Open main menu

Talk:2019 Rugby World Cup

Host NationEdit

As with the 2015 Rugby World Cup, Japan are the sole host nation. While games may be played outside of Japan (this is still to be ratified by the IRB), Japan are the host nation, and Hong Kong and Singapore have no automatic rights to any games. Magpieram (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2019 Rugby World Cup. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 07:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2019 Rugby World Cup. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 15:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Traditional heartlandEdit

Japan has been playing rugby since the 19th century. It's about time we ditch anglocentric ideas like this phrase. Rugby has not just been played in the English Commonwealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.233.35 (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It is the first time the Rugby World Cup is being played in a non Tier One nation.(Mobile mundo (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC))
19th century? English Commonwealth? Actually, the game of Rugby (with a capital R) was never played in the English Commonwealth - not in any century. The English Commonwealth was a republic that was formed on 19 May 1649, a few months after England had found itself quite literally without a head of government. Oliver Cromwell's Republic lasted for just over a decade, when it was replaced by a return to a monarchy under King Charles II in 1660. The game of Rugby was first codified in the middle of the 19th century in England, so the sentence places Japanese Rugby squarely within the early stages of the game's existence, though admittedly a couple of centuries after the demise of the English Commonwealth. Even if you meant the British Commonwealth, I fail to see how recognition of Japan's early adoption of the game is somehow Anglocentric. ChrisJBenson (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Qualification illustratedEdit

Why Moroccan flag is put individually from other african flags ? Brio (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brio The person that created the illustration is Alexei17777. I think it is because Morocco gained promotion to the 2018 African Gold Cup but the creator would be able to explain it better. (Mobile mundo (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC))

Kumagaya Rugby Stadium not Kumagaya Athletics StadiumEdit

A new page needs to be created for Kumagaya Rugby Stadium. I've never created a page before and I'd prefer not to do so. To clarify, They are building a new stadium, Kumagaya Rugby Stadium, in Kumagaya Park which includes several sports facilities including the existing Kumagaya Athletics Stadium, an existing stadium. Here is a link to the World Rugby page for the new stadium. https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/venues/kumagaya-rugby-ground --CriticalThinking26 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Standard of officialsEdit

World Rugby has criticised the standard of officials in the first round of pool matches. Reece Hodge should have been sent off in the first half of Australia vs Fiji. He subsequently got cited. The two Samoan players who got yellow cards in the first half of Samoa vs Russia should have been sent off according to many experts. I think this could go in a controversies section or match officials section. (78.16.136.93 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC))

Perhaps we should wait until the tournament is over before adding a section about controversial refereeing decisions so that we can summarise the tournament as a whole. Otherwise, it looks reactionary and a little bit like sour grapes on the part of the "wronged" parties. Giving it a bit more time also allows for more analytical pieces to be written, which would allow us to better source the section. – PeeJay 19:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with PeeJay. Most refereeing controversies are discussed for a day or so following the match, often mostly by the losing team’s supporters, and then largely forgotten by the wider community. CUA 27 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
#CraigJoubert haha Rugby.change (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Colours for the four tables for the pool stagesEdit

The colours (green and yellow) in the tables don't match the results to date. They are all two green and one yellow regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S C Cheese (talkcontribs) 15:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The colours show that the first and second place qualify for the quarterfinals and the third qualify for the next world cup.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but the colours shouldn't be used until those outcomes are known. At the moment it looks as if those outcomes are already known for the named team, not merely for the final positions regardless of which team holds them.S C Cheese (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The colours mirror various association football articles, e.g. Module:Sports_table/WDL#Example_usage and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2018%E2%80%9319_UEFA_Champions_League_group_tables&oldid=871093430, where letters after the club names show whether they have qualified for the phase indicated by the colours. Boothy m (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem isn't the allocation of colours. It's using them as the background to named teams before the outcomes are known. If you look at the table "Key to colours in pool tables" it doesn't say that the colours are provisional, or that they apply to final positions in the pool. It looks as if they apply to the named team in the text to which they are the background. But they don't.S C Cheese (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That is what it has always being shown and into we know the final results, the Q and E lettering comes into play to indicate who has qualified through to the knockout stage and who is eliminated. Once this confirmed, then those letters goes away and only the colours for the groups will be shown. HawkAussie (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that the table structure here has only been half updated to new standards used in wikipedia (the football examples are good here) with lots of pre-2012 stuff still used just because that's what people used to use. The heading table at the top (explaining the colours) is not used there any more - replaced with annotations on the line itself. Similarly, the letter structure should be appended to the bottom of each table as the keys are used. In addition, the letters are (generally) used inconsistently with the colours, only referring to the green lines. The tables should, if implemented correctly, look more like this (note, I have changed the results deliberately to show roughly what might have happened in certain situations).165.225.114.184 (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Team
Pld W D L TF PF PA +/− BP Pts Status
  Wales (Q) 3 3 0 0 12 101 56 +45 2 14 Advance to quarter finals and 2023 World Cup
  Australia (X) 3 2 0 1 16 109 60 +49 3 11
  Fiji 3 1 0 2 17 110 108 +2 3 7 Eliminated (but qualify for 2023 World Cup)
  Georgia (Y) 3 1 0 2 8 57 95 −38 1 5 Eliminated
  Uruguay (E) 4 1 0 3 5 47 105 −58 0 4

Updated to match(es) played on 1 October.
(Q): Qualified to quarter-final stage. (X): Assured progression to 2023 World Cup and may advance to quarter-final stage. (Y): Cannot advance to quarter-finals but may advance to 2023 World Cup. (E): Eliminated from quarter-final stage and directly 2023 World Cup qualification

Annotations within the table are much better, and there is room for that. Would that also address my major concern: that the current use of colours from the moment that the table appears may be right for that row as a final outcome but wrong for the team named in that row at an earlier point of viewing? (This has been misread by everyone to to whom I've shown it.)S C Cheese (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't add background colours to the table until the consequence they indicate is guaranteed. Why not add a coloured line between the rows until qualification/elimination is assured? – PeeJay 16:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Table wrongEdit

The table for Pool D wrongly says that Georgia and Uruguay are eliminated. In fact, Georgia can get 10 points and Uruguay 9 if they both win their last game with a bonus point. Wales only has 9 points, so they could at least match Wales if Wales loses the last 2 games.

Wales and Fiji still play each other, so the 2nd place team will have at least 11 points.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


South Africa is technically not qualified yetEdit

If my understand of the tie-breaker is correct, if Italy wins wy 130 (or more) points against New Zeland and New Zeland scores a bonus point, the 3 teams will be tied and Italy wins the group. Since the tie-breakers are recursive, New-Zeland will be second. Alcyon007 (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Possibly using the efn template for the cancelled matchesEdit

So I was thinking about how we could better improve the article and I thought about possibly using a {{efn}} template which could be placed just above the references for this article as what it currently stands, it doesn't quite look right with basically the same sentence for both of those cancellations which could easilly be completed with one. Thoughts? HawkAussie (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I am assuming that this is about the note template in the Match Cancellations heading. This looks strange and is very non-standard. It is also misleading as it is not obvious to a reader reading the section where that link will go. If you want to use {{note}} then have it in the references section where it is meant to be. AIRcorn (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rugby.change:. AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Aircorn: Are we saying that we want to use the efn template to briefly note the circumstances that created the 0-0 draw (game cancelled bla bla bla, 0-0 draw) and then use the Match Cancellation section to be more detailed in what happened etc, as per what it is now?
It is fixed now. AIRcorn (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Stadium NamesEdit

The stadium names used in the Venues sections and the Pool Stage and Knockout Stage sections are all consistent with each other. However, they are not consistent with the names on the map in the Venues section, to the extent that for three of the stadiums, you cannot tie the two together.

In the text: Chōfu - Tokyo Stadium. Fukuoka - Fukuoka Hakatanomori Stadium. Kumamoto - Kumamoto Stadium.

On the map: Ajinomoto Stadium. Level5 Stadium. Egao Kenko Stadium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidNorman99 (talkcontribs) 09:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed - RWC standard is to not use sponsorship names so it is correct to change them,Hackerjack (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
What we should really be doing is using the names of the articles as they are here on Wikipedia. There's no reason to pipe them to another name. We are not beholden to the Rugby World Cup organisers as to what names we should use here. If those names are wrong, then we should start WP:RM discussions for the wrong ones. – PeeJay 18:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
No, what we should be doing is what we have done, use the names as they were known at the time of the event, which during the RWC is the names as dictated by the IRB as it is for any major tournament/event. This is how it's done for FIFA/UEFA tournaments and Olympic games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackerjack (talkcontribs) 09:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Erm, if that's the case, then it shouldn't be. We are not beholden to the sponsors. – PeeJay 18:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Pool summariesEdit

Might be just me, but the paragraphs on each pool summarising would be more fitting to be on the individual pool articles. Think of it from a multiple device point of view, when viewing on your phone, form table to results, there's a huge block of writing between it. If it at least had it's own section, you can toggle the section on or of to read it. Just expressing the idea, no real preference to be honest. Rugby.change (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

For me, I think we should be writing individual summaries of each match on the pool articles. An overall summary of what happened in the pool may be warranted in the lead section, but I feel like the summaries as they stand fall into some sort of halfway house - too detailed for the lead, but not detailed enough to serve as match summaries. – PeeJay 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Bonus pointsEdit

I was reading your section in the "Pool Stage" and wondered if a losing team scoring four tries would also get a bonus point. If not, should the sentence really say "A winning team scoring four tries in a match is awarded a bonus point". I don't know enough about rugby to make the change myself.Juve2000 (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A losing team would also get a bonus point for 4 tries, so everything okay in that section.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Got it, thank you. So three bonus points are actually possible, two for the losing team.Juve2000 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to "2019 Rugby World Cup" page.