Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

ESPN StatsGuru

Hello, it seems that ESPN cut its Statsguru service and that bulk mining is no longer possible (i.e. international matches of a national team). Has there a suitable alternative, as far as you know? I just need to refresh data on it.wiki of some national teams and don't know where to seek for. thanks ! -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 23:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blackcat:, I tend to use itsrugby.co.uk for stats. It's not always as accurate as Statsguru and sometimes non-cap or A matches are classified as international caps on the site so you have to watch out. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22:, yes, I noticed it, though that - for international statistics - it's not anywhere near as accurate as ESPN Scrum. We shoild manage to mine data from them and then process them.... -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blackcat:, yeah it's rather annoying they've discontinued Stasguru, it does make finding team/international team stats difficult. Itsrugby tend only to be good for player stats. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• On a side note, itsrugby is currently down at the moment following a data error, it's currently being restored but data is missing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

International tries

Maybe I'm totally missing the guidance, or only looking at pages that don't have 'em, but I feel like sections on "international tries" on pages like Leigh Halfpenny are unnecessary, and (sometimes) unsourced. Do we usually have such lists? Primefac (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think they're quite common place in certain articles. I think the idea's probably been copied across from football where players international goals are listed. They shouldn't be stand alone articles certainly unless they're their nations top scorer. But if they've scored a reasonable number of tries and they are well sourced I don't have a problem with them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it actually started with cricket articles and lists of international centuries/five-wicket hauls, but the principle is the same. The hard bit is deciding how many tries is "a reasonable number" though. Agreed that standalone articles should only be for nations' leading scorers (or players who used to be their nation's leading scorer) though. – PeeJay 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe 5/10 tries could be a good starting point for these in article lists. Again it's very subjective as a prop scoring 5 tries is a large amount for a prop but not many for a winger. Also the 'lesser' nations (such as a Tonga, Fiji or Samoa i.e. the notable smaller nations) will play fewer tests and so fewer opportunities to score tries compared to an England or Wales who will play over 10 tests a year in a normal year. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Surely they should really be stand alone articles if they are notable enough for inclusion? (e.g. List of international rugby union tries by Shane Williams) For instance I think the list on Rory Underwood is reasonable but should really be split into its own article. I think this has been discussed before and will be in the archived discussions too.Skeene88 (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I've seen in football standalone articles are only allowed for top scorers or previous top scorers and then other articles have lists of international goals. I have no problem with them being split into standalone articles as long as they're sourced and are the top scorer/historic top scorer for their national side. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Five-eighth

A search for links to five-eighth in non-league contexts turned up two easily soluble problems, and one tricky one - Jack Verge. Does anyone know for sure which position this was in Oz/NZ in 1906? My guess would be fly half, and the text implies a playmaker; but I'd prefer to be sure. Narky Blert (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the term five-eight was first coined in NZ in 1903 when the NZ captain moved a forward to the backs. If he was playing as no. 10 in NZ at this time I'd imagine he's be considered a five-eight instead of a fly-half. First five-eights didn't come till later I think. But if he was still playing in Aus i'm not so sure. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Marzio Innocenti

Hello, today Marzio Innocenti has been elected as 21th President of the Italian Rugby Federation. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 18:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ummmm, okay... – PeeJay 14:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't sure what the point of the post was, but it was a nice actual break reading this compared to what's on the cricket project atm. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22:, the point of the post was that the English speaking Wikipedia editors could add the information to both articles. I am not a native speaker, thush I'd rather leave the information here than write it myself. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 22:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Height/weight info

I'm wondering if anyone has any suggestions about how to deal with height and weight info on player articles. I remember some time ago an editor removed those parameters from the infobox template, arguing that they are so often incorrect we might as well scrap them. I argued against this at the time because I think these biometrics are important pieces of information for players of an athletic sport like rugby, and the parameters were restored. However, since then I've paid more attention to this issue and these parameters are very commonly wrong, and almost always unsourced. On the occasions I try to maintain them, I usually find (often IP) editors slow edit-warring to put incorrect info back in. Predictably, the pattern is usually one of editors exaggerating weight and height values. I sometimes get the impression the IPs might be linked to the players themselves.

This is a really widespread issue and I wonder if anyone has any ideas. It might be at least good to have some kind of response process available here to correct entries/request protection/protect pages. I am more than happy to respond to being pinged with requests for protection myself, but obviously I am and editor at some of the articles and so can't respond due to being involved. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the points you are making on IPs constantly changing them, of the rugby articles I've created it's almost a daily occurrence of either of them being changed in an article. Sites such as itsrugby, ultimate rugby, national team sites and club sites often offer this details, but they often change over the course of their careers. Sometimes IP changes may well be correct, but very rarely do they source the changes they make, and sources such as itsrugby or ultimate rugby won't update their heights/weights over their careers. In terms of what to do, I think it's one of those things that you've just got to accept happens, and revert them as vandalism when unsourced changes occur. I imagine to some extent the same thing happens in other sports such as football, and asking for page protection if the unsourced changes are being made consistently. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Clubs will publish profiles at the start of each year. These weights may fluctuate in a season, but they are cited sources. For former players the weights can either be seen as illustrative, a timestamp, or they could be a range ie 13st 4lb to 15st 1lb. I'm not sure how many rugby players are growing significantly in height during their playing careers, but I'm sure they'll be someone who had a late growth spurt. Cited sources is the best way to kill the fun for the IP.Fleets (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree height is not something that is likely to change, and with weight... I think as long as someone isn't being listed as 300st we just accept it as being "good enough" (i.e. in thinking about when I made the template change last year, does it really matter if the weight is changing by a kilo or two?). Primefac (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If the information is adequately sourced (i.e. there is a source provided and the information can be easily checked), I don't see why the info can't be included. If there's no source, just delete the info per WP:BLP. Most clubs list their players' heights and weights, though, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. – PeeJay 17:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Former Super Rugby side squad templates

Hi all. Please see this discussion at TfD. Have listed the squad templates for the Sunwolves and Southern Kings now that both teams have been liquidated, and now that there is no use for them. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)

There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Jamie Hendrie notability

Does Jamie Hendrie meet WP:NRU? Hack (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. His match for the All Blacks was in a non-international (I don't think he's even NZ qualified at the time) and by the looks of things he got injured and didn't play in any other notable rugby competitions domestically. Quite an interesting story though and there might be enough to pass GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

His All Blacks profile has a few extra bits on it as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think he should be notable but reading WP:NRU, there's no mention of the type of match or level of opponent. The fact that NZ Rugby gave him a representative number, suggests they think he played for them. Hack (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we only consider official tests as notable international matches. Non-cap matches and tour matches often aren't included in statistical databases (the All Blacks is basically the exception as there stats database is excellent) so we don't include them as notable matches. The All Blacks gave numbers to whoever played for them, no matter if it was a test or international match. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change in sports notability policy

A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass moves of John Player Cup season articles to Anglo-Welsh Cup titles

Just a flag to other users someone has, without discussion, moved several of the amateur era cup season pages such as 1971–72 Anglo-Welsh Cup. Welsh clubs were not in these competitions at the time. If you spot any please move them back. Side point over whether some of these are titled correctly is worthy of a discussion, but Anglo-Welsh is certainly wrong.Skeene88 (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Skeene88 Have reverted the remaining ones. I know for certain cricket tournaments they have removed the sponsor's name from the tournament (for example 2012 Friends Life t20 went to 2012 Twenty20 Cup) but I'm not sure what these tournaments would have been called as they were a bit before my time. Maybe worth leaving a message on the mover's talk page to find out why they did it and if they have anymore information. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Put them all back. Use the name as it was at the time of the competition. A bit like how we have 2016 Football League Cup Final and 2017 EFL Cup Final. Same competition, different name in a different year The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

All the comptitions were known by the Sponsors name, I cannot remember any source ever referring to them as anything other than the John Player Cup, or later the Pilkington Cup. I suppose there was a proper name but I've never seen it in a reputable source. All pages are now named correctly I think.Skeene88 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I imagine they're suitable names then. The cricket examples were weak as the competition was regularly known as the t20 Blast or T20 cup despite the sponsors names. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking back at books I've got, the first four competitions were styled the RFU Club Competition, or RFU Club Knockout (the RFU no doubt being horrified by anything as commercial as a sponsor although happy to bank plenty of cash from the final...). In the 1975-76 season they finally took on sponsorship and the John Player Cup came into being - you can see the different names in these final programmes 1975 and 1976 --Bcp67 (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that the Anglo-Welsh Cup article was a rename of an article on the previous English only cup competition. See [1] for move to EDF energy cup. There is discussion of this at [2]. The successor competition however has its own article Premiership Rugby Cup. This seems inconsistent - if the Anglo-welsh is the same competition as the RFU Club competition then so is the Premiership Rugby cup. I think the post 2005 content would be better as a separate article to pre 2005. noq (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Notable former player sections on Premiership Club pages, and others

I would like to do a mass delete of the sections of Premiership Rugby club articles which are just lists of wikiepdia articles and flags without criteria or narrative text sections such as

• Newcastle Falcons#Notable former players
• Wasps RFC#Notable former players
• Sale Sharks#Notable former players
• London Irish#Notable former players
• Harlequin F.C.#Notable former players
• Gloucester Rugby#Notable former players
• Exeter Chiefs#Notable former players

And on articles like Northampton Saints combine the British & Irish Lions and the Hall of Fame sections into Notable former players while deleting the mass of flags and article names. Effectively we want sections like that to be expanded with interesting, sourced, content for each team, not just a list of all former internationals, where appropriate that can be a separate article. I like the Rugby World Cup section on Worcester Warriors and think most of Saracens F.C. section is good too, though the sourcing appears a bit weak as the links now all go to a 404 page. I will refrain from commentating on Leicester Tigers as I wrote almost all of it.

Any comments? The Gloucester one has some justifications on some of the players, I think that could be retained and expanded where the players (and their playing for the respective club) were genuinely notable?Skeene88 (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Would support that. Former/current player sections need distinguishable criteria for inclusion in my opinion, for example more than a certain number of appearances, international caps, British & Irish Lions players. Flags can be acceptable for international players that aren't English. I've done the one at Ospreys (rugby union)#Notable players & coaches which I like to think is good, but certainly the ones you've suggested need greatly improving or just deleting altogether. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Steven a91 NikeCage68 Woggie10 Noq Just pinging the other active editors to see if they have strong views on this. If no responses, will do these edits Friday afternoon.Skeene88 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

More or less not too sure about it because it shows who played for these clubs, but in the past, some of those sections have been entirely deleted with most users agreeing to it. For example, I do agree the Gloucester one has justifications with the citations involved. I suggest they can be improve by turning into categories like the Ospreys page. Is this agreed with everyone or not?? NikeCage68 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I'll say on the Ospreys page is the team has only played since 2003 so the categories will have far less players in. A team like Leicester Tigers will probably have 10x the international players. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that these sections often provide little if any value, and simply grow unchecked over time. If an article lists a fixed number of players with certain criteria - the 10 players with the most caps or points, that's helpful. Or if an article lists an unfixed number of players with rare attributes (eg, Hall of Fame), that's fine too. I am not a fan of including lists of all players that are simply "notable" without any other criteria. I'm also not a fan of a variant or subset of that - sections that list large and growing number of foreign players that ever played with the club.

I fully support the general thrust of the proposal, and can live with whatever compromise is reached in terms of where exactly to draw the line. My biggest comment is to not limit this change just to Premiership articles, but do the same exercise for other leagues. For example, the Top 14 is terrible on this issue, see eg, ASM_Clermont_Auvergne#Notable_former_players, and other leagues have similar issues. CUA 27 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

While article structure should be relatively consistent we can use different formats for different teams where suitable. Starting Friday afternoon I'll start working through them, adding Rugby World Cup & British & Irish Lions selected players (limited numbers and will grow at a slow pace), any hall of fame members, leaving ones like the small number at Gloucester with a justification, and deleting the mass lists.Skeene88 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That sounds a reasonable middle ground. If any official club sites have a historic players section it may be good to add them as well, as they can be easily sourced too. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A very good idea. Too many articles are full of these lists - I would suggest things like academy squad lists should be culled as well. I would ditch the 100 club section from the Saracens article - the source for it is no longer on their website and archive.org shows it last updated in 2019. It also only includes players from the professional era which would surprise me if true. noq (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd disagree on the academy sides, these are young professionals who often play in league and European games for their sides, and all have a listed section on the club page. They're not 16/17 year olds. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If they regularly play in the league then by all means list them - but complete lists usually with no associated articles, are over the top. If they have played one league game then less of an argument to list them. European challenge cup might often use fringe players to give them experience so unless they have played a few league games, I would be inclined to omit them. noq (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep the academy squads as they are the future in the professional game as well as any readers or users would know which club they are from. It is contented on the Premiership, Championship, Pro14 and Super Rugby clubs, as they have proper citations and reference. I fully agree on changing structures and/or formats on notable former players, a very good idea, as Skeene88 said yesterday if everyone else still finds this reasonable. No arguments from myself whether mass deletion or changing it. NikeCage68 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll start cracking on with the deletions, and changes where I can.Skeene88 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Russian Rugby Championship

Hi guys, what are people's views on potentially removing the Russian Rugby Championship from the notable leagues in the WP:NRU guidelines? Personally I feel that the league doesn't get enough coverage anymore due to the decline of rugby in Russia (in terms of performance) and the national team. I see very little in terms of coverage (although I'll say I haven't looked in many Russian sources) and none of the statistical sites such as itsrugby collate statistics for the competition meaning it is difficult to verify whether or not a player has played in the competition for notability. Let me know your views. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No objection from me; the competition doesn’t draw much English language media coverage, and other than the internationals, the players are largely unknown. The U.S. based Major League Rugby seems to draw more media coverage and attract higher profile players than the Russian competition, but MLR is not on the list. CUA 27 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think we're close to being able to add MLR to the list. The coverage though just is still a bit off on certain teams and players and the statistics are not always accurate. Maybe another season or so and we can add it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Pro D2 transfers

Hi all, I wanted to have people views if I could add a transfer list for the Pro D2 competition, the second tier of rugby union in France. Its because it is fully professional and one league behind the Top 14 where they do get a lot of coverage on TV through Eurosport for example as well as mention in English web lists and radio like BBC Sport. It gets recognised through rugby related statistical sites like Ruck.co.uk, Ultimate Rugby or Its.rugby. Let me know your views. NikeCage68 21:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No issues if you want to create a page. There tends to be coverage for transactions for the competition, and we have one for the RFU Championship. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do NikeCage68 (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

nruu

I've created a new template, {{nruu}}, which like {{nrut}} links to a national team, but nruu links to under-X teams. For example, {{nruu|Wales|20}} links to Wales U20. Thought yall might like to know.

As an additional note, I will in the near future be renaming a lot of these templates, as Category:Rugby union templates is full of four-letter acronyms that to this day (despite working on this project for a half-dozen years) I still find confusing. For example, I will be renaming {{nrut}} to {{national rugby union team}}, and {{rui}} to {{rugby union in}}. The shortcuts will of course still work, but I feel that expanding the base template name to be more inviting will help new editors actually use them more frequently. I'll also make some documentation that will list all of the various templates and their names. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know Primefac. Guessing {{rut}} will become {{rugby union team}}, it's probably the one I use most frequently. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Coca-Cola Red Sparks squad template

Hi all. Please see this discussion at TfD. The Coca-Cola Red Sparks team has recently been disbanded by Coca-Cola following the conclusion of the 2021 Top Challenge League season, and will not compete in the new professional Japanese league, so the squad template is now redundant. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC on flags

A RFC is underway which might have a considerable effect on the usage of flags in the articles in this WikiProject. Any input is welcome and you can join the RFC here.Tvx1 17:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-notable rugby squad templates

Hi guys, I've started a discussion on three non-notable team squad templates. They're all out of date and haven't been maintained. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 14#Template:Leeds Tykes squad. Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Number of team rosters in rugby sevens at 2020 Summer Olympics

Hi. Please see and join the following discussion related to rugby sevens at the 2020 Summer Olympics:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Number of team rosters in several sports at 2020 Summer Olympics

Thanks. --Phikia (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup at FAR

I have nominated Rugby World Cup for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. CMD (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Debate over NPC teams founding dates

Hi guys, Have been having a debate with another user on the listed foundation dates for NPC sides. Last year we created pages for all of the NPC sides (such as Otago (National Provincial Championship)) which are for the teams in the NPC only and no other competitions. Should the founding dates be the start of the competition (i.e. 1976 or after if the team was founded later) or when the region was originally founded (back to the 1800s etc). Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's the professional side you are talking about, my opinion would be the date when the team first played a match with another union, not when the union established itself. This information can be found at New Zealand Rugby History. This site I have found more accurate than others. Kidsoljah (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It's for the specific team pages created last year for all the NPC sides. Basically it's the decision on whether they should just be for the NPC (and so show their first NPC match either in 1976 or later), or should be more historic and show when the region was founded. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Karmichael Hunt

I have nominated Karmichael Hunt for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Featured Article Review for Crusaders (rugby union)

I have nominated Crusaders (rugby union) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Featured Article Review

I have nominated France national rugby union team for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Len Blyth; sources are dead links

Hi all. If someone could take a look at re-sourcing this article it would be helpful. Most of the sources are dead links. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Have made a start, will work on it some more when I get the time. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Amateur vs Professional from pre-Pro days

While looking for something unrelated, I came across Marcus Rose; he had Leicester, Coventry, and the 'quins listed as "amateur" teams. He played in the '70s, which at the time was the amateur era. Just to ask the dumb question, should they still be listed in the "Amateur" section instead of the "Senior career" section? I feel like someone looking at a page like that would be confused and think that someone put those teams in the wrong places.

As a minor note, the entirety of the article was unsourced so I gutted it, but the previous version is here. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd probably suggest listing in the senior career section, while technically he had an amateur career, a large number of articles on players who played in the amateur career list them as senior club sides. However, I'm happy for them to be listed either way and happy to go with consensus. I just feel that if the article was to be created today for example, they'd be listed as senior career and not amateur because of this confusion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a tough one, especially when we do lack a lot in terms of articles on players from the amateur era. Personally I would say that if they played in the amateur era only, use senior career. If they crossed over when the game opened, use amateur up to 1995 then senior onwards. If they are pro era only, only use amateur for any youth/community clubs they played for before turning pro. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible solution. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

For amateur era players in England I use senior section as these were widely described as senior clubs (as opposed to junior clubs which only played local fixtures rather than "youth teams") at the time, and also provides consistency for the many players where their career bridges the gap. Amateur teams section these days are mainly used in South African or New Zealand profiles where there is a clear and unambiguous separation, and the sides are indeed amateur. In Europe even fourth division sides pay their players match fees so are not amateur. I'll re-build Rose's profile with citations.Skeene88 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

RFC on adding timestamps of missed penalties

Currently in articles we make a note of penalties, and the timestamps of successful penalties, with a little message like (6/8) to note that there were some missed penalties, but not the time of those penalties.

It's my thought that this is valuable information. It's not usually found in statistical reports, however it is usually found in the minute by minute breakdown. I thin it's worth including these in match reports.

The template I created at {{Match report}} has an example of missed penalties being noted. I think if we consider it worth noting that the kick was missed, it's also worth noting when the kick was missed. Just as it's worth noting when the kick was successful. Thoughts El Dubs (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose adding times of missed kicks - No other site that records match results in a similar way does this. This Sky Sports match report has the scorers and their times at the top of the page, but they don't even tally the number of successful kicks, let alone add info about the times when a player failed to score, while this BBC report doesn't even list the timings. Yes, this info can usually be found in minute-by-minute reports, but I'd be surprised if it didn't! The {{rugbybox}} template is supposed to provide a rundown of when the scoreboard actually changed, not when it didn't. – PeeJay 07:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary that we just duplicate what these similar reports do. I'm suggesting we make a slight combination of the minute by minute reports, and the statistical reports to create a more encyclopaedic and informative page. We can't include every little thing in the article sure, but that's what this discussion is for, to suggest a particular event that I think is worthy of inclusion. We already have the event of the missed kick, I'm just suggesting timestamping it. This discussion isn't about {{rugbybox}} or what it's meant for, it's about whether it's generally agreed that missed kick timestamps are significant enough to warrant making a note of. El Dubs (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

As a note, 2011 RWC Final Commentary isn't just talking about missed conversions in their notes, they mark it as an event with metadata. You'll see that these commentary notes mark events such as "refree" "try" "convsuccess" and "convmiss", followed by the commentary, next to each minute. Example it notes a convmiss at 16 minutes into the game with the note "...but it goes wide". I think this is more than just the expected commentary of a missed kick if they're noting specific metadata tags to denote a missed conversion at a specific time. El Dubs (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's event metadata, that's the alt text for an image. I don't think you can use anything from minute-by-minute commentary to justify including missed kicks in a template that is supposed to be a quick overview of the scores that were actually made. – PeeJay 23:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether metadata or alt text for an image, I think it still highlights it as an event. I'm curious why you think the template is only supposed to be an overview of scores that were actually made. They currently include scores that were not made, just not their timestamps. Yes you disagree with that too, but it was you that suggested I start this discussion because I'm suggesting changes to the norm. The norm right now is recording missed kicks. El Dubs (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The recording of missed kicks generally is a bit hit and miss (pun intended) at the moment anyway, some have a (3/4) and some don't. Personally I rarely see missed penalties included in score boxes and feel that time stamped missed penalties would add a lot of confusion to the box scorers, which is presumably why it is so rare to see it in sources. Conversions are a little different as they are linked clearly to the tries and which were converted or not. I would err against that too but I will accept that those are more common in my experience.Skeene88 (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The (3/4) or whatever is only possible when the info is available, and honestly I think it would be better if we just recorded the number that a player actually converted, rather than having to trawl through statistical records to see how many they missed, as that's what reliable sources do in their match summaries. – PeeJay 14:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Due to the limited discussion, I left this for over a month. Since the concept is two to one against, I'll remove any missed kicks I've used and refer to this discussion where needed. El Dubs (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

New Template: Match report

I've created a new template {{Match report}}. Several articles create match reports, especially RWC Finals. They use multiple templates or manual formatting to construct the report.

This is designed to reduce duplicated information and allow match data to be neatly entered in an article. It still needs a bit of work but I think is ready for some use. El Dubs (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That's really good, I will try using it in future. Is there anyway to create team diagrams within the template? I've toyed with this but couldn't get it looking good for two teams. It looks okay for single teams to use in team articles where appropriate.

Stimpson
15

Murphy
14

Lloyd
13

Howard
12

Stanley
11

Goode
10

Healey
9

Back
7

W.Johnson
8

Corry
6

Kay
5

M.Johnson
4

Garforth
3

West
2

Rowntree
1

Skeene88 (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That's really cool, I was also wondering if there were a way to automate these match line-up images. For now I've left a field for it, but if this can be refined, then it would require no additional inputs into the template as it already holds all the line-up information. If {{Football kit}} could allow you to display the template without the shorts and socks, that could also be incorporated, since the kit information is also there. El Dubs (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this new template. Seems unnecessarily convoluted, and that's before we even get to the fact that it's specific to rugby union but the title makes it seems like it's for any sort of match. Given that pages can break if you use too many templates, I feel like this runs the risk of creating problems in an effort to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. The wikitable solution works just fine, IMO. – PeeJay 14:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey PeeJay, a few thoughts:

1. I found the wikitable solution unweildy, and when I was a newcomer, it was downright difficult, wikitables within wikitables. While this template has room for improvement, I believe it's easier to figure out so long as documentation is clear (that area does need improvement.)
2. There's also the inherent advantage of templates. If we wish to change something, it immediately updates all articles using the template. There are currently many mis-matching articles that use the wikitable solution in different ways because of how it's slowly changed over the years.
3. Templates can be expensive, however there are plenty of examples of expensive templates, and we can determine where the use of this one is appropriate. I don't actually think this one will add too much except say, if I wanted to replace all of List of 2016 Super Rugby matches. I don't see that this will actually become an issue.
4. The title, happy to change if people disagree, that's trivial. However, I've found that Rugby Union/League, and Football use pretty similar templates for their match reports. I created this as a proof of concept for Rugby Union, but I think work can eventually be done to incorporate other sports and simplify match reports across sports.

Thanks for the feedback! I'm a big fan of your match line-up svgs, it's why I incorporated one into this template. El Dubs (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think my biggest issue with this template is that it doesn't allow for regional variations in the way that positions are named and/or numbered. For example, South Africa reverses the 6 and 7 positions so that the 6 is the openside flanker and the 7 is the blindside, New Zealanders refer to the fly-half as the first five-eighth, the inside centre as the second five-eighth and the outside centre as just the centre, and Leicester used to use letters on the backs of their players' shirts rather than numbers. By standardising the team line-ups with a template, you lose that ability to acknowledge regional variations except through exception after exception in the template code. I would also add that the template doesn't allow for offsetting substitution icons. Take a look at the line-ups for the first test of the 2021 British & Irish Lions tour to South Africa; with your template, you wouldn't be able to offset Biggar's {{suboff}} icon so that it lines up with Daly's {{subon}} icon. Honestly, while tables can be a little hard to wrap your brain around to start with, they're really not that difficult. With pipes and dashes, you're just drawing a table in the code and filling in the cells with data. As long as newcomers copy and paste the entirety of what was there before and take the time to experiment before hitting "Publish changes", they'll get the hang of it. Plus, I actually think templates are more complicated. You need to remember to add in all the necessary parameters and the template breaks if you misspell one. – PeeJay 22:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That is some good feedback on regional differences. Changing the template to allow these regional differences is pretty easy. And I promise this can be done without creating "exceptions" in the code.

Regarding Bigger's {{suboff}}, that would actually be really easy to implement. With that said, is that actually significantly useful? What do you do when a player has been subbed off and on a few times? does the column just get wider?

Yes, you can wrap your head around tables, but if something can be made easier without doing harm, it should be. Making newcomers take the time to experiment can discourage newcomers. By making it as easy as possible, it will encourage them to create these match reports for more matches that lack them.

I'm not sure "misspelling" a template is a major issue. You can just as easily create typos in tables. You don't need to remember parameters because there's a template to copy and paste. And a good template makes as much of itself optional as possible. In {{Match report}}, if you delete the football kits or team lists, it just removes those sections.

I think the issues you've brought up are fantastic suggestions for improving the template, I do consider it a work in progress, and the point is, as people come up with further suggestions on improving match reports as you are now, we can do it in one place, which will update all articles.El Dubs (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the template to solve your biggest issue. Positions are now completely customisable to account for regional variations. El Dubs (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC on the use of icons in match reports

I've got two RFCs that I'll log separately based on my conversations with @PeeJay:.

In articles like 2018 FIFA World Cup Final, in the match reports are the use of icons like {{goal}} to designate a goal. In Rugby Union articles like 2011 Rugby World Cup Final, we instead use Try to designate points scored.

I find the icons used in football match reports a much simpler and easier to read visual cue for matches. We have templates such as {{try}} and {{kick}}, but we don't really use them, I propose we change that and promote the use of these if others agree they're helpful indicators.

As an example, I placed icons within the example match report of {{Match report}}. That method leaves both the text and the icon, which being so small, I don't think is overly repetitive.

There's definitely MOS:ICON to consider, however I think their use is more than decorative.

I'd also like to see a bit more consistency between sports where practicable, and I think this is one area where we can. Thoughts? El Dubs (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me @Supertrinko:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose use of icons - I actually oppose the use of {{goal}} as well, not just these rugby-specific ones; however, {{goal}} is more useful since {{footballbox}} doesn't have any headers for its lists of scorers, whereas {{rugbybox}} does. In a rugby context, these icons are purely decorative as the context of the data is provided by the headers "Try", "Con", "Pen" and "Drop". We could perhaps do more to indicate what "Con", "Pen" and "Drop" are short for, but a tiny icon of some rugby posts does nothing to help the uninitiated reader to understand what a conversion, penalty or drop goal are; they would need to go to another page to research that, by which point, the icon becomes superfluous. MOS:ICON specifically deprecates the use of icons for "purely decorative" reasons, which I believe this definitely falls into. Instead of canvassing opinions from WP:RU members, I actually believe we should be seeking guidance from people with a better understanding of MOS:ICON. – PeeJay 07:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I've spoken to most of your points already above, so I won't re-tread. In regards to bringing it up here. The general use of icons in match reports is already widely used, accepted, and hasn't really been challenged that I can see, that's why I'm not bringing this up in MOS:ICON, I'm asking if we should apply this to WP:RU articles given that these icons are already widely used in other areas. You do take issue with {{goal}}. That's a discussion that would need to occur at a higher level because you're taking issue with icons in match reports generally, I'm just speaking to a specific use. El Dubs (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Due to the limited discussion, I gave this over a month to see if there was significant opposition, I see this as two against one for the inclusion of icons, and will refer to this discussion if there are any disputes. El Dubs (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Considering this page gets hardly any views at all, I wouldn't take a limited RFC as any basis for actual consensus. – PeeJay 00:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

In terms of a consensus of Rugby Union users, I cannot see a reason why it is not perfectly acceptable, considering Rugby Union pages in general get few updates or users. I've never seen anything about limitations on what is required for a consensus on an RFC, so "I wouldn't" isn't really relevant. If you'd like to dispute it, by all means you're welcome to find a new and larger consensus. El Dubs (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, don't try to claim this as a ringing endorsement of your proposal. This discussion certainly doesn't supersede the actual usage of {{rugbybox}}, which (for the most part) doesn't incorporate the score icons. – PeeJay 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly not a ringing endorsement, though I don't think "ringing" is needed. There's no need to supersede {{rugbybox}} since it doesn't make a statement on them either way that requires superseding. You'll note that {{Match report}} uses both icons and {{rugbybox}} together. All I take from this is it would be reasonable to request that you don't remove further uses of icons on rugby union articles without finding further opposition to it. El Dubs (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn’t talking about your match report template, I was talking about not using this as an excuse to add icons to any use of {{rugbybox}} going forward. – PeeJay 11:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Since {{Match report}} uses {{rugbybox}}, that will be quite impossible. However I don't see a conflict there. I don't see that a template would restrict its usage in such a way, nor does anything about it suggest it restricts it. It's my view that at a higher level, I've got a mandate (however slight) to include icons. If people start taking issue with that, then there won't be an issue at all with removing them if the mandate changes. In fact it'd be one tiny edit. So with this albeit small mandate, I'm making a very easily reversible change if you find further people have an issue with it. El Dubs (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Extra time for rugbybox collapsible

Hi all, is there any chance we could get an extra time section added to the rugbybox collapsible template, as used in the standard rugbybox template. A number of club competitions are not playing extra time for their round robin matches such as Super Rugby and the Bunnings NPC. For example the match between Hawke's Bay and Bay of Plenty went to extra time, but as the collapsible template is used, there is no way of showing this. Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I have added the aet parameter to the rugbybox collapsible template, after testing via the sandbox. All this does (same as for the standard rugbybox template) is add a wikilink, i.e. ([[Overtime_(sports)#Rugby_union|a.e.t.]]), in brackets after the score. This could be added inline anyway but using the parameter is a bit easier. -- Ham105 (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Ham105, will add this to a couple of relevant matches. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:World Rugby Rankings Top 15

Template:World Rugby Rankings Top 15 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bob247 (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated England national rugby union team for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"tenu en but"

I found the expression "tenu en but" on a list of typo coreections in 1894–95 French Rugby Union Championship (and 1892 French Rugby Union Championship). Could a page watcher advise on what English translation could be added to the French expression? A description of the 1892 final suggests that "tenu en but" is related to the similarly obscure "maul in goal" mentioned in William Howard Campbell, but not in History of rugby union#Scoring. TSventon (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

The translation is sort of correct, basically at this time countries were allowed to use whatever rules they liked, so in these tournaments a converted try was worth three points, but a team could also score a point by crossing the try line but not placing the ball down (i.e. scoring a try). This would be a "tenu en but". In England it isn't possible to score without grounding the ball, and so if this had occurred in England it would have been a maul in goal, hence the translation. This helps explain it more (and probably better), It's the 4th question asked in the article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Rugbyfan22 I would like to add a parenthetical translation to the two French Rugby Union Championship articles, as I think "tenu en but" on its own is confusing. Would "held in goal" or "holding the ball in goal" make sense? I know very little about rugby (or French) so I don't want to add a more complex exploanation myself. TSventon (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally I feel that "tenu en but" should be left in the articles, perhaps with a note explaining what it is. Perhaps something along the lines of 'a tenu en but roughly translates to 'maul in goal', it was a scoring system using in France in the late 19th century where a point was scored when a player crossed the try line but did not ground the ball' or something along those lines. In modern times when an attacking player has crossed the try line but not grounded the ball we would say that a player has been 'held up' or 'held up in goal' if that helps. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Rugbyfan22, thank you, I have copied your explanation to the 1892 article with attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSventon (talk • contribs) 12:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Question about why there are so many Rut templates

Template editors: please see Template talk:Rut for a question about why there are so many Rut templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguated articles

A reminder that if you create a new article such as "player name (rugby union)", you'll usually need to do something else to lead readers to that page if they land elsewhere while looking for it. The something else will either be a hatnote on "player name" if there is just one article, or adding to a disambiguation page for "player name" if there are more than one similarly-titled articles. --Bcp67 (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Player categorisation

I'm looking at the articles on Ulster Rugby players, and it occurs to me that we could make the categories a bit more informative by only including current players in Category:(team name} players, and create Category:(team name) former players as a subcategory. I thought it better to float it here rather than just start creating the subcategories, to see if anybody would have any objection. Comments? --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I feel this is over categorisation. It's not done in any other sports, and if somebody wanted to find out current players they can just access the team page, or team squad template. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It would also require regular updating, as squads change so frequently, which often isn't regularly done for categories. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'm in the process of updating the squad profile links for the Ulster players as the team website has been revamped recently, and I'm finding some that still have links to the old Pro12 website, so some of them haven't been updated in five years! --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this will likely be the case for lots of players, unless there's a specific fan editor for a team, the pages usually don't get updated regularly, lots of the stats will be out of date. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for "former players" categories. – PeeJay 22:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS (and NRU) an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NRU] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Player notability

I'm working on articles for each of Ulster Rugby's seasons since the advent of professionalism in 1995, and I'm wondering about the criteria for player notability in the transition period. The notability guidelines (WP:RU/N) say a player is presumed notable if he has played or coached for a team in a notable, fully professional competition since 1995. The Heineken Cup counts. But what about the IRFU Interprovincial Championship? I've found an article in the Belfast Telegraph by Tyrone Howe on 13 January 1996 saying that "those who have participated in the four inter-provincials and the two Heineken European Cup matches are in line for match fees just short of £3,000 this season", so players were paid for interpros as well as Heineken Cup matches in the 1995-96 season. When provincial contracts were introduced in 1997, full-time contracted players got win bonuses for Heineken Cup and interprovincial matches, and players on a part-time retainer got match fees and win bonuses for both ("Seventy six players win IRFU contracts", Irish Independent, 17 July 1997). So I think there's a case to be made that the Interprovincial Championship was a professional competition between 1995-96 and the introduction of the Celtic League in 2001-2002, and players who competed in it during those years should be presumed notable and potentially be eligible for an article. Thoughts? --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally I find statistics for players who played in comps in the early to late 90s difficult to find, so would be against including them as notable leagues. Many of these players though will pass WP:GNG though due to coverage in local media. I imagine many Ulster players from that period will have been covered in depth by the Belfast Telegraph and other sources, so it's probably worth just keeping it as it is in my view. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been copying squads from the history of the Ulster Rugby article, but I think for the earliest years, rather than do that, I'll put in the team lineups for individual games, from the match reports. Ulster was still a representative team in the early years of professionalism and didn't have a squad as such. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Centralised Moana Pasifika discussion

Hi guys, thought I'd bring the discussion on different Moana Pasifika bits to one location in order to sort the couple of bits out that are being discussed. In terms of the flags for the non-capped/captured Pasifika eligible players I've reverted to NZ default for now and am waiting to see a draft of a possible solution from Ruggalicious that would show potential Pacific Islands these players are eligible for as stated in the signing press releases for the team. Then, in terms for the flag of the team itself I've changed to NZ to reflect their NZ ownership and the fact they're now going to be based full-time in NZ instead of the expected one year for COVID. I've left a note on the main Super Rugby page stating that they represent the Pacific Islands though to differentiate them from just being a 6th NZ team. Thanks for your input and views on both though guys @Skeene88:, @Ruggalicious:. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the players flags on the squad list they should simply follow the conventions established previously for all other players and teams. If they've represented a nation at any level then that flag is fine, but for players with no representation at any level it has to be place of birth as a default as otherwise how do we establish which nation to choose when often there are multiple countries for which a player is eligible? If there is reliable source on the player page of holding a passport for a different nationality that is obviously fine too.

Regarding what flag to use for the team I am pretty ambivalent, but raised it on the talk page of the appropriate article as I don't really see how from a neutral point of view we can claim they are any different to the other franchises located in New Zealand. There is definitely a political angle to that choice regardless of where we side, which is why I floated removing the flags from the table to lesson the issue. I agree that a NZ flag with a note is probably the best solution where flags can't be avoided.Skeene88 (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'm of the opinion that the flags in the table should be used as they aid the reader in this case. If the competition was just a national competition or had team names that were a location then I don't think flags would be required. But a non-rugby fan reader just seeing Blues, Reds, Brumbies, Drua etc I'm not sure would be able to work out the location of the team, especially now that the Australian/NZ conferences have been removed. In terms of the national flags I've been through the press releases and birth places that I can find and have edited to that now (There's 3 or 4 I can't find a birth place for). If the side (and the Drua) do become capturing teams (as put to World Rugby I believe) then this could possibly be revisited then, but I'm still interested to see what Ruggalicious comes up with. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Skeene88: and @Rugbyfan22:, Just as I was about to write a text for the Moana Pasifika page, I saw the news about the World Rugby Council approving an amendment to its eligibility rules that allows an international player to transfer once from one union to another (subject to demonstrating a close and credible link to that union via birthright)(see: https://www.world.rugby/news/672653/world-rugby-approves-birth-right-framework-for-players-to-transfer-unions). I've been trying to find a page that contains (centralised) information about international rugby union player eligibility, but apart from a brief section about the grandfather rule in rugby union, I have not been able to find any. I think it would be helpful, both for the Moana Pasifika page, the Moana Pasifika players' pages and the pages of many internationally capped players, if there is a discussion somewhere of international rugby union player eligibility that we could link to (where relevant). I would be happy to write it, but the question is, where? A new page devoted to this subject only (and relevant, related topics)? A section on the general Rugby union page? Or on the page with the list of international rugby union teams? Have I missed a page that already contains this info? I'd prefer to write this text first, before amending the Moana Pasifika and players' pages, but would like to hear from you where I can best do this. My preference would be a seperate page.

@Ruggalicious:, from what I can see there is no specific eligibility page for rugby union. Football has one at FIFA eligibility rules, although there are a couple of differences in football where being capped in a friendly fixture doesn't commit you to a nation, but there should be enough information for a separate article especially with historic information on players playing for multiple sides (Stephen Bachop for example and numerous other NZ Pacific islanders, as well as Argentine Italians etc), the Grannygate scandal, the Grandfather rule, information on which sides are official capped sides and what not, and then yesterdays change. Maybe the football page can be used as a guide as the layout at least could be similar to rugby, and some of the common nationality rules apply as well. Hope this helps as a start. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It has been a lot of work, but I've now published the page International rugby union eligibility rules. Should I just wait for comments on its talk page, or is it helpful if I make some initial comments on the talk page about, for example, the length, use of sources, and styling (and other) issues that I have encountered when writing the page?
I'll now shift my attention back to the Moana Pasifika (players) question above and get back to you soon. Ruggalicious (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Will have a look at this in detail over the weekend. It's good to have an article on it though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ruggalicious, Have had a good read through the article. Personally I feel the Current Eligibility Rules section is too long. It reads more as a specialist article from World Rugby (with the consistent mention of guidelines and regulations, which would likely put the reader off and be harder to understand for the reader), rather than an encyclopedic article for Wikipedia. The reference to specific guidelines should probably be removed, and the examples section could certainly be shortened on each of them. That could be a good starting point. Others may have differing views though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)