Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Player notability

Men’s sevens

I propose changing the WP:RU notability guidance for national sevens teams players to remove the reference to the Commonwealth Games (see proposed change below). Some unimpressive rugby teams have played at the Commonwealth Games — including Barbados, Guyana, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka. These national teams are mostly an ad hoc group of amateur players cobbled together for that particular tournament, and the teams do not otherwise engage in high-profile competitions. Since the teams themselves draw very little coverage, it is hard to believe that all the players, coaches, and administrators associated with these teams are notable.

"A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for, coached or administered:

1. a team in the Rugby World Cup Sevens, World Rugby Sevens Series, Commonwealth Games, Olympics, or ..."

Do folks agree or disagree? CUA 27 (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I just had a look at the notability criteria for other sports; WP:NTRIATHLON, for example, has a criterion "Have competed in Triathlon at the Summer Olympics or have had a podium finish at the Commonwealth Games." Maybe we should include a minimum level of performance in the Commonwealth Games, I'd suggest something like reaching the "Medal competition" (the final 8). TheMightyPeanut (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

On a slight side note, would someone bother to create an article on players, coaches or administrators for such teams you mention? I guess I shouldn't assume anything. Sirpottingmix (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

To answer your hypothetical, yes, it has happened. There have been two cases recently of people mass-producing sub-stubs, essentially going through rosters and filling in things like "<name> was a <sport> athlete. They competed in the <year> Olympics". Some people do this just because they can do it. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

TheMightyPeanut — Looking at the Commonwealth teams that have reached the cup quarterfinals (ie, top 8) but have never progressed to the semifinals, we have Scotland, Kenya, and Canada. All three of those teams are core World Series teams with players who regularly participate in high-level tournaments. So I'd agree that those players are probably notable, and your proposal is an improvement over the current version. But I'd still argue we can remove the Commonwealth Games from the list. The teams that make the Commonwealth list are also present in other lists (World Series, Rugby World Cup). So we don't really need to list the top X teams at the Commonwealth Games because it adds nothing (just like we don't need to list the top 4 teams at the Pan Am Games, the top 2 teams at the Asian Games, etc). CUA 27 (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, so historically, no additional teams would meet my proposed criteria, but should we not try to come up with guidelines that could cater for future scenarios in case a team outside the World Series regulars do reach a certain stage of those competitions? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TheMightyPeanut. Teams making the Cup bracket at the Commonwealth Games are notable. The tournament, somewhat like the Hong Kong Sevens, is an important competition with a longer history than either the Sevens series or the Olympics. The Brazilian teams got to compete at the Olympics by being the hosts, notable in itself. -- Ham105 (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ham105 — You are correct that the advent of rugby sevens at the Commonwealth Games (1998) pre-dates the first year of the World Rugby Sevens Series (1999). CUA 27 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

TheMightyPeanut, Ham105 — Part of my reason for resisting inclusion of the Commonwealth Games in the criteria had been that the other criteria are already over-inclusive. Teams such as Tunisia, Chile, the Cook Islands, and the Phillippines have played on occasion in both the Rugby World Cup Sevens and the World Rugby Sevens Series, and I doubt all or even most players from those teams have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Perhaps the better approach would be to limit the criteria for those too, to something like the following:

"A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for, coached or administered:

1. a national rugby sevens team that has (a) participated in the in the Olympics, (b) been at any time a World Rugby Sevens Series "core team", (c) reached the cup quarterfinals (top 8) of the Rugby World Cup Sevens, or (d) reached the cup quarterfinals (top 8) in the Commonwealth Games, or ..."
   

CUA 27 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @CUA 27:. Personally, I'd prefer wording like that, and it also allows for individual criterion to be more easily revisited. I would say all players that competed at the Rugby World Cup Sevens should be notable though. It's the flagship tournament of the sport a smaller team qualifying for the World Cup is probably notable in itself. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

TheMightyPeanut — Thanks for the feedback. I'm having a hard time envisioning all or even most players from teams such as Tunisia, Latvia, Cook Islands, Phillippines, and other amateur teams that have participated at the RWC 7s to be notable. Judging by the extent of media coverage for rugby sevens, the Olympics and the World Series appear to be the top competitions. World Rugby stated publicly a few years back that they were willing to ditch the RWC 7s if it would help their bid to make rugby an Olympic sport. The 2013 Rugby World Cup Sevens article states that the tournament was played in mostly empty stadiums. Up-and-coming teams, (see eg, Ireland national rugby sevens team article lead), that are trying to break into the top tier of rugby sevens, list the Olympics and the World Series as their main goals. The RWC 7s is still an important tournament, but it is not the flagship tournament of rugby sevens, and hasn't been for years now. CUA 27 (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead of Ireland national rugby sevens team states they "[have] competed in most Rugby World Cup Sevens since the 1993 inaugural event." They've only recently set up a team to try and qualify for the World Series (since sevens became an Olympic event, in fact) after a handful of appearances some time ago. So for well over 2 decades, their main goal was very clearly the Rugby World Cup Sevens. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

TheMightyPeanut — The Ireland national sevens team had been quasi-dormant for close to 20 years until the Olympics and professionalization of the World Series revived it; before then, a team composed of academy youth players and other amateurs was slapped together every four years for RWC 7s qualification and play; Ireland didn't even bother entering a team for the 2013 RWC 7s. But I fear we are debating a side issue.

The core issue is whether most if not all players for low-performing teams at the RWC 7s are notable — ie, the players generate significant coverage in independent reliable sources by virtue of their participation in that tournament alone. If you are up for a fun challenge, take your pick of the 2013 Tunisia squad, the 2009 Hong Kong squad, or the 2005 South Korea team, choose any one of the three teams you like, and see if there is enough material to write articles for most if not all of those players. If the answer is no, then we should make sure the WP:RU guidance doesn't include all RWC 7s teams when presuming players are notable. CUA 27 (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it a little more time to see if there are more comments before making the change proposed above. CUA 27 (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• @CUA 27: What change are you proposing to make - I presume it's the paragraph under the second-from-top bolded text within this section? -- Ham105 (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, subject to any further suggestions for improvement that people may have to offer. Not the first one. CUA 27 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have made the change. Thanks all for your input. I am considering advocating to change the language at Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Rugby_union to match the guidance at WP:RU. CUA 27 (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. On the World Rugby Women's Sevens Series – given this is about rugby sevens (and with a nod to The C of E below) – should it be included? -- Ham105 (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@CUA 27: Has the process been cut short here – if you support the inclusion of women's national sevens, as stated, then should not the World Rugby Women's Sevens Series be mentioned in this clause? Additionally there's a typing repetition error in your text: "in the in the" (that's an easy fix but the women's sevens question should also be addressed before proceding). -- Ham105 (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Women notability

If I may tack on a rider to this discussion, I have noticed through my participation in WP:WIR60 that the current notability guidelines do tend to disfavour articles on women rugby players. The high performance union criteria is vague but it does seem to suggest in the note afterwards that it doesn't apply to women. Likewise the "played for a team in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995" is rather limiting when it comes to women as there are only 2 leagues that do that, and one only started this year. Personally I think these guidelines are a bit out of date as they were written before the upswing in women's rugby interest and coverage. The recent WRWC and the new Premier 15s league in England shows that women's rugby has moved up in terms of profile compared with when these guidelines were written.

I propose that we remove the "women don't have this criterion" from the High Performance Union criterion and either/or add a section stating something along the lines of "players who have played for a women's club team that compete in the highest national league of a High Performance Union" and provide a list of the leagues with a potential date limit. We can maintain criterion 4 in case any non HPU team make the semis. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Responding to both The C of E and Ham105 — I'm open to the idea of revising the notability guidance for women's rugby, given the growth in the women's game over the past decade, to make sure the WP:RU guidance is more consistent with the WP:GNG principles. The current guidance for women's rugby explicitly includes only women's 15s national teams, which is a shortcoming. I like the idea of including the more high-profile 7s national teams also. I do not support including domestic amateur clubs; for most sports we do not presume that players on amateur club teams are notable, and I don't see any reason to make an exception for amateur women's rugby. I also believe we should continue to maintain separate notability criteria for men and women; despite the growth in the women's game, the men's game remains more widely covered, and women's notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the men's game. CUA 27 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You are right notability is not inherited from the men's clubs, which is why women's rugby should be treated with its own bespoke guidelines. When it comes to the notion of them being "amateur" thus not notable, I would like to remind you that we do have guidelines on other amateur sports such as GAA as well as amateur rugby clubs (London Irish Amateur comes to mind) so the amateur argument isn't really that strong here. Nowadays we do have equivalent leagues mirrored in both men's and women's rugby with near to identical structures and pathways to the top with the best from the teams being selected to play internationally. I don't want to sound like an SJW, but to me it doesn't seem fair that with the closer harmonisation and increasing coverage that one league is disadvantaged over the other because they are female. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Re the GAA, you have identified the exception listed at WP:ATHLETE, but identifying one exception does not invalidate the general principle. I'm not sure what you meant by the London Irish Amateur reference, but I imagine you are not arguing that all rugby players in National League 2 South are presumed notable.
The key question you have teed up here is whether most if not all women rugby players playing at the highest amateur levels are notable — i.e., whether these players draw significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. So I'll issue you a fun challenge: pick an amateur women's club team of your choosing in a league of your choosing, take a look at all the locks on the squad (not just the ones with national team caps, but all of them on the squad) and see if each player draws enough coverage to warrant an article (and not just a stub article that references the team or league website, but enough independent coverage to meet the WP:GNG guidelines). CUA 27 (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ham105 — I'm responding here to your comment above to keep the discussion re women's notability in one place. I made the change re men's national sevens teams players because it seemed that that discussion had run its course. I didn't make any changes to the women's notability because that discussion is ongoing. For women's sevens players I propose the addition in green below. It expands the criteria to include players from certain women's national sevens teams. The expansion of the criteria is sensible because of the advent of women's rugby sevens in the Olympics and the launch of the Women's World Series. But the change also recognizes that the women's game is not as high-profile as the men's, and so the criteria are not as broad.

A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for, coached or administered:

1. a women's national team in at least the semi-finals of the Women's Rugby World Cup.^{(see Note 3)}
2. a women's national rugby sevens team that has (a) participated in the in the Olympics, or (b) been at any time a Women's Sevens Series "core team".

I look forward to thoughts from you and any others on this proposal. CUA 27 (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the first point, I still think we should be saying in light of the coverage of the recent WRWC we should expand point one to:

1. a women's national team who has played in the Women's Rugby World Cup.

Indeed the most recent one gave coverage to the smaller nations and their players (Kelsie Bouttle of Hong Kong being one example) which shows that the women's game has moved on since the guidelines were written so should we move with it. The issue of club players can be dealt with separately, but for 15s it should be extended. That being said, I agree with the proposed sevens alteration as sevens doesn't yet have the same cover as 15s. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

User:The C of E — I agree with your observation that we are seeing increasing coverage for the women’s RWC, particularly for the most successful teams. But I don’t see significant coverage for the players on the lesser teams in the women’s RWC. You are correct that 1 Hong Kong player is notable, but what about the other 27 Hong Kong players on the roster. For that reason, I do not at this time support your proposal to expand the notability guidance. I invite you to prove me wrong, though. The following exercise would give you a stronger case: Choose one squad list from Sweden, Japan, or the Netherlands from any Women’s RWC during the 1990s; for the squad you select, write a decent article supported by significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources for at least four of the front-row forwards from the squad you chose. I’m guessing this cannot be done. If, however, we see a continued trend in the future towards broader women’s coverage, in a few years editors will likely be willing at that time to embrace expanding the criteria. CUA 27 (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability revisited

Hi CUA 27, I support the thrust of that WRWSS wording. However, I think clause 3 in the guideline should be read as non-gender specific. It was originally specified that way seven years ago. Even your recently amended revision can be read as such. The addition of the men's sevens series was a relatively recent addition and can be easily rewritten to include the women, i.e.

A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for, coached or administered:

1. a national rugby sevens team that (a) has participated in the Olympics, (b) has been at any time a World Rugby men's core team or women's core team, (c) was placed in the top 8 at the Rugby World Cup Sevens, or (d) was placed in the top 8 at the Commonwealth Games, or ..."

Comments sought on this proposal. Thanks, -- Ham105 (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ham105 — Sorry about the slow reply. Thanks for sharing your proposal, and for highlighting the original guidance from 2011. I interpret clause #3 of the guidance as applying to men’s teams, not women’s. Back in 2011 when the guidance was drawn up, the Commonwealth Games had not yet decided to add women’s rugby, the IRB/WR had not yet decided to launch a Women’s World Series, and women’s rugby had been included only once in the RWC 7s to little fanfare. As I said above, I think the guidance should be amended to add certain categories of women’s sevens players, but given that the women do not receive nearly as much media coverage as the men’s, our guidance should reflect that difference. Hence my proposal to include women players from the biggest sevens tournaments (Olympics and World Series), but not other tournaments. If for some reason you believe the women’s tournaments receive as much coverage as the men’s, I’d be interested in seeing what support you can share for that position. CUA 27 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User 91.69.84.197

Hi all, I am seriously concerned by contributions made by user with IP address 91.69.84.197. He is updating a lot of appearance stats (without updating the update date, which makes all the stats incorrect anyway). I don't know if anyone out there is double-checking these stats, but I have found some that are wrong. More blatantly is that user updating players' birth years, for example Judicaël Cancoriet's here and here. Yet, the two references on the player's article – [1] and [2] seems to indicate the previous values to be correct. There are several examples of this, eg. here, here and here all in the last 24 hours. It seems to be vandalism which could have affected thousands of articles by now... TheMightyPeanut (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I will keep my eye open, but this is why stats, even in the infobox, should be referenced. It makes checking that they're correct super easy! -- Shudde^talk 16:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Rasta Rasivhenge

I am concerned about @TheMightyPeanut: and in particular his edits regarding Rasta Rasivhenge. He insists in placing him in the category:"Australian rugby union referees" even though Rasivhenge is clearly not Australian. Maybe I am missing something but for a referee to be placed in this "nationality" category, he actually has to be an Australian and not just lived in the country for five minutes. He is now claiming Andrew Brace cannot be placed in "Welsh rugby union referees" because Welsh is not a nationality even though Wales' sporting independence is well established and recognised. I believe TheMightyPeanut has lost the plot. I have already tried to reason with him one-to-one but he justs keep going off on rants and going round in circles. In my opinion Wikipedia needs to be factually correct and politically neutral. I would be interested in hearing other opinions on this matter, other then TheMightyPeanuts. Djln Djln (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

One has to be very careful regarding issues of nationality. These things need to be very well referenced, especially for living people (see WP:BLP). Has this been bought up at the article talk page? If you two can't resolve it between yourselves then I suggest someone initiates an WP:RfC to resolve the issue. Here is probably not the place unless this is a question broadly relevant to other rugby union-related articles. -- Shudde^talk 16:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

All done, please have your say here. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

He represented Australia as a referee. This project already categorises players by representative nationality regardless of their actual citizenship. Hack (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Hack:, would you mind commenting at Talk:Rasta Rasivhenge#Refereeing nationality, so we have a centralised discussion about this? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have archived the old discussion and initiated a new one at Talk:Rasta Rasivhenge#RfCs on categorisation

WP:NCSP

This had been an issue with NCSP being out of sync for both codes of rugby. After no objection after three days to uploading the MOS for league and union to replace the inaccurate information at NCSP this was done. It was requested that it was brought to the attention of both projects concerned.Fleets (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wellington Sevens --> New Zealand Sevens

Last time we had this discussion it was concluded to not move to the new name as it might be the wrong way and will check it over. It is now February 3 and the Hamilton Sevens is currently happening as I type this and might make another request for that move to happen. Animation is developing 04:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Request move regarding referee affiliations

Following the closure of the RFC at Talk:Rasta Rasivhenge, which suggested bring the categorisation issue to another venue (it mentioned here as an example, but I felt CFD was a better option), I have listed a requested move at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 15#Category:ARU referees that may be of interest to this project. AIRcorn (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion opened on notability for players Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Definition_of_high_performance_union_in_WP:NRU

Hi all I have just read the high performance playbook here https://www.worldrugby.org/documents/high-performance and I believe that the notability criteria should be rewritten. I have not made a formal proposition but I wanted to test tha water a bit. Please don't hesitate to participate. Thanks Dom from Paris (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Player nationalities in lead sentence

The issue

Several player biographies across the WikiProject Rugby Union involve a player who was born and grew up in one country, but changed WR affiliation and now plays for a different country. These biographies introduce the players' nationalities in the lead sentence in different ways. This leads to editing disputes. And my impression is that the lead sentences occasionally reflect the author's desire to claim a particular player as their own nationality (i.e., a form of POV pushing).

Option 1: Mention that the player is one nationality but plays for a different country. E.g.,

"Jared Benjamin Payne (born 13 October 1985) is a New Zealand rugby union player who plays for ... the Ireland national team."

Option 2: Mention that the player was born in one country but now represents a different country. E.g.,

"Rory Kockott (born 25 June 1986) is a South African-born French international rugby union player ..."

Option 3: Mention only the current nationality. E.g.,

"Vaea Fifita (born 17 June 1992) is a New Zealand rugby union player ..." (no mention that he was born and raised in Tonga)

Option 4: Don't mention in the first sentence; instead use the second sentence to give the player's birth country and current country he plays for. E.g.,

"Manusamoa Tuilagi (born 18 May 1991) is a rugby union centre for Leicester Tigers in Premiership Rugby ... Born in Fogapoa, Samoa, Tuilagi has represented England 26 times since his debut in 2011 ..."

Assuming we agree that we should choose a standard format, which one of these is best for players who were born and raised in one country, but represent a different country?

Discussion

• Options #2 and #4 are my preferred options. They present a relatively complete picture in a non confusing way. My least preferred option is #1; it is confusing to readers not terribly familiar with WR nationality rules how a player in one nationality but represents another, and could leave the casual reader with the misleading impression that the player may yet again change country. Option #3 is ok, but unsatisfying as it scrubs the lead of any mention of the person's primary nationality. CUA 27 (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes I agree with Option 2, that's how it should be worded in my opinion and that is how I go about with using it in the lead sentence. I just had a thought, would that be something to add into the manual of style guide tab on the project? Or is that something that nobody has read for 100 years and so is not worth the effort? Sirpottingmix (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  I agree that if we reach consensus we should some guidance at the WPRU Style Guide, with a link to this discussion. That should help reduce future editing disputes. CUA 27 (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Option #4 - I suggest we don't mention the player's "nationality" at all in cases where it's ambiguous or otherwise controversial. We don't know what nationality these players identify as, only where they were born and what national team they play for. So for Hadleigh Parkes I would prefer to write "Hadleigh Parkes is a rugby union footballer who plays as a centre for the Scarlets in the Pro14. Born in New Zealand, he represents Wales at international level." – PeeJay 08:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Option 2: That's the option I've used when I write rugby articles. Simply because it makes it very clear that they were born in one country but now represent another one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Option #4 - This is what I go for. Don't mention it in the first sentence but in the second one and treat it as a matter of fact. See Manu Tuilagi - ""Manusamoa Tuilagi (born 18 May 1991) is a rugby union centre for Leicester Tigers in Premiership Rugby, since making his debut in 2009 he has appeared in 100 games for the club. Born in Fogapoa, Samoa, Tuilagi has represented England 26 times since his debut in 2011," I think removes POV pushing as much as possible and treats things as matter of facts only. Skeene88 (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Either of Option #2 or Option #4 works in my view. While slightly preferring a variant of the former, I'm more interested in a well-written paragraph that provides a summary of the biographical subject. I wouldn't change an example like option #4 into the style of N is an X-born Y international Z player. Even where that is my own preference, the existing paragraph still presents the key facts in a balanced NPOV.

Options #1 and #3, on the other hand, seem to give undue prominence to one "nationality". This is misleading for readers when the subject is associated with more than one nation. I'm okay with these examples (and this discussion) being mentioned in a guide to style, but there shouldn't be a mandatory N is an X-born Y international Z player formula imposed, IMO. The existing policies of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are sufficient to resolve the issue. -- Ham105 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Option #4.1 for me. "Manusamoa Tuilagi (born 18 May 1991) is a rugby union player who plays for Leicester Tigers and England. Born in Fogapoa, Samoa, Tuilagi qualified to play for England through residency and has won 26 caps since his debut in 2011"

For me, this keeps the fact that he is an England international in the first sentence, which I think is important in terms of notability, and the second sentence has the relevant info. --hippo43 (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking about the lead sentence, that is Option 3 then. But I agree with the sentiment; Option 4 mentions his club side in the lead sentence and his international side only in the second sentence. The latter is probably more notable (and less likely to change, while the club side can change frequently). That nudges me towards Option 2, possibly reworded as something like "Manusamoa Tuilagi (born 18 May 1991) is a Samoan-born rugby union centre who plays for England internationally and for Leicester Tigers in Premiership Rugby." TheMightyPeanut (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That is not really the same thing, as it makes the first thing you say that he is Samoan-born. Which like it or not implies that he is not really English and, for me, violates neutral POV. No one described Jamie Heaslip as an "Israeli-born Irish international". Skeene88 (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

-side point Tuialgi hasn't played for England since 2016, I don't think the current tense is necessarily correct here.

@Skeene88:, yes very good point actually. But then it has to be Option 3 (aka Option 4.1) really? If the main reason for a player's notability is representing a country, it would make sense that gets mentioned first and foremost. And, while I agree with Ham105 above that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE should be adhered to, surely this falls into due prominence given to one nationality? If all other style guides are adhered to, it should make clear within the next sentence or so where the player is from and what path he took to become an international player. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I think some crossed wires here regarding "nationality" and being "a rugby international". Fully agree that, good sentence structure permitting, international hounours should be mentioned in the first sentence. I don't think place of birth should be in the first sentence, and sometimes not even in the introduction at all (i.e. Heaslip deals with it well, as does Sergio Parisse in perhaps a better example), for some players it seems churlish to totally ignore it (such as Tuilagi) but others it would feel really weird to put it in (like Dany Priso, having it in a "personal life" section seems more appropriate than the heading). I also think it will be tough to get an hard and fast rule because all the people have individual circumstances, for instance a guy like Parisse is the son of an ex-pat, Tuilagi is a normal(ish) example of family immigration whilst Riki Flutey (or loads of others like that) came as adult professional rugby players and then left as soon as their careers finished to return to New Zealand. Basically its a bit of a minefield and anything that is "opinion" should try to be avoided and stick to facts.Skeene88 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Option 3 - As above. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If the player's nationality is unambiguous, I would agree, but for many of these guys it is ambiguous. Just because a player plays for a certain national team doesn't mean he is actually of that nation. I wouldn't describe Brent Cockbain or Sonny Parker as Welsh just because they played for Wales. It's more complicated with Pacific Islanders who, while they may be born on one of the smaller island nations, might have strong New Zealand ancestry and thus play international rugby for New Zealand despite having grown up in Fiji, Tonga or Samoa, but regardless, I don't think you can simply say a person is of a particular nationality just because they play international rugby for that national team. That said, I also don't think we can throw a blanket over every single player, since there are some for whom their place of birth isn't necessarily an indicator of their nationality, per Jamie Heaslip mentioned above. – PeeJay 15:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I interpreted that differently (which I guess is the root of the ambiguity). This is one where one word later in the sentence can change everything: "Vaea Fifita (born 17 June 1992) is a New Zealand rugby union player" versus "Vaea Fifita (born 17 June 1992) is a New Zealand rugby union international". Also, "Manu Tuilagi is an English rugby player" versus "Manu Tuilagi is an England rugby player". That not great phrasing, but just a case of how subtle changves can change the entire meaning. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Option 4.1 isn't the same as Option 3. 4.1 specifically doesn't say "Manu Tuilagi is an English rugby player". I agree with Peejay - trying to find one solution that fits everyone won't work. As well as verifiability, two things I think are important. 1 - we should avoid "Samoan-born" as it's ambiguous - we don't always know what nationality/ies someone held at birth. 2 - include the national team they represent in the first snetence, and explain in the second sentence why they don't play for Samoa or wherever. --hippo43 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Using "Samoan-born" isn't ambiguous. Your phrasing of that point is not quite right. Having said that, the Manu Tuilagi example, as worded in Option 4 with "Born in Fogapoa, Samoa", is fine as it is. -- Ham105 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Using "Samoan/Australian/whatever-born" can be ambiguous. There are many players born in say, South Africa, who have British nationality at birth through a British parent, so they are not simply South African at birth. In these cases, the player's place of birth and the country they have represented are verifiable. Their nationality (or nationalities) at birth is often not.

Option 4 leaves out the fact that he plays for England from the first sentence, which (IMO) is daft. --hippo43 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If I say Tuilagi is Samoan-born, there is only one meaning: He was born in Samoa. It is not a matter of ambiguity because the meaning is perfectly clear. The issue is whether that verified information is given appropriate emphasis or WP:UNDUE emphasis. If the first paragraph stated only where the player was born (or, conversely, only the national team played for) then, yes, that would undue in this case. Mentioning both facts together is the WP:NPOV way to go. My own preference would be to do so in the first sentence, but side-by-side within the first paragraph is also acceptable. -- Ham105 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Why would it be undue to only mention a player's national team in the opening sentence, if that is the main reason for the player's notability? Also, in some (even rarer) cases, a third nationality might appear. Don Armand, for example, was born in Zimbabwe, grew up in South Africa, but is an international for England. It will get convoluted trying to squeeze all those into the lead sentence. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think trying to force a statement about the player's national allegiances into the opening sentence, especially where that subject is not as clear cut as in the case of someone like Martin Johnson, is fraught with controversy. Leaving out any mention of "nationality" from the very first sentence might even stimulate a reader to read on - "Why haven't they mentioned his nationality? Oh, I see, he was born in another country to the one he plays for. That makes sense." – PeeJay 23:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ham, "Samoa-born" can be read as "born in Samoa" or "Samoan when born". WP:MOSBIO prefers the nationality that a subject had when they became notable - this is debatable in some of these cases (was player X notable before he was qualified for his national team), but place of birth is not normally included in the lead. A player's national team is more notable than where they were born - this is not an issue of undue weight and they don't need to be side by side. --hippo43 (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hippo43: In Tuilagi's case it is clear he was not a British national or English when he first became notable – See England boss Johnson may gamble on Samoan teenager Tuilagi for Six Nations, given he required a work permit to avoid deportation. Are you disputing he was both "born in Samoa" and "Samoan when born"? – I suspect not. The issue of due weight applies to biographies, including within the lead paragraph – Please note the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, at MOS:LEADBIO: "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each." -- Ham105 (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable" – in this case, it will always be. A player's national team selection will always be more notable and more recent than his birth, and more weight for the former will be fully justified. However, I totally agree that Tuilagi's Samoan background is also notable in itself and should definitely be mentioned in the article lead, even if not necessarily in the lead sentence. This might not be the case for all players. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a case of one fact being more notable than another. Tuilagi became notable as a club rugby player, at which point his nationality was certainly not English; he only qualified to play for England by residency. Same with the likes of Taulupe Faletau for Wales. In general, these guys are notable for being rugby players, and I think it should be sufficient to say "[Player X] is a rugby union footballer" where their nationality is ambiguous; you can't simply say "[Player X] is an English rugby union footballer" when he likely doesn't hold a British passport, regardless of the national team he's played for. – PeeJay 06:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with MightyPeanut

Ham, of course I agree, Tuilagi's Samoan background is significant and should be mentioned in the lead. Note I never supported saying Tuilagi is English, just that he has played for England. (As far as I'm concerned he is Samoan, although he may now be a British citizen.) I also agree that of course the concept of undue weight can apply here, I just don't agree with you on how much weight a player's birth place necessarily carries.

But I think you're getting too focused on Tuilagi, when this is about how to solve this in general, or if we can. In many cases someone's nationality, or nationalities, is not verifiable, even at birth, and their birthplace is not always especially notable. In Tuilagi's case, perhaps it's a bit more obvious because he has brown skin and a funny-sounding name. And maybe his Samoan-ness is more relvant because he is part of a family of Samoan players, some of whom have played for Samoa and not England. In cases like John Barclay's (born to Scottish parents in Hong Kong, lived in Scotland as a child, represents Scotland) his birthplace is less significant. In cases like Matt Stevens' (born in South Africa to English parents, lived in SA as a child, plays for England) it is probably a bit more significant. --hippo43 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Case-by-case This should be done on a case-by-case basis without any hard and fast rules. As has been brought up throughout the discussion there are differing circumstances around player birth and nationality so using a one size fits all approach will inevitably not be the best fit for all articles. I see no problem having differing opening sentences for different athletes. AIRcorn (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the consensus seems to be that there are too may variables for one single hard and fast rule. However one group that is fairly similar, certainly enough for a rough guide, is players who moved country as an adult to play professional rugby and subsequently played international rugby for another national side. That covers a lot of players (e.g. Jared Payne, Thomas Waldrom, Hendre Fourie as an odd three off the top of my head). Are we happy describing these guys as New Zealanders and South Africans who play(ed) for another national side? Or are they now Irish/English? Or should we go to "XX-born"? Skeene88 (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

My personal preference is to leave nationality out of the opening sentence in these cases. So I guess option 4 from those presented above is the closest to what I would like, but highlighting their current national team instead of their club one. I don't like the wording of option 2 and feel mentioning "born" like that will be undue in many cases. Option 1 is contradictory and potentially confusing. Option 3 is alright, but should probably only be used for cases where nationality is not a big issue. AIRcorn (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Aircorn, With the proviso that I'm not sure option 3 is ever going to be very helpful when we are discussing players with more than one nationality. --hippo43 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed guidance

Based on the helpful discussion above, I propose we add something to the WP:RU Style Guide along the following lines, which tries to take into account where there is consensus and where there should be flexibility.

General rule
Rugby player biographies often describe the player's nationality in the first sentence of the article. This is good practice, and presents no issues as long as the player's nationality is clear.

Dual Nationalities
In some cases, reasonable editors may disagree on how to characterize a player's nationality. For example, a player may be born and raised in one country, but then moves and later players for the national team of his adopted country. In these cases, editors should avoid subjectively characterizing the player's nationality or emphasizing one nationality over the other, as this would violate WP:POV.

• Rory Kockott (born 25 June 1986) is a South African rugby union player who plays for France."
• Rory Kockott (born 25 June 1986) is a French rugby union player who plays for France."

The better practice is to mention together in the lead both the country of birth and the country they play for in an objective way; this can be done together in the lead sentence, or together later in the lead section.

• Rory Kockott (born 25 June 1986) is a South African-born rugby union player who plays for the France national rugby union team."
• Rory Kockott (born 25 June 1986) is a rugby union player who plays as scrum-half. He was born and raised in South Africa, but after moving to France, plays for the France national rugby union team after qualifying on residency grounds."

Dual Nationalities — Exception
Some players have no meaningful ties to their birth country, other than the fact that they were born there and lived there very briefly during early childhood. In these situations, the best practice is to mention only the player's principal nationality in the lead; birth country should not be mentioned in the lead paragraph, as it would give WP:UNDUE weight to that aspect.

• Ronan O'Gara (born 7 March 1977) is an American-born Irish former rugby union player, who played fly-half for Ireland.
• Ronan O'Gara (born 7 March 1977) is an Irish former rugby union player, who played fly-half for Ireland.

Please add your reactions to this guidance to the "Discussion, continued" section below. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC).
Modified. CUA 27 (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed guidance

I believe the above proposed guidance fairly captures where WP:RU members have consensus and where there should be some flexibility. Please add any thoughts below as to whether you endorse this approach and how it can be improved. CUA 27 (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Looks alright. Although I would have gone with:

• Rory Kockott (born 25 June 1986) is a rugby union player who plays for France. He was born and raised in South Africa...."

In almost all cases the most notable aspect of the person is the national team they play for and I feel we should mention that in the first sentence. If they have not made the national side then their current highest level club team can be used. The second sentence will vary depending on what is considered due (i.e if they played at a high level for their birth or other country we might want to mention it there). I don't have a problem mentioning position, but feel it would be better left out in these examples as that has other issues (i.e. players with more than one position) and these examples should probably concentrate on nationality. AIRcorn (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this. Yes, the national team a player represents is important to their biography, but in cases like Kockott's, it's not always helpful just to say "he's a rugby union player who plays for NATION X". That might raise questions with the reader about why we don't simply say he's "a French rugby union player". I must emphasise I think it's better to leave the question of nationality out of the opening sentence and simply lead with the person's name, the fact that they are a rugby union player and the position they play. A player's nationality is not so overridingly important that it simply must be mentioned in the opening sentence in all circumstances. – PeeJay 12:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The reader only has to read the next sentence to see why we don't say French rugby union player. Biography articles should open with the most notable aspect of that persons life and with rugby players (as with most other sports) it is representing a national team. I don't see this as mentioning his nationality in the opening sentence, but stating the simple fact that he plays for a certain team. Would saying "who currently plays for" ease some concerns? AIRcorn (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Aircorn on this. The national team a player has represented is almost always going to be one of the most notable things about someone who is notable for being a rugby player. It's the highest level they have competed at. The reason we don't simply say Kockott is a French rugby player is because he isn't a French rugby player. I notice that WP:MOSBIO has been changed some time recently to include Context rather than Nationality specifically. I think that is a better way to look at this than simply trying to always include a nationality.

There are lots of ways to phrase this that can work, and enough possible nuances that we can't cover them all here.

For example, I've just edited Kockott's article from "who plays for Castres and the France national team" to "who plays for Castres and has played for the France national team", because he doesn't currently play for them. Similarly Thomoas Waldrom is now "currently plays for the Exeter Chiefs and represented England from 2012 to 2013".

However, I'm not sure about just saying "was born in South Africa" or whatever in the second sentence. Kockott wasn't just born in South Africa, he was born in South Africa with South African parents and educated in South Africa - we are kind of missing something if we don't somehow say "Kockott is South African but played for France" or "he played for France but really he's South African". Although playing for France is one of the most notable things about him, he was notable before he played for them, when he was just "a South African rugby union player". --hippo43 (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with necessarily including a player's position in the opening sentence. Sometimes they play or played multiple positions. Sometimes a retired player has gone on to do other things in their life and the position they played 20 years ago isn't that important. I just don't think it's as important as including the level they played at, or the teams they are known for playing for. --hippo43 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all this. No matter what this needs to be presented as a rough guide as there are multiple ways to present information and even similar situations are going to have slight differences. AIRcorn (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Aircorn — I think we all agree that for rugby player biographies, playing for a national side is one of the most notable aspects and should appear early in the lead. The trouble is, when we are talking about some of these players — born in country A, to parents who are from country A, and has lived the majority of his life in country A — to mention in the lead only his connection to his adopted country B and not his home country A seems to place WP:UNDUE emphasis on country B. That's probably why Options #2 and #4 above seemed more popular: editors apparently believe that mentioning both countries together is the appropriate way to address the issue, whether in the first sentence or second. I know you are not a fan of the second sentence approach of Option #4, but to quote a thoughtful editor (you), "The reader only has to read the next sentence to see" this information. And in response to your point re preferring a rough guide, as opposed to a hard and fast rule, the proposed guidance above is phrased as a "best practice".

One other point to keep in mind — we are trying to come up with guidance that works not only for the more active WP:RU members but also for the more casual rugby editors too. My sense is that if we were to adopt Option #3, editors who look at the article and see country B in the first sentence but not country A will feel obliged to "correct" the perceived imbalance. Simply put, Options #2 and #4 would tend to more stable articles with fewer editing disputes that Option #3. CUA 27 (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Aircorn — I'm interested in your response to my paragraph above. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

We must have some crossed wires as a variation on option 4 is my preferred preference. The variation was mentioning their national team first instead of their club team. Other editors made similar comments before me. I am not against mentioning their country of birth in the lead, which is why I started the second sentence with He was born and raised in..... Stability and consistency is great, but I still prefer a case-by-case approach to article editing. What is WP:DUE in the lead will be governed by what is presented in the body, including the relevance of the birth country, club country, national representative country, honours, any controversial incidents, etc. This can only really be decided by editors at the article. Having a best practice is great for editors who are starting out or writing articles on uncomplicated biographies, but nothing beats the talk page of specific articles for hashing out the details of specific articles. Anyway I am not really too fussed as I am only really a part time rugby editor nowadays, so I am happy for the regulars here to decide. Just as long as it isn't used, like what happens with some other wikiprojects, to force style guidelines on articles at any cost and without little thought. AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like most people are on board with the proposed guidance. I'll give it another day or two to see if anyone has any further improvements to suggest. CUA 27 (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

On board with the 'Proposed Guidance' you suggested above? I think it's clear Aircorn, PeeJay2k3 and myself had issues with it, so I wouldn't say everyone is on board. --hippo43 (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

hippo43 — Thanks for the note. The proposed guidance attempts to capture the majority viewpoint in the various views expressed by WPRU editors over the past few weeks. My last email was an invitation to see if people had additional ideas. If you have ideas on how to further improve the guidance in a way that is consistent with the viewpoint of the majority of editors who have weighed it, please share. Also, I think you have misunderstood the position of PeeJay, who appears to support Option #4, which is incorporated into the proposed guidance. CUA 27 (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else and don't want to misrepresent anyone else's views, but I just don't think the proposed guidance text above reflects the discussion at all. Not even close. I don't have time to re-write it.

It has been a discussion with just a few editors, and I don't think we have reached consensus. There is already community-wide consensus on verifiability, NPOV etc which covers these points, and which supercedes consenus here in any case. --hippo43 (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hippo — Given that the proposed guidance above contains an explicit reference and link to WP:POV, I'm not sure why you are pointing out the existence of that policy. The proposed guidance is intended to be consistent with that and other wiki policies. If you believe that it is inconsistent in any way, please point out how to improve the guidance so that we can address your specific concern. CUA 27 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

To sum up the views expressed above regarding how to describe players with more than one nationality, 9 editors have weighed in on this discussion:

1. Option 1 — 0 editors support
2. Option 2 — 4 editors support
3. Option 3 — 2 editors support
4. Option 4 — 6 editors support

The number of editors supporting options adds up to 12, not 9, because some editors expressed that they are fine with more than one option. The question then, is what the guidance should say. We could say that Option 4 is the right way to go, as it did obtain approval from a majority who weighed in. Or we could say that either Option 2 or 4 is acceptable; it would provide a framework that appeals to a larger majority, and allows for some flexibility. It's pretty clear that there is consensus against Option 1. Option 3 as a way of describing players with more than one nationality appeals to only 2 editors (one of whom stated "I'm not sure option 3 is ever going to be very helpful when we are discussing players with more than one nationality"), so not much traction there. Based on the above, I think guidance saying both Options 2 and 4 are acceptable best reflects the majority (although not unanimous position), but remain open to hearing other views if someone has a different understanding of the consensus or has further thoughts on how to approve the proposed guidance. CUA 27 (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed guidance, part B

This is what I would suuggest, as a rough guide:

Principles

Include national team in opening sentence

Include nationality in opening sentence if it is not ambiguous

If nationality is ambiguous, or player has potentially more than one nationality, explain this in the second sentence

Do not use “country-born” or “nationality-born”

Examples

If nationality is not ambiguous:

Dave Jones (born 2 January 1980) is an English rugby union player, who plays for Bath and the England national team.

Dave Jones (born 2 January 1980) is an English rugby union coach and former player, who is currently head coach of the Tonga national team. He played for Bath and the England national team, winning 199 caps.

If nationality is not clear or not reliably sourced:

Hannes van der Merwe (born 1 December 1990) is a rugby union player who plays for Toulon and the France national team. Born in Johannesburg, South Africa, he qualified to play for France through residency. He made his debut in 2016 and has won 29 caps. --hippo43 (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

hippo43, Does this guide you suggested reflect a consensus of the discussion above? CUA 27 (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been opened that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Specifying_the_code_of_football_at_first_reference_in_team_articles --Trovatore (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Specifying_the_code_of_football_at_first_reference_in_team_articles. Apparently it's "not an RFC"; I haven't followed up the link to find out why it's not. --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Portal

I only just found out there is a proposal to delete all portals. As I don't really edit or read in the area I am not particularly bothered which way that goes. It did however get me thinking about the Portal:Rugby union as it was one of the few I had actually come across years ago. I looked at it again now and it hasn't been properly updated since early 2015 (judging from the news), and last year got about 16 page views a day on average. Whatever the result of the deletion discussion we may want to think about how useful this particular portal is. @Shudde: who got it to featured status and has done the most work on it. AIRcorn (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Andrea Manici

Hello, the player has officially retired yesterday because of lack of full recovery from a knee ligament injury occurred in October 2015: news from the Italian Rugby union Federation here -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 21:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Heartland Championship - fully professional?

Is the Heartland Championship fully professional for the purposes of WP:NRU? I fully admit I don't know a thing about rugby and I can't figure it out based on the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos:No. It does not meet WP:NRU. Though given New Zealands obsession with rubgy there is probably plenty of local coverage and some (not many) who play in this competition may eventually move into or already have played for professional teams. Definately not by itself and I would expect a lot more than mentions in the Greymouth Star to meet GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow thanks for the fast response! :) As a follow-up, roughly, does Marc Comb look like he would pass NRU to you based on the teams he's played for? (Don't worry about checking GNG, I'll look into that on my own). I think it's a no, but I'm not familiar enough to confidently say no. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Bedford Blues just scraps in I think. Might want to see if someone more familiar with English Rugby responds first though. AIRcorn (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Bedford Blues are a professional club in the fully professional RFU Championship so if he has played for them in either the Championship era (2009-) or when the Blues were in the Premiership then he is notable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Assuming by Premiership you're meaning the Allied Dunbar Premiership (seems to be the only premiership listed on the Bedford Blues article, but I profess my ignorance again) then he came in 2004, after they got dumped out of it in 2000. He stopped playing with them by 2008, so he seems to have just missed the Championship era. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's right. ADP is just the sponsored name at the time for the English Premiership. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you both very much for your help, I really appreciate it! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark McDermott

Hello from Russia. Please take a look: User:Yet another Rugby fan/sandbox. Is this man — currently (acting) coach of Tier 2 national team, and formerly Heineken Cup player and Ireland U21 coach — sufficiently notable for WP article? -- WBR, Yet another Rugby fan (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, it seems he played for Munster in the Heineken Cup, i.e. club championship of Europe, during the professional era. See It's rugby. -- Ham105 (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  Two reliable sources confirming those apps, EPCrugby too. A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for /.../ a team in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 /.../ is written in the guideline. Early editions of Heineken Cup, it seems (but I don't have 100% info on that), were fully-pro events -- Yet another Rugby fan (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Additional questions: where are Irish Interprovincial players' stats (pre-CL/Pro14 era) available? And should we include them to personal infobox or not? -- Yet another Rugby fan (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• And yet another question: yep, I have read again Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability; but what about players/coaches of Tier 2 (not Tier 3, of course) national teams to be notable, if those guys hadn't play at the World Cup? (McD't personally is 'already' notable as he had played Hein. Cup, I'm about some others...) -- Yet another Rugby fan (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrea Marcato

Please take note that Andrea Marcato retired as player in June 2017 at 34 and since then has been Petrarca Rugby's head coach, the 2nd youngest coach at the club after Vittorio Munari (33 in 1984); plus has won the Italian championship becoming the 2nd youngest coach to win the rugby union scudetto (after the abovementioned Munari) and the youngest ever to play and win a final since the establishment of the playoffs in the Italian championship. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 20:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Squad templates

Is there a reason why Category:English rugby union squad navigational boxes are not in club colours in the same way we do for other sports? GiantSnowman 12:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably because no one has bothered doing it. I also note that it appears it's not only the English squads that are "unformatted" but other countries' squads as well. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I recall a few years ago there was a discussion on here that determined that it wasn't worth turning the bottoms of articles into a bag of Skittles for very little benefit (I'm paraphrasing). I disagreed then, and I disagree now, and we should probably add colours to all those navboxes ASAP. – PeeJay 13:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Basically some people didn't like it and got their way on the basis of compromise. I think colours would be better and will do some Prem ones if we decide to go that way this time.Skeene88 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest sandboxing them. If it was a contentious issue in the past it will likely be a contentious issue now (though obviously consensus can change). Mock up some examples/sandboxes, present them, and see what the project things. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I've done some sandboxed ones here:

I prefer this to the non-coloured ones. I won't do any more though until its okayed as the new consensus.Skeene88 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This is totally preferable, IMO. As long as the colours chosen are compliant with MOS:ACCESS, I'd be in favour of a widespread rollout of this. – PeeJay 18:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess the main issue there is red/green colour blindness? Are there any objections for me to roll these out across the prem teams? Skeene88 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections, and I don't think the colour-blindness will be an issue, since there's only really only one colour per box. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, two if you count the text as well. Black on red doesn't read very well, so that should be avoided. Perhaps consult MOS:ACCESS. – PeeJay 13:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it depends on the shade of red I suppose. ACCESS will know. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

TheMightyPeanut, Noq, any comments guys or should we go ahead? I'll leave Saracens (only red & black) till last and put the options here for people to decide.Skeene88 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any comments, no. I reverted several attempts to introduce colour, because that was because it was against the prevailing consensus. But if consensus changed, that's fine. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG TheMightyPeanut (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay; cool I've done the following for Premiership teams then:

{{Wasps squad}} {{Worcester Warriors squad}} Including Saracens like this:

Sale is the wrong blue and not sure on Quins but I really like the rest.Skeene88 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I reckon Quins would be better if you kept the text colour the same and changed the border colour for one of the other colours on their kit. Possibly the blue? – PeeJay 21:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be moving so no objections from me - though I still don't think it necessary. Looking at the above examples, the Saracens one is the only one which I think needs looking at - the contrast between the red and black is not enough to see clearly. noq (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we prefer the Crusaders colours? I think the white with black lining looks a touch odd but it is easy to read.

Skeene88 (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Unstable articles

A lot of articles have become unstable here are a couple of examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=844015692&oldid=844008109&title=2018_June_rugby_union_tests

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_June_rugby_union_tests&diff=prev&oldid=844044800

Other articles that have become unstable are 2017 June rugby union tests, 2016 June rugby union tests, 2015 June rugby union tests etc. Mobile mundo (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ireland national rugby union team

@The C of E: and @Steven a91: have removed the word "national" from the Ireland national rugby union team article without any discussion or consensus. No explanation given. I am pretty sure no Irish Wikipedia editor would be in favour of this move. Djln Djln (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks as though The C of E was just trying to undo your move. When you tried to undo Steven a91's move, you added the word "men's" without any consensus. --hippo43 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like @Steven a91: decided to remove 'national' from the title without first seeking a consensus in [this edit on 14th May, then @Djln: added 'men's to the title on 31 May in [this edit], before @The C of E: reverted to the previous names (Steven a91's) in [this edit], though Djln then reverted that change [here]. Should the page name be changed back to 'Ireland national rugby union team' until a consensus is reached here? No other major rugby union nations appear to have had this change made, and, at present, there must be hundreds of pages that subsequently have incorrect links to the Ireland national team page, which would need correcting if it is agreed that this change should stick... MunsterFan2011 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be changed back to 'Ireland national rugby union team'. -- Ham105 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to undo the addition of "mens" to it but I couldn't put it back to the proper "national" one as there was a redirect there. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Incidentally, the page has now been restored to 'Ireland national rugby union team'. -- Ham105 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@The C of E: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were a responsible for any of this, I was just trying to explain the timeline...probably poorly!! Thanks all for getting this resolved - particular thanks to @Ammarpad: and @Scolaire:. MunsterFan2011 (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It's OK, thank you. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)