Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 7

New standards needed to help improve article hierarchy

I'm proposing a shake-up to the current ranking system. Comments requested. --Bob (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Londo6

It might interest parties here that Londo06 (talk · contribs)=Fronsdorf (talk · contribs)= GarethHolteDavies (talk · contribs)= CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk · contribs) = MortonStalker (talk · contribs) = Mortonstalker (talk · contribs) (lower case 's') = Alexsanderson83 (talk · contribs) = christ only knows how many other socks. It was mentioned above by Sticks66 but I thought I would be less subtle about it. Any consensus votes involving this user should thus probably be revisited and amended accordingly. The filing can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf. Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league have already taken action. --Bob (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rugby union squad templates

Discussion of use of standardised vs non-standardised templates

I keep a vague eye on Munster Rugby articles and try to keep the whole ensemble vaguely up to date. I went to a fair amount of work a while back to update the squad template Template:Munster Rugby squad, and found that Londo06 (talk · contribs) had made a duplicate template at Template:Munster squad which was now out of date and didn't use the Rugby union squad template, instead was a custom made Navbox. I marked the custom, out of date one for deletion and tried to contact him for discussion (User_talk:Londo06, Template_talk:Munster_squad), but he reverted the deletion flag and then over-wrote the template I had updated with his custom version, claiming that his version was up to the 'club MOS'.

I had a look at some of the clubs he pointed me at to demonstrate the 'style' Template_talk:Munster_Rugby_squad, and as far as I could tell, they were all created by him or his sock-puppets, which leads me to believe that there was no consensus on this issue? Can I propose a 'new' consensus of just using the Template:Rugby union squad template?

Cheers, Martinicus (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I similar tale is going on at Template talk:British and Irish Lions 1989 I think a consistent template usage would be a good idea. noq (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I read your arguments and agreed with them. Anything put forward by the sockpupeteer should be ignored IMHO and reversion back to status quo before this user arrived. --Bob (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A consistent template was in use (Template:Rugby union squad) since about Aug 2006 before Londo06 came along with all of his sock puppets and changed them all to bright colors and individual coding with no formal unity in May of this year. Revert back to the old system I vote for. Not just because I coded it, but because it is what was in place before and is consistent with the other Navboxes that we have. --Bob (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that policy should be reviewed.Londo06 08:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer the Template:Rugby union squad. If the consensus is to use the standard template, I'll fix the various Magners League teams. Martinicus (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just done it for the team squad templates that I could find. Some of them were really badly formatted with the template going off the right hand side of the page. One I put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 11. --Bob (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I also set it up for an automatic roll-back if Londo06, and only if Londo06 reverted the edits, I have just been alerted that he has been reverting. So I will stop the roll back and put it up for a vote.

I have since reverted the edits, reason being that I think that it should be brought it to a vote. I seems to me a situation of "Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face." My sock-puppetry; using the account CorleoneSerpicoMontana to gain influence should obviously be taken into account. But I would hope to assuade you that we did move to a better system, one kept up-to-date by a number of editors, and also kept us in line with all the major team sports out there.Londo06 08:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you really expect people to take you serious after you ran numerous sock puppets to influence numerous discussions here ? Gnevin (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm supporting Londo06's idea because I have been on this project for nearly 2 years and I'm really tired of seeing those Normal purplish templates that we have been using and it makes me sick, look at all the other projects, including football and soccer, they have advanced in the last few years and I'd prefer if we advanced too instead of being in pre-historic times. The templates being the same color as he teams uniform is an excellent idea and I would have gone forward with it myself had I known how to make those myself, and the only thing that I would like fixed is the size of the templates which sometimes extend to the right side of the article like you can see on this article and apart from that I'd prefer if we stick with these colored templates, it gives the articles its used on, class... --Cometstyles 11:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two separate issues here - one is the issue of using standardised templates, and the other is the use of colour in templates. I would suggest separating this out into separate sections?

Seconded noq (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Archived voting for premature vote on unclear issues

Standard template to be used as per RWC squad templates. ie.e using Template:Rugby union squad

1. --Bob (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
2. --Martinicus (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
3. --noq (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Garish colors and non-standard template that was in place for all club sides. ie template using colours over the last two seasons and standard throughout team sports on wikipedia.

1. --Londo06 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
2. --Cometstyles 11:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
3. --Me. Wasps FC (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Standard template, but upgraded to use colours in the title bar

1. – PeeJay 12:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
2. -- Wasps FC (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Vote for standard vs. non-standardised templates (This may be superceded as the issue is colour and not uniform coding)

Standard template to be used as per RWC squad templates. ie.e using Template:Rugby union squad

1. --Bob (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
2. --Martinicus (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
3. --noq (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
4. – PeeJay 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
5. -- Wasps FC (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Use non-standard templates currently in-place where each template is individually coded with no formal unity

1. --Cometstyles 23:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
2. -- Londo06 09:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The vote on the subject at the heart of the matter; colour

Purple RWC template ie. using Template:Rugby union squad and seen with RWC squad templates

Coloured navboxes, but moving towards 1 standard setup, ie no variations in width, standard features, same place to add names throughout each individual navbox. ie With regards to colour, the template using colours over the last two seasons and standard throughout team sports on wikipedia.

1. --Londo06 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
2. --Wasps FC (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Removing Londo06 sockpuppet vote. --Bob (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
3. – PeeJay 10:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
4. - MarkFD (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Also a Londo06 sockpuppett vote. --Jeff79 (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about colour in squad templates

I'm not a big fan of colour in the template headers - could we do something different to give it 'class'? Put the club crests in club templates and national flags in national team templates perhaps? Martinicus (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Club logos are not an option as almost all club logos are not free to use. The solution that WP:FOOTY came up with to avoid colours becoming overbearing is to put a player's navboxes in a collapsible box with a neutral title bar. That way the colours add an extra identifier to the navbox without becoming garish. – PeeJay 13:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you point at a couple of examples? I'm not sure I can picture what you mean. - Martinicus (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See the bottom of Peter Schmeichel's article for an example. For some reason, succession boxes were included in Schmeichel's box, which they shouldn't be, but that's the sort of thing I'm suggesting. – PeeJay 14:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how they are different. They all look the same to me, except some are thinner, is that what this is about? I don't know what is being discussed, the width or the colours. I want them big and colourful. Wasps FC (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Members may want to peruse Wasps FC's contributions Wasps FC (talk · contribs)

Why? Wasps FC (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the use of colors make it look garish. Furthermore, different browser settings render the coloring option difficult for some users to read. For instance, color blindness. Therefore choice of colors is important. Logos are not an option for obvious free use reasons. IMHO we should be using neutral colors as this is an encyclopedia not a fansite, therefore everything should be neutral and uniform. However, if If people really really want colors, then we could introduce a square to the right that can be cut diagonally with the different colors while keeping the neutral bar so that it can be read easily by everyone whilst staying neutral. --Bob (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So the first vote is for the purple navboxes and uniformity, and the second is for colour coordination and no uniformity. Is the option for colour coordination and uniformity in the standard template; ie formatting, width, etc.Londo06 18:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't add that in yet, as there seems to be confusion over the coding issue, which I am onboard for, and that of colours, colour coordination being something that I support.Londo06 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two votes, one on whether we should standardise on a single template to use rather than having ad-hoc individually coded ones. The content of that standard template is to be discussed further. Londo06: you don't really have alot of credibility at the moment, and using two accounts in this discussion doesn't really help repair that fact. Martinicus (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've declared up front that I used CorleoneSerpicoMontana maliciously and to influence votes. If you want a personal apology I will offer you one.Londo06 18:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To me that is the heart of the issue; colours. I would want a standard width, standard way of having the names in alphabetical order, expanded or collapsed, etc. For me you have to vote at the same time, else it really doesn't work as a vote.Londo06 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if this guy above used socks to make a point, but what he did right was to actually take our project forward since everytime we try to introduce something new, it gets shot down by non-rugby editors who starts quoting WP:MOS. Look at the templates at the bottom of the Reggie Bush, doesn't it give the article? class..ofcourse it does and now look at the templates in Dan Carter's article..ugly..colors made that article stand out and be noticed, this is a wiki we are running and we want people to notice and click links and making everything ugly will just deter people from doing that....--Cometstyles 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that adding colours necessarily moves things forward. Yes things stand out at the bottom of the Reggie Bush entry but it is not exactly pretty is it. And its also ancillary to the actual content - not the real meat of the article. noq (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How would having those ugly purplish templates help..firstly they all look the same and people will never notice them and thus would never click them. The colors actually make the article stand out and it will be useful when trying to get those article to featured or good article status since when people vote on the article, they will see the structure, the settings and if its eye-catching enough to be featured, its not like I'm asking that we use random colors or rainbow colors, just asking if we can make sure that the template is the same color as the teams "home" jersey so when someone reads the article they can tell which team the player plays for by just looking at the template and most definitely clicking the template too see who else plays in that team, ironically even I don't click those purplish templates ever since i usually ignore them even being there, and if I do it, i don't know how many others do it as well...--Cometstyles 06:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how making navboxs stand out more would help qualify an article for good article status. At the end of the day the navbox is just a means of linking to related articles not a major feature of the article itself. Yes they add structure, but the colour of the title bar of a navbox would and should not influence whether the article itself is good. noq (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For me there really is only one debate. Colour or no colour. A standard version to allow colours would the result if it is voted in, and the purple RWC version would become the standard were that to be voted in. Unity of coding is something I believe we would all want.Londo06 07:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My comment above about Londo06's credibility being damaged by the use of sockpuppets was referring to the creation of Wasps FC by him to maliciously influence discussion again, just a couple of days after having his block lifted for doing exactly that. The creation of Wasps FC by him as a sockpuppet was confirmed here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf. I believe that there are three issues under discussion here:

1. Broad agreement to use a standard template rather than a collection of ad-hoc templates. Despite Londo06 voting against this initially, he now agrees that this is the way forward.
2. Whether colour should be used to help the squad templates stand out on player pages or not.
3. If colour should be used, what form it should take.

I think it is premature to vote on 'put all colour into all templates' until we have identified and discussed all the possibilities for the last two issues I just mentioned. I also think Londo06 should stop using sock puppets to influence votes and discussions. Martinicus (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot, it seems the admins on this project have spoken and did exactly what they wanted, and that is make the project suck even more. I was happy to be part of this project when I Joined in November 2006 but since then we haven't progressed much and when he had the only opportunity to move forward, it got shut down by narrow-minded people who only cared about what they think and not what was good for the project and sadly I no longer want to be part of this project....--Cometstyles 05:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vote about colour in squad templates

No options yet.

Template extensions that would be useful

Season indicator

One thing that would be really useful to add to the standard squad template would be the season, so that, for example, you would know at a glance if a squad list had been updated to the 'current' one or represented last years. This could display something like '<Team name> squad - season 2006/2007'. What do people think? Martinicus (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no need for this. Why would we need to have navboxes for a club's squad in 1994 (for example)? The only club squad navbox that is necessary is the current one. – PeeJay 13:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand - a single club squad will suffice. The suggestion is to add an additional parameter to the template to indicate what season the squad refers to. Thus, if I update the squad to the current one, I will mark it as 2007/2008 and it will appear on the player's page as something like: <Team name> squad - season 2007/2008. When the next season comes and transfers occur, it gets updated to 2008/2009. This would avoid confusion, for example, when a squad has not been updated for the current season, it would be immediately clear to any user looking at either the template or the player.Martinicus (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a line at the bottom of the template saying "accurate as of [date]" would be a better idea? – PeeJay 14:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that would allow for mid-season transfers/loans/wild-cards alright. Martinicus (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How about someone keeping them up to date, wouldn't that solve the problem. Wasps FC (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would, but in the event that the navbox can't be kept up to date, we need some way of informing people of the date that it is accurate to. To be honest, I'm not 100% convinced that this is necessary anyway, but if the community believes it is necessary, a line at the bottom saying "accurate as of [date]" would be the best way. – PeeJay 16:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in it either. If people want it just get someone with the know how to add it, how hard can it be. Wasps FC (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not something that I support. I had updated most of the Guinness Premiership teams to show those linked at their respective club pages and delinking those no longer in the employ of that club. I had also remedied the width issues on a number of pages. The initial move away from the RWC version was that it did allow colour coordination.Londo06 18:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the 2007-2008 idea, the community moved away from an idea similar to that about a year ago. The way I look at it is that being an encyclopaedia, current squad should be taken to mean that. I have no great intention to touch the Super 14 clubs as their season is a way off, but the others are easily updated, but probably better left until this issue is resolved.Londo06 18:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What the eff is going on. Why are there so many votes now? Wasps FC (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that only three people have so far contributed to this discussion, as User:Wasps FC and User:Londo06 are the same person. It is a fairly substantial amount of work to keep squad templates up to date, and I think it is highly unlikely that all squad templates will be up to date all the time. For example, of the Irish provincial sides, only one of them is currently up to date. Providing an indication to both users that they are viewing out of date information, and to editors to indicate that an update is required seems sensible. Martinicus (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasps FC is permablocked and Londo06 is blocked for a month. Keep an eye out for more newbies showing up here and picking things up a little too quickly. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Notability Discussion

ATTENTION WP:ATHLETE is being re-written. There is a very big discussion here. The re-writing is focusing mainly on amateur athletes. You may well wish to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wallaby 1984 Grand Slam

I've listed all the UK players who appeared in the Home Nations Tests of the 1984 Wallaby Tour of Britain here, Could one of my northern colleagues please have a look at which can be currently linked to existing articles. -Sticks66 12:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll pick this up, probably later this week. Some of the names need a bit of changing and there are plenty of articles which can be linked to. Good work from all concerned though. One suggestion, maybe incorporate the test results into the list of non-international matches to show a complete list? --Bcp67 (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Move All blacks to New Zealand national rugby union team

I know but due to Londo's socking of nearly every discussion here I think this should be relisted . Reason for the move include

1. All blacks is a nickname.No other team is at a nickname
2. Internal consistency
3. Move descriptive links from University_of_Otago
   1. David Kirk, Rhodes scholar, World Cup winning New Zealand rugby player captain and CEO Fairfax (Australia) rather than
   2. David Kirk, Rhodes scholar, World Cup winning All Black captain and CEO Fairfax (Australia)

Gnevin (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I suggested such a move a few months ago. I can understand why it might be kept at All Blacks, but the argument for moving to New Zealand national rugby union team is stronger, in my opinion. – PeeJay 16:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - and move Black Ferns to the correct name also. --Bob (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - for consistency with all other national rugby union teams. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - There is no Springboks or Kiwis, we should be consistent. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - All Blacks will still get people to the page via the magic of redirection. dramatic (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Consistency with other articles gets my vote noq (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have linked to this vote on the All Blacks talk page to ensure all interested parties are aware of it. noq (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support hippo43 (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support MarkFD (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Consistency, All Blacks would be redirect. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Additions to above proposed move

Articles with the term All Black in the title be moved to New Zealand in the title

Articles with the term All Black in the title also be moved. Such as History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France be moved to History of rugby union matches between France and New Zealand. --Bob (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support per arguments above. --Bob (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above. – PeeJay 01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Should Category:All Blacks be moved to New Zealand international rugby union footballers Djln--Djln (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Black Ferns → New Zealand women's national rugby union team

• Support --Bob (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support – PeeJay 01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Ditto Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

All Blacks RM

I have now formally requested that All Blacks be moved to New Zealand national rugby union team. Now, I cannot stress this enough, but I must ask everyone to contribute to the RM discussion (to be found here), or else all of this discussion above will be for nought. – PeeJay 19:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Have requested the rest be moved now Talk:New_Zealand_national_rugby_union_team#Requested_moves Gnevin (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wider opinion needed regarding banner and flag use

Myself and User:Andrwsc are involved in a discussion of the removal of the flags/icons from {{BILru}} and {{PIru}} . It is my contention that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Inventing_new_icons is very clear The practice of inventing a new icon to fill a perceived need for one is not simply deprecated but expressly forbidden by policy, as it constitutes original research. However if I am understanding Andrwsc correctly the user believes they are not flags. However I would contend that the mos covers all icons which are WP:OR and should be removed . Any opinions ? Gnevin (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, the MOS does cover all icons, not just flags. Therefore, the icons should be removed from the templates. Furthermore, since the templates would then consist merely of a link, I believe they should be deleted altogether. – PeeJay 14:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that they are clusters of flags, not icons. Therefore, they may stay. However, if they go, then so should the Irish shamrock that was voted on and approved, as it is def. an icon and not a flag. --Bob (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What difference does it make that they are clusters of flags? They are still icons, regardless of what they were derived from. – PeeJay 17:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd support their removal - I admit I have used the Lions flag in results (the 1980 match summary which appears in the original discussion was my work) but the truth is that it isn't actually the Lions flag, just a made-up thing. The Lions badge will certainly be copyright, so why not be rid of the Lions flag in articles. The Lions don't represent a country anyway. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have subst'ed all article transclusions of these two templates, so perhaps they ought to be nominated for TfD again, based on this discussion and consensus. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Should I nom these Category:Rugby_union_squad_templates too ? Gnevin (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as you've made sure they're not being used anywhere, then certainly you should. – PeeJay 23:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 25#Rugby Union templates, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try again. Personally, I think standard wiki markup with the real article names is far preferable to obscure template name abbreviations that are only helpful to a very small number of regular editors, and its not like these are very widely used either. I'd support a subst and delete nomination at TfD. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The image used for the PI team is NOT an invented flag or icon. It is a composite image combining three flags hung vertically side-by-side. It is not WP:OR, as nothing has been originally researched and it is not an invented icon. It is three flags hung vertically and composed within one file. The argument can almost also be used for the image within the Lions template were it not for one of the images used being original research. The Shamrock in that image should be replaced by the 4prov of Ireland. On another note, and can someone please profer an opinion, the Shamrock that is being used to represent Ireland is def. WP:OR, and the flag of the Maori movement being used to represent the Maori are WP:OR does not represent the Maori team correctly and def. falls into WP:OR as it is not ever used to represent said team. They should be replaced with the 4prov flag and the New Zealand flag respectively. Besides that, there was a tfd for the templates only 1 month ago and it was decided to keep. --Bob (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly support replacing the shamrock flag with the four provinces flag. The latter is actually described as being used, at Ireland national rugby union team#Flags and anthems, while the former is clearly an invented shortcut for a real-life non-free image. It's also a pretty trivial change, implementation-wise. Most instances would be updated automatically with a single edit to Template:Country data Ireland. Do we have consensus for that? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Replace with what? The IRFU doesn't use Image:Four_Provinces_Flag.svg anymore it use's it own version [1]Gnevin (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And since that flag is a derivative of a copyrighted image, we definitely can't use it. – PeeJay 10:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Shamrock image in its current incarnation is def. an invented icon being used to sub. as a flag in violation of WP:OR. Conundrum? --Bob (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No conundrum. Simply replace all instances of {{ru|IRE}} and {{ru-rt|IRE}} with [[Ireland national rugby union team|Ireland]] and then delete the templates. – PeeJay 00:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete which templates? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, just noticed my error. Ignore me. – PeeJay 01:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

TFD nom Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 15 Gnevin (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing the flag didn't work , a bot run is needed to make this change .Gnevin (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Gnevin, I appreciate the Shamrock was not an acceptable, flag, but couldn't we have had an alternative in place before we started removing it. The affected pages look really messy. Also when the alternative is agreed upon, will there be a bot to put the new flag in, or is it up to human intervention?FruitMonkey (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Their is no flag we can use with out inventing one or breeching WP:COPYGnevin (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also support replacing the shamrock flag with the four provinces flag. However in the meantime there should be some icon/symbol for Ireland in order to keep the table entries consistent. Bloodholds (talk)

The IRFU don't use the 4 provinces flags so cant either. {{noflag}} can be used for spacing purposes Gnevin (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

22x20px|border Just saying, in that size (reuploaded to 22×15px in png perhaps) it has to be a possibility to either fall outside copyright or "fair use enough" to be usable. I'm guessing it's the File:Ireland rugby.png (which is only 8x6px on there, that is, unrecognisable) in the middle that's under copyright (as the four Provinces of Ireland flags seem to be in the public domain?). If it haven't done yet, it could at least be taken through the process to see if it can be usable. There has to be a certain place where you can't call copyright, if it's at 22px, 10px, 5px or 2px — CHANDLER^#10 — 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Another idea would be to ask the IRFU. And say we're not allowed to use your flag to represent the Irish rugby team because it's under copyright. Do you have a free alternative we can use? Perhaps the four provinces on a blue field without the IRFU logo, perhaps a flag with all the four provinces flag, perhaps both the ROI and NIR flags? And they might very well say "The only flag that should represent the team is out copyrighted flag" In that case I think we should go with Ireland or something, because I think something to disambiguate it from a Republic of Ireland team i needed, most non-rugby fan readers might not be familiar with the situation, something to show it's a team representing the whole island. — CHANDLER^#10 — 01:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of the blank Island of Ireland image could be good, but it should be in a 2:1 ratio, or 2:3 to give it a similar size to the other flags. I would like to see some image in there soon as it makes both the articles and Ireland look like they can't figure out what is going on. Does anyone know, if there is a flag that is used to represent Ireland in Rugby Union internationally other than the IRFU flag? If they do use something else, lets say the Tri Colour, or the 4 Provinces then we should use that as it would be the custom for these sporting events. If they only use the IRFU flag then we should find a way to use that flag, or look into the actual copyright law regarding using it in these articles. Could someone talk to a lawyer? Or directly talk with the IRFU with the idea of getting this issue resolved soon. Right now is a critical time in Rugby Union as there is a larger spotlight on right now because of the Six Nations. It would be really foolish to let this go on beyond the end of the Championship. For that matter, what flag is used by Six Nations Authority? Could we not use that?Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSICON, we should not include a flag simply because there is a perceived need for one. The flag that Ireland's rugby team competes under is the IRFU flag, but we cannot use that as it is copyrighted and we could not claim Fair Use for uses such as this. Any other flag would simply be a gap filler. – PeeJay 11:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'd rather see no flag at all than the Republic's flag only used in the various rugby templates. While I have no "dog in the fight" between the North and South, since I'm an American, it's VERY misleading to use the Republic's flag to represent an All-Ireland national team. — Dale Arnett (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that. The tricolour of the Republic is completely inappropriate when it comes to topics related to the whole of the island of Ireland. – PeeJay 21:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless of course the governing body decides to use it Ireland Gnevin (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Am starting to see some blow back on the flag issue with a couple of flags being used for Ireland, can all user keep an eye out for incorrect Ireland flags Gnevin (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed yet again that there was no symbol/icon/emblem for Ireland rugby - as most people have no objection to the IRFU symbol I have uploade my own "public domian" version. I think that this should keep all but one peroson happy. Bloodholds (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 10:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC).

According to WP:MOSICON, "The practice of inventing a new icon to fill a perceived need for one is not simply deprecated but expressly forbidden by policy, as it constitutes original research". Since the only flag that the Ireland rugby team competes under cannot be used, we should not be seeking alternatives simply to fill the gap. – PeeJay 10:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the point, however, the PD IRFU emblem/symbol/icon is representative of the organisation it represents, so is not invented. It is neither political nor contentious and therefore, for the time being should suffice - giving users of Wikipedia a better experience when viewing the tables on this page. After all without an audience Wikipedia is nothing, and this stop-gap symbol does not subvert the unbiased nature of the Wikipedia project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodholds (talk • contribs) 10:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Icon is copyright though and we can't use it.GordyB (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that a 10x13 pixel image can be copyrighted, but never mind. I have contacted the IRFU and asked them to look in to the use of the image. I will post here when I get a reply.Bloodholds (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 11:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC).

It might make sense for the emblem to be left untouched until the IRFU have a chance to look at the pages.Bloodholds (talk)

Barry at the IRFU has passed this issue to the Comercial and Marketing Deptartment. I will post any developments when I receive them.Bloodholds (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 11:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC).

I don't know what precisely you asked the IRFU, but it is not sufficient for them to simply give us permission to "use the image on Wikipedia". Basically, they would have to release it under an appropriate Creative Commons license, Attribution and/or ShareAlike, such as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Otherwise, we cannot use the image beyond what we already do for Image:Ireland rugby.png. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked them to look at the use of the image in the context of the article. I personally believe that the image is "Public Domain" - the IRFU use it as a mini-icon on their website, which I believe places it in the public domain. Please feel free to look for youself. I am only trying to make this article more user friendly - I have no agenda other than that. Is it not possible to put this issue up for a vote? Untill then if you strongly oppose the use of this image - can we use a blank rectangle to ensure that the table entries are consistant.Bloodholds (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Their website clearly states "Content 2007 © Irish Rugby Football Union". Why would you believe that anything is in the public domain? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. However, because the mini-icon in the tab is not technically on the page, I don't believe it is covered by that particular copyright notice. I believe that tab-icons/mini-icons are a special case (an assertion I will investigate).Bloodholds (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Use {{noflag}} Gnevin (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The need to release File:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} as this is their flag. If they created a flag/icon/logo for wiki would it still be WP:OR ? I would think so Gnevin (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I accept Gnevin's proposal to use {{noflag}}, until an acceptable copyright release is secured from the IRFU or the status of the mini-icon is confirmed to be public domain.Bloodholds (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I will request that the IRFU Webmaster uploads the mini-icon to Wikipedia under the appropriate license (GFDL, cc-by-sa (or freer) or public domain license), if he is willing and able. I trust that this will be acceptable.Bloodholds (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No as it's not a flag, we need File:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg to be released . However I doubt the IRFU will ever release their corporate logo to PD which is what your are asking them too do. So that rules out [:File:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg]] and the blurry icon Gnevin (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

They may well allow the use of the icon if it's at such a low resolution and size it is only usable as a flagicon~ FruitMonkey (talk)

I'm no expert but does the resolution matter ? Surely you have to release the image no matter what and that image is the logo of the IRFU Gnevin (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Plus I'll repeat the blurry icon image is no good for us anyway Gnevin (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Drop them completely?

I must say I've alwways hated flagicons. they do nothing but slow down page loading. I don't see them adding anything to most articles they are used on. Particularly in a commonwealth-dominated sport, when there is so little difference between Australia and New Zealand. dramatic (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I for one would support it . I think , Leinster_Rugby#Leinster_Squad , is alot clearer and more useful with the word Ireland . Gnevin (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine for the team lay-outs, and is more informative. But it is to the detriment of articles like the Six Nations, Touring teams and the Rugby World Cup where the flagicons are used in conjucture with the team names to lift the page. Major sporting articles use flagicons, so should rugby, otherwise we are taking a step backwards. IMO. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at how shite 2008_Tri_Nations_Series looks, it's like a parade of flags .Why do we need to "lift" the page,why isn't the information enough? Isn't the goal of wiki to provide information not be a art contestGnevin (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the adding of graphics for the sake of adding graphics can be a pointless exercise, and I'm not a fan of the article you used to prove your point, but Wikipeida isn't a site for graphicless information, just as classical paper encyclopedias would use images whenever possible. It's obviously something you feel strongly about, but others do appreciate pictures, icons and the ability to change article layout, which are all aesthetic qualities available to us in Wikipedia. Pictures for example are one of the criteria to achieving a Good Status article. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Icon's and pictures have a roll to serve in RU article, pictures espically but what i don't like is icons which don't help the reader. I mean if I removed the flags from random article ,would someone come along and say whats going on here or have any less information conveyed to them?Gnevin (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dropping them completely is foolish. The flags do provide the reader with an easily identifiable symbol of the information they're looking for. People are much more able to find information that has a pictograph with it. For example, if you scroll down to the bottom of this discussion page you can easily find the section regarding removing the Irish flags, because all you have to do is look for the ROI flag, which stands out from the written words. It's much easier to see than looking for the word Ireland. Try it with this article posting, now that I've added Ireland and you'll see how easy it is to find this particular post. When people look through an article, especially one where they're looking for specific information, pictographs help them find that information faster. So dropping them entirely is a bad idea and would be a detriment to Wikipedia, and this Rugby Union project specifically. Although, I've looked through the examples that Gnevin has posted in his sandbox showing the use of no flags in the info boxes except for the Overall Info. This looks really nice. A lot less cluttered. The one problem I see with that, is on pages where the even is current. For example, if you look at 2009 Six Nations Championship. All the flags used there help to quickly identify the information. A person who scrolls down to look for information on a particular team need only to look for the team's flag. This is another reason why I believe the issue of finding a usable flag for Ireland's RU team is an important one. Going without is a detriment to this project.Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, using a flag just because there is a perceived need for one is contrary to WP:MOSICON. If it can be reliably sourced that the Irish rugby team competes under the tricolour of the Republic as well as the IRFU flag, then so be it, but until such sources can be found, we should not use a flag for Ireland. – PeeJay 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that reminder PeeJay. I reread the WP:MOSICON (I believe you should too) and you will clearly see in the section called Appropriate Use it clearly states: "They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon." This is exactly what I am arguing. The flags allow for the reader to more quickly scan the tables due to the visual differences between the icons. I'm not arguing for any one particular flag, but that a flag of some kind should be used. Also, if you read further down the WP:MOSICON you'll read: "They are useful in articles about international sporting events to show the representative nationality of players (which may differ from their legal nationalities)". Again, this is what the use of a flag for Ireland will aid in doing. This group of dedicated editors should find either a way to use the IRFU flag, through a direct discussion with the IRFU, or find out if the IRFU would endorse the use of another flag or icon, whatever that may be.Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I really think there needs to be a flag to disambiguate from the republic of Ireland (to those who don't know the situation), something like Ireland or IRFU Ireland or to go with consistency to look like the flagicon template a IRFU Ireland in code, or just make a Image which say "IRFU" in black letters on a white field so as to be able to get it inside the 22x20px flagicon standard, perhaps IRE would fit as well (seems to be the 3 letter code used by the IRB) — CHANDLER#10 — 03:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

.Brendan OhUiginn what information do flags convey that the words don't. Also the helps the reader read/scan argument doesn't fly when the user doesn't know before hand if their will be a flag or when the pages are littered with hundreds of flags . Also in the case of the Ireland issue WP:NOR supersedes anything WP:MOSICON says Gnevin (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, right now, without a flag/image/extra text or something to disambiguate from the Republic of Ireland it's rather misleading, many people will assume it's just the Republic of Ireland team, Ireland is the most common name of the country, in most languages I would assume... So I don't see why it would be considered "OR" to have something that represents the whole island... For example if I understand correctly are four flags which together represent the whole Island, even the IRFU uses these flags as shields (they're probably considered neutral?) in their own flag, so it's not "making something up" it's not under copyright, it represents the whole island, it disambiguates from the Republic of Ireland. — CHANDLER#10 — 11:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be considered a copyright violation to create a version of the IRFU flag that drops the IRFU logo? Then we would have a flag that looks like the correct one when reduced to the flagicon size, but doesn't include the copyrighted element. – PeeJay 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's still inventing a flag Gnevin (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, there is no option other than leaving Ireland without a flag. I don't see any need to remove all flags from all countries though. That's just overkill, and probably a little pointy. – PeeJay 11:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

People who are totally clueless about rugby ,will click the link to find out more about Ireland flag or no flag. The 4 province flag might mean All-Ireland to you but to the clueless person they could still assume it's a ROI team only even with the Shamrock flag , IRFU flag or 4 province .

I'm no expert but I'd doubt it if the other elements are free... There was a old picture I think which had replaced the logo with a free shamrock but it was removed for imitating the IRFU logo, which I found strange, there are probably a lot of places where "home made" images that imitate unfree images are used... And I doubt they'd would fall under OR, I know there are lots (if not all) when it comes to coat of arms (vs [2]) not only for Sweden but all the, municipalities (vs [3]), län (vs [4]) and landskap (vs [5]) — CHANDLER#10 — 11:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There might perhaps be help available if it's somehow possible to get a consensus through a RfC or the Village pump (or what the correct instances would be) whether of not removing the irfu logo would be OR or copy vio. Or if it would be a time to Ignore all those evil rules to improve wp by having a disambiguating flag for the team. — CHANDLER#10 — 11:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The flag does not disambiguate that is a ridiculous statement. If you want to disambiguate on every page change the title to Ireland (ROI & NI)

I hardly think it's ridiculous so say that most people surfing on these series of tubes know how the Irish flag looks like, and if they see a different flag in front of "Ireland" that would help them understand that it's perhaps something more to this, perhaps this "Ireland" they're referring to with a outlandish flag isn't the Republic of Ireland, and therefore disambiguating. — CHANDLER#10 — 12:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous , do you think most Americans, Chinese what have who could identify the tricolour as belonging too the 3/4 of the small island in the Atlantic? Your statement is full of assumptions and I don't think they fly Gnevin (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Most people who have access to the internet have an education or is being educated... I'm gonna go out on and guess most countries teaches geography and through that flags of the world, sure everyone might not know every flag but if Americans don't know how the flag of Ireland looks like, their education system really is full of fail, isn't there a pretty big Irish population in the US (according to Irish people, it's 10 times the ROI population).... I don't either doubt that many Chinese know the flags of the world (with one exception)... The probable fact is, if you know of a country's existence you usually know that country's flag as a easy reference point... If you assume that no one knows how the tricolour looks like, you can just as easily assume that they don't even know what Ireland is, or what Rugby is, or what a ball is... How did they find their way to the internet? ch¹⁰ · 13:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(Deindent) This is really getting off the point but a knowledge of worlds flags isn't required learning in any nation that I know off and if you seen would you know what it is? Most people wouldn't. Ireland is that special. Yes a lot of people viewing our articles will not knows how the tricolour looks like, even know what Ireland is, or what Rugby is, or what a rugby ball is Gnevin (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know that BLUE-YELLOW-RED is Romania (which would be my primary reference),Moldova (with a COA in the middle) and Andorra (with a COA in the middle) but also Chad... Now if they don't know what Ireland is, it would neither help nor hurt them if we had the IRFU flag. But it would help those who know what Ireland and think "Ireland = Republic of Ireland", they wouldn't be mislead. ch¹⁰ · 15:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Examples

De flagged Six nations article
De flagged Six nations article but with infobox with flagsGnevin (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That demosntrates my point - visually much better than the original, just as easy to follow and even renders slightly faster. dramatic (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it's visually better, and it's not just as easy to follow as the flags allow immediate recognition of the country when one is just skimming through the page looking for a particular section. If the render time is only slightly faster then it hardly makes a difference one way or another. – PeeJay 15:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Giant flags

As an aside from the discussion above i think this project should rapidly remove the giant flags in starting to creep in to RU articles. Example 1,Example 2. What ever about the need for flags in general their is zero need for 2 100px flags before each team.

I agree that the use of the flags in Example 1 was all wrong, which is why I have removed them, but Example 2 follows the lead of competitions such as the 2007 Rugby World Cup and UEFA Euro 2008 (different sport, but similar idea). – PeeJay 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

IRFU Flag

I think the File:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg flag should be the flag for the Ireland rugby union team. Mr Hall of England (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think all of us do, and think it's the best option, but I think we're under the assumption that it's under copyright (though I dont know if we're sure about that?) ch¹⁰ · 11:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If a smaller version of the flag was used, for example only 50px or somewhere in that order, such that enlargement of the image would be useless for commercial reasons, would such an image fall under fair use guidelines as described in Fair use#Fair use on the Internet (I have linked to a specific example of the legal justification for the use of thumbnails on the internet)? If this has been considered already, then I apologise for not having spotted it it when reading through the various threads. This would then create an image that is used in a similar fashion to how the IRFU flag is used on the Rugby World Cup 2007 website when referring to the Ireland team. If you view the image on that site, it is impossible to enlarge it and would not be able to be used for the reproduction of the flag, but is sufficient for visual representation of the team, which I think is what most of the discussions above are centered around.Kwib (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be fair use but Wiki requires free Gnevin (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be able to use as fair use for specific articles (for example the Irish team) but we need something we can use on all rugby related articles and (though I'm not sure) I don't think fair use would be doable for that, even if it's just 22x15px. Though that would have to be confirmed by someone who knows stuff about fair use. ch¹⁰ · 09:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows non-free content (the definition of which includes all copyrighted images) in certain circumstances. Under Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use the following is stated:

Images
Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.

1. Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
2. Team and corporate logos: For identification.

more examples are listed below that.

The IRFU flag is a team logo is it not?Kwib (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a team logo. It's a flag. Also, this flag would have to be used in hundreds of instances on hundreds of pages, making its use here anything but Fair Use. My interpretation of Fair Use constitutes use on the article(s) that it most relates to. For example, File:Man Utd FC .svg is only used on Manchester United F.C. and Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy as it is the logo of those two teams and helps to immediately identify them. Its use anywhere else would be viewed as purely decorative and therefore not covered by Fair Use. – PeeJay 15:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we use the Four Provinces Flag which is completely copyright free and is used by the IRFU as a flag at matches ? ManfromDelmonte (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see that flag as violating the ban on original flags. The four flags already exist and are in the public domain. That they have been arranged in a 2X2 format does not make them into an original creation.--2008Olympian^chitchat 20:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It may not be a new creation, but it is guilty of merely being suggested to fill a perceived need for a flag, when, in fact, there is no need. – PeeJay 23:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's easy to suggest that a flag for Ireland is "needed" because every other national team has them, and the absence of one for Ireland really stands out (undue weight, perhaps?). It really should be all or none here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue, though, is that the only flag that Ireland officially competes under is copyrighted, so to use any other flag would be incorrect. It may make Ireland stick out like a sore thumb, but it is the correct course of action to leave them flagless, IMO. – PeeJay 23:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand the status of the IRFU flag, but is the four provinces flag really so incorrect? I note that Ireland national rugby union team#Flags and anthems states A flag with symbols representing the four provinces of Ireland, is flown alongside the Irish tricolour in Dublin, and is used exclusively when playing elsewhere. So why not use that image? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO the Four Provinces flag is incorrect because the flag described is the IRFU flag, not the Four Provinces flag. --hippo43 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it? The next sentence in that article says At some matches, the standard of the island's rugby union governing body, the Irish Rugby Football Union, is displayed on the field during pre-match ceremonies, which would seem to imply that it was different from the flag mentioned in the preceding sentence. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If Andew is correct, then that should end any question as to the propriety of using the Four Provinces flag. Flags are also permitted to be used to designate sporting nationality. Here the Four Provinces flag is used in that manner, even if it is not the actual flag used.--2008Olympian^chitchat 05:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrwsc, you may well be right. This article [6], however, suggests that the IRFU's policy is that the IRFU flag is flown to represent the team. --hippo43 (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That source describes the flag used at home matches, played on the island, but what about away matches? One interesting source is the Rugby World Cup 2007 web site, which I would say is a definite WP:Reliable source, and the little icon they use for Ireland is probably a scaled-down version of Image:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg, but at that size is indistinguishable from Image:Ireland Flag Rugby.svg (i.e. ). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrwsc, I'm not sure what your point is - are you saying that you think the IRFU use the IRFU flag for away games or not? I think it's pretty clear that they use it to represent the team in general. The fact that the contrived version is indistinguishable at that size doesn't make it worth using, IMO - it's still the wrong flag. I'm not sure what the point of using it would be anyway - at that resolution it doesn't much look like anything to me. It certainly doesn't jump out as a symbol of Ireland. As the tricolour can't be used, and the IRFU flag (which would seem to be the correct flag) can't be used, can we just move on and not have a flag for Ireland? I don't see any enormous need for it. Are readers really so stupid or lazy that they won't be able to understand the content if there's no flag? Does this article, for example, suffer for not having flag icons plastered all over it? --hippo43 (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading my comments, I guess I was pretty confusing, sorry. I'll try to summarize my position from the top: I feel that Ireland's team gets a sort of undue weight by being a flagless team on our articles. Articles such as 2007 Rugby World Cup currently have flags "plastered" on the page, and yes, one solution would be to remove all of them. Another solution would be to use an acceptable and appropriate flag. We all know that the tricolour is politically inappropriate. We all know that Image:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg is copyrighted and can't be used. However, Image:Ireland Flag Rugby.svg is probaby a free image, and is close enough that I think labelling it as original research is overly pedantic. Yet another alternative might be the four provinces flag, and the Ireland national rugby union team article seems to say that it is used. In my opinion, the current situation is the fourth best alternative. Using either of the two free flags, or removing all flags for all other teams, are all more preferable than how we single-out Ireland now. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument 'everyone else has a flag, so let's make one up' is very weak. For me, using that contrived flag would be ridiculous - not acceptable or appropriate. It isn't the actual flag, and when you click on it to see it enlarged, it is not obvious what it is, and looks like something a child has drawn. Moreover, as was said some time ago - "The practice of inventing a new icon to fill a perceived need for one is not simply deprecated but expressly forbidden by policy, as it constitutes original research." In that case, the made-up flag is definitely not cool. The made-up version is definitely OR. I can't see how else to describe it. The fact that it is a poor copy of the existing IRFU flag doesn't make any difference - it is still OR. It is also contentious at best for copyright reasons, per the discussion here.

As for the Four Provinces flag, we would need solid references to confirm that it is used by the IRFU, and in what context. It seems to me to be their third choice at best. The Ireland national team article cites no references on this point.

I'm with GNevin on this - "Their is no flag we can use with out inventing one or breeching WP:COPY" I don't see how Ireland being flagless gives Ireland undue weight (it is an anomaly, but not one that gives them any more prominence, IMO) but if this is really an issue of undue weight, then remove all the flags.--hippo43 (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not enough weight for Ireland is undue weight for the other teams. I agree with your point about not inventing images, particularly those that are basic copy-violations (one such image was deleted). I would prefer no flags to one where one nation had no flag as this is inconsistant, however, having no flags would be inconsistant with other sports. If it is possible to reference that the IRFU do use the four province flag then I suggest we adopt it.GordyB (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see your point re undue weight. However, we clearly can't expect perfect consistency, either within RU or with other sports - Irish rugby is just an anomaly that doesn't easily fit the conventions. If the IRFU use the Four Provinces flag, that would indeed be some justification for including it, but what would the advantage really be? It would certainly provide some consistency, so some editors' OCD would settle down, but I don't think it would provide much benefit to readers. It would not be the correct flag for the team, and it is obviously not the IRFU's preferred flag. It is not immediately recognisable to a lot of people as a symbol for Ireland. It would mean that Ireland had a flag, but for me it would be a worse outcome than having no flag.

This discussion seems to assume the implicit value of 'consistency'. As this is an encyclopedia, can't we prioritise accuracy? --hippo43 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No other national team uses the Union's logo as a flag so I'm not too worried about it being "the wrong flag" because by that definition all the countries use the wrong flag.GordyB (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, but the contrived IRFU look-alike is, IMO, the most wrong of the flags that have been proposed.

In any case, we should be relying on existing policy here. WP:MOSICON states "if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags)." Therefore the only flag we should be using is whatever the IRFU determines is the national flag, ignoring any political objections. If we don't have a source, we can't guess what the IRFU considers the national flag to be, or make one up.

It also states "if the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." The solution seems pretty clear to me. --hippo43 (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know much about the subject regarding the Irish flag, but as an outside idea, has anybody thought of contacting the IRFU to optain permission to use the flag here? I don't know whether thats possible but as Wikipedia is a pretty well known institution, they may be inclined to permit us to use it. EA210269 (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been tried by two different Wikipedians, they never got back with what the reply but it is a safe bet that it was "no" or we would have been informed.GordyB (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is my first experience of a Wikipedia dispute and I must admit that I am disappointed and surprised by poverty of the decision making involved. PeeJay tells me I am in a minority on the rugby union WikiProject page on this issue, but when I read the discussion I just see the same 4 guys tossing around opinions to one another (and several others disagreeing with them) and then settling it between themselves; I guess everyone else is the "minority".

I think that the treatment of Irish teams in these pages is biased and, possibly, racist. There is a real colonial snap to a couple of guys (who all appear to be in Britain) making decisions about how Irish rugby is presented, with all this legalistic twaddle about copyrights and fair use. The end set of decisions are poor and fly in the face of all common sense. So, before I unleash my minority let me point how how many ways you are wrong.

First, it is a mistake to plaster flags all over these pages. That's the original sin. If you want to put an icon beside the country/nations/teams taking part then you should use the symbols of the rugby unions. That is way it is done on the RBS site (not national flags), on TV when the matches are televised and on the players shirts. [Ironically, you use this fact to exclude the tricolour saying that we should use the IRFU flag because it is the flag covering NI and the Republic. Can I applaud your inconsistency here.] If you cannot use these icons because of copyright then no icon should be entered; putting in flags is a poor second.Second, the template you have designed is wrong. The idea of a template is that it covers all the possibilities you want to cover. You have designed a template that doesn't work; by your own admission it does not handle Ireland. By you own reasoning, it should be dumped or modified to a point where it covers all the cases. Third, lets assume that we want to use flags, that you don't want to re-cant the original sin. Then, the logical choice is the 4-provinces one; this is the one created by the authorities to indicate the all-ireland unit. It, therefore, has an authority way beyond you four guys. Several people have pointed out that this is used at the games, several comments on the discussion have made this point but in your wisdom you have batted these comments aside with arbitrary asides (e.g., it is too small, you cant see what it is, do we want to have a flag for the sake of a flag). This is very sloppy reaoning on your part. [and don't re-run the argument that it has to have the copyrighted IRFU logo in it, because you have already rejected that idea yourself by opting not to use the rugby union icons]. Fourth, in all of this you have lost sight of the common sense import of the activity. If you go to these matches you see people with national flags. In Wales the welsh flag, in France their flag and so on. When you go to a Munster match you will see tricolours, same with Leinster and Connaught. In Ulster, you will see a variety of things that reflect the history (probably notably, the now defunct Red-hand flag). These are the flag icons that people use, in common use, to indicate the national alignment of these teams. So, by use, at the very least the teams should have the appropriate flag beside them (if you want to indicate national alignment). In saying this, I recognise that there are problems putting the tricolour next to Ireland and Ulster; but at least we have contained the amount of idiocy in the page.

In conclusion, if you want flags (which are not necessarily warranted at all) then I would suggest (i) the 4-provinces flag for Ireland, (ii) the red-hand flag or 4-provinces one for Ulster, and (iii) that the tricolour goes everywhere else. This solution maintains the coherence of the template and is most accurate in reflecting the common view of what all of these things mean, taking divergent sensibilities into account. Muk Den

The use of the IRFU flag in general

A careful look at the copyright section of the file for the IRFU Flag would seem to suggest that its use for articles within the Rugby Union category where the team referred to is the IRFU is fair use. I'm going to have a copyright lawyer take a look at this. If anyone else has an idea of the legal copyright issues here it would be good to find out what's exactly going on here. Also, it may actually follow all rules and legal issues to use the following flag: . It's similar to when North Korea and South Korea competed in the Sydney 2000 Summer Olympics under one flag. It was a simple white flag with an image of the Korean peninsula in blue. It was not an official flag used by any athlete's association from either North or South Korea, but was reasonably used to represent all the athletes competing under one Olympic team.Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't use a contrived 'All-Ireland flag'. According to the MoS, it has to be the IRFU's official flag (whatever that is) or nothing. --hippo43 (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with hippo43. Making up a flag to fill a perceived need for one is contrary to WP:MOSICON. Furthermore, according to 2000 Summer Olympics, the two Koreas competed separately. – PeeJay 09:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is going to accept the advice of a corporate lawyer, the policy seems to be "Let's not get sued" and I don't think they are going to change that on the advice of somebody that they have never met.

I think the only way forward is to make an effort to find out whether the four provinces flag is used by the IRFU or not, in lieu of a national flag. If it is then let's have a vote on whether to adopt it or not and put an end to the matter.GordyB (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont see it as "making up a flag", just using the shape of the territory from which the players come from, when no flag can be used. I think using the Island of Ireland to represent the team is a good "compromise" chandler · 10:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, it may not exactly be 'making up a flag', but it is 'making up a flag-shaped icon to replace a flag', which as far as I understand is not cool. My understanding of WP:MOSICON is basically that no compromise is acceptable. --hippo43 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The shamrock logo has been used; I honestly prefer the four provinces flag, but for the love of God, get some sort of flag put back on the articles because this is now a complete bureaucratic farce. If needs be, contact the IRFU and ask them to confirm the status of the logo and if it's not compatitable with the GNU, then ask if they would allow it's use on Wikpeadia. I know it's been tried before, but since there's been no response there's no agreed basis to move on from. I'm sure the IRFU has a press secretary - at this stage, even e-mailing a journalist from a national newspaper and asking them nicely to request confirmation would be palatable. It's a much better option than the round-about arguments that have been going on here for years now.Syferus (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"this is now a complete bureaucratic farce" - probably the wisest words in this debate! --MacRusgail (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we use {{flagicon Republic_of_Ireland_Flag}}{{flagicon Nothern_Ireland_Flag}} ?

Good God - have you read anything that people have been saying? The NI flag isn't even official anymore, and each flag is offensive to a large chunk of the Irish population. (I'm including people in NI here, by the way)--MacRusgail (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my first experience of a Wikipedia dispute and I must admit that I am disappointed and surprised by poverty of the decision making involved. PeeJay tells me I am in a minority on the rugby union WikiProject page on this issue, but when I read the discussion I just see the same 4 guys tossing around opinions to one another (and several others disagreeing with them) and then settling it between themselves; I guess everyone else is the "minority".

I think that the treatment of Irish teams in these pages is biased and, possibly, racist. There is a real colonial snap to a couple of guys (who all appear to be in Britain) making decisions about how Irish rugby is presented, with all this legalistic twaddle about copyrights and fair use. The end set of decisions are poor and fly in the face of all common sense. So, before I unleash my minority let me point how how many ways you are wrong.

First, it is a mistake to plaster flags all over these pages. That's the original sin. If you want to put an icon beside the country/nations/teams taking part then you should use the symbols of the rugby unions. That is way it is done on the RBS site (not national flags), on TV when the matches are televised and on the players shirts. [Ironically, you use this fact to exclude the tricolour saying that we should use the IRFU flag because it is the flag covering NI and the Republic. Can I applaud your inconsistency here.] If you cannot use these icons because of copyright then no icon should be entered; putting in flags is a poor second.Second, the template you have designed is wrong. The idea of a template is that it covers all the possibilities you want to cover. You have designed a template that doesn't work; by your own admission it does not handle Ireland. By you own reasoning, it should be dumped or modified to a point where it covers all the cases. Third, lets assume that we want to use flags, that you don't want to re-cant the original sin. Then, the logical choice is the 4-provinces one; this is the one created by the authorities to indicate the all-ireland unit. It, therefore, has an authority way beyond you four guys. Several people have pointed out that this is used at the games, several comments on the discussion have made this point but in your wisdom you have batted these comments aside with arbitrary asides (e.g., it is too small, you cant see what it is, do we want to have a flag for the sake of a flag). This is very sloppy reaoning on your part. [and don't re-run the argument that it has to have the copyrighted IRFU logo in it, because you have already rejected that idea yourself by opting not to use the rugby union icons]. Fourth, in all of this you have lost sight of the common sense import of the activity. If you go to these matches you see people with national flags. In Wales the welsh flag, in France their flag and so on. When you go to a Munster match you will see tricolours, same with Leinster and Connaught. In Ulster, you will see a variety of things that reflect the history (probably notably, the now defunct Red-hand flag). These are the flag icons that people use, in common use, to indicate the national alignment of these teams. So, by use, at the very least the teams should have the appropriate flag beside them (if you want to indicate national alignment). In saying this, I recognise that there are problems putting the tricolour next to Ireland and Ulster; but at least we have contained the amount of idiocy in the page.

In conclusion, if you want flags (which are not necessarily warranted at all) then I would suggest (i) the 4-provinces flag for Ireland, (ii) the red-hand flag or 4-provinces one for Ulster, and (iii) that the tricolour goes everywhere else. This solution maintains the coherence of the template and is most accurate in reflecting the common view of what all of these things mean, taking divergent sensibilities into account. Muk Den —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

What was the link to the old Irish Rugby Flag you know the one with the white background and the three leaf clover. Mr Hall of England (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Will Carling

I've reverted some edits which I believe to be humourous vandalism mixed with a probable conflict of interest. I'd be interested if someone who knows more about Carling could review the article edit history and suggest a way forward -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

How do I find stats for an old Harlequins or Saracens player?

Hi. I don't know too much about rugby, but this source claims that Doug Yeabsley, whose article I'm working on, played in the back row for Quins and Saracens. Is there some kind of rugby archive site or book that you can confirm this from? I'm worried he may not have played for the first XV, so haven't included the claim. If true, I'd like to add it + any useful stats, e.g. an info box, if you guys do that. (The cricket one is on the way) Help gratefully received. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Llanelli Scarlets

It doesn't seem like anyone actually visits here any more, judging by the amount of activity, but here goes nothing... I've just nominated Category:Llanelli Scarlets and its subcategories to be renamed to Category:Scarlets, in line with the renaming of the article about the team. If you have any comments about this move, please raise them here. – PeeJay 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Always active, always updating. I agree that the Llanelli Scarlets are now the Scarlets. Switch it. I've also set up a Category for Llanelli RFC players. Please link any you come across. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the word "here" in my previous comment was a link to the discussion page which you were supposed to click ;-) – PeeJay 00:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Frank Hadden under GA review

Hello there, the article Frank Hadden which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Category up for deletion

I've put Category:University and college rugby football clubs up for renaming to Category:University and college rugby union teams as it is not Wikipedia policy to have categories that straddle union and league.

There has been a lack of votes on the issue. To express your opinion please follow the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_30 GordyB (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Tier 1 nations

After moving the New Zealand articles I noticed their was alot of History of New Zealand V x . So i decided to make a template

. As you can see the New Zealand list is incomplete( and I gave up half way ) and all other nations have none. Are these articles something the project should have a drive toward creating ? Gnevin (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea - but do the Lions belong in a list of tier one nations? noq (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not that's why I have a ? beside them. If we did include them the template would need a different title for sure Gnevin (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, but we would have to make articles for them all, which could take a while. I think it would be worth it though. DeMoN2009 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Found some South Africa ones at the wrong title and moved. This link maybe helpful Gnevin (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I finished the list for you, apart from the Lions, which I'm also not sure about including under the courrent name. dramatic (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Gnevin (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Some matches like All Blacks v Argentina might not be non-capped matches. Mr Hall of England (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"do the Lions belong in a list of tier one nations?" - No, because they are a multinational team, and are not tier one, because they play at irregular intervals, and don't enter the world cup qualifying. (Although I'm sure Gordon Brown probably wishes they did!) They're really a touring side, IMHO, like the Pacific Islanders.

However, there's no reason why a series of articles along the same lions e.g. Lions vs SA/NZ/Oz couldn't be done.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just another thought, aren't some of these already covered? England-Scotland games all come under Calcutta Cup, with a handful of exceptions (one WC game, if I mind rightly.) Likewise, England-France is surely "Le Crunch".--MacRusgail (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Le Crunch article seems to have been merged into France vs England. I'm not sure that the article is totally accurate in its use of Le Crunch. The term was used a lot in the early 90s because back then England vs France was often a title or even grand slam decider whereas England haven't been in that position for some time. The use of the "Le Crunch" to describe an ordinary England vs France match just seems a bit wrong to me.GordyB (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not that widely used, to be fair. I think for most of these matches, the name of the trophy can be used.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, spotted one howler... "The All Blacks first played against Scotland in 1905 at Murrayfield in Edinburgh." - Murrayfield wasn't in use at this point. I think it was a polo ground at the time.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that for this history template, that the left side bar links to the history of the sport in that particular country?--MacRusgail (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing Ireland flags

I've started to remove Ireland flags I am replacing

• with IRFU {{flagicon|Ireland|rugby}} with [[Irish Rugby Football Union|IRFU]]
• Ireland with Ireland {{ru|IRE}} with [[Ireland national rugby union team|Ireland]]
• Ireland with Ireland {{ru-rt|IRE}} with [[Ireland national rugby union team|Ireland]]
• with IRFU{{flagicon|IRE|rugby}} with [[Irish Rugby Football Union|IRFU]]

What should it do for example like 2009_British_and_Irish_Lions_tour_to_South_Africa, also are we happy with putting IRFU after the refs 2009_Six_Nations_Championship Gnevin (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what are you replacing the Ireland "shamrock" flag with? No flag at all? Are you saying that the Ireland rugby team doesn't compete under a flag?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

While you're at it, should we be chucking the Welsh dragon, it was only accepted in the 1950s, all prior tournaments should have??? Flag of Saint David? Union Jack? FruitMonkey (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed above and agreed to remove it as WP:OR. As per above Ireland do compete under a flag its not the shamrock flag and the flag they use is copyrighted . I'd suggest starting a other discussion for the Wales issue Gnevin (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've no wish to enter a long argument about this, but that discussion seems a long way from a proper consensus, the shamrock appears to be a much better compromise than the one you are enforcing and you'd better set up a proper statement about this issue (citing guidelines, precedent and proper consensus) somewhere prominent because I expect quite a lot of people will want to know why so many international rugby articles suddenly look so messy.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

above. If you wish to discussion it do so here. Gnevin (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Either you take all the flags out or you keep them all. Otherwise the articles become a mess. I personally prefer keeping the flag. DeMoN2009 15:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy states we must remove the Irish flag as for the others, i'd have no objections to removing them too but thats a other discussion Gnevin (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We should only be removing the Irish flag. All other flags are perfectly fine according to policy. – PeeJay 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well i've finished my run, i will do a other pass some time next week. Have requested a change the country data template and edited the squads templates Gnevin (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not use both the Northern Irish and Republic of Ireland flags together, like its been done for the Irish football league FAI League of Ireland, the team consists of both nationalities and the IRFU is from one of the countries, so there shouldn't be a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.124.64.142 (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the best case. As it is seen in home games in Ireland the Ireland Rugby Football Union flag is flown. But also, the flags of both the Republic of Ireland and the Ulster Banner (also known as the Northern Ireland flag) are flown. I don't know if anyone can site an example, but I don't know if both the Ulster and Irish flags are flown at away games. Since both these flags are flown at Rugby Union games at home it would be best to use both flags for the reference to Ireland Rugby Football Union. We can also, when referring to the players individually use either the ROI or Ulster flags depending on where they're from.Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen the ulster banner at a home game and i didn't see one today and i was in Croke Park Gnevin (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just watching the replay footage and you're right, at no time did I see the Ulster Banner. Although, at the same time, the only flags I did see relating to the Irish team were the Ireland Rugby Football Union and the Tri Coloured flag. Also, in my realative inexperience within the Wikimedia community I've missed the greater discussion about this issue above. I will continue this argument above. Thank you Gnevin for your dedication to this issue, and to Wikimedia in general.Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely no! Stick with the four provinces flag, or the shamrock. Two flags make it look like a combined team, when in fact it is one of the few remaining Irish national sides. I'm not sure what's meant by "Ulster flag" here - i.e. the proper provincial flag (red cross on yellow) or the NI flag which has not been used as an official flag since the 1970s (although it is used wrongly for some Ulster games). Any fule kno NI is 2/3 of Ulster. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you should restore the Irish rugby flags and the flag you should use is the IRFU Flag. Mr Hall of England (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues.GordyB (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest removing all flags, there isn't really a need for them anyway and consistancy should be the thing.12:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Consistency would be to use a icon to show Ireland, as it would be inconsistent with all other sports, when every team except 1 has a flag, the way to go isn't to remove everything else... ch¹⁰ · 12:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can find an example that doesn't violate one rule or another then I'd agree. My best suggestion is the old St Pat's cross, presumably Ireland used that flag prior to partition so it at least has some justification plus it is used on other all-Ireland articles.GordyB (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a usable logo, though I would see that as a historical flag while seems to be more current in representing the whole Island ch¹⁰ · 12:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to use a flag that the Irish rugby team actually competes under? This situation is truly maddening, since, as far as I know, rugby union is the only sport in which the two Irish nations compete as one, so providing a solution that suits all parties is almost impossible. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the only flag that could conceivably be used is the IRFU flag, but since that's copyrighted, we have no options. Therefore, we should simply go without a flag. – PeeJay 12:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First, are we 100% sure that it is under copyright, I have tried to find info about it on the IRFU's site. Second, isnt the four provinces a neutral set of flags that represent the whole island? Just because the team doesn't use it, doesn't mean it's not a of suitable usage... I mean, let's say the Northern Irish flag, which isn't official (I don't know how many or if all sporting governing bodies of Northern Ireland use it), but I think right now we use it as the flag to represent all northern Irish people when they're in a list which calls for a flag, right? ch¹⁰ · 12:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets say we use this File:Ireland Flag Rugby.svg which is a free alternative, which I would liken to (as I said above in the other section) to some countries coat of arms or province logos recreated as free alternatives by users to represent instead of copyrighted images and that seems acceptable in those cases Sweden's coat of arms original, Stockholm's coa original, Stockholm's län coa original, Härjedalen coa original ch¹⁰ · 13:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Flag no good Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Opinion_needed Gnevin (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything that to point that it's not any good... The selection of the four flags can not be under copyright, if anything File:Four Provinces Flag.svg sets the precedent not the irfu. ch¹⁰ · 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you should restore the Irish rugby flags and the flag you should use is the 4 Provinces. Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you correct the hyperlink on the flag? Beacuse when you put the cursor on the Ireland is is Ireland (island) Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In a image it's [[File:Example.svg|link=My new link]], If you mean through the {{ru}} (when used with IRE and Ireland) template a change needs to be made at {{Country data Ireland}} (the rugby variable was quite stupidly removed from it) chandler · 02:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

History of this discussion

Seems to have been started here Archive 1 - Flag of Ireland then started again here Archive 4 - IRB vs. IRFU all-Ireland flags before restarting here Wider opinion needed regarding banner and flag use, here IRFU Flag and now below. Also a long and helpful discussion on the 2009 six nations discussion page.

Although all other six nation teams are represented by their national flag and it seems the irish team does in fact sometimes use this flag at tests as well. However there seems to exist reasons for some wikipedia editors to believe this may not be appropriate. Sadly I am largely ignorant of the more practical aspects of Irish history as they relate to flags and their national teams - however Irish Rugby Football Union#Hisotry gives a good consise explanation. Anyway on first appearance it is strange not to see the national flag icon but I get it now. Nevertheless the 2009 six nations article employed all three alternatives on one page for the same team - no flag, irish flag and IRFU flag!!! I guess this page suggests that as yet no clear and generally accepted consensus has been reached. Just as a tidying up exercise I put the Ireland in rather than blank, or 25px or , and only then discovered the above long-running debate and issues. ROxBo (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there consensus?

No. There is no consensus, and I doubt that there will ever be consensus on this issue.--Bob (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Unforseen side effect of Irish flag deletion

The shamrock was also used by articles on rugby league and the deletion of the flags has caused them to be replaced by [[IRFU|Ireland]] tags which is really not appropriate. The equivalent body would be Rugby League Ireland.GordyB (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am only removing RU templates it would seem the wrong template was used for the Rugby League article but i will keep an eye out for this . Thanks Gnevin (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Roll out changes to all nationality for {{Rugby squad player}}

I know this was discussed before but Leinster_Rugby#Leinster_Squad to me looks so much better and more functional with out the flags. Instead of a flag which can be can to make out. You offer the user a click-able link to the union the player is associated with . This could also be use for sortable tables. What would user feeling be on removing the flags from this templates Gnevin (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks much worse without the flags... — CHANDLER^#10 — 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I wholeheartedly disagree and think the remaining flags should go too. (While agreeing with the comments below. Only the first instance of a name should be linked and it should link to an article about rugby in that country. dramatic (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, "Ireland" links to "Irish RFU", which seems reasonable, but the few remaining flags link to country pages, not to the home unions of those players. Also, the repetition of "Ireland" is not only unnecessary, it's also very ugly: a simple "Irish, unless stated otherwise" at the top of the table would be much cleaner.-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's doable but a major concenous would be needed to make these sort of changes Gnevin (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Stade de France location?

OK, bit of a discussion going on over at 2009 Six Nations Championship about the location of the Stade de France. According to the stadium's official website (http://www.stadefrance.com/), the IRB (http://www.rwc2007.irb.com/destinationFrance/venues/venue=2022/index.html) and FIFA (http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=1013/results/matches/match=8788/report.html), it is located in Saint-Denis, but User:Jimmy Pitt, User:Schcambo and User:Nouse4aname think that, because Saint-Denis is (technically) a suburb of Paris, we should describe the Stade de France's location as "Paris". Opinions please. – PeeJay 12:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For consistency (an argument PeeJay seems to love when it suits him - see the recent move of the All Blacks page), the stadiums of the 6N are listed by the city they are in. I do not disagree that SdF is in Saint Denis, just as I do not disagree that Murrayfield is in Murrayfield and Twickenham in Twickenham. But we don't list these stadiums by the area of the city they are located in, we list them by city. Either we list them all by city or all by suburb, not a mish-mash of both. I suggest PeeJay, that instead of going around changing everything to match your opinion - as you have for all the other 6N articles -, and also starting discussions such as this without notifying others, that you engage in discussion first before trying to enforce your changes. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It has to show the city, otherwise people might think "Saint-Denis? Never heard of that place..." DeMoN2009 17:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not both such as Saint-Denis, Paris, France. It's what WP:GAA does for example Parnell_Park Gnevin (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a need to be this precise on the Six Nations page, Paris is enough, the exact suburb is probably something best left for the stadium's article.GordyB (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing about Saint-Denis is that it is more than just a suburb of Paris. It is, in fact, a large town/small city that has been engulfed by the expanding city of Paris, akin to the way that Salford has been engulfed by Manchester, or Twickenham by London. – PeeJay 23:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So was Brooklyn independent of New York. York in Toronto etc . The fact is the article calls the area a northern suburbs of Paris. Gnevin (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But this case is not about Brooklyn or York. Most sources indicate that the Stade de France is in Saint-Denis, not Paris. – PeeJay 00:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, Twickenham is part of a borough of London, it has a London Postcode and the mayor of London has jurisdiction over Twickenham. Whereas Saint-Denis is an independent city, with its own postcode and its own mayor. It's not even in the same département as Paris. Everything outside of the boulevard périphérique (bar a couple of parks) is considered to be another administrative division different from Paris (which explain why Paris proper is so small in size compared to London). While Twickenham is a borough of London (and Brooklyn a borough of NY) Saint-Denis is definitely NOT a borough of Paris. Saebhiar Adishatz 05:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Image editors

Resolved

Can someone remove the flags from this File:Tournoi.svg and replace with area of control, perhaps highlighted by colour? Gnevin (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Done new image is Gnevin (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

FFD "flag" of Ireland

Resolved

See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_11#Flag_of_Ireland_rugby.svg Gnevin (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rugby films

Another cross-code category up for deletion. Please vote.GordyB (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask what constitutes a rugby film. Twin Town, being set in South Wales features rugby prominently, and The Closet (le Placard) is a very funny French film in which Gerard Depardieu's character is a rugby player and homophobe turns out to be gay (a bit of a cliche, but still a good film).

What about "Alive"? It's all about Uruguayan rugby players, and yet there's probably less than two minutes of the game in the film!

There's also a good list here - a good list here--MacRusgail (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wheelchair rugby and Underwater rugby

Are either of these codes derived from Rugby football? Surely Water polo , has more shared roots than these sports ? Can I remove them from Category:Rugby football Gnevin (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If it were not for the word "rugby", Wheelchair rugby would definitely not be in this category. It wasn't even originally part of the title. I don't quite know what should be done with these sports, they aren't exactly rugby but on the other hand they are called "rugby" and are played with a football. If they were not in this cat then they would probably need a new cat anyway.GordyB (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The ifru seem to have an interest in this code [7] Gnevin (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sceptical of the connection with rugby - but they should still be categorised under rugby cats IMHO - that's where people may come looking for them. It would be very difficult for a wheelchair bound person to play anything much like rugby, because of the kicking, tackling and scrum aspects. The only possible similarities would be in ball shape, formation and passing, but these don't seem to exist... however if the Irish are taking an interest, then the case for retaining the cats is stronger.

By the way, where are the articles on "new image rugby" and "mini rugby"? Both of these are genuine rugby derivatives. Did anyone play table rugby at school? We used to use coins. The rules were a bit complicated.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wheelchair rugby is very dubious as a form of rugby but it is possible to play a Wheelchair based form of rugby; Wheelchair rugby league is much more obviously a form of rugby. As for table rugby, if you are talking about the game I'm thinking of there is an article under coin rugby.GordyB (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops it seems there was an article under penny rugby but it was deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Penny_rugby

Oh well, it was certainly not made up like some of the deletionists suggested - we played it, along with penny football!!! A shame.

I am going to start short articles on mini rugby and new image rugby though... --MacRusgail (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

History of rugby union matches between Argentina and France

Does anyone have some information they can quickly add to the prose part of History of rugby union matches between Argentina and France? It is nominated for Did You Know?, but is about 400 characters too short of the guideline. dramatic (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note, the colours indicating the winner of the match really needs to be changed 'cuz of wp:colour. Some colours that are both less hard to read through and not so close to eachother, perhaps add a new column to just include the colour for easy reference... proposal below, took the colours from the kits in the infoboxes. And then there'd need to be a key that says "indicates France victory" "indicates Argentine victory" "indicates draw" ch¹⁰ · 01:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

N°	Date	Venue	City	Argentina points	France points
1	28 Aug 1949	Estadio G.E.B.A.	Buenos Aires	0	5
18	31 May 1986	Estadio José Amalfitani	Buenos Aires	15	13

I was thinking much the same, as the amount of markup is horrendous and there are still issues with link colours. Actually, I was planning to colour only the first cell, with the (relatively unimportant, and never linked) sequence number. There are several other related articles which need fixing, plus several where flagicon overkill needs to be dealt with. And I think the score is sufficient indication of who won in cases where the colour is not rendered. dramatic (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Latin Cup?

I have found various references to (but no comprehensive history of) a Latin Cup (rugby union), but we don't have an article on it. Any volunteers to write one? www.lassen.co.nz/pickandgo.php shows matches in 1995 and 1997, with France, Italy, Argentina and Romania involved. However, it lists insufficient results for the round-robins mentioned (possibly because the site does not document all games for Romania?) dramatic (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was played twice, the final tables were France 1st, Argentina 2nd, Italy 3rd, Romania last both times.GordyB (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:37, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Notability of clubs

Does this project have any specific guideline on the notability of clubs? I removed a WP:PROD tag from Reading R.F.C. because the team playes at level 4 of the English pyramid system. From my rather limited knowledge of rugby union it would seem to me that this is at least equivalent to an association football team playing at level 10, which is considered the notability cut-off point by WikiProject Football. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with using this pyramid system ,notability should be illustrated by the article in question. If it's not its should be deleted Gnevin (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Once notable, always notable so if a club playing at a low level has played at a sneior level in the past then it remains worthy of an article.GordyB (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am glad Gordy B has brought this up. There are certain clubs in Scotland - and elsewhere naturally, and are notable for that reason. However, some compete at quite low levels now.

Pretty much all the oldest clubs in the five nations must qualify on that basis, plus some in SA, NZ & Oz. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think, if a club has ever played at the top level in their own country, that they must be notable, regardless of the level that they play at now. After all, notability is not temporary. Furthermore, this should probably extend to the second or even third levels, depending on the way rugby is structured in each country. – PeeJay 18:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that "old" clubs, would be any that were in existence before WWII and are still existing, founder members of unions in tier 1 (?and 2?) nations.

Levels are a good guide, but some clubs have history too. There has been some oversight - for example, Le Havre AC. It is a club whose performance has not always been great, but it is also the oldest rugby club in France - older than the ones in the south, which must count for something. Yet there was no rugby project tag on it (or categories), the entire article seems to be about soccer, the Le Havre article has no mention of this fact!!! --MacRusgail (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Māori flag use

Where the {{ru}} template is used with the New Zealand Māori parameter we see this: Māori. I have issue with the use of the Tino rangatiratanga flag along the same lines as the problems with the flags used for the Irish and the Lions. This flag being shown is never used as an official flag by the Māori rugby team. The flag that is used by the Nez Zealand Rugby Union is NOT the Tino rangatiratanga flag but the Flag of New Zealand, a defaced Blue Ensign with the Union Jack in the canton, and four red stars with white borders to the right and can be seen here and here. --Bob (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Not a problem any more. --Bob (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need for a Maori flag, we have never needed a Lions flag.GordyB (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with GordyB. No reason to have a flag - it's not a national team. --hippo43 (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not a national side, but the New Zealand flag is flown at every one of their matches and national opposing sides award caps to players playing against them. --Bob (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So we use the NZ flag for New Zealand, and for the New Zealand Maori? What is the point of flag icons if they are used for multiple teams? The NZ flag may be flown at their games, but presumably that is because they are from NZ, not because they are representing the nation of NZ. Besides, I don't believe opposition teams generally award caps for games against them, though I may be wrong. --hippo43 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

fixed.--Bob (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You say it is 'fixed', but there was no consensus for your change here. Why does the New Zealand Maori team even need a country template? They're not a country. --hippo43 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been a template for a while, implemented across the board using a flag that was only created in 1990 and is not even recognized by the NZRU. It was protected like all country data templates and I didn't realise that they have been unprotected recently. As this is a wiki, I modified it. Only reason I first posted here is because I though it was still protected. Otherwise I wouldn't have even posted here. You obviously didn't even realise that it has been in use for over a year now, so it isn't like you even care about it. As the flag used was incorrect, no consensus was required. Look at the matches between Maori and international teams. The flag of New Zealand is placed on the field before the match. It is an international team inasmuch as the emerging springboks, saxons, junior AB or any other "A" side. Oh, and I wasn't looking for a consensus vote.--Bob (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, there is a fairly widely recognised Maori flag, just as there is a fairly well recognised Australian native flag. As for whether they are a national team - that depends on whether you consider Maoris a nation...--MacRusgail (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a similar issue to the Ireland one and I reckon we'd be breaking Wiki protocol unless there was evidence that the Maori actually used the Maori flag in place of a national flag.GordyB (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Which symbol do you suggest using? The usual NZ flag?--MacRusgail (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

THere is no evidence that they Maori use that flag (the Maori one invented in 1990), however, the New Zealand flag is flown at all their matches by theNZRFU. --Bob (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:MusicInTheHouse

The above-mentioned user is currently reverting all of my attempts to remove the IRFU flag from pages where it is not deemed to be in Fair Use. Can someone please have a word with him/her and confirm what I have been trying to tell them. – PeeJay 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet for your edits as the discussion is still ongoing. The discussion currently indicates there is support for use of the flag.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There may be support for the use of the flag, but it is misguided support, as the use of the flag is AGAINST COPYRIGHT LAWS!!!!!! – PeeJay 18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is an issue regarding a copyright law and the flag wait until that issue is 100% resolved and decided. Jumping the gun because of your own personal thoughts is not the thing to be doing at the moment while the discussion is ongoing.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is 100% resolved. There are no two ways about this. The flag must not be used on pages where Fair Use has not been granted, and at this time, that only includes the Irish Rugby Football Union article. This is not my own personal vendetta against the IRFU flag, as you seem to think. I, for one, would have the flag if we could have it, but it is copyrighted and therefore not usable on the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. Someone please back me up on this! – PeeJay 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The talk page certainly does not indicate that. That is you own view, that is clear from the talk page but the overall community has not come to a final decision by any stretch of the imagination.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a community decision to be made. This is a matter of Wikipedia policy regarding copyright law. The flag must be removed. – PeeJay 19:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If it "must" be removed I'm sure it would have been removed a long time ago. The fact of the matter is you started removing them about half an hour ago with consensus to do so on any talk page. Please for consensus for its removal.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Did it not cross your mind that it is only now that someone actually got around to doing it? Yes, I started removing them half an hour ago, but that is only because I was so busy living my life that Wikipedia had to take a back seat for the time being. There is no need for a consensus to remove copyrighted material from articles. Goodbye. – PeeJay 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And you are the fore bringer of all that is correct and right to do on Wikipedia? Please get a grip! Thank you. MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I merely used myself as the only example available to me of how some people put their non-computer lives ahead of Wikipedia. In fact, were it not for this riveting conversation, I'd probably have gone off to do something else ages ago. – PeeJay 19:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

@MusicInTheHouse - PeeJay has acted correctly here. Copyright issues are not something that should be waited on nor are they an issue for consensus. The flag is copyrighted and therefore should not be used and that is the end of the matter. This has come up before and there is absolutely nothing that requires further clarification. A similar flag was deleted from the Commons some time ago.GordyB (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. The flag has to be removed. --hippo43 (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

X at the world cup

Have tried to integrate this into the main RWC template, but you can see by this template there are still plenty of red links (including winners South Africa!!!), and those on many of the major nations such as Australia have poor articles.

--MacRusgail (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland again, non players flags

I remove the tricolour from beside Kidney at Ireland national rugby union team ,Eddie O'Sullivan while at United_States_national_rugby_union_team has none.

Should Irish coaches from the Republic use the tricolour and Northern Irish coaches use the Ulster Banner. Gnevin (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The question really is what is the purpose of these flags? A I see it the reason for the flag in the infobox is there in order to indicate nationality - it is not meant to have anything to do with the team. For example the Italy national rugby union team infobox has coach =  Nick Mallett, the Wales national rugby union team infobox has |coach =  Warren Gatland the flags shown are not {{ru|New Zealand}} or whatever they are just standard flags indicating international nationality and rightly so. Not so sure about the Ulster Banner - its not really an official flag at any level. But thats besides the point at the moment.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that they should not use either the tricolour or the Ulster Banner. In sporting articles, when nationality is indicated, it should indicate that person's nationality in relation to the sport being referred to. Since there is (technically) no differentiation between "Irish" and "Northern Irish" in rugby union, anyone Irish should ideally use the IRFU flag, but since we can't use that flag, they have to go without. Well, either that or just put ([[Irish Rugby Football Union|Ireland]]) next to their name. – PeeJay 17:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "Ulster banner". This is the proper flag of all Ulster -

A third of Ulster is in the Irish Republic, Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan are all in Ulster, but all in the Republic. The Northern Irish flag has not been officially recognised since the 1970s. It is also blatantly sectarian in several respects. (The Irish tricolour, for all of its misuse at least attempts to represent both the RC (green) and Protestant (orange) communities of the island)

The logical answer is to either restore the four provinces banner () or to use a minature map of Ireland. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that should be used. It is often used to represent the rugby team. These references back this up; [8], [9], [10], [11].MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MacRusgail, I'm not sure how that's "the logical answer". The four provinces flag is not the principle flag used by the IRFU. We can't use the actual IRFU flag, and the contrived 'map-in-a-flag' is definitely not cool. --hippo43 (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Logical, because the players are competing for Ireland (32 counties), not for the Republic of Ireland ("the 26") or Northern Ireland ("the Six"). I don't see how the map is contrived.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

is not the principal flag used by the IRFU but its a flag used by the IRFU to represent the team. It's a free image and verifiable in its use. I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be used.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How about "because it's not the principal flag used by the IRFU"? From WP:MOSFLAG - "if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags)." --hippo43 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're still making the same points without acknowledging mine which totally counteract yours. You're missing the point that the above flag HAS been determined by the IRFU to be acceptable to represent the Irish rugby team. The point is while its not the primary flag, IT HAS been sanctioned and has been used on many occasions.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have to sat I can see where MITH is coming from on this one. The flag has been used in the past to represent the Ireland. Its representative of the 4 provinces and the IRFU flag is merely a derivative of it. There is also an argument for the use of this but its not really a flag. GainLine ♠ 19:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MITH, the 4 Provinces flag is clearly not the 'national flag as determined by the sport governing body'. Pushing this flag smacks of desperation - some editors seem to think we need a flag for the sake of consistency with other countries. I disagree. --hippo43 (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this has been suggested before, but has anyone thought of contacting the IRFU and asking their permission to use their flag? GainLine ♠ 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent comments seem to have gone astray from the original intent of this discussion thread. It was not a discussion about what flag (or not) to use to represent the Ireland rugby team; it was a discussion about what flag should be used to represent the nationality of individual Irish people associated with the team. And to that question, I say the only flags that could be used are the Irish tricolour or Union flag as appropriate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Union Jack ? Union flag? Would you agree with their usage or are no flags better Gnevin (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My position has pretty much always been that I do not like "isolated" flag icons in infoboxes as they attract undue weight to those specific fields. MOSFLAG has strongly discouraged flags for birth and death locations, but somehow, "nationality" is still permissable. It is obvious to me that the four province flag (or any of those four individual flags) is inappropriate, because they do not represent the nationality of any sovereign nation. Similarly, any variation of the IRFU flag might be appropriate for the team, but certainly not for the nationality of any person. The only two flags that indicate the nationality of an individual (e.g. what passport does he carry?) are the Union flag and the Irish tricolour. But yeah, better to delete flags altogether from those specific situations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, the last time the union jack was used to represent Irish Rugby players was in Ravenhill years ago and wasn't used the last time there was a match there in 2007. I would agree that maybe thats technically correct but not in this context. Is it possible to use the individual province flags or a combination of both? GainLine ♠ 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So we are back to round pegs is square holes again ? I think the best option is to do was the players and link to ([[Irish Rugby Football Union|Ireland]])Gnevin (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

For me, no flags. It's not clear at all what these flags mean, if some are used for a player's sporting nationality and others for coaches' legal nationality. Moreover, there is the issue of Irish/British people - in those cases, we could surely only go with a nationality they have publicly stated. I really don't understand the obsession with flags - if they don't make things clearer, bin them. They seem to serve editors a lot more than readers in cases like this. --hippo43 (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lot of truth in what Hippo says about it only serving editors. Similar situation arose with Eddie Irvine. Check out nationality section on his page to see how it was dealt with. GainLine ♠ 21:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place, but for me, Eddie Irvine is a shambles, and really illustrates what can go wrong. Although his nationality is relevant to his career, and merits coverage, it seems very strange to have him listed as 'British' in the infobox, 'from Northern Ireland' in the lead, when he verifiably identified himself as Irish. Bizarre. --hippo43 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

oh yeh for sure youre right there, just thought I'd mention it to see what everyone thought of the politically neutral answer to the nationality issue GainLine ♠ 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - 'from Northern Ireland' isn't bad when it's in the text, and absent any clear statement of nationality. However, we really need to avoid attaching misleading labels and icons just for the sake of having nice neat infoboxes, and categories etc. I think it's WP:MOSFLAG that says something like 'flags make simple blunt statements about nationality'. Cases like these really don't lend themselves to convenient black & white definitions. --hippo43 (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna say no flags, I think the provinces flag, a map of ireland or a shamrock could be possible but maybe messy and unworkable solutions GainLine ♠ 08:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the Union flag to represent (Northern) Irish players could actually be incredibly offensive, particularly if that person comes from a certain background. The NI flag is even worse, and has not even been recognised by the UK government since the 1970s. Likewise it would be stupid to use the Union Jack for Lions players (since not all come from the UK) or for players from the UK, since rugby has always been played and administered along national lines (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) not UK ones.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a sideline, which flag should be used for the "Arabian [sic] Gulf" side? I know they are not a major team, but they do compete in Asian tournaments. A mini-map seems the only logical solution. The Gulf Co-Operation flag is copyrighted, as I understand it.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why owe why do people feel the need to make up icons. Like Ireland ,if they don't have a flag we can use , we can't invent one . Gnevin (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Inventing a flag, as well as being against policy, will only mislead readers into thinking it is the actual flag. --hippo43 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is a visual medium, and it makes it much more user friendly if we have icons. With icons, you can scan a page much more quickly than without. None of the flags mentioned are actually invented (not recently anyway)--MacRusgail (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

McRusgail does have a point on the provinces flag, it has been used in the past to represent Ireland in Rugby, why not now? Am playing devils advoccate here, not trying to start a row or anything but debate couldn't hurt GainLine ♠ 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The four provinces flag represents ALL Ireland, like the team, is not politically inflammatory, and moreover, is not copyrighted, as I suspect the IRFU logo maybe - meaning it does not cause the same kind of problems. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, the problem is that it's against policy to use a flag which isn't the governing body's national flag. I also don't agree that it makes the page easier to scan, as the 4Provinces flag is not a particularly widely recognised symbol for Ireland. --hippo43 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It does make a page easier to scan for most people. The four provinces flag is a national flag, but then again, so is the tricolour - however, I'm not sure certain people from the north would like being represented by that. Besides, which, we're going round in circles here, and little productive seems to be being done on this score.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see why we don't use the IRFU flag. The IRB uses that flag, most newspapers use that flag, blogs use that flag. That's the exact reason why this flag was created, so people wouldn't have to debate which flag to use when refering to the Irish national rugby team. I mean seriously, the International Rugby Board uses that flag on their website, in the little world of Rugby Union it doesn't get more official than this. Let's use the IRFU flag already! Saebhiar Adishatz 02:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We cannot use the IRFU flag because it incorporates the IRFU logo, a copyrighted work that Wikipedia does not have the license to use. We can claim Fair Use for one or two non-decorative uses, but to use it on every page would definitely not constitute Fair Use. – PeeJay 02:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. No, we are not using it because someone here got it into their head that we couldn't use it and no one really investigated if it was true or not. First of all the flag was created expressedly for the purpose of representing Irish Rugby, the IRB asked the IRFU to create a flag to OFFICIALLY represent Ireland in IRB competitions and they created this one. We are looking for a flag that would represent Irish Rugby, this is the one and no other. Second, the flag itself is not copyrighted. Even if it was that wouldn't keep us from using it, the australian aboriginal flag is copyrighted and is still used on WP provided it's being used for informational purposes in a non-commercial article. In fact, most flags created after 1989 are copyrighted, still, they are used on WP. Third, the flag incorporates a copyrighted logo. Maybe, so does the Chinese Taipei Olympic flag, yet this flag is used on hundreds of pages on WP. Why do we use this flag? Because 1- it's the one officially used by the ROC olympic committee 2- using the national flag would insult the People's Republic 3- no other official flag exists. Same situation with the IRFU flag 1- it's the flag officially used by the union 2- using national flag would be insulting to either the Republic or Northern Ireland, depending which flag you'd use 3- no other official flag exists. Basically we use the Chinese Taipei Olympic flag because we have no other choice. Same for the IRFU flag.

You're wrong there. As a derivative of a copyrighted work (i.e. the IRFU flag contains an instance of the copyrighted IRFU logo), the IRFU flag can only be used on Wikipedia with an appropriate licence. If there are any other copyrighted flags on WP that are being used without an appropriate licence, that's someone else's problem, and not something that should enter into this discussion. As we have established several times in above discussions, the IRFU flag cannot be used and since there is no alternative, we cannot use any flag. – PeeJay 14:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Replacing JPG logos with SVG versions

Just a heads up, I'm beginning to replace all Rugby Unions JPG logos with SVGs. So far I've done South-Africa 50px and Japan 50px most other important nations should also be up in the next couple of days. That is all. Saebhiar Adishatz 16:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Now this I don't understand, can someone explain what is so special about SVGs? I can't edit or save the things on my computer... --MacRusgail (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You could if you had the right tools :-) The thing is WP's policy is to have logos in vectorised formats (PNG or SVG) as vectorised graphics don't lose resolution when you resize them, unlike rasterised graphics like JPEGs BMPs and GIFs who look all crappy and pixelated when you change their sizes. For example 50px looks a lot better than 50px. As it is now most unions already have their logos in vectorised format, I'm only replacing the ones who don't. Saebhiar Adishatz 17:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Two new beauties, Fiji and Samoa. I'm trying to find a vectorised version of Argentina's but it's one elusive little bugger. Saebhiar Adishatz 02:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Argentina done, so is Namibia and Tonga. Saebhiar Adishatz 17:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Irish flag saga, finally a breakthrough...

Ok, I've contacted the IRFU by email and I've got a reply (yay, I knew paying subs as a player for the last 10 years would help some day). Barry C, their website manager said it was ok to use their logo. I'm going to reply to him with the IRFU flag we have here, just to confirm they are okay with us using that particular flag. Hopefully (knock on wood) this madness will be resolved in the next couple of days. Saebhiar Adishatz 15:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair play man! GainLine ♠ 16:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank God, one of the few sports Ireland still plays as a nation, and some folk seem to be out to sabotage even that! --MacRusgail (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

For this to work, you must ask them to release the image under a GFDL-compatible license such as {{cc-by-sa-all}} or {{cc-by-3.0}}. It is not sufficient for them to give permission to "use the image on Wikipedia"; that would keep the image as non-free and usable only to the extent that Image:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg is already usable. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The IRFU also have to officially email the foundation , I can't remember the address or the proccess of it but with WP:Copy issue we can't take an editors word of it Gnevin (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We're one step closer, they seem open to the idea. I'm sending a cc-by-sa form to their marketing dept and hopefully this will be resolved soon. Saebhiar Adishatz 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to put a downer on things, but I can't see the IRFU releasing their flag under a cc-by-sa license. The potential negative legal ramifications of their doing do would be so detrimental to their merchandising department as people would be able to use the flag for just about anything and all they would have to do is put a tiny little namecheck on the product just so people would know that the IRFU created the image! I would not be surprised in the slightest if they denied this request. I would gladly be proven wrong in this, but I can't see this ending positively for us. – PeeJay 16:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am keeping my fingers crossed that the IRFU do release the flag under the cc-by-sa license. However, if that does not happen, then perhaps they could be approached to release the mini-icon specifically, which would seemingly have little impact on their merchandising department.Kwib (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome work, but hold the bubbles until their lawyers ok it first!! It seems logical that Ireland have SOME flag icon, or all teams have their icons removed. But icons much improve reading the page, so I feel strongly they should stay. Four provinces flag is fine, but this IRFU one much preferable. CheersROxBo (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad news, they refused. For a moment I thought we had them but they said no. We're back to square one. Leave it to the Irish to come up with a flag and not allow anybody to use it. This country drives me nuts sometimes. Saebhiar Adishatz 16:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fairplay for trying GainLine ♠♥ 16:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

About using the flag: "The IRFU Flag is the official flag of the Union and represents the Union and four provincial branches. The protocols vary for home and away matches but the IRFU Flag is always flown and is the one that can be used for information purposes in Wikipedia." About releasing it under license: "We would not be happy to grant such rights I’m afraid. The flag and our logo remain copyrighted to the IRFU and any and all usages of it must be sanctioned by us." So here we are, they're okay with us using the flag here, they just don't want to release it under license... Saebhiar Adishatz 03:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're almost right with that last bit; they say they're OK with us using it for "information purposes", i.e. using it on the Ireland national rugby union team, Irish Rugby Football Union and Flag of Ireland pages. Any other use, including using it as a flagicon, would be classed as decorative and not covered by the licence. – PeeJay 09:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually in my very first email I explained to him exactly how we were going to use the flag (on players/clubs/match pages etc...) and he said that they didn't have a problem with that, he even advised that we use the IRFU logo instead, as it was more recognisable but I told him we felt more comfortable using flags. Saebhiar Adishatz 00:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Which means that we can level the playing field and get rid of ALL the accursed flagicons and make Wikipedia a better place! dramatic (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

2000–01 Heineken Cup

There's something odd here with Pool 3 - Saracens are shown as winning on points difference, but it's Cardiff who qualified for the quarter finals. Can anyone shed any light? — sjorford++ 16:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks a bit odd doesn't it? I think I can work out what's happened - the table is wrong! Current regulations from the ERC website (and presumably the case back then) show that the tie-breaker for teams in the same pool finishing level on match points is (firstly) match points gained in the matches between the two teams. Cardiff won both games against Sarries in the 2000-01 competition and with both teams finishing on 8 points, should therefore be placed ahead of them.--Bcp67 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've eventually found the tables - from an archive of the BBC's website! [12] It doesn't explain the tie-breakers but it does show Cardiff top, which is enough for me to change the article. (It also shows Edinburgh above Leinster, presumably for the same reason.) — sjorford++ 08:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

2008–09 Heineken Cup semi-final: Munster v Leinster

I have nominated the above article for deletion. Please feel free to make your opinions about this article known at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008–09 Heineken Cup semi-final: Munster v Leinster. – PeeJay 18:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I have also nominated Ireland v Wales at 2009 Six Nations for deletion. Leave comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland v Wales at 2009 Six Nations. – PeeJay 02:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

New articles

I'm thinking that (eventually) we need a series of annual articles covering domestic competitions in New Zealand prior to the establishement of the NPC in 1975. I don't know if there are any naming precedents, but how does (for example) 1922 domestic rugby union season in New Zealand sound? At the very least the articles would cover Ranfurly shield and Interisland games, but there should be sources somewhere for most interprovincial matches plus the champions of club competition in each union. dramatic (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Help - North vs South

Does anyone have a source for New Zealand's North vs South rugby union match fixtures from 1985 until the game was discontinued (which was 1995 at earliest - I think it died when Super Rugby was introduced.dramatic (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't help on the more recent ones but I added 1972, I had the details in the 1973 Rugby Almanack, a dusty tome given to me by my father-in-law as it makes reference to him refereeing some provincial matches. :-) --Stormie (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Player Profile pics

Does anyone know of we can use players photos off their club/country profile etc here? GainLine ♠ _♥ 22:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends what license the images were released under. If they were released under a free license such as Creative Commons, then they can be used. If not, they they can't, as images of living people are always replaceable. Even images of dead people would struggle to pass a Fair Use test, as it's highly unlikely that a professional sportsman (or amateur, if you're talking about sportsmen from back in the day) wouldn't have had his photo taken by someone at some point. – PeeJay 00:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

History of rugby union matches between Australia and South Africa

I've just finished the donkey-work on History of rugby union matches between Australia and South Africa. But i'm sure that there must be at least one good book on the history of this rivalry that someone could use to expand the prose section (except it isn't in New Zealand libraries :-) It would be good if we could find a good DYK hook as well - and a photo or two! It would be worth mentioning the "altitude advantage" in this article, too. Anything I could write about it would be original research, but the figures are there: Australia has won 6 from 19 (31%) at sea-level and only 2 from 17 (12%) up on the veldt. dramatic (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a relevant pic on this page which I'll re-use & will see what else I can dig up. -Sticks66 08:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:sin bin

This template has been proposed for deletion. See discussion about the future of this template at Template talk:Sin bin. – PeeJay 09:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Some discussion on this topic would be appreciated. Please leave comments at Template talk:sin bin. – PeeJay 00:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup

There is conflict over the hosts of the Rugby World Cup in the table on that page, specifically with regard to the 1991 tournament. Please could this project cast an eye over it. Discussion is Talk:Rugby World Cup#1991. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Grant Gilchrist

I have nominated this article for deletion. Please make comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Gilchrist. – PeeJay 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong Scots Rugby Club

I've proposed the deletion of Hong Kong Scots Rugby Club - can anyone find evidence of its notability? There's nothing on Google, which makes me wonder if it's a complete hoax; even if it's not it will be a struggle to provide verifiable information about it. FlagSteward (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't play in the G4S league in Hong Kong, and I've never heard of it. --Bob (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I took another look at the player list - a second row of Johnnie Walker and Roy Walker, with Tony Blair at scrum half confirmed my suspicions and it's now gone. Seems to have been the only contribution of User:Rwalker92 but probably need to keep an eye on that kind of thing. FlagSteward (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Auckland 1st XV

Please contribute to the discussion on article name at Talk:Auckland_1st_XV#Requested_Move. dramatic (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Royal Free, University College and Middlesex Medical Students RFC

Folks, this article is in serious need of some references to reliable sources to support notability per WP:CLUB. – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sevens

A discussion has arisen over whether rugby sevens ought to be moved to rugby union sevens. See Talk:Rugby_sevens.GordyB (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

1993 Rugby World Cup Sevens

Coincidentally, with regard to the previous section, I recently substantially expanded the article 1993 Rugby World Cup Sevens to include a Background/History (because it was the first one), summary of the tournament (narrative); infobox; summary of qualifying tournaments and a full rundown of results (all rounds, finals, plate and bowl. Is this the right place to request a review as to quality (currently it is “stub” class)? Additionally, I have been quite careful about the flags used (Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Africa etc). But, lo and behold, the Ireland flag concerns me, because in the official programme the tricolor was used. Therefore, should the tricolor be used for this article? Kwib (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, Tricolour isn't official flag of Irish rugby GainLine ♠ _♥ 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex Laidlaw

This chap played both rugby union (including earning one cap for Scotland) and rugby league. I have created a basic stub, but as a WP:FOOTY member, my knowledge of rugby is embarrasingly lacking, and any improvement would be appreciated! Cheers, GiantSnowman 17:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland flag suggestion

Hi, not a member of this WikiProject but a big fan of rugby. I saw that the Cricket WikiProject has started using a blank flag with a question mark to represent the unified Irish cricket team, so that "{{Cr|Ireland}}" appears as "Ireland". You can see a usage of that in a table here. I can't see how it would violate copyright or Wikipedia's policies to do the same with the Irish rugby team. It would certainly look a lot less awkward than having nothing. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with that. Sounds like a good idea actually. Cheers Yeshua. – PeeJay 21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the cricket wikiproject's work; that was WP:WikiProject Flag Template work to get rid of the copyrighted image. The question mark is supposed to be a indicator to the editor that something is wrong and should be fixed. The rugby templates also work the same way: {{ru|Ireland}} → Ireland. I think that it is preferable to not use a flag template at all, and WP:MOSFLAG specifically says not to use an "invented" flag, and that question mark image is certainly a Wikipedia invention. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My bad then. Sorry for getting my hopes up about that. – PeeJay 22:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that it shows the flag is disputed GainLine ♠ _♥ 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

..which would be an incorrect impression for this encyclopedia to portray. The flag used by the team isn't disputed; but it is copyrighted, which is why Wikipedia can't use it for results tables etc. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry thats not what I meant, I would have thought that it signifies that there is a reason another flag can't be used. Theres good precedent for its use. I dont believe its an "invented" flag either GainLine ♠ _♥ 22:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Flag of None.svg is most certainly a Wikipedia creation. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My apolgies, I didnt think it was a flag, just a signifier for where a flag couldnt be used GainLine ♠ _♥ 22:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, but your perception has given me reason to pause and think. I see that it is categorized in Category:Wikipedia image placeholders along with File:Replace this image male.svg et. al. I don't like seeing those placeholders in article space, as they reinforce an "under construction" message which I don't think needs to be stated for a constantly updated work-in-progress encyclopedia. It also seems to convey a "temporary until we can fix it" message, and I'm not sure that is what we want to portray with the Ireland flag (can we ever "fix" it?) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not the way things aer looking :( GainLine ♠ _♥ 09:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)