Talk:Records and statistics of the Rugby World Cup

Brian Robinson

The link to Brian Robinson is wrong (correction necessary to refer to a rugby player) Dingy 06:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Miller

Also Andrew Miller has a New Zealand flag displayed next to him. While Miller is a New Zealander by birth, he achieved the record drop goal playing for Japan Le hamster 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Entries

A list of the number of times that each nation has qualified for the world cup would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.114.164 (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)<!yo-- Template:UnsignedIP -->

The answer can be found at National team appearances in the Rugby World Cup. (Mobile mundo (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC))

Please Define

"Wales have had the most upsets in the Rugby World Cup, having lost to Samoa both in 1991 and 1999, then losing to Fiji in 2007. Other major upsets include France losing to Tonga in 2011 and South Africa losing to Japan in 2015".

Does the above mean Tier one nations losing to Tier two nations? If so Argentina have also lost three times to tier two nations. Does it mean a team losing to a team seeded below them (pot 4 team beating pot 2 team for example)? Or does upset mean in terms of bookies odds? Mobile mundo (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Missing Stats: Runs, Carries, Tackles, Disciplinary Stats: Yellow Cards & Red Cards and Penalty Tries Awarded for Player and Team per Tornament and All-time

I think there are some stats that are missing and would compliment this article if they were present, mainly the statistics of Runs (by player and team per tournament and all time), Carries (by player and team per tournament and all time), and Tackles (by player and team per tournament and all time), and the Disciplinary stats (Yellow cards and Red cards (by player and team per tournament and all time)) and Penalty Tries awarded (by player and team per tournament and all time). I cant seem to track them all down (I see tackles is on RugbyWorldCup.com) but if anyone knows where to find them the other it would be appreciated if they could add in.83.56.113.79 (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

With regards to the "oldest player to play/win in a final" record, Schalk Brits did not play in the final. Can it be clarified what the criteria is? Brits was a part of the squad, but not part of the match day team in the final. 105.245.8.155 (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be "Oldest Player To Win A World Cup". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.61.86.210 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Men's Rugby World cup

the title of this needs to be changed to the men's Rugby World Cup because Portia Woodman holds the record for most tries scored. She surpassed Bryan Habana and he congratulated her. But whenever the records are corrected with Portia Woodman at the top, someone removes her. So if this website intends to be accurate, it can't keep having the overall record holders deleted. So the name should be changed to Men's Rugby World Cup. 118.149.80.80 (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Head-to-Head Stats

User:PeeJay has removed two tables outlining the Head to Head statistics at Rugby World Cup. on his removal he gave the reason as "please argue for the inclusion of this statcruft on the article talk page". When I reverted his vandalism edits, he removed them again stating "I have policy-based grounds to remove this, what is your argument? that people worked hard on it? I'd argue they shouldn't have wasted their time". After reverting his vandalism edits again, he again removed the itables stating "see WP:NOTSTATS". WP:NOTSTATS states

Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election). Wikipedia:Notability § Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Selection criteria offers guidance on what entries should be included.

While I accept the statistics were lengthy, they were contained within a collapsable table where a person could open and close as they appear below. Secondly, these are the head to head statistics of all the games of the rugby world cup and are valuable Commodity for a Encyclopedia which Wikipedia strives to be. This policy that User:PeeJay cites also gives the option of spliting the statistics into a separate article and summarizing them in the main article. He does not do this. He deletes all this information permanently and does so without seeking discussion with others on his actions. He puts his own wants over the many editors that have worked on these tables over the many years. These articles should be placed back into the article or as the policy states that User:PeeJay cites split the statistics into a separate article and summarize them in the main article but not to delete them

Click to open Head to Head statistics at Rugby World Cup

Head-to-Head The highest number of Head-to-Head matches between two nations currently stands at eight meetings, encompassing four teams (Australia, France, New Zealand, and Wales) in two Rugby World Cup rivalries. On the other end of the table, there are currently seventy-one Head-to-Head meetings involving one game between two nations. The following table lists the Head-to-Head statistics of the Rugby World Cup, ranging from the inaugural tournament in 1987 to the latest tournament in 2023 (as of September 27). It is organised first numerically, with the more Head-to-Head meetings appearing at the top of the table and the less number of meetings, such as one meeting between two nations appearing at the bottom of the table, and second, alphabetically by teams. Legend R1 Round 1 (Pool Stage) R2 Round 2 (Quarter-Final Playoff)(2) QF Quarter-Final SF Semi-Final 3rd 3rd/4th Place Playoff (Bronze Final) F Final Games Team 1 Head-2-Head Wins (Draws) Team 2 Year(s) Rounds 8 Australia 5–3 Wales 1987, 1991, 1999, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, 2023 3rd, R1, QF, R1, 3rd, R1, R1, R1 France 3–5 New Zealand 1987, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2011, 2015, 2023 F, SF, 3rd, QF, R1, F, QF, R1 7 Australia 3–4 England 1987, 1991, 1995, 2003, 2007, 2015, 2019 R1, F, QF, F, QF, R1, QF 6 England 3–2 (& 1 Draw)(3) France 1991, 1995, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2019 QF, 3rd, SF, SF, QF, R1 Italy 0–5 (& 1 Draw)(3) New Zealand 1987, 1991, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2019 R1, R1, R1, R1, R1, R1 5 Australia 4–1 Ireland 1987, 1991, 1999, 2003, 2011 QF, QF, R1, R1, R1 England 1–4 South Africa 1999, 2003, 2007, 2007, 2019 QF, R1, R1, F, F Fiji 1–4 Wales 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, 2023 R1, R1, R1, R1, R1 New Zealand 5–0 Scotland 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2007 QF, 3rd, QF, QF, R1 New Zealand 3–2 South Africa 1995, 1999, 2003, 2015, 2019 F, 3rd, QF, SF, R1 Samoa(1) 0–5 South Africa 1995, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015 QF, R1, R1, R1, R1 4 Argentina 0–4 England 1995, 2011, 2019, 2023 R1, R1, R1, R1 Argentina 2–2 France 1999, 2007, 2007, 2019 QF, R1, 3rd, R1 Argentina 3–1 Ireland 1999, 2003, 2007, 2015 R2(2), R1, R1, QF Argentina 2–2 Samoa(1) 1991, 1995, 1999, 2023 R1, R1, R1, R1 Australia 3–1 Fiji 2007, 2015, 2019, 2023 R1, R1, R1, R1 Australia 2–2 New Zealand 1991, 2003, 2011, 2015 SF, SF, SF, F Canada 0–4 France 1991, 1999, 2011, 2015 R1, R1, R1, R1 Canada 0–4 New Zealand 1991, 2003, 2011, 2019 QF, R1, R1, R1 England 1–3 New Zealand 1991, 1995, 1999, 2019 R1, SF, R1, SF England 4–0 United States 1987, 1991, 2007, 2019 R1, R1, R1, R1 Fiji 0–4 France 1987, 1991, 1999, 2003 QF, R1, R1, R1 France 3–1 Ireland 1995, 2003, 2007, 2015 QF, QF, R1, R1 Ireland 4–0 Romania 1999, 2003, 2015, 2023 R1, R1, R1, R1 Japan 1–3 Scotland 1991, 2003, 2015, 2019 R1, R1, R1, R1 New Zealand 4–0 Tonga 1999, 2003, 2011, 2015 R1, R1, R1, R1 New Zealand 4–0 Wales 1987, 1995, 2003, 2019 SF, R1, R1, 3rd Samoa(1) 0–4 Scotland 1991, 1999, 2015, 2019 QF, R2(2), R1, R1 3 Argentina 0–3 Australia 1991, 2003, 2015 R1, R1, SF Argentina 3–0 Georgia 2007, 2011, 2015 R1, R1, R1 Argentina 3–0 Namibia 2003, 2007, 2015 R1, R1, R1 Argentina 0–3 New Zealand 1987, 2011, 2015 R1, QF, R1 Australia 3–0 Romania 1995, 1999, 2003 R1, R1, R1 Australia 2–1 South Africa 1995, 1999, 2011 R1, SF, QF Australia 3–0 United States 1987, 1999, 2011 R1, R1, R1 Canada 1–2 Fiji 1991, 1999, 2007 R1, R1, R1 Canada 0–3 Italy 2003, 2015, 2019 R1, R1, R1 Canada 2–1 Romania 1991, 1995, 2015 R1, R1, R1 Canada 3–0 Tonga 1987, 2003, 2011 R1, R1, R1 Canada 0–3 Wales 1987, 2003, 2007 R1, R1, R1 England 3–0 Italy 1991, 1995, 1999 R1, R1, R1 England 3–0 Samoa(1) 1995, 2003, 2007 R1, R1, R1 England 3–0 Tonga 1999, 2007, 2019 R1, R1, R1 England 1–2 Wales 1987, 2003, 2015 QF, QF, R1 France 3–0 Namibia 1999, 2007, 2023 R1, R1, R1 France 3–0 Romania 1987, 1991, 2015 R1, R1, R1 France 2–0 (& 1 Draw) Scotland 1987, 1995, 2003 R1, R1, R1 France 2–1 Tonga 1995, 2011, 2019 R1, R1, R1 Ireland 2–1 Japan 1991, 1995, 2019 R1, R1, R1 Ireland 1–2 Wales 1987, 1995, 2011 R1, R1, QF Japan 2–1 Samoa(1) 1999, 2015, 2019 R1, R1, R1 Japan 1–2 United States 1987, 2003, 2015 R1, R1, R1 Japan 0–3 Wales 1995, 1999, 2007 R1, R1, R1 Namibia 0–3 New Zealand 2015, 2019, 2023 R1, R1, R1 Romania 0–3 Scotland 1987, 2007, 2011 R1, R1, R1 Samoa(1) 2–1 Wales 1991, 1999, 2011 R1, R1, R1 Scotland 0–3 South Africa 1999, 2015, 2023 R1, R1, R1 South Africa 3–0 Wales 2011, 2015, 2019 R1, QF, SF 2 Argentina 1–1 Italy 1987, 1995 R1, R1 Argentina 2–0 Romania 2003, 2011 R1, R1 Argentina 2–0 Scotland 2007, 2011 QF, R1 Argentina 0–2 South Africa 2007, 2015 SF, 3rd Argentina 2–0 Tonga 2015, 2019 R1, R1 Argentina 0–2 Wales 1991, 1999 R1, R1 Australia 2–0 Canada 1995, 2007 R1, R1 Australia 1–1 France 1987, 1999 SF, F Australia 2–0 Georgia 2019, 2023 R1, R1 Australia 2–0 Japan 1987, 2007 R1, R1 Australia 2–0 Scotland 2003, 2015 QF, QF Australia 2–0 Uruguay 2015, 2019 R1, R1 Canada 0–2 Ireland 1987, 2015 R1, R1 Canada 0–0 (& 2 Draws) Japan 2007, 2011 R1, R1 Canada 1–0 (& 1 Draw)(3) Namibia 1999, 2019 R1, R1 Canada 0–2 South Africa 1995, 2019 R1, R1 England 2–0 Fiji 1999, 2015 R2(2), R1 England 2–0 Georgia 2003, 2011 R1, R1 England 2–0 Japan 1987, 2023 R1, R1 England 2–0 Scotland 1991, 2011 SF, R1 England 2–0 Uruguay 2003, 2015 R1, R1 Fiji 2–0 Japan 2003, 2007 R1, R1 Fiji 2–0 Namibia 1999, 2011 R1, R1 Fiji 0–2 South Africa 2007, 2011 QF, R1 Fiji 1–1 Uruguay 2015, 2019 R1, R1 France 2–0 Japan 2003, 2011 R1, R1 France 2–0 United States 2003, 2019 R1, R1 France 1–1 Wales 2011, 2019 SF, QF Georgia 2–0 Namibia 2007, 2015 R1, R1 Georgia 1–1 Uruguay 2003, 2019 R1, R1 Ireland 2–0 Italy 2011, 2015 R1, R1 Ireland 2–0 Namibia 2003, 2007 R1, R1 Ireland 0–2 New Zealand 1995, 2019 R1, QF Ireland 2–0 Russia 2011, 2019 R1, R1 Ireland 1–1 Scotland 1991, 2019 R1, R1 Ireland 2–0 Tonga 1987, 2023 R1, R1 Ireland 2–0 United States 1999, 2011 R1, R1 Italy 2–0 Namibia 2019, 2023 R1, R1 Italy 2–0 Romania 2007, 2015 R1, R1 Italy 1–1 Tonga 1999, 2003 R1, R1 Italy 2–0 United States 1991, 2011 R1, R1 Japan 0–2 New Zealand 1995, 2011 R1, R1 Japan 1–1 South Africa 2015, 2019 R1, QF Namibia 0–2 South Africa 2011, 2019 R1, R1 Romania 0–2 South Africa 1995, 2023 R1, R1 Samoa(1) 2–0 United States 2007, 2015 R1, R1 Scotland 2–0 Tonga 1995, 2023 R1, R1 Scotland 2–0 United States 2003, 2015 R1, R1 Scotland 2–0 Zimbabwe 1987, 1991 R1, R1 South Africa 2–0 United States 2007, 2015 R1, R1 South Africa 2–0 Uruguay 1999, 2003 R1, R1 Tonga 2–0 United States 2007, 2019 R1, R1 Tonga 0–2 Wales 1987, 2003 R1, R1 Uruguay 0–2 Wales 2015, 2019 R1, R1 1 Argentina 0–1 Fiji 1987 R1 Argentina 1–0 Japan 1999 R1 Argentina 1–0 United States 2019 R1 Australia 1–0 Italy 2011 R1 Australia 1–0 Namibia 2003 R1 Australia 1–0 Russia 2011 R1 Australia 1–0 Samoa(1) 1991 R1 Chile 0–1 England 2023 R1 Chile 0–1 Japan 2023 R1 Chile 0–1 Samoa(1) 2023 R1 England 1–0 Romania 2011 R1 Fiji 1–0 Georgia 2019 R1 Fiji 0–1 Italy 1987 R1 Fiji 0–1 New Zealand 1987 R1 Fiji 0–1 Romania 1991 R1 Fiji 0–1 Samoa(1) 2011 R1 Fiji 0–1 Scotland 2003 R1 Fiji 1–0 United States 2003 R1 France 1–0 Georgia 2007 R1 France 1–0 Italy 2015 R1 France 1–0 Ivory Coast 1995 R1 France 0–1 South Africa 1995 SF France 1–0 Uruguay 2023 R1 France 1–0 Zimbabwe 1987 R1 Georgia 0–1 Ireland 2007 R1 Georgia 0–1 New Zealand 2015 R1 Georgia 0–0 (& 1 Draw) Portugal 2023 R1 Georgia 1–0 Romania 2011 R1 Georgia 0–1 Samoa(1) 2003 R1 Georgia 0–1 Scotland 2011 R1 Georgia 0–1 South Africa 2003 R1 Georgia 1–0 Tonga 2015 R1 Georgia 0–1 Wales 2019 R1 Ireland 1–0 Samoa(1) 2019 R1 Ireland 1–0 South Africa 2023 R1 Ireland 1–0 Zimbabwe 1991 R1 Italy 1–0 Portugal 2007 R1 Italy 1–0 Russia 2011 R1 Italy 0–1 Samoa(1) 1995 R1 Italy 0–1 Scotland 2007 R1 Italy 0–1 South Africa 2019 R1 Italy 1–0 Uruguay 2023 R1 Italy 0–1 Wales 2003 R1 Ivory Coast 0–1 Scotland 1995 R1 Ivory Coast 0–1 Tonga 1995 R1 Japan 1–0 Russia 2019 R1 Japan 0–1 Tonga 2011 R1 Japan 1–0 Zimbabwe 1991 R1 Namibia 0–1 Romania 2003 R1 Namibia 0–1 Samoa(1) 2011 R1 Namibia 0–1 Tonga 2015 R1 Namibia 0–1 Uruguay 2023 R1 Namibia 0–1 Wales 2011 R1 New Zealand 1–0 Portugal 2007 R1 New Zealand 1–0 Romania 2007 R1 New Zealand 1–0 United States 1991 R1 Portugal 0–1 Romania 2007 R1 Portugal 0–1 Scotland 2007 R1 Portugal 0–1 Wales 2023 R1 Romania 1–0 United States 1999 R1 Romania 1–0 Zimbabwe 1987 R1 Russia 0–1 Samoa(1) 2019 R1 Russia 0–1 Scotland 2019 R1 Russia 0–1 United States 2011 R1 Samoa(1) 0–1 Tonga 2007 R1 Samoa(1) 1–0 Uruguay 2003 R1 Scotland 1–0 Spain 1999 R1 Scotland 1–0 Uruguay 1999 R1 South Africa 1–0 Spain 1999 R1 South Africa 1–0 Tonga 2007 R1 Spain 0–1 Uruguay 1999 R1 1 Samoa competed as Western Samoa from 1924 to 1997. 2 Round 2 was introduced at the 1999 Rugby World Cup and consisted of the five group runners-up and the best third placed team playoff for one of three places in the quarter-final. It was discontinued for the 2003 and subsequent Rugby World Cups. 3 Three Rugby World Cup 2019 matches; involving Namibia versus Canada, New Zealand versus Italy, and England versus France, were cancelled and recorded as a 0–0 draw due to Typhoon Hagibis 4 TBD (To Be Determined) are confirmed Pool games for the forthcoming Rugby World Cup. (1 TBD)(4)

Click to open Head-to-Head statistics of tier 1 nations at the Rugby World Cup

Tier 1 Nations Head-to-Head The table below shows the current dominance in the Head-to-Head meetings of tier 1 nations at the Rugby World Cup from the first tournament in 1987 to the latest tournament in 2023 (as of September 24). Currently, New Zealand has the best record amongst the other tier 1 nations, achieving more wins and culminating in a superior Head-to-Head record over eight other tier 1 nations, and equal with one other (Australia). Italy is at the bottom of the table, and has an inferior Head-to-Head record with eight other tier 1 nations, and parity with one other nation (Argentina). There are two tier 1 Head-to-Head meetings that have never been played at a Rugby World Cup: England versus Ireland, and Scotland versus Wales. Team Ranking Tier One Nations Head-to-Head Wins (Draws) Total Head-to-Head Meetings Argentina Australia England France Ireland Italy New Zealand Scotland South Africa Wales Superior Equal Inferior Never Played New Zealand 3 - 0 2 - 2 3 - 1 5 - 3 2 - 0 5 - 0 (& 1 Draw)(1) - 5 - 0 3 - 2 4 - 0 8 1 0 0 Australia 3 - 0 - 3 - 4 1 - 1 4 - 1 1 - 0 2 - 2 2 - 0 2 - 1 5 - 3 6 2 1 0 South Africa 2 - 0 1 - 2 4 - 1 1 - 0 0 - 1 1 - 0 2 - 3 3 - 0 - 3 - 0 6 0 3 0 England 4 - 0 4 - 3 - 3 - 2 (& 1 Draw)(1) NP 3 - 0 1 - 3 2 - 0 1 - 4 1 - 2 5 0 3 1 Wales 2 - 0 3 - 5 2 - 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 1 - 0 0 - 4 NP 0 - 3 - 4 1 3 1 France 2 - 2 1 - 1 2 - 3 (& 1 Draw)(1) - 3 - 1 1 - 0 3 - 5 2 - 0 (& 1 Draw) 0 - 1 1 - 1 3 3 3 0 Argentina - 0 - 3 0 - 4 2 - 2 3 - 1 1 - 1 0 - 3 2 - 0 0 - 2 0 - 2 2 2 5 0 Ireland 1 - 3 1 - 4 NP 1 - 3 - 2 - 0 0 - 2 1 - 1 1 - 0 1 - 2 2 1 5 1 Scotland 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 (& 1 Draw) 1 - 1 1 - 0 0 - 5 - 0 - 3 NP 1 1 6 1 Italy 1 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 3 0 - 1 0 - 2 - 0 - 5 (& 1 Draw)(1) 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 1 8 0 1 Two Tier one Rugby World Cup 2019 matches; involving New Zealand versus Italy, and England versus France, were cancelled and recorded as a 0–0 draw due to Typhoon Hagibis

79.154.65.115 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

First of all, you have no grounds to characterise my edits as vandalism, so I’d appreciate you rephrasing that. Second, per WP:COLLAPSE, information should not be hidden in collapsible boxes if it doesn’t appear in some other form somewhere else in the article. Third, the content shouldn’t appear in this or any other article as it is pure WP:FANCRUFT. A full list of teams’ head to head records at Rugby World Cups is not useful to the average reader, and is the sort of thing they really should be looking on the RWC website or a dedicated rugby stats site for. Finally, the information was not deleted permanently; you are perfectly capable of accessing it through the article history page if you wish to copy it to a more appropriate location somewhere other than Wikipedia. – PeeJay 19:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

In regards to your complaints:

• First of all, I have dealt with your objection to the term vandalism.
• In reference to your complaint to the collapsible box, this can be rectified by A) remove the table from the collapsible box or B) we can put a note in the introduction of the article.
• In regards to your argument that the tables constitute fancruft and that a full list of head to head records "is not useful to the average reader, and is the sort of thing they really should be looking on the RWC website or a dedicated rugby stats site for." I would argue this is not true. In fact, if we take your logic, you might say just about everything on this article is fancruft since it contains stats (as you put it) people really should be looking on the RWC website or a dedicated rugby stats site for. The fact is many sports articles on Wikipedia, including national teams, contain full head to head tables. This is the Rugby World Cup and as such this is the sort of information that the average reader who opens to read this article would be very interested in these stats. It also meets Wikipedia:Notability.
• In your final complaint where you state the "information was not deleted permanently; you are perfectly capable of accessing it through the article history page if you wish to copy it to a more appropriate location somewhere other than Wikipedia." Let us not try to be cute here, if the information is removed from here and you wish for it to be elsewhere other than in Wikipedia, then your aim, as you show in your response, is to delete it permanently from any reader who opens the article. They are not going to search through the history page. Rather than Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, why don't you try to be constructive. In your initial complaint, you cited WP:NOTSTATS, which clearly states the option of spliting the statistics into a separate article and summarizing them in the main article here.
• I would prefer for us to reach compromise on this issue but failing that I will seek out more voices for this discussion and of course, I will abide by the consensus of the community. 79.154.65.115 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Not every issue results in a compromise. Sometimes there's a right side and a wrong side. We certainly don't need a list of every team that's only met once at the RWC. The best thing would probably be a single entry for the most common matchup (i.e. Australia vs Wales on 8 occasions). The rest is just guff. – PeeJay 16:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we just wait for the community to give their comment and achieve Wikipedia:Consensus before you remove the information again. Be mindful not to violate WP:3RR or to engage in WP:EDITWAR79.154.65.115 (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You should also be mindful of WP:EDITWAR, especially since this is going to end up with the content being removed anyway. – PeeJay 17:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Six times you have removed the information in the last 24 hours and I have not been the only person to revert your unilateral actions. Let us wait and see what the community decides and let us abide by that decision. I do find it interesting that you can argue actual objective stats are WP:FANCRUFT but yet another article you are working on titled Template:World Soccer 100 Greatest Players containing subjective facts is not WP:FANCRUFT. Give the community some days to give their opinions. What's the rush? 79.154.65.115 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the two of you from editing the article in question for edit warring, but only there in the interest of good faith and communication. That being said, please do not make me regret that decision, and please (as the IP has indicated) let other interested parties comment on this without the bickering getting in the way. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "another article you are working on"? I fixed one link, that's hardly "working on" an article, especially since that page is a template, not an article. That page may or may not be fancruft, but I'm not interested in arguing that point right now. Besides, it's easier to remove content from an article than to delete a page altogether, especially when the removal of the content is entirely justified. – PeeJay 21:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to re-emphasize my position, I do not see an issue with the Head to Head tables within this article. However, one editor does. In the interest of compromise, I am willing to split the Head to Head statistics into a separate article and summarize them in this article, together with a WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE leading to the new article with the complete Head to Head table, but not to delete them. This was what is recommended in the policy WP:NOTSTATS, that the editor had initially cited. However, the editor is not really satisfied with this and recommends a "single entry for the most common matchup (i.e. Australia vs Wales on 8 occasions)" before reverting back to his initial postition of removing all the information. For me, this is not a serious compromise and I would recommend that if the information must be cut, then it should be from where there has been five head to head meetings which would account for eleven rows of information. In regards to the tier 1 Head to Head table, this could be moved from here to the new article hosting the complete Head to Head table after it has been split.

The editor also raised concerns with the table being inserted within a collapsible box. However, if the option of splitting the Head to Head statistics into a separate article and summarizing them in this article is taking up, then this issue is a non issue. However, if the option is not taking up, then I think we can rectifiy the editor's complaint by A) removing the table from the collapsible box or B) we can put a note in the introduction of the article. The editor also argues that the tables constitute WP:FANCRUFT and that a full list of head to head records "is not useful to the average reader, and is the sort of thing they really should be looking on the RWC website or a dedicated rugby stats site for." However, I would disagree with this assessment. The editor might say just about everything on this article (regardless whether stats or trivia) is fancruft, since it contains information (as the editor had put it) people really should be looking on the RWC website or a dedicated rugby stats site for. I note that the editor had also sought to remove other information related to Appearance statistics. As I pointed out above, the editor has also been involved in some other articles related to football that might be considered (as he put it) "pure fancruft." Many sports articles on Wikipedia, including national teams, contain full head to head tables. I think as this information is about objective stats of the Rugby World Cup, this is the sort of information that the average reader who opens to read this article may find interesting and as it meets Wikipedia:Notability, it should remain on Wikipedia. I hope to reach a Wikipedia:Consensus that is amicable for all. To achieve this, I have placed a message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union talk page and on related rugby union talk pages and editors that are more commonly editing on this page or similar type articles to draw a wider range of experienced editors to the discussion. Perhaps, Primefac, there is a template or hat note that can be placed on the top of this article to alert potential editors to this discussion. I don't know.79.154.65.115 (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out to you, sometimes a compromise does not exist. There are a great many things that an average reader "may find interesting", but we don't have to include them all here, as this is simply not the venue for it. A comprehensive breakdown of every matchup in Rugby World Cup history is simply not appropriate. – PeeJay 16:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the only person who cared enough to contribute to this topic (User:Maungapohatu here) agrees with me. Can we please remove the info now and get back to editing as normal? – PeeJay 08:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's not be too hasty. Other people have contributed to this topic by updating the table in the last week ( most notably User talk:178.201.104.94 who has made mulitple edits Starting from here),. User:Maungapohatu should make their contribution here, if they truely are interested. For the moment I suspect we should wait for others to reply or follow the other dispute resolutions. Maybe seek to have a template on the top of the article page for editors to see and engage in the discussion. 79.154.65.115 (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Also the tables are consistent in size and content with other Rugby statistics articles, For example, see 2023 Rugby World Cup statistics 79.154.65.115 (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The venue where User:Maungapohatu made their opinion known is irrelevant. Furthermore, anonymous editors are very unlikely to know there is a discussion going on. Interested parties have had days to contribute, and despite your attempts to canvass them, nobody has. Finally, your attempts at whataboutism are even more irrelevant. If anything, I thank you for alerting me to yet more gross violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. – PeeJay 15:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Another week and no replies. I think we can delete the content now. – PeeJay 12:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to remain relatively neutral in this discussion, but every time you post here I re-read the discussion and the more I find myself siding with the IP. This information isn't bad, there's just a bit too much of it. I think the head-to-head information is useful, but only for those teams who have actually played each other more than a couple of times. I think trimming the table down to maybe anyone with 4+ or 5+ meet-ups would make it so it's not such a huge/unweildy table. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

But that's exactly the problem, the table(s) are just too unwieldy. If someone could actually come up with a reasonable compromise, that would be welcome, but IMO, all we need to know is the matchup which is the most common. Anything more than that is over-statted. – PeeJay 19:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I... just gave one. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your suggestion went far enough, as I said. The most common matchup is all that's needed. – PeeJay 00:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac on this. I had made this suggestion previously above. I recommended that it should be from where there has been five head to head meetings which would account for eleven rows of information. As I wrote previously, this kind of table is standard in many rugby articles on wikipedia. I do not think PeeJay is interested in compromise as he has mentioned many times above "sometimes a compromise does not exist" and where he keeps seeking the deletion of the tables. I think there is ample evidence people are interested in the tables by the table being kept up to date. I am happy to move forward on this and condense the table to the 5 Head to Head meetings. From what I understand there are now two people happy with this proposal.79.154.46.4 (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Who are you? – PeeJay 10:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I am the person that has being in discussion with you about these tables for the last couple of weeks. I see my IP has changed. I don't Know why that is. I am using the same computer I always use. Nonetheless, you know that it is me. 79.154.46.4 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Seriously though, I don't think "people are keeping the tables up to date" is particularly strong evidence that they should be kept. While content exists on a page, it's only natural that people would want to update it, especially while the tournament is ongoing. I doubt those people have truly considered the encyclopaedic value of that content. – PeeJay 10:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Well your argument was originally that no one was interested and I think they are. Also there are now two people think at least a shortened version should be kept. As always I am willing to compromise but you will need to present a serious suggestion. 79.154.46.4 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I already made a serious suggestion. One line that says:

• Most meetings between two teams – 8 (Australia vs Wales)

– PeeJay 13:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You'd then be leaving out France/New Zealand. Why have half a stat? Primefac (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Because I couldn't care less about the actual content of the stat line, I was providing an example. – PeeJay 10:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It would still be half a stat. You would be leaving out the information common in Head to Head stats, such as the number of wins for each team, which World Cups those meetings occurred in, and the rounds of those World Cups where the meetings occurred which provides context to the reader. I am sorry, I do not believe the example you present is a serious suggestion. If we were to agree with your solution, another reader would view the one line half stat as orphaned and would subsequently delete it. They would be right to do so, as it would offer nothing to the article. Myself and Primefac have recommended a drastic compromise to condense the table to 5 Head to Head meetings, which would account for eleven rows and which is very much similar to a top ten table. The ball is in your court to make a serious suggestion.79.154.46.4 (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Portia Woodman

What about Portia Woodman? She has score 20 tries in World Cup Rugby. This beats anyone else on the list. 2404:4402:1081:EC00:C145:55FE:3764:7415 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

From her article it sounds like that was in Sevens, not in the World Cup. Primefac (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like she does have 20 tries in the 15-a-side World Cup - 13 in 2017 and 7 in the 2021 tournament. But this article refers solely to the men's World Cup, so it wouldn't make sense to include her record here without expanding the article to cover both the men's and women's tournaments. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)