affiliation/allegence at the time, but we're assuming readers will know that – I wouldn't, and I edit here! We absolutely need to worry about it. It's confusing. Why do readers care whether someone played U20 for England? Your Rathbone example is where it starts to become ridiculous; why are we including flags if all they would do is confuse people. Imagine someone reading an article that has one flag next to a player, and then another article that has a different flag for the same person? Would that not confuse a reader (I'd wonder whether they were even the same person)? What would be gained by doing it? I'm starting to wonder what the purpose would be. - Shudde talk 12:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Aren't you the one who was quoting MOS:FLAG at us? Although it doesn't deal with this precise matter, it does refer to "Historical considerations" and says "Do not rewrite history". It's not controversial or misleading to say that Clyde Rathbone was affiliated to South Africa at the time when he played for them but Australia later in his career. As for people wondering if it is the same player, they can click on the player's article for an explanation of their national allegiances. – PeeJay 12:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't deal with this matter at all – you're being incredibly selective in your "Do not rewrite history" quote (and incredibly selective in it's interpretation). The reader is not going to know if he is affiliated with South Africa "at the time he played for them", they're going to see the South African flag next to his name and not know whether it reflects his affiliation at the time of the match (or squad announcement etc), or his affiliation at the time the article was written (or updated). Using a flag in this fashion is a blunt sword – "they can click on the player's article for an explanation of their national allegiances" pretty much sums up the problems I'm talking about. - Shudde talk 10:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you're being equally obtuse about this. If a reader knows enough to be confused about why Clyde Rathbone would have a South African flag next to his name in an article about a subject that took place before he moved to Australia, then surely they would have the intelligence to look up the reason for the discrepancy, or at least deduce the reason. Furthermore, given that Rathbone was born and raised in South Africa, surely it would make no sense to apply the Australian flag to him until after he became an Australian citizen? – PeeJay 15:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you haven't read the Manual of Style section on flags, do so before commenting further

The main problem with using flags is that they are being used to imply nationality. We don't actually know the nationality of non-nationally-representative players. We know it for referees, and not coaches. People are confusing place of birth for nationality. This is where the problems are arising. If you haven't read MOS:FLAGS and want to contribute to this discussion, then read it (all of it) before commenting. One other thing it says is:

Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death

It even has this in bold! Flags are widely being used for this purpose, and it raises concerns about accuracy, implies allegiance where they may be none, and worse, in extreme cases, it could be a WP:BLP violation (maybe read that one if you haven't). Using flags to indicate places of birth is strictcly against policy; if anyone wants to change that, then take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons – we can't change that policy here. - Shudde talk 13:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Completely agree. Using flags for two different purposes in the same table is madness, as readers wouldn't have a clue what each one meant. Having some flags signifying IRB eligibility and others representing (even reliably sourced) legal nationality for non-capped players would not help readers at all. They would just be seeing flags everywhere but not understanding what they meant. --hippo43 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
When they wrote MOS:FLAGS, I don' think they had rugby in mind, Rugby is probably the only major sport where we use flags in this way, not so much any other sport, not even soccer, if anything, maybe the MOS:FLAGS needs to be "updated" ro exclude Rugby, when it says not to use flags to indicate locations of "birth, residence, or death", what does it actually mean?, in what context?..where else do they use flags next to the name of a person that has died? As i said, in regards to rugby, the MOS:FLAGS isn't necessarily very clear. It may apply to musicians, actors, politicians or even doctors because we don't actually list them in lineups now do we?..I think we may need to discuss this in relation to rugby on MOS:FLAG's talk page...we can't go around removing flags or messing long standing articles because one of the wikipedia guidelines didn't actually make complete sense....I think we should Ignore all rules if it becomes a hindrance and do what's right by the project--Stemoc (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Which is really one of my major issues with using flags at all - they cause more problems than they solve. If a reader comes here looking for information about a rugby match, is the nationality / eligibility of the participants one of the key interests? I don't know but I suspect not. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
It may not be the primary issue, but I suspect it may be conspicuous by its absence. – PeeJay 16:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
You are right. If we include flags (and doesn't look like that is going to happen at the moment, as we're clearly in a situation where "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen") then we have to make 100% clear to readers what they actually mean. At the moment they could mean several things (place of birth, country they've been capped for, country they've played U20 for, country of residence, etc etc) – that's why I said we remove them first, and then decide under what circumstances they be added back. At the moment, judging by this debate, we can't agree on those circumstances. - Shudde talk 06:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well when I first came here, I was very interested in rugby player backgrounds, but thats just me...back then we didn't use flags...we don't use flags in Super Rugby because its a competition between 2 clubs, not a club team playing an "IRB sanctioned test team". There are only 2 teams like this, the Lions and the now defunct Pacific Islanders so anyways, when a club team plays a test team which compromises of players from different backgrounds, its probably a good idea to use flags..since the PI team is now defunct, it only applies to BIL as a test team but that leaves one "club" team in the Barbarians which operates usually twice a year in the summer and autumn windows....It should also apply there....My opinion, only use flags when the BIL and Barbarians play, no need for do it for other teams unless its a barbarian affiliated team for example the French Barbarians which is affiliated to the Barbarian F.C......--Stemoc (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand how you can make the distinction between club teams and the Lions, Barbarians, etc. They all combine players of different nationalities and that international diversity is often of interest to people. Either we have flags for both representative sides and clubs (but not national teams) or we don't have flags for any of them. – PeeJay 13:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well the Lions are regarded as a "National team" when they compete every 4 years and when i said to have flags for Lions and Barbarian affiliated teams, I also meant having flags for the team they play against UNLESS they are playing a standard NATIONAL team and not a combined team, a club team or a random select XV..so if the Lions play Australia, no need to add flags to the Australian lineup, just the Lions lineup like we are doing right now cause the flags represent the rugby union body they are representing and being a wallaby means they ALL represent Australia..Yes there is a bit of Bias when it comes to Lions and Barbarains but unfortunately, there is not much we can do about this, this could also apply to the WorldXV team, if they play in the near future..--Stemoc (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is there evidence of usage of this flag? Or did someone just make it up? Gnevin (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is worth a look - WP:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_10, a discussion from 2008 about this subject. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's about the Lions "flag", which I also object to (as well as the Barbarians logo), but that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here is whether the players for the non-national teams (i.e. Super 15 and Barbarians) should have flags next to their names. – PeeJay 22:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Gnevin raised the point about OR, which I assumed was to do with the Lions flag. Hard to keep track of all the points being raised here! --Bcp67 (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
OR refers to the made up lions flag. Sorry for the confusion Gnevin (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh, not that again...The BiL and PI flag debacle really didn't amount to much..the current BIL flag we use, is it legit? Didn't Hamedog come with the idea to merge all four? Looks like the flags have been removed even without a consensus could be reached...what's the use of discussing it then?...--Stemoc (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
There's no point discussing it because it is a violation of WP:OR. The Lions do not play under a flag that looks anything like that, so it is wrong of us to suggest that they do. – PeeJay 22:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Legit how? It's entirely made up. Also the point of discussion we could we add it. Also I think this flag needs to go from every article. So if there is a reason to keep it you should bring it up Gnevin (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
another silly wikipedia rule is avoiding us from using the LEGIT logo (File:Logo Lions Rugby.svg. I know its fair-use but should it not apply to all articles associated with that logo? I always found that wikipedia rule hard to digest. Can we change the fair-use rationale to allow it for a wider use? Its only used in association with the article. Its understandable to use 'fair-use images' on articles dealing with ONE issue but this one is a widely used logo but unfortunately because of a poor rationale, its limited to one article. Can we get a non-free content criteria exemption for their OFFICIAL logo? ..--Stemoc (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely not. Fair Use is not a Wikipedia rule, it's part of copyright law. You can only use a copyrighted work in a minimal way without paying a licensing fee, and absolutely not as decoration, which this would be. – PeeJay 15:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Statistics

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Is it worth including statistics for Australia? Rugby.change (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Depends, what type of statistics?..--Stemoc (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
We did it for the 2009 tour, so I don't see why not. – PeeJay 12:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
List of the players in the test series with their appearances and points scored and maybe their cap total and d.o.b. at the start? Was that what we did in 2009? Can't see there would be anything else to include. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think Rugby.change is referring to a breakdown of points scored by the Australian players, which I would support. Perhaps remove the Lions players from the stats table who haven't scored any points and add any tour opposition players who have, similar to this table from 2009. – PeeJay 12:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's exactly what I mean PeeJay. Have a look at the table I've added. Seems reasonable enough to me. Rugby.change (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
You really shouldn't add stuff before consensus is formed, despite what WP:BOLD says – if you've asked for opinions, at least wait to see what the community says. That said, the table you've added looks good, although it's not at all what I expected based on what I suggested and that you apparently agreed with. – PeeJay 13:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would be great if someone could include the kicking stats for the Test matches (% successful for e.g. Halfpenny), JCJC777

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2013 British and Irish Lions tour to Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013 British and Irish Lions tour to Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_British_%26_Irish_Lions_tour_to_Australia&oldid=1196635227"