Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 11

Dean Richards (rugby union)

Hi guys. There's been a complaint from Dean Richards about the article about him; more here. I've cleaned it up though the sections on his playing career are somewhat short - a victim of recentism, I think - and the lead may not adequately summarise the content of the article. Would you guys be able to expand the article? It has potential to be a GA at least. Regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Emulation of Template:Infobox rugby league football competition

The Enterprise Cup page uses a rugby league football competition infobox; I assume this is for use by "Rugby League" competitions, do we need an equivalent for "Rugby Union"?! If you search for the "Template:Infobox rugby league football competition" and then look in "Pages that link here" there are a huge number of Rugby Union competitions (possibly even the majority).

I have made a request on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/To do

Is someone in charge of defining what categories of Infoboxes we need and instituting them? Is there a page advising people what infoboxes and templates to use for each type of article?

Mbwa mwitu (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Mbwa mwitu - you will find a list of default templates that people are using at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Templates. It is good practice for consistencies sake. The list of templates noted there are those that are generally the accepted norm.

For competitions there is not one specifically noted there. If you look at the infoboxes in use around rugby pages, you will find that people have been using a couple different templates, and we as a project should settle on a specific one (even though I suspect that there is only a few differences between them. Churchill Cup uses Template:Infobox sports league, Super 14 uses Template:Infobox rugby league football competition (which is redirected through the link Template:Infobox rugby league cup), both of which allow the sport to be specified. 2010 Churchill Cup has a horrible mashup of an infobox, that should be modified. The Rugby World cup has it's own series of templates - Template:Infobox Rugby World Cup. ANother lesser Template is used at Bradby Shield Encounter - Template:Infobox SL Interschool Tournaments

Fortunately a lot of the competitions still need an infobox, and so if we decide on a default template now, we may not have to do a lot of re-editing to bring articles into a consistent format. I personally think we should settle on a default template, just which one? I think people should discuss here what is important to put into the infobox, and which version (or a new one of our own) suits best.

Looking at the options noted above Infobox Sports league notes these fields:

{{Infobox Sports league
| title          = 
| current_season = 
| last_season    = 
| logo           = 
| pixels         = <!-- use a format of ##px, such as 120px -->
| caption        = 
| Formerly       = 
| sport          = 
| founded        = 
| fame           = 
| motto          = 
| inaugural      = 
| teams          = 
| country        = 
| venue          = 
| champion       = 
| most_champs    = 
| qualification  = 
| folded         = 
| website        = 
| singles        = 
| ceo            = 
| Director       = 
| TV             = 
| related_comps  = 
| Founder        = 
}}

which to me looks like an infobox more in line with a organization (rugby equivalent would be a Union). Infobox rugby league football competition has these fields:

{{Infobox rugby league football competition
| name           = <!-- The default is the article name unless a value is entered.
| current_season = <!-- A link to current or next season

| logo           = <!-- "filename.ext"
| pixels         = <!-- The default is "150px" unless a value is entered.
| alt            = <!-- Text alternative for people who cannot see the image. Describe the image.
| caption        = <!-- Input will appear beneath image
| sport             =<!-- To use template for sports other than Rugby League. If this is left out, it will default to "Sport: Rugby League"
| formerly       = <!-- Plus: formerly2, 3, 4, 5. Previous name(s) of competition. Links are not required here.
| founded        = <!-- Year of institution. Sometimes only one of  founded= and inaugural= are needed. 
| inaugural      = <!-- First year played. Format "YYYY"/"YYYY–YY" or "[[seasonlink|YYYY]]"
| folded         = <!-- Last year played. Format "YYYY"/"YYYY–YY" or "[[seasonlink|YYYY]]"
| replaced       = <!-- Plus replaced2, 3. If another competition replaced this one, link it

| ceotag         = <!-- Use another title if more appropriate for the senior administrator than the default, 'Chair'. 
| ceo            = <!-- Name of senior administrator
| teams          = <!-- How many teams competed
| countrytag     = <!-- Use if another title more appropriate than default (Country(s)). E.g. 'Region'
| country        = <!-- Plus: country2, 3, 4, 5. Where competition based. E.g. '{{ENG}}' or {{flag|Ireland|4prov}}, 'International'
| gov_body       = <!-- Governing body operating competition. "[[article|acronym]]". Best used in international comps, e.g. RLWC
| championtag    = <!-- Use if another title more appropriate than default (Holders). E.g. 'Champions', 'Premiers', 'Last winners'
| champion       = <!-- Plus: champion2 (competitions may have joint winners). The last team to win the competition
| season         = <!-- Plus: season2. "[[article name|YYYY]]"
| most_champs    = <!-- Plus: most_champs2, 3, 4, 5. Which team has won this competition the greatest number of times
| count          = <!-- Plus: count2, 3, 4, 5. If 2-5 not used 'count' is repeated. Number of  most_champs titles
| website        = <!-- "[http://www.fullURL.com displayURL.com]"
| TV             = <!-- Plus: TV2, 3, 4, 5. Broadcast partners. E.g. [[broadcaster]] or '''UK'''/{{flag|?}} [[ukbroadcaster]]
| qualification  =
| related_comps  = <!-- Plus: related_comps2, 3, 4, 5.Comps with a connection.Eg Pacific Cup& 4 Nations or European Cup, Shield, Bowl
}}

which is far more along the lines of what I would like to see in an infobox. Being a part of the RL project we wouldn't have the freedom to make alterations if we felt it needed it. Are there alterations to the CONTENT that anyone can see we are missing? I lean slightly towards making our own based on the RL version, but only because we can then customize it to our liking. If anyone knows of a different template please let us know.SauliH (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Article naming of Eye-gouging (rugby union) Vs Eye Contact

There is an discussion on going regarding naming a contentious article here:- Talk:Eye-gouging_(rugby_union)#Name. I would appreciate input from WikiProject Rugby union contributors GainLine ♠ _♥ 16:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Retired Rugby union players

New Category created and started populating if anyone wants to help or use it in the future. GainLine ♠ _♥ 13:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a good idea for a category. It may not be policy, but I have been led to believe that Wikipedia usually frowns on categories based on the current status of living persons. – PeeJay 23:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Set up the category to differentiate active players from retired. Can't see why it would be a problem from the BLP side of things but if its to be deleted, c'est la vie GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan either. I think it will become too large too quickly; and do we mean retired from the professional game, international or rugby altogether? FruitMonkey (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant it for retired professionals GainLine ♠ _♥ 20:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussions about names

At Talk:Super_14#Move_to_Super_15.3F and Aviva Premiership#merge Gnevin (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Rugby biography

Have come across a number of individuals that have a number of listings under the international rep section, or club sections for example: Saia Faingaa and Matt Giteau. Now the chronological ordering of the dates varies from article to article. Faingaa has his dates both ways, club is oldest to most recent, but rep sides are most recent to oldest. Can we decide which way these should be standardized please?SauliH (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I always set out from earliest club at the top leading down to most recent. All other sporting projects run it this way too. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. We should make a note on the template page, for the ignoramuses like me.SauliH (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion with possible major impact

Talk:Aviva_Premiership#Requested_move_2. This discussion could set a precedent that could affect a number of articles such as Magners League, Heineken Cup etc ..

Template:Newport Gwent Dragons squad

This template does not seem to be displaying properly. Can someone who knows more about templates have a look? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this was my bad, thought I did the conversion properly. It is fixed now.SauliH (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Rugby Football Union merge

I found the Sri Lanka Rugby Football Union article and it has 3 sentences of content. There are 7 pages on the "See also" section which take you to the governing bodies of each province. However, all of these articles have 1 or 2 sentences of content which only state which province they govern. I propose these 7 governing bodies be incorporated into the Sri Lanka Rugby Football Union page due such little content on each page until sufficient content has developed for each governing body to merit its own page. --MicroX (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They are relatively new additions. I would suggest contacting the starter of the articles and ask if they have intentions to build these articles any further, and of your intent to do a merge. Otherwise I think a merge is probably warranted.SauliH (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Merging them may make sense, but I would take SauliH's step first.

Bear in mind people, that although Sri Lankan rugby may not really register on the international radar, the game is long established there (at least a century or more) and has quite a few players. Ditto Madagascar, the main problem that they both have in common is being Third World countries.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming protocol for competitions

A number of competition articles have had debates regarding renaming, due to either sponsorship changes or other name changes. Principally these competitions and their discussions can be found at:

• Talk:Aviva Premiership#Requested move 2
• Talk:Super 14#Requested move
• (add other talk pages if you are aware of them.)

This has already been discussed without resolution at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 6#Naming conventions - Sponsorship of competitions

For some outside perspective, Soccer has removed sponsorship from naming

• Premier League#Sponsorship

A look at article naming policy can be found at Wikipedia:Article titles

As the formation of a naming guideline may tempt some to proceed with a renaming binge, we should take heed of the guideline (at the above article):

Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

The principle articles that this will effect are:

• Heineken Cup → European Rugby Cup (has been a stable name for a long time, but could change if a sponsorship change is made)
• Magners League → Celtic League
• Aviva Premiership → English Premiership (rugby union)
• Super 14 → Super Rugby

• (list others if you know of them)

It may also effect more broadly other sponsorship naming, if this discussion decides to create a more formal naming conventionit to article names for Stadiums. Now it is inexplicit.

• AMI Stadium for example.

Discussion

In my opinion the weight of support has leaned in one direction than the other in the current discussions. The debate as I see it, can be characterised by these two competing motivations: WP:COMMONNAME policy vs article name stability. My thought is that an article should be titled so that it correctly encompasses what the article contains. To reiterate what I said at the Super rugby discussion, is that the article being entitled Super 14, ceases to correctly serve the subject matter of Super 6, one of it's predecessors, whereas using Super Rugby the term, which thankfully is also in common usage, is covering all eras of the Super competition. This same thinking can be applied, and has been elucidated in the other discussions, to the issue of sponsorship.SauliH (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as on Aviva Premiership, for consistency reasons. according to Commonname, I believe that people used to call the Guiness Premiership as that simply to avoid confusion with the [Football Premiership which I guess would continue. People also call sports things like Imtech Arena and Emirates Stadium by their sponsered names as opposed to Volksparkstadion and Ashburton Grove respectivly. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose no one ever talks about the Celtic League or the European Cup, the sponsor names are used all the time. I can't see AVIVA not replacing Guinness and the confusion with the football league would be justification enough. --Snowded ^TALK 15:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I still call it the Celtic League from time to time and it will always be Lansdowne_Road to me Gnevin (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually quite a few people still refer to it as the Celtic League in Scotland. I second Gnevin's comments about Lansdowne Road. There's a kind of ugly vulgarity about referring to these places by the names of multinationals.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Question, that I've posted else where but would be have 2010_Super_14_season or 2010_Super_Rubgy_season? Gnevin (talk)
  • I posted a reply at the Super 14 talk page.SauliH (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• While this subject has been debated/discussed ad nauseum at the other pages, and is probably ripe for a conclusion. I am not sure that we are ready to do a straw poll on this yet. However, if people feel that is where this has got to, go right ahead. For the record I WOULD like this to be done with quickly, so we can all get on with editing rather than discussing :). I just don't want people who have been 'out of the loop' to feel they got gyped on the discussion. SauliH (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Two moves Heineken Cup and Magners League Gnevin (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Why was the Premiership moved when this says no? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Local support was pro the move Gnevin (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not particularly happy referring to sports competitions by corporate names. (Am I the only one who ses the irony in Budweiser and McDonalds sponsoring soccer competitions when they do little to promote that sport in the USA itself? Anyway, I digress). However, I've probably mentioned this elsewhere before, but it's worth mentioning that the name "Celtic League" is not really going to be completely appropriate for much long as some Italian teams are going to join it.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Positional templates

These have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Wing. noq (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion – Bexley RFC

Could I invite project members to add their comments to this AFD discussion regarding the article, Bexley RFC? The discussion has had to be relisted due to a lack of participation, so I figure you guys would be the best to poke for opinions. AJCham 21:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes

Are flags in infoboxes necessary? Take Mils Muliaina for example, I think it looks pretty bad. Thoughts? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Usually these are frowned upon. Next to someone’s place of birth should not have a flag, as it insinuates nationality. Also regions or clubs should not have a flag. Maybe the national team could be argued. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Second that.SauliH (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, I'll change any more I find. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the relevant MOS detail... Use of flags for sportspeopleSauliH (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

National Rugby union template proposal

I initiated a proposal a while back now, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Templates (in hindsight I should have listed it here for a wider audience to see), with regards to adding finance info into the template. GNevin shot it down, and with no further input until today, I let it go. Mbwa mwitu threw support behind it today, and I thought the idea still had merit, so I wanted the opinion of a wider group. If you have an opinion than could you let us know what you think please.SauliH (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Strangeness

What happened to Ireland V Wales in 1883 . However Gaelic_Athletic_Association#Foundation_and_aims seem to indicates there was some game in 1883 ? Gnevin (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

They've made a mistake. Thomas St. John George McCarthy played his only game in the 1881–82 Home Nations rugby union matches. The Ireland v Wales game of 1883 just didn't take place as the 1883 tournament was not a set in stone tournament until the next year. No mention in any of my books about a falling out, it just didn't happen. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas St. John George McCarthy played for Ireland against who ? Gnevin (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind ,clicked the link Gnevin (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Flag icon usage input

I admit that I have a personal bias against the use of flag icons on WP. I have yet to find one place where I have thought... huh... I think that adds something to this article. Every time I just want to go on a DELETE rampage and strip them out. I hold back from doing that for the most part. That said, I have noticed how all the pages that have results listed for the history of the teams include these flags, and I have been able to ignore them/put up with them until I took a look at this page: History of rugby union matches between Australia and New Zealand. For one the flags of Oz and NZ are so much alike that they are nearly indistinguishable at the size these are rendered, and The article is ABOUT Australia and New Zealand! What purpose do they serve?!! To me it clutters and distracts from the information. Is this just me? I really think think these should be cleared out, but I realise that this is a pattern for EVERY article like this, and fear I may step on too many toes if I do it... SauliH (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

While I think in a lot of cases flags add a lot of value, I agree with you here. The format used on New Zealand vs France is a lot better in my opinion. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I like that table far more. The information is clear, - not sure about the background color though... but aesthetics is not what it is all about. SauliH (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I do like that there is a little more information in the other format though, and probably no harm if added... I think I might mock something up in a sandbox area, and see what it be like, and have you comment on it. SauliH (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I think it would be a good idea to use the same format across all the articles. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"aesthetics is not what it is all about" - Erm, it certainly is. Wikipedia has to be visually appealing. Book publishers go to great pains to make their work appealing, and so should we. Since we are able to use flags, we should do. I don't really like the colour scheme myself, I'm afraid. --MacRusgail (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Even flags that look nearly the same on a article with only two nations competing? It's pure over kill, We are not here to decorate Gnevin (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In principle MacRusgail, I agree with you, the problem is that 'visually appealing' is so much in the eye of the beholder. Take my take on the colors of that table, I am not sure whether the colors represent the countries colors, or were the choice of the creator. In eiether case, I am not going to change them. If it was an aesthetic choice, then my changing colors is presumptuous that I know better. A consensus should be sought in these cases. Now, if it represents the winning teams playing colors, the color serves a purpose, and while a color key might be in order to elucidate that information, It should not be changed because of an aesthetic reason. With regards to using flag icons, the link that Gnevin put up covers that. SauliH (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just took another look at that table, the colors do not seem to fit with NZ and France, so it is likely an aesthetic choice? SauliH (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Blue and grey, not far off. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the value of the table being sortable, as the points system has changed so much down the years.Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose the sort function works well for the winning team and venue columns. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:COLOUR, ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information. That is, shaded table cells are a poor choice to indicate the winning team in tables like that. Better to include a symbol or icon, with a corresponding legend to describe the meaning of the symbol. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(Rejustifying to left) Gnevin mentions a problem with similar flags (NZ & Australia and Ireland & Italy being the two most obvious clashes), but there is certainly also a problem with colours as well (three of the 6N play in some kind of blue strip; red and green are also common colours). When two colours are similar, does one have to use the away colour?

I support the use of imagery and/or colours where appropriate. As I say, we aren't dealing with old fashion two tone publishing methods anymore. We are using the Internet, which can be very versatile.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Super rugby and Super 10

A disagreement has occurred at Talk:Super Rugby#Changes to past winners tables between myself and Crazydude22, regarding the inclusion/exclusion of results of the Super10 competition in the article, with a short series of edits which I do not wish to escalate into an edit war. This follows on the heels of a renaming discussion that took place to rename the Super 14 article Super Rugby to make it more inclusive of the various Super rugby iterations. Some further input into this discussion at the talk page would be valuable. Thankyou. SauliH (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

SauliH (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Update in national team templates

Just a notice for the project: I have recently replaced the flag template usage on several under-18, under-20, and under-21 articles. I have created {{ruu}}, similar to {{fbu}} for those of you familiar with its usage on under-YY football articles. This replaces the separate ru18, ru20, and ru21 templates that had been in use, so I deleted those after they were orphaned. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Bloodgate flows again

Unless you've been hiding under a rock recently, you'll have noticed that Bloodgate is back in the media. I see Gnevin is already onto it, but if any of you can think of any decent further updates or improvements to the article, please add them.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance on article - Chris Ball (rugby union)

Hi,

I am a member of Wikiproject Unreferenced BLP Rescue. I was trying to find sourcing for Chris Ball (rugby union) but have drawn a complete blank. The article claims that he plays for Newport RFC and the Newport Gwent Dragons. However, he is not listed on the current squads: [1], [2]. Does this person meet notability? Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked at this one a few months back, and came to the same conclusion as yourself. With no first class games under his belt and no international caps, we must state at this time Chris Ball is not notable and should be deleted. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will put it through AFD just in case other editors are able to provide sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Norman Biggs

This article is currently going through a Good Article review. Anyone who would like to take part, your input is appreciated. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Passed. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

European Shield

I was just on the page for the European Shield and it is presented as a football competition but all the links are for rugby and the discussion page says that it is part of the rugby union portal. Which is why I posted this here. it should be altered to reflect its status as a football page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shr3kk (talk • contribs) 22:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Records Lists

Can someone with vast rugby knowledge make a similar list to the Super Rugby one (List of Super Rugby records for other top competitions such as Magners League, Top 14, English Premiership (Aviva Premiership), Currie Cup etc... ?--Stemoc (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

France national rugby union team tours

Can somebody help me with the rugby tours of France please? I have set out tour articles and now I want the matches.Mr Hall of England (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• 1949 France rugby union tour of Argentina
• 1954 France rugby union tour of Argentina and Chile
• 1958 France rugby union tour of South Africa
• 1960 France rugby union tour of Argentina and Uruguay
• 1961 France rugby union tour of New Zealand and Australia
• 1964 France rugby union tour of South Africa
• 1967 France rugby union tour of South Africa
• 1968 France rugby union tour of New Zealand and Australia
• 1971 France rugby union tour of South Africa
• 1972 France rugby union tour of Australia
• 1974 France rugby union tour of Brazil and Argentina
• 1975 France rugby union tour of South Africa
• 1977 France rugby union tour of Argentina
• 1979 France rugby union tour of Fiji and New Zealand
• 1980 France rugby union tour of South Africa
• 1981 France rugby union tour of Australia
• 1984 France rugby union tour of New Zealand
• 1985 France rugby union tour of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay
• 1986 France rugby union tour of Argentina, Australia and New Zealand
• 1988 France rugby union tour of Argentina
• 1989 France rugby union tour of New Zealand
• 1990 France rugby union tour of Australia
• 1991 France rugby union tour of the United States
• 1992 France rugby union tour of Argentina
• 1993 France rugby union tour of South Africa
• 1994 France rugby union tour of Canada and New Zealand
• 1996 France rugby union tour of Argentina
• 1997 France rugby union tour of Australia
• 1998 France rugby union tour of Argentina and Fiji
• 1999 France rugby union tour of Samoa, Tonga and New Zealand
• 2001 France rugby union tour of South Africa and New Zealand
• 2002 France rugby union tour of Argentina and Australia
• 2003 France rugby union tour of Argentina and New Zealand
• 2004 France rugby union tour of North America
• 2005 France rugby union tour of South Africa and Australia

If you mean who played, where it was etc, you can typically locate that at scrum.com for instance the first match up in 1949 is at this page. You can use this page to search for the match you need. Note that this only has test matches... if you wish to find matches played between national teams and provincial teams you will need to search for these elsewhere... SauliH (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ernie Harris

Just over from WP:CRIC! I've been going through the list of Glamorgan cricketers which are currently redlinked and have created an article on Ernie Harris, who captained Swansea RFC in the late thirties. The section about his rugby career is pretty much that, so I thought I'd bring him to your attention here so the people with the know how can expand that section!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Expanded FruitMonkey (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

formatting concerning super rugby seasons

rugby boxes

Hello, i've been formatting the rugby boxes in the 1996 Super 12 season to collapsible ones, i find easier to navigate and read with these types, but, that is only my opinion. what do you think it should be, collapsible or non-collapsible. I will cease formatting until this discussion is over. JaFa 01 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw them I was opposed to them, but am starting to come around to the look of them. My two main concerns however are: 1) The excessive horizontal lines that run across the screen separating each result - I think these look untidy and detract from the "neatness" of the page. 2) I'm just not sure if people will be aware the information is there. It takes a lot of work to add all the scorers to a game, let alone a season, so will all the hard work go unnoticed? I think this will be an interesting discussion but needs the input of several editors. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To me using collapsible headers on rugby boxes depends on whether the article is treated merely as a list or not. see 1927–28 Waratahs tour of the British Isles, France and Canada and then compare to 1996 Super 12 season. The Super season article is currently just a list of matches, and there is a place for it. If the games begin to have match reports or more written about them, then they should not be used. Currently the 'Show' link is very non-descript and easily missed, and like N4N stated above, I think the casual reader will miss the link, and that to me is not a good thing. Find a way to change that, and you would have my full support - the above notwithstanding. SauliH (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How bout something like this, adding "Click "show" for more info" on the right hand side at the top of each week?

It'll look like this:

Click "show" for more info

	2 April 1996	Auckland Blues	51 – 29	Otago Highlanders	Growers Stadium
		Try: Jarrod Cunningham (2), Andrew Blowers (2), James Kerr, Eroni Clarke, Dylan Mika Con: Carlos Spencer (4) Pen: Carlos Spencer (2)	Report	Try: Matthew Cooper, George Leaupepe, Brett McCormack, penalty try Con: Simon Culhane (3) Drop: Simon Culhane	Referee: Colin Hawke

	2 April 1996	NSW Waratahs	6 – 34	Natal Sharks	Sydney Football Stadium
		Pen: Matthew Burke (2)	Report	Try: Jeremy Thomson (2), James Small, Joos Joubert, Wayne Fyvie Con: Henry Honiball (3) Pen: Henry Honiball	Referee: Scott Young

	3 April 1996	Waikato Chiefs	26 – 18	ACT Brumbies	Lowe Walker Stadium\
		Try: Scott McLeod, Duane Monkley Con: Warren Burton (2) Pen: Warren Burton (4)	Report	Try: John Langford, Patricio Noriega Con: Adam Friend Pen: Adam Friend (2)	Referee: Glenn Wahlstrom

	3 April 1996	Canterbury Crusaders	18 – 34	Northern Transvaal	Jade Stadium, Christchurch
		Try: Damon Kaui (2) Con: Greg Coffey Pen: Greg Coffey (2)	Report	Try: Adriaan Richter (2), Dawie du Toit, Jacques Olivier, Andries Truscott Con: Lance Sherrell (3) Pen: Lance Sherrell	Referee: Rod Hill

	3 April 1996	Queensland Reds	36 – 26	Western Province	Ballymore
		Try: Tim Horan, Daniel Herbet, Jason Little, Mark Connors Con: John Eales (2) Pen: John Eales (4)	Report	Try: Joggie Viljoen, Garry Pagel, Johan Knapp Con: Joel Stransky Pen: Joel Stransky (3)	Referee: Mick Keogh

What do you think? JaFa 01 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Works well. Pretty effective. wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 06:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I like. I think perhaps the "click "show" for more info" could be reworded to something like "click "show" for score details" or "click show for further match detail". Something that makes it more obvious what clicking show will do! Aside from that I think they look neat, show the essential info and if additional detail is required, it is easily obtainable. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice uncluttered look. I like it. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How about make the hyperlink "Match Report". People won't miss that... Comes.amanuensis (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

no rounds in 1996

I read that in the 1996 Super 12 season that "rounds" were not used and the games were not played in any particular order. What should the article use? JaFa 01 (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Depends where you read that, was it a reliable source? Looking at the dates it seems there was certainly some organisation to the fixtures, so unless there is significant evidence to suggest there was no "rounds" structure, I see no reason to change the layout. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I read it in a book named "Super Rugby: a history of super 12 and super 14 competitions". Does that make it reliable? JaFa 01 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

More than likely, but not definite. We could leave the structure of the page as it is, and write a sentence or two explaining that the actual round structure was not implemented until the following season. That should make the page easy to navigate and less like a long list of results. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe even going by a week by week basis instead of round by round? JaFa 01 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that could work. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to add {{rugbybox}} templates for every match in a league season? Surely it's a violation of WP:NOTSTATS to include templated summaries of all 69 games in the same article? – PeeJay 18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I pushes the boundaries, but still falls into the realm of acceptability. My read of WP:NOTSTATS statement: articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader, would lead me to think that they should be incorporated with explanatory text/match reports/notes about significant occurrences during the matches that would fill out the coverage of the season. Listing the results and basic info should only be seen as the foundation on which a comprehensive article is formed. SauliH (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For that reason, wouldn't it be a better idea to create some sort of results table, similar to that used in the 2010–11 Premier League article? Obviously half of the cells would have to be greyed out since the Super 12/14 is only a single round robin tournament, but it would certainly be neater than a list of rugbybox templates. – PeeJay 19:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But if we do something like that, what about the other information that can be acquired in the rugbybox template? JaFa 01 (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. I see nothing wrong with the rugbybox templates, particulary in the new collapsable form. I don't see how WP:NOTSTATS even applies here -NOTSTATS is really only concerned with preventing large lists of information that "may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles". I challenge anyone to argue that the presentation of results in a rugby season in rugbox form is either confusing or untidy. Results in the form of rugbybox templates are far from being a long, indiscriminate list of information. The results are integral to the season, particularly with the more complicated scoring system for rugby. In football, there are only goals, whereas rugby you have tries, conversions and penalties, add to that the bonus point system for 4 tries or losing by <7. I feel a lot of information would be lost by tabulating the results, not to mention the fact that a great many articles use the rugbybox template and I don't see any reason for changing all these to tables. Tables such as that used in the football seasons are generally seen in newspapers where space is at a premium. Luckily we are not restricted on space, and so there is no reason not to collate as much information into the rugbyboxes as possible. Who knows, in years to come this information may disappear from the net and only be available through Wikipedia. The organisation as rugbyboxes by rounds rather than in a table form also allows the reader to get an indication of performance over the entire season. Did a particular team start well and then tail off? Or was it a successful end to the season after a slow start. You can't get this sort of information from a table format, but it can be easily interpreted from the current format. Again, I see no valid reson for reducing the amount of information presented, and think we need to get back to the original discussion as to whether to implement the collapsable rugbyboxes. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, i guess i can start formatting then? JaFa 01 (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already started on a couple of articles for the 2007 and 2008 seasons. Also, I removed the "location" field so that the stadium is visible without expanding the template. I think the stadium is the more important detail, and the location can just be put next to the stadium as before. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. What about the no rounds format in 1996, are we going to display a different way or what? I was thinking a week by week format instead. JaFa 01 (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for photographs and images

To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of rugby union people if it contains the template {{WikiProject Rugby union}}. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Rugby union articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Rugby union articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Player article names

If a player's article requires brackets in the title to distinguish it, what is the preferred term? I have seen "rugby union", "rugby union player" and "rugby player" used. For obvious reasons the last one isn't right. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

if it requires it, only then should you add it. I actually prefer just "rugby" in brackets if the player already has a long name, or you can use "rugby union", adding "player" in the end is redundant...avoid adding it...--Stemoc (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I have been using "rugby union" when it was needed. I just wondered if there was an agreed way of doing it. Thanks. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a long running argument of which sport (particularly American sports) appears to have broken away from the convention of Wikipedia and is now a juggernaut too large to turn. All human articles that require disambiguation were meant to state the persons occupation or role in their field after the name. Therefore 'Mark Williams (politician)' and not 'Mark Williams (politics)' or 'Dave Jones (video game developer)' and not Dave Jones (video games)'. Check any major disambiguation page for people and you will see the majority follow this, including most sport articles outside the US (athlete not athletics, footballer not football, snooker player not snooker). I always add player as it is the correct format for 90% of articles. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And if they have played both codes, I guess "rugby player" would be sufficient. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "rugby union" as a courtesy to the rugby leaguers and I hope that they return the favour. Rugby player if they are either dual code, or pre-schism.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets put a standard on this for players that have "Disambiguation-related" problems ONLY:

• If that player has a very common name, move him to "(rugby)"
• If that players has played both codes, move him to "(rugby)"
• If there are two players of the same code and both have disambiguation related problems, move them to birth year such as "John Williams (born 19xx)" (no need for "(rugby player born 19xx)")
• If the player is very famous and he is under "(rugby player)", please move them to just "(rugby)" as their names will be used constantly in match related thread ans easier to link using "rugby" instead of "rugby union" or "rugby player"

Remember, NEVER move a player to "(rugby)", "(rugby union)" or "(rugby player)" if they have NO Disambiguation related problems...

any more possibilities ? --Stemoc (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Very strongly disagree.

• • I disagree in using (rugby), I think (rugby league player) or (rugby union player) is preferable.
  • If there are two players of the same code with the same name, never, never use John Williams (born 19xx), that flys in the face of any dismabiguation article. It will get moved very quickly. There is every need for (rugby player born 19xx) otherwise he could be John Williams the scientist born in 19xx.
  • Fame is subjective and having two systems is a bad move. And ease of use is never a priority is Wikipedia, doing things correctly is. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

YThere is no such thing as "rugby league player", they just call it "league player".. Using "Name (rugby player)" is very silly IMO...i have just seen one article with "Name (soccer player)" cause they probably agree too.

If there are 2 players with the same name and playing the same code then it may be ok to use "Name (rugby player born 19**)" individually but what if they have the same birth year?. I would have the more common player with just "Name (rugby)" cause both are rugby players it really wouldn't matter to use union or league in the article name. Another example is Michael Owen. there are 3 Michael Owen but what gives the soccer player the right to keep the name but the rugby player has to have "Michael Owen (rugby player)" as his name?...fame matters

Rugby is rugby, codes shouldn't matter and it should ONLY be used when there are more than one person with that name and it can be written in their disambiguation ("Name (disambiguation)") page on which code they play in...

I would rather have "Stephen Jones (rugby)" than "Stephen Jones (rugby union player)" or "Stephen Jones (rugby player) when trying to link his article just because there are NO OTHER Stephen Jones in rugby (in any codes)--Stemoc (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Soccer player is incorrect, footballer is correct. We use player as the WP Rugby union agreed that rugby footballer was incorrect and that we should use rugby player, hence the categories. Also using (rugby) for a player who has no other players of his name in either code then clashes with your own suggestion (which is presently used by both league and union projects) of using (rugby) to descrine players who have played under both codes. You are failing to disambiguate between players that play one code and both codes. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting XV

There are a couple of editors that have started adding Starting XV sections to some of the British teams. To me, that seems to be a pointless exercise for an encyclopaedia page. The information provided is ephemeral and will only be relevant for a few days at most. What do other members of the project think? See [3]] for an example. noq (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, these things are almost immediately out of date GainLine ♠ _♥ 08:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Starting XV sections hav etheir place within an article about an important historical match (a cup final for example) but not within the an article about a team in the context of the squad that most recently played.Kwib (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC Talk:Football#RFC:_Association_football

The question being ask is Should football be WP:DAB'd for all codes when the code is first mentioned in the intro? Gnevin (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In the news + Commonwealth Games

I hope someone out there is keeping an eye on the Commonwealth Games results!!!

Also, can someone tell me the name of the player who recently had a particularly nasty eye gouge?--MacRusgail (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Gavin Quinnell lost sight in his left eye...--Stemoc (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Sorry to trespass here from the round ball game - I have listed an article on Scott Crookes (who appears to be an amateur player at best) for deletion here. WP:FOOTBALL has a section where AfDs are listed to bring them to the attention of other editors and enable them to add their comments, but I cannot see an equivalent on WP:RU. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, self-glorification though i have to admit, the article is written very well...10 points for that..--Stemoc (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

actually quite funny in fairness! GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about the guy's health, apparently he's 5 ft 2 and 30 stone! Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitley front row material so!! GainLine ♠ _♥ 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad (self-?) parody. Note also the pathetic reference to Zoolander in the schools section. Delete with malice aforethought please.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This topic isn't covered!

Sports-related outlines currently under development include:

• Outline of basketball
• Outline of tennis
• Outline of running
• Outline of cricket
• Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling

But there is no Outline of rugby.

Can you beat the other Sports WikiProjects to completion?

To create an outline on rugby, click on the redlink above and add this line:

{{subst:BLT|rugby|Rugby}}

Then press Save page and start adding relevant subheadings and links.

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

Here are some examples of developed outlines:

• Outline of cell biology
• Outline of meteorology (weather)
• Outline of Iceland
• Outline of Japan
• Outline of anarchism
• Outline of chocolate

The Transhumanist 03:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems in FA Waisale Serevi

Waisale Serevi is due to appear on main page very soon. I found a number of problems with it, very quickly, and I'm no rugby expert (but know a fair bit about WP:FA). This Wikiproject doesn't look very active, but if any skilled editors who know their rugby see this message, I'd encourage you to take a peek. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem?. This article was brought to FA status by my good friend Shudde who retired soon afterwards...only problem i see is that it hasn't been updated in a while...since it will be featured on Nov 26th, i think we have ample time to update it

is there anything else you need doing?--Stemoc (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I found poor English, peacock terms, POV, typos, poor sourcing of major claims. I tidied some of it, but it needs a lot of work. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WWII Scottish rugby fatalities up for deletion

Needless to say I disagree with this. Perhaps it should be "rugby union", rather than rugby, but that's about all. The nominator has confused WWI with WWII in the deletion proposal as well - please join debate via this link (I've no idea how to link the actual discussion properly)

Template:WWII_Scottish_rugby_fatalities-MacRusgail (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think code should matter. Would you be happy if it was a category - like one user has suggested? Certainly think it's relevant to the encyclopedia, not sure it needs to be a template. Stevebritgimp (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it already has a category (will look), but personally I find templates easier to navigate. I admit I'm not a big one for the whole Remembrance thing myself (I don't see the point in "remembering", if we continue to go off and fight other people's cynical wars), but I appreciate the SRU and others often are.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Richie McCaw

Have spent the last couple of days expanding Richie McCaw and I would appreciate it if someone could look it over. I feel it is probably at Good Article stage and would not take too much of a push to reach Featured Article status (I am relatively new to this so I may be a bit ahead of myself). I started a peer review here and welcome any comments. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Very nice article, I tried to make a few corrections where I could. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done much to it other than add a category. It would have been interesting to know which part of the Scottish Borders his ancestors came from, but anyway...--MacRusgail (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

David Robert Dixon

Did Mr Dixon ever make his long-awaited Super Rugby debut for the Bulls, or is playing for the Blue Bulls enough. Either way does anyone have a reliable source to verify it, or is deletion the best option?The-Pope (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas Bader/GA1

Douglas Bader is being reviewed for GA listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow issues such as prose, inline citing and detailed coverage to be addressed. It is not clear why the article has been tagged for your project - as this appears to be an error, the tag will be removed after 14 days unless notified otherwise. SilkTork *^YES! 16:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The article has probably been tagged for the RU project because it has a couple of rugby union categories - he was a decent player who represented the RAF and I think from memory of reading "Reach For The Sky" he was close to having an England trial or was due to have one when he had his accident. I haven't got anything concrete to add to the article myself really though.--Bcp67 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to expand on this info, but unfortunately I know little about him. I have been trying to tag a few people who have been notable in other areas of life, who were also decent rugby players (who didn't necessarily make it to national level). Baader probably qualifies.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I added information about his sporting career, but this was removed (I have since replaced it). Yes, it's true that the man played for school teams, but he was also capped by the 'Quins, and there is some good evidence to suggest he could well have gone on to play for England, but for his amputations. If this happens again, can someone kindly explain to them that the Harlequins are not some minor team please?! --MacRusgail (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

John Hipwell

Someone's created a new article on John Hipwell, the Australian scrum-half, but it looks very much as if it's been lifted straight from http://www.rugby.com.au/qantas_wallabies/wallaby_hall_of_fame/john_hipwell_oam,49729.html. I'm not sure how to deal with this - I've marked the article talk page but not sure how to proceed from there. Can someone help? Thanks --Bcp67 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I copy-edited and deleted/rephrased some of the sentences. Also added in the above site as a reference at the end of each paragraph. It would be good if someone had another source we could use (I did a quick google search and found very little). Still some close paraphrasing, but should be better. As for copy violations: direct copy pastes can be tagged for speedy deletions with this tag {{db-copyvio|url=''source URL''}}, however if other editors have since edited the article or the copy edit is only in a few sections it is better to either remove or fix the violation. AIRcorn (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I've done a little work on it myself today. I thought the article was worth keeping as Hipwell is a significant figure in Australian RU and deserves a decent article. I've also posted a note on the original author's talk page as he created another article lifted from the same place. Thanks again.--Bcp67 (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

David Campese

Hello gentlemen, I'd like to signal this entry into that article's talk page. I guess the source issue (not to mention the rest), remained opened for about 4 yrs, is becoming unsustainable for an article of such importance. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 19:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have left my comments on the page. Campese is one of the greatest rugby players ever, and it's sad to see the article neglected.

I will propose it for collaboration of the fortnight--MacRusgail (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

Rugby union in Yugoslavia

For some time now I've been working on articles on rugby union in various Iron Curtain/Eastern Bloc countries. Or rather, I've been sitting on some of them... here is one of the first ones, about the sport in the old Yugoslavia. I'd appreciate it if a few people would cast an eye over it, and check it for style, grammar etc.

I found this amusing quote in an article by Chris Thau - "one of the FIRA nightmares... is to have Yugoslavia playing Bulgaria refereed by a Soviet." Hmm...

Obviously, Romania, Georgia, and to a lesser extent Russia, have done moderately well since the fall of European Communism, but there is little info on the subject in English, because for the most part these teams have never amounted to much. I have tried hard to track down sources, but it's murder getting hold of them! Thanks. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

One day the then-Captain Massimo Giovanelli told about an after match Soviet Union-Italy : the weather was so cold that there were about 1 metre of snow on the ground, and both teams had a party in which they drank basically vodka. Next morning they could barely get to airport, he said... :-) -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 18:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of third-tier national players

I would like to post the question whether national team players from third-tier nations are notable? The rules on this don't seem to be to clear. I'm specifically taking about players that have appeared for Germany in the European Nations Cup in the past couple of years, but really, it applies to any nation competing at official level. Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (sports), it speaks mostly of professional sporst people, which would rule out rugby union players for the most part of the games history. But it does say "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics", which is, for the European nations example, the ENC. Whats the general thoughts within the project? Calistemon (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Those that have been capped for their country are notable. Pro or Am. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

yes but their inclusion may not be warranted. If a 3rd-tier player has or is playing for a top rated rugby club in europe, japan, north america, argentina or in the sanzar and pacific rim, then they can have an article but if they have only ever been capped once or only a handful of times without any "trivia" (personal or country related milestone), then i don't think they should be listed. I think 3rd tier teams in the top 50 deserve to have articles for some of their top players but not all..it all depends on their achievements ..Stemoc (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats a difficult to follow notability criteria. How many caps does a player have to have to qualify? 5, 10, 15? Whats the definition of "Achievment"? I think, a guideline will have to be more definete then that, and already is, by the looks of the Project page. Calistemon (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I can think of a few who are: Serge Blanco (Venezuela), Jamie Heaslip (Israel), Tim Visser (Holland), Alexander Obolensky (Russia), John Raphael (sportsman) (Belgium), Boumedienne Allam (Algeria), Abdelatif Benazzi (Morocco). In fact if one goes through the rolls of Tier 3 nations, you'll find the so called "traditional" nations have been pinching players from them for decades! Which is probably partly why they've been so weak... Some such as Max Brito (Senegal and Cote D'Ivoire), Albert Speer (German) and Javier Bardem (Spanish) are notable for reasons other than their playing quality.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Rugby related AFD

This deletion debate will be of interest to this wikiproject as Wilson was an England international: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Edward Wilson Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looked at this article and the deletion page. There is absolutely no reason why he should be deleted. He's more notable than some of the "reality" TV stars infesting wikipedia!--MacRusgail (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

History of rugby union

This a call to help improve the History of rugby union article. Areas that contributors feel are under-represented are detailed in the talk page here (they include development of rugby in nations such as South America, Japan, Continental Europe etc; history and origins of FIRA; Argentina's breakthrough in the last World Cup; "notable tours" outside of British Lions, and SANZAR tours; Sevens development).Kwib (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here. I have expressed my concerns over there. It needs some more good pictures too.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

England rugby union try record progression

I have just created a list article titled England rugby union try record progression. Having started to renovate the Cyril Lowe article, who held the record for over 60 years, I began wondering who Lowe replaced as record holder, and I thought I would wrap up the results of my research into an article. As a list it is quite detailed and having added a rather lengthy introduction it occurs to me that it could be a candidate to be improved further to attain Featured List status. If anyone has the time to have a look at the article, and perhaps improve the references, improve the prose, and help weed out any mistakes (each time I go back to it I find errors) it would be most welcome.

On a related note, looking at this try scoring record has taken me through a large scope of rugby history and it has been illuminating on a number of levels. For example, it amazes me that the Championship record Cyril Lowe and Ian Smith (of Scotland) jointly hold for the tries scored in a single championship still stands given the increased proliferation of tries and indeed the increase in matches played in the now Six Nations.Kwib (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting piece. I think it needs breaking up a bit but it's not easy to find natural points to split into sections. I'll fix a couple of bits and pieces which I've seen in it. Good stuff. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Because of the merged cells the sorting function doesn't work. Nice article though. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the breaking up of the introduction. It is much more reader friendly now. I also see the issue on the sorting function. I wonder if the function sould be removed, or if the cells should be demerged.Kwib (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think being able to sort the table adds much value to it and if the cells were unmerged I don't think it would look as good. Just my opinion anyway. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting list this, but my one criticism is that the same names are repeated so often. Maybe the long list of Cyril Lowe and Rory Underwood's entries could be turned into a single personal entries, for example.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Lennox Rugby club

I notice that "Lennox" turns up as an early rugby club. Now Lennox is a Scottish placename (round the south end of Loch Lomond), much like Rosslyn, but Rosslyn Park is very much an English rugby club. Have we got the same here? I can't find anything on Lennox RFC to comment, but they did contribute some early members of the British isles team, such as Crowther.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of the team or of a Lennox in England. Lennox is very much a Scots name. A lot of the early Scots team were "FP" - former pupils. I'm wondering whether there is a Lennox school somewhere in Scotland.GordyB (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that Lennox was almost certainly an English club and may have been a Surrey or London based club. H E Steed, known for polling clubs in the RFU in 1893 to gain proxies against professionalism during the events leading to the split into League and Union, is mentioned as being of Lennox FC. He went to Tonbridge, was later Honorary Secretary of the Surrey Eugby Football Union.Kwib (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

From Surrey rugby's official site - The Surrey Cup was first played for in 1891 and won by the long-gone Lennox FC.

A little more digging, in particular in "Rugby union football" by Philip Christian William Trevor, reveals that their ground was that of the London Athletic Club, situated in the Fulham Road, Chelsea. From British History online, I believe that this ground was none other than Stamford Bridge, Fulham. The original grounds were closed after the last athletics meeting on 24 September 1904, "and a new and larger track was made, partly on the same site, with a banked track for cycling and seating accommodation for 10,000 people. The new area of seventeen acres was still known as Stamford Bridge, and the L.A.C. opened with a meeting on 10 May 1905. During the winter months the ground is used by the Chelsea Football Club."

A review of Surrey rugby's past presidents reveals that Lennox had three presidents: T S T Tregallas from 1903 to 1905; H E Steed from 1905 to 1907 and R A Sawyer from 1913-1920. None after that date. Perhaps Lennox succumbed to the aftermath of the First World War, potentially due to a lack of able bodied players..Kwib (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this is some excellent research. I thought it probably was an English team with a Scottish name (there was also an English team called Lausanne), much like Rosslyn Park. I have been able to dig up almost nothing on them.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC) p.s. Maybe Lennox succumbed to that very "Scottish" rugby club fate, i.e. merger!

Having found some more information (in one of my favourite books - Dick Tyson's London's Oldest Rugby Clubs) I have created an article on Lennox Football Club, consolidating the pieces.Kwib (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff Kwib, thanks for doing this.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy of comment on talkpage -

Created some redirects for this article. It turns out that there was a Scottish soccer club by this name - see 1875–76 Scottish Cup - but my view is that this is probably the more important one. Lennox (A)FC doesn't seem to have done so well, let alone produce internationals.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Super 12 champions FLRC

I have nominated List of Super 12 champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Flagicons

Hi, I removed the flagicon from Lewis Moody and Ben Foden's infobox. Foden's got reverted and a reply saying it's common practise amongst Rugby union articles. I was going by the guideline of MOS:FLAG which suggests that flagicons shouldn't be used in infoboxes, as it is in association football article. Is it acceptable to use them to indicate nationality in infoboxes then or does this need to be addressed? Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 09:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I always delete flags when I see them in infoboxes. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidates for merge?

Given that Super Rugby covers the Super 12, Super 14 and the current 15-team format, can List of Super 12 champions and Super 14 champions now be merged? I'm happy to do the work myself, I just need the green light before I can do it. —WFC— 18:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This makes absolute sense and would also help deal with the issues raised in the section List of Super 12 champions FLRC above.Kwib (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Obviously the merge will be a bit more complicated than a simple cut and paste at the bottom of the page, but I'll get onto it. —WFC— 22:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge completed. I'd be grateful for any help members of this project could provide with the prose though. I'm terrible at leads, even on subjects I'm very familiar with. —WFC— 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ping

I'm getting along quite nicely with List of Super Rugby champions, but would be grateful if someone could help source and/or otherwise improve the opening paragraph. It's one of those situations where the information is pretty easy to find, but harder to find in reliable sources. Ironically I struck gold for a baseball list yesterday (a sport I've only ever watched on TV), yet in a rugby list (a sport I actually watch live on a semi-regular basis), I've drawn a blank. Most of the ones that previously verified the content are dead, and I don't have the book so I can't say with certainty what it references. Thanks in advance, —WFC— 04:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Had a go. Refs aren't the most reliable in the world, but as it is pretty uncontroversial stuff I don't think anyone will complain. AIRcorn (talk)

Possibly Silly Question

Why are there two projects for Rugby? Many other sports' projects have multiple sports, like skiing and kayaking, have multiple sports within them. Why does Rugby require two projects? JimCubb (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My assumption is that you are referring to a project for Rugby Union and another for Rugby League. There are no doubt many reasons that could be proferred, least of which being that the sports are deemed entirely separate and are governed by different bodies that are separate from one another worldwide nationally and on a global governance basis. That they have the same origin is true enough, but then so does Association football (soccer) (football using association rules) and rugby (football based on rugby school rules), and they only split in 1863. I doubt we would consider merging them. Add to the mix American football (various origins are given as rugby and football (soccer), Australian rules football as well as many others that have their origins in the same sport and the idea of merging all of these into a football banner becomes extremely unwieldy.Kwib (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Too much bad blood as well. Some people from one code have a very strong opinions about "the other rugby". It's easier this way.GordyB (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the OP is an American. No offence to him, but he may not be aware of the split.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Broughton - a mini hotbed of rugby - and Kevin O'Brien in the Rest of the World XV

Some research into early rugby internationals led me to look at the Broughton club (the original 1869 club) and what appears to have been a hot bed of rugby in Broughton itself. I have been distracted from my original work to write articles on Broughton RUFC, Broughton Park RUFC (1882) and to correct some stuff in the Broughton Rangers (1877) articles - if for nothing more than to add some clarity to the distinct clubs of the area. I then did some work on the Broughton Park players essentially creating articles slightly bigger than stubs (Tony Neary I haven't touched much but this does need some work; Barry Jackson created, Mike Leadbetter created, Tony Bond created; and Kevin O'Brien created).

What I am leading to in a convoluted way is a question about Kevin O'Brien. Apparently he played in a Rest of the World team but I do not know which one....does anyone know more about this?Kwib (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

He played against Argentina 9 August 1980. Here is a link to the team list. --Bob (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Kwib (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded the World XV article with details of this match, and as an aside expanded the articles of some of teh players.Kwib (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

While you're at it, have a look at this Broughton,_Greater_Manchester#Sport - usual soccer bias. Don't they undertand that other sports exist and are enjoyed by millions of people?--MacRusgail (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly they do but don't necessarily know very much about those other sports. I don't know about RU but the Broughton area was very important in RL at one time but this has dwindled away to virtually no RL at all. No reason to presume that modern residents of Broughton would know about the relative importance of rugby in their area at one time.GordyB (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I have updated the page for a little more clarity. To be honest I had not paid much heed to the Football tag, because I am so used to referring to rugby as football.Kwib (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's looking much better. Strange how these places come and go...--MacRusgail (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Flagicons

In the national squad templates, there is a field for club/province that shows a flag for the club/province and the name of the club/province, i.e. Ulster. If you click on the flag, you are directed to the article for the island of Ireland. Would it not be better if, when you clicked on the flag, you are linked to the union/federation under which the team plays, in this case, the Irish Rugby Football Union? Another example would be AS Monaco Rugby, if and when that would exist. The team is Monégasque, yet plays in French tournaments and would have the French flag linking to France. In the new protocol that I am proposing, the embedded link would take you to the French Rugby Federation. Similar case for Berwick RFC. The team is based in England yet play in the Scottish league system and are affiliated to the Scottish Rugby Union.

Note, this is not a discussion about the appearance of flags in these tables, that has been discussed elsewhere. --Bob (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is the Monegasque team tends to play as a national side. This could cause some consternation - Gibraltarian teams play in Spanish leagues, though Gibs don't like being called Spanish at all. Even with Berwick-upon-Tweed there's a problem, since Berwiok north of the Tweed has long been considered Scottish by many people (Berwickshire is in Scotland) for various reasons. (Though Berwick RFC's ground is in Tweedmouth, which is England proper!)--MacRusgail (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob's proposal would simplify matters. If Berwick RFC are affiliated to the SRU then it would be easier to use a Saltire and link to the SRU than argue endlessly over whether Berwick is English or Scottish (and similar arguments over the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Cornwall etc).GordyB (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It should link to the national side and infact per {{ru|Ireland}} it should do nothing but give a link to the national team Ireland Gnevin (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment to Gnevin: {{flagicon}} has an embedded link within the flag to the country article (or in the case of Ireland, the island article. Hover your mouse over the examples I gave above. --Bob (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of how it works Gnevin (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Berwick RFC is affiliated to the SRU (and is/was to the RFU), however, due to geography it's much easier for them to fulfil fixtures against clubs in the Scottish Borders than many parts of England, which are further away. I think despite their affiliation (and other factors), the fact that they tend to play in Scottish competitions means that I'd use the St Andrew's cross. FWIW, they have provided at least one Scotland cap, and possibly English caps in the past.

London Scottish, on the other hand, is definitely affiliated to both unions. I have included them under the Scottish team category, but as far as flags go, such a club should probably use a St George's cross, because it plays in English leagues.

As for the Irish issue, surely that has been resolved by now...--MacRusgail (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Under 18 national team articles missing

The 2011 European Under-18 Rugby Union Championship kicks off in a couple of days and I created the article for it today. For the first time in the (short) history of the European Under-18 Rugby Union Championship, all four home nations are competing in the tournament. However, the Wales article could use some updating, the Ireland one is only a redirect and the England and Scotland ones don't even exist, to say nothing of the lesser rugby nations. Anybody from those countries interested to fill these gaps, even if its only a basic article? Calistemon (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is finding reference material for such teams. In the case of the Scottish teams, there are U-21, U-18, U-16, Universities, Amateur and B national sides, but their exploits are not well recorded.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hancock family

There was a recent article about Ralph Hancock (cricketer). Check out his relatives, it might be worth mentioning the information in the other articles.

I would do it, but just in a hurry just now... my lunch break's over! -MacRusgail (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Bader

Someone keeps on removing the rugby information from this page, please see its talk page for details.-MacRusgail (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I can find a printed source (not a website, which is too scary for many) which backs up the fact that he had a decent sporting career before his accident and credits him with the possibility of an England cap. Nice to see cogent arguments being advanced there, like "it happened long ago so none of us can know anything about it"....--Bcp67 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I understand that excuse from bitter experience, but it's no good for an encyclopedia! Very debatable whether or not he would have got an England cap in the end-up, but he was close. There have been plenty of odd inclusions and omissions in national teams. So, granted, it's a "what-if", but he's still significant in terms of playing for "Quins". More frustratingly, one of them claimed he hadn't played rugby (union) professionally despite living in the mid-20th century. I also went over to WP Cricket to ask their help here.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mexican major rugby league

I just came accross an edit to Mexican major rugby league unlinking a deleted article. Further investigation reveals a (what appears) a real league with some very poorly written linked club articles where I expect more than just the one to have been deleted. No idea about notability and if this is union or leage so I crossposted to the other WP. Agathoclea (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like its ours rather than theirs - the competition is apparently administered by the Mexican Rugby Union.--Bcp67 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions

With the magners league due to be no more, I think we shouldn't be naming articles based on what always turns out to be short term names based on sponsorship. Any opinions? Gnevin (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this, but what to call it? It can't really be called the Celtic League anymore since the entry of Italian teams. Like you, no doubt, I shall be referring to "Lansdowne Road" as well, instead of the Aviva Stadium.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Also agree with the principle - I'm involved a fair bit with the horse racing project where we come across the same issue. Generally there we'd change the title to a different sponsored title only if the race has only ever been known by a sponsored title, e.g. this Saturday's Bet365 Gold Cup, created in the 50s as the Whitbread Gold Cup and known only by various sponsored titles ever since. Other race articles usually keep the "registered title" with appropriate redirects or piped links from other articles. Uusally sports competitions have an official legal name (follow the link to football's Ryman League and you will be taken to its legal name of the Isthmian League) and according to the competition website the Magners is administered by Celtic Rugby Ltd - is there a case for renaming the article as the Celtic League, notwithstanding the Italian involvement?--Bcp67 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The convention is to use the name that is most common in Anglophone media. I'd suggest that Magners league is still the name that most people would recognise / use.GordyB (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I confess some bias, but think the CL name is much better than Magners L. It is still widely known as the CL. And who speaks of "the RBS Six Nations"? It's the plain 6N to one and all! What about the Heineken Cup, though, what's the proper name? European Championship? (Off the top of my head admittedly).

The Heineken Cup is actually the European Rugby Cup. However, this is confusing, as this is also the name of the organisation that runs both the Heineken Cup and the European Challenge Cup. – PeeJay 21:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The examples provide free advertising too. I think this runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, which has never been a profitable organisation. I recently renamed Soda and candy eruption from "Diet Coke and Mentos eruption", since I thought that it violated our rules against advertising. (Since other similar products could be used for the same effect.) On a sadder note, I gather Magners is going down the pan just now - it probably overexpanded - I just feel sorry for all the folk who will lose their jobs as a result. That probably explains the withdrawal of sponsorship.-MacRusgail (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Magners is still run and controlled by Celtic Rugby even with the Italians so Celtic League would work. Gordy the trouble with that convention is that 1998–99 Allied Dunbar Premiership was the common name at the time but now I'd suggest the common name is 1998–99 English Premiership (rugby union)Gnevin (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia actually have a policy against advertising? Surely if something is commonly known by a particular name, we should use that name, regardless of whether or not that name is a brand. – PeeJay 21:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wiki does have a policy against advertising. As you know, none of us get paid, and give of our own time voluntarily. We are workers for a non-profit. Although certain parties have tried to bring advertising on to Wiki, it's never happened officially. Sadly these days, free advertising seems to be rampant, with the government, schools etc all providing it but getting little in return. However, one of the best reasons, is as GNevin says... these sponsorship deals change all the time and are hard to keep up with._-MacRusgail (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has a policy against advertising, can you please link me to it? I can't find it. BTW, simply mentioning a brand name is not really advertising. If that were true, we shouldn't have any articles about anything that can be bought in a shop. – PeeJay 12:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advert amongst others. The BBC isn't supposed to mention brand names, but that is also violated in various ways, e.g. product placement in films.-MacRusgail (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That page doesn't seem to say anything about prohibiting advertising, only that articles are not supposed to be overly supportive of any particular product. Mentioning a rugby competition by its sponsored name doesn't seem to break that rule. – PeeJay 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to Peejay 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC), rejustified) I think the use of these names is a grey area (like advertising on the Beeb). I think we should endeavour to use traditional names, and/or non-commercial ones as much as possible. It is hard enough keeping stuff up to date as it is. Sponsors come and go.-MacRusgail (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That is an area on which we agree. I've opened at least two RM discussions to get Heineken Cup moved to European Rugby Cup and Magners League to Celtic League (rugby union), and with Magners dropping out as sponsors of the latter, I think there's considerable weight to that argument now. – PeeJay 13:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll back you up on these. If I get there in time (they tend to close before I go to them!)--MacRusgail (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant I've opened RM discussions on them in the past, not now. I could re-open discussions on those, but I have a distinct feeling it'd get shouted down again. – PeeJay 23:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Reopening this, we now have the Rabobank Pro 12 league, catchy no? Anyway User:Nouse4aname has moved a large number of Rugby articles claiming WP:COMMONNAME, which is fair enough. I think we need to settle this once and for all. Too me the options are

1. Parent article and the year by year article reflect the then sponsor so Aviva Premiership and 2010–11 Aviva Premiership
2. Parent article at generic name and then year by year by sponsor so English Premiership (rugby union) and 2010–11 Aviva Premiership
3. Parent article at generic name and then year by generic too so English Premiership (rugby union) and 2010–11 English Premiership Gnevin (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I am in favour of option 3 personally with redirects as needed Gnevin (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't just merely "move a bunch of articles", but instead I restored the articles to their original locations as there was no clear consensus for them having been moved to generic titles. We need to put opinions to one side and look at policy and guideline. Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the common name for all articles - sponsored or not. For the main articles, this will be the generic title, but for individual seasons, the common name is invariably the sponsored name, and this is rightly where individual seasons belong. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the rabobank pro whatever, I very much doubt this will be the common name, which will likely be 2011-12 Pro12 or similar, but until we can get an idea of what the common name is, the full title seems logical at this point. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your moves, I just referenced them as back ground information Gnevin (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I was just clarifying my motives behind these moves as a particular user seems intent on painting me as disruptive and sinister with only bad intentions in every edit I make. Due to the total lack of respect I feel I have been shown by this user, and following a recent lack of enthusiasm for the project anyway, I will no longer be participating any further. So name the articles what you like, I really couldn't care less. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Option 3. --Bob (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Rugby clubs nominated for deletion

The following articles: Fishguard and Goodwick RFC, Neyland RFC, Pembroke Dock Harlequins RFC, Pembroke RFC, St. Davids RFC and Tenby United RFC have recently been nominated for deletion. I don't believe it has been listed on this project so I'm flagging it here. Any discussion will be appreciated as at present the only discussion is coming from myslef and one other person (who is losing their temper). Cheers, FruitMonkey (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A direct link to the AfD page would help other Wikipedians post their opinion.GordyB (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishguard and Goodwick RFC. Calistemon (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Have put my opinion up. Okay, not the most notable teams in Wales, but there seems to be a misunderstanding about the amateur status of much of RU even today. More surprisingly, the anti-amateur angle appears to be coming from a Welshman!!! --MacRusgail (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Serbian rugby union players

Formerplayer1991 has created the following articles on Serbian rugby union players : Milan Orlovic, Marko Kapor, Miladin Zivanov, Milan Rastovac, Srdjan Nikolic, Marko Vukovic & Predrag Vranes

Can someone from the project look at them and see if they meet WP:NSPORTS#Rugby_union.

Thanks

Mtking (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Am I to assume that they are not and should be nominated for delete ? Mtking (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

My belief is that they do not meet notability guidelines. They do not play in a major league, have no international experience and no further reason given for their notability. Nominate for deletion. FruitMonkey (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As Milan Rastovac has 72 caps for Serbia he meets the guideline. As they stand the rest don't. AIRcorn (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Milan Orlovic has 21 caps, Marko Kapor has 68 caps, Miladin Zivanov has 29 Serbian caps [4] --Bob (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)