Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Player notability guidelines deleted

I don't know if you're aware, but WP:NSPORT has recently been absolutely gutted, to the point that in rugby union, apparently, only players who have played in the women's World Cup are to be considered notable. It seems to be the result of a campaign by a small group of users to remove all participation-based sports guidelines, but it's left the rugby union section a nonsense. The guidlines as they previously stood are still in place at this project's notability page, but given that they've been removed from the central sports notability page, I don't know how much help they'll be in defending articles proposed for deletion.

I think this project needs to think about writing a new set of guidlines that will give editors some useful guidance, but will satisfy the demands of these editors that only WP:GNG counts - some advice on how to apply GNG specifically to rugby players, what kind of sources are needed to establish notability and so on. Then, when we have something that'll stand up, it can be inserted into the general sports notability page so there's something actually useful there.

Any thoughts? --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it's a case of BilledMammal potentially trimming a little too much; based on the close of the RFC it sounds like rugby at the Olympics and Commonwealth Games still counts, as I would consider those to be in the except those based on olympic or similar participation category. I'm not overly sure why the women's RWC players are assumed to be more notable than the men's RWC players, so I would probably push to have players for either gender's semifinals teams.

Basically, I think there's some room for tweaking here, and I don't think we should immediately be crying foul. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Also a courtesy ping to RandomCanadian, who removed Sevens at the Olympics based on a consensus that I cannot find on the NSPORTS talk page. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not particularly hard? Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Rugby_union. That was the one single entry related to Olympics in there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Well that's dumb... I was searching the page for "sevens"! Primefac (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Olympics was removed based on this discussion. While you are correct that my removal of the Commonwealth games was probably in error, I won't restore it as I don't believe it will have a different outcome from the Olympic discussion. Instead, I've WP:BOLDly adjusted the criteria, putting the Rugby World Cup for both genders, the Olympics, and the Commonwealth Games on the same level of notability. Note that I've restricted it to post-1980; the only competition this affects is the Olympics, as coverage of the early games is mixed, and it is likely that many of the Olympic Rugby medallists from before that date are not notable (Rugby was played in the Olympics between 1900 and 1924). Is that acceptable?

If anyone objects, as either too inclusive or not inclusive enough, please revert and we can discuss further. BilledMammal (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Works for me, I know there will probably be dissent from the OP but I can respect the consensus from the massive RFC (having not participated in it anyway). I'm sure there will be room for more discussion, but at a minimum I think this is a good starting point. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I think Sevens participation should probably be rethought, even without this current campaign. In Ireland at least, Sevens is a game mainly played by young players, some of whom go on to have significant careers, but some don't. Jude Postlethwaite, for example, may one day be a notable rugby player, but he isn't yet, despite having played Sevens for Ireland. Sevens participation is about as useful as a predictor of notability as playing U20 international rugby. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Olympic/Commonwealth Games medallists should still be listed as notable (this is consistent with the revised WP:NOLYMPICS). And for men's rugby union, I guess setting it at semi finals or quarter finals of the RWC would be fine, as most of the 8 teams that reach the men's RWC later stages have players that will all meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Olympic and Commonwealth medallists are in the current revision, with the exception of participants in the earliest Olympic games who are likely to lack coverage. I've also set it as top three for the RWC, mainly for consistency, but if there is a strong preference for top four there I wouldn't object.

However, I believe moving it to top eight would need further discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I also think a discussion about which other competitions, periods, and levels of success are suggestive of notability might be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think playing international test rugby (Six/Five/Four Nations, Rugby Championship, World Cup, Lions tours) should be as close to being a guarantee of notability as makes no odds, in both the amateur and professional era. In the professional era, I would suggest playing more than one season in a professional club competition (eg Heineken Cup, Premiership, Celtic/Magners League/Pro12/14/URC, Top14, Currie Cup, Super Rugby) whould be a reasonable guideline. It would screen out players who get a development contract, make a couple of appearances from the bench, and then get released. But exceptions can be made where enoughindependent sources exist - Nathan Doak is in his first season as a professional, and has already made enough of an impression to get significant press coverage. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your club competition proposal, the RFC was pretty clear: There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria. Sorry. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A "rough consensus" of a self-selected group of editors is not sufficient for a global blanket prohibition. Each sport must be dealt with on its own merits. Besides, I'm not talking about criteria, but guidelines - a rough indicator of whether or not a player is likely to be notable enough for an article, not a guarantee that they are. My ideal guideline would then give editors pointers on the kind of sources that would be needed to demonstrate notability, and the kind of sources that would not do so. We should be trying to help editors comply with policy, not hand down unhelpful and inflexible edicts. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The current guidelines are:

[played for or coached] A national team that placed in the top three after 1980 at the Women's Rugby World Cup, the Rugby World Cup, the Olympic Games, or the Commonwealth Games.

This is, frankly, crap, and clearly written by someone who knows nothing about rugby. Is it seriously suggesting that someone who's got a medal for Sevens at the Commonwealth Games is more likely to be notable than someone who's played for the British and Irish Lions, or played in the Heineken Cup or Super Rugby? And it's every bit as "participation-based" as the guidelines that have been deleted. It's not defensible and needs replaced. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's the same for every sport now. Apparently people aren't notable for playing in national teams in the top competitions of a sport, yet they are notable if they participate in an event that gives medals. The logic baffles, there is no evidence that anyone playing international rugby in the Six/Five/Four Nations, Rugby Championship, World Cup, Lions tours is non-notable. But people decided to sledgehammer every sport's guidelines, and now there's no logical way to rectify them for any team sport (since any mention of teams keeps getting met with "but we can't have notability based on participation"). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm an experienced enough editor to be able to use my own judgement on what's notable and what isn't. But the biggest obstacle to new editors getting involved is over-territorial editors who think the purpose of rules is the enforcement of rules, and don't have the pateience to help, or just let them learn on the job. The coverage of rugby on Wikipedia is pretty poor, it needs improving and I don't want to have to do it all. All this will achieve is to scare new editors off and make experienced editors think there's no point. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

⇒ I don't understand what the problem was with the old guidelines, it seemed like a very small cabal of people who disliked that sports get covered and have more active editors compared to others. Rugby union desperately needs more active editors to expand articles they are motivated to edit on. More redlinking players where sources plainly exist but there aren't enough active editors to find them won't help the encyclopedia. The only change I'd have made was removing the Championship & the Premiership Cup but probably adding Major League Rugby as I can find stuff pretty easily when browsing for leisure on their players.Skeene88 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's becoming increasingly clear that, when they couldn't get their way over abolishing WP:NSPORT entirely, they would make such a mess of it that it's nonsensical and unusable. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe we were only notified of the village pump proposal at about proposal 5, where there was already enough comments and bickering that made it a total shitshow and not worthwhile a read. We've not really had any problems with NRU in the past (apart from what leagues should and shouldn't be included) and my opinion is to continue editing within those guidelines. There was no discussion within the project for removal of guidelines and we should have been consulted before they were done so here, and not just at the village pump. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right. One editor has just restored the deleted guidelines for cricket, and been immediately reverted, with the edit summary "cricket was not given an exception to the RFC". This is a power grab, plain and simple. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The cricket guidelines were updated by consensus last year, so everybody was happy with them less than six months ago. I'm not sure it's a power grab, it's more of a case of "I don't like it, so nobody should have it" with people with no interest in certain things being unhappy that certain sports have complete article lists and things like that. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Replacement criteria

I understand that the current replacement criteria are not optimal. As such, I would invite editors to propose criteria, although note that criteria that establishes notability for simple participation is likely to be rejected.

As an initial proposal: [played for or coached] a national team that, post 1980,

• Came in the top three in the RWC (men or women), Super Rugby, or European Rugby Champions Cup
• Won at the Olympics or Commonwealth Games

BilledMammal (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you believe that notability only occurs when an athlete wins a medal? Felixsv7 (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Success results in coverage. If you believe the guidelines should be more inclusive, such as including all teams that reached the quarter-finals or semi-finals, then please propose it and we can discuss, and look at the demonstrated notability of rugby figures. BilledMammal (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Felixsv7, Nicknack009, Primefac, RandomCanadian, Joseph2302, Skeene88, and Rugbyfan22: for contribution to the discussion, with the intent that we will focus on what the guidelines should be going forward, rather than focusing on the discussion that removed the previous ones. BilledMammal (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The big issue with your proposals is they are unsuited to the sport of rugby union. It's as if your knowledge of sport starts and ends with the Olympics, and things you can liken to the Olympics. But notable rugby players are ones who have careers in the game, not ones who win one-off competitions. We need to find a way to quantify that, and you will of course reject any solution that relates in any way to participation, so we're at an impasse. Your insistence on restricting it to post-1980 is also completely unjustified as there were many notable players before then.

Also, as I've pointed out before, the rugby played at the Olympics and Commonwealth Games is Sevens, which is not the mainstream form of the game, it's a cut-down version of the game mostly played by junior players. Selection for an international test team is a much better prediction of a notable player than having done well in a Sevens tournament in one's youth. A cap, as we call it, is more of an accolade than a medal in a minor tournament. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

1980 is just to exclude the earliest Olympics, as there are significant notability issues with those. None of the other listed events are affected, as Rugby in them didn't start until after 1980. When we add events that the date is relevant to, we will need to change that date. However, if you don't believe Rugby Sevens should be included at all I don't mind removing both the Olympics and Commonwealth Games entirely.

Do you have a proposal for cap based participation criteria? I can see the potential of restoring one based on participation in tier one teams, but I believe we need to consider the relevant period. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

In the pre-professional, pre-World Cup era, international caps are all we really have to indicate notability. Amateur club games are not well-documented, so little can be made of that, but I think anyone who has been capped in an international test match is likely to have had a significant club career, and anyone who has been capped across multiple years certainly has. There were also regional representative teams in several countries. In the professional era, the same applies for international caps, but there are also professional club competitions that are well-documented. The top competition in European club rugby is the Heineken Cup/European Rugby Champions Cup, and anyone who has appeared in that across multiple seasons is likely to have had a significant career in domestic professional league rugby. I'm not sure what criteria would be equivalent for southern hemisphere rugby.

I do think Sevens should be excluded from guidelines that indicate notability. Any player who does well at Sevens but doesn't go on to have a career in club or international rugby can't be considered notable. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue we are having is that we have different intents. I want the guideline to reflect the likelihood significant coverage exists; you want the guideline to state that participation itself indicates notability, separate from whether the participation was likely to have received significant coverage. Is this an accurate summary? BilledMammal (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think we disagree on that. My attitude is that the guidelines should give editors an idea of whether or not it's a reasonable idea to create an article. If a player, say, doesn't have international caps across multiple years, or Heineken Cup appearances across multiple years, the chances are good that they're not notable and you should think twice about creating an article. But if they do, the chances are good that they are notable, so press ahead and see what sources you can find. The aim is to prevent the creation of one-line articles that have no realistic chance of expansion. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I misunderstood In the pre-professional, pre-World Cup era, international caps are all we really have to indicate notability this line; I thought you were suggesting we also lacked significant coverage.

Could you give details of the guideline you would propose based on have international caps across multiple years, or Heineken Cup appearances across multiple years? BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

No, there is significant coverage of international rugby union in the pre-professional era, so sources should be findable.

I would suggest we start with a bit of preamble about the subjects of Wikipedia articles needing to have received significant coverage, linking to WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC, and stressing the following is a guideline only.

A rugby union person is likely to have received significant coverage if:

• they have played in international test competition in two or more calendar years
• they have played in an international professional club competition, for example the European Rugby Champions Cup (northern hemisphere) or Super Rugby (southern hemisphere) in two or more seasons

What do you think? It would need a bit of finessing, because the United Rugby Championship (and its predecessor competitions) is a domestic league-level competition but includes teams from multiple countries, and it might introduce a bias against English and French players as their domestic leagues contain more teams so it's harder to qualify for the Champions Cup than it is for Irish, Welsh or Scottish teams. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a good start, but it needs some modification. I believe that "international test competition" is too broad, and is likely to include minor teams that don't receive the same amount of attention that major teams receive, such as the Cook Islands national rugby union team. I also believe looking at a list of "international professional club competition" would be useful; is this list accurate? BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The current guidline for international competition specifies "high performance unions" (21 national teams, listed here) in any international competition, and any international side at the World Cup. It also specifies a list of fully professional club competitions (listed here). Ultimately I think these are reasonable guidelines, which a lot of thought has been put into, and I would be inclined to stick to them, but specifying appearances in multiple seasons being indicators that sources are likely to be available, rather than a single appearance being enough to presume notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I given this a lot of thought, and I think I can broadly agree, though I would like to propose some modifications, with the starting point being the pre-RFC guidelines. First, I would want to add the preamble you discuss above, making it clear that this is not a guarantee of notability, just a predictor of it, and then make the following changes:

1. Move the list of leagues from the Wikiproject into NSPORT and remove the Anglo-Welsh Cup (there is a lot of overlap with other leagues, and similar to the Rugby Sevens the players there tend to be younger and less notable). I also want to discuss whether the French and British second tier leagues have the same level of notability, though I am leaning towards them having that notability.
2. Require at least two full seasons in a tier one "High performance unions"; non-tier one "High performance unions" I believe should require at least three - I note that for countries like Namibia, we don't currently have articles on every player, which suggests notability may be patchy? I also want to discuss when this should apply from, as "High performance unions" go back to 1888 according to that list, and that far back notability is very patchy for other sports, and I believe it will be the same for Union.
3. As the Rugby World Cup's occur four years apart, I don't believe the "season" guideline is appropriate. Instead, I would like to propose a success based criteria - would the quarter finals be suitable? I would also prefer to have the same criteria for both the men's World Cup and the women's.
4. In line with your comments about the Rugby Sevens, I would like to reduce that to a success based criteria; perhaps notability based on playing in a team that wins any of the Rugby World Cup Sevens, the World Rugby Sevens Series, the Commonwealth Games, or the post-1980 Olympics? I don't mind adjusting this, in either direction.

What are your thoughts on this? BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we have a basis to work on here. Regarding the World Cup, you're right that "multiple seasons" doesn't work. For the men's World Cup, I'd be inclined to treat World Cup appearances for High Performance nations as no different from regular test caps, but perhaps add a bit more weight to appearances by players from lower ranked nations in an effort to counteract bias towards the big nations, and appearances at the women's World Cup to counteract the bias towards the men's game.

For professional club competition, these could perhaps be ranked, with a higher threshold for appearances in lower-ranked tournaments? I'd certainly be open to removing the Anglo-Welsh Cup, as it's defunct and does appear to have been a junior competition. There have been other competitions, like the Celtic Cup and the Cara Cup, that were entered by professional club's "A" teams, and this seems similar to those, at least in its later years. But the article says it was the premier competition for English clubs before 1987, and if there's any good documentation of it in those days it might offer a useful source for reliable information about notable players and teams in the pre-professional era.

On Sevens, I'm not sure. I'm speaking mainly from an Irish point of view, and certainly in Ireland, success in Sevens is not a reliable indication of notability. Other countries might take it more seriously. More opinions needed on that one.--Nicknack009 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

For the Men's World Cup, that seems reasonable; perhaps for High Performance nations, no different from regular test caps, for other nations presume notability for quarter-finalists? I suspect that a non-High Performance nation getting into the cup would result in more coverage than normal, particularly if they do well.

For the professional club competition, that seems reasonable. I will look at who played in the cup between 1971 and 1987 and see if such participation is a reasonable predictor of notability for players who played multiple seasons.

For sevens, I think we should leave that discussion for the moment; hopefully an editor with more knowledge outside of Ireland will be able to contribute. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The preeminent competition in sevens would be World Rugby Sevens Series. Perhaps multiple seasons participating in it would qualify? Felixsv7 (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I genuinely don't want to derail the thread above, as it is a productive one, but I think someone mentioned the salient point (which was also the reason why NSPORT was "gutted") that the SNGs are not guarantees of notability, just indicate a "high likelihood" of notability, and the concern prompting the RFC was that these SNGs were turning AFDs into a farce because "NSPORT says they're notable!" In re-reading Prop. 3, I note they were primarily interested in removing the "has played a game..." qualifier, so if we're tightening our guidelines into talking about "multiple seasons" or "international competitions" then I believe it will likely be able to be added back in. In other words, we can have our NSPORT section but it can't just be a cookie-cutter copy of every other sport on the page. Primefac (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - a blanket approach to all sports is to be avoided, case by case consideration will produce better guidelines. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't see any point in "multiple seasons" that's just 1 game argument taken to the whole other extreme. Players are notable, as in have articles written about them or feature prominently in articles, generally very soon after debut at Premiership level & I'd assume URC too. In French language sources guys are notable in the 2nd tier & even third tier of their domestic league. I'm not sure if there is a bot that lists articles created but I've done a lot of both modern young pros and older "famous at their time" players. I think 5 games is a reasonable starting point for a compromise, certainly by 10 appearances in a first team I honestly cannot remember NOT being able to find articles on players, for older players any international is dead easy to find news on in the British Newspaper archive, anyone at a prominent club is even easier if you can get a copy of the various books about Leicester/Gloucester/Bath/Quins etc. The far bigger task is filling out the stubs and improving the important articles (read Danny Care, Ben Youngs or Ian McGeechan) than switching from guidelines that were a bit loose. As I understand it NSPORTS is basically an overide that allows stubs to stay as articles rather than be moved to a draft space/deleted.Skeene88 (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Re. internationals: I'm more familiar with cricket (and not very much with rugby, under any form); but is there some evidence here on wiki that could be used to support possibly such a criteria? I proposed "Have played games at the international level for a Test-playing nation" [which includes only a few limited teams] for cricket as a minimum-but-very-safe criteria (and that is something that can be rather easily defended, given the presence of very detailed records about those, ex. List of West Indies Test cricketers). I don't know if there's an equivalent here? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The equivalent to test-playing nations would be the "high performance unions", which I've linked elsewhere in this discussion. The biggest and oldest of those would be England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (plus the British and Irish Lions, a composite team that gets together for a tour every four years) in the northern hemisphere, and Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in the southern hemisphere. The other high performance unions have only reached that status in more recent decades. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

For before the Rugby World Cup era you could use criteria of being a member of the Five Nations or International Rugby Board. They didn't actually expand that past the main 8 nations until past the first Rugby World Cup.

What would be easier is if people added to the discussion the articles they don't think should exist, then some of us can attempt to demonstrate how sources do exist to pass general notability for them. Skeene88 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Two Roger Wilsons

Tangential to the current discussion around notability guidelines, I'm currently constructing an outline history of Ulster Rugby in the professional era by making an article for each season they've played, on the model of what's already been done for Munster, and partially done for Leinster and Connacht, and discovered that Ulster have had two number eights called Roger Wilson. The better-known one has an article at Roger Wilson (rugby union). He first played for Ulster in 2003, moved to Northampton in 2008, back to Ulster in 2012, and retired in 2017. He's certainly notable, and the article has enough sources to demonstrate that.

But there was another Roger Wilson who played intermittently for Ulster in 1995-96 and 1997-98, including in the Heineken Cup. He's clearly not the same guy - the Roger Wilson we already have was born in 1981, so would have been 14 in 1995. A bit of preliminary searching on the Irish Newspaper Archive brings up references to him playing club rugby for Instonians, being selected for Ireland U21 in 1992, and going on a non-test tour of Australia with Ireland in 1994. He played the same position for the same province and country as his better-known namesake, and I think the best way of avoiding confusion would probably be to write him an article and add hatnotes distinguishing them. If I can find enough reliably sourced information on him, that's what I intend to do. I'm explaining my reasoning here in case anyone involved in the notability discussion thinks I'm trying to undermine that. Thanks. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Before doing that, I've updated the existing Roger Wilson article with a few more refs. It hadn't been updated to report his retirement in 2017, or his subsequent coaching ventures. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're to create an article on the other Roger Wilson, Roger Wilson (rugby union) should be moved to Roger Wilson (rugby union, born 1981) and the new Roger Wilson should be Roger Wilson (rugby union, born 19xx). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The other option, of course, if the other Wilson doesn't end up being notable, is to add a hatnote anyway explaining that "this isn't the Roger Wilson you're looking for". Primefac (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Will do. I haven't had as much time to contribute to the notability discussions as I thought I would, but I think the team/season approach is probably more informative than lots of articles about individual players anyway. If the other Roger isn't individually notable and doesn't get an article, it's recorded, and sourced, that he played for Ulster in the particular seasons he did, which is all that's recorded in the kind of articles the notability RfC people object to. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Small world. Turns out my dad knows him. He's now a consultant orthopedic surgeon. When rugby went pro, he decided to pursue his medical career rather than professional sports. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

T. J. Anderson proposed deletion

I have removed the proposed deletion from T. J. Anderson (rugby union) after expanding the article and adding references. It now more than satisfies the old standard of participation in a fully professional competition, and the new standard I suggested of participation across multiple seasons, but he's a journeyman pro at best and whether that's enough to satisfy the RfCers remains to be seen. If it goes to AfD that'll give us some indication of where they're thinking the line should be drawn. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:World Club Championship rugby union#Requested move 3 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:World Club Championship rugby union#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 07:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Current Leinster players at AfD

Hi all, There's currently a couple of current Leinster players at AfD in Martin Moloney and Brian Deeny. I've had a look myself and haven't been able to find much GNG coverage so have suggested redirect, but knowing we have some Leinster rugby editors in @LeinsterLad:, @Mrgoggins90: and @Neiliog93: they might be able to find some GNG sourcing. @MunsterFan2011: and @Nicknack009: I appreciate this is not your side but you may have access to Irish sources behind a paywall so if you could have a search as well that would be great. At the moment I'm happy with redirect but don't want to have them redirect if I'm missing sourcing. Thanks all. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

They're both still academy players, so it was probably premature to create articles for them, especially in the current atmosphere. They may become notable in seasons to come, but I don't think they can be said to be yet. But I'll see what I can find, to at least keep the deletion discussion honest. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ulster Rugby current squad

Just to let you all know, I have expanded and refed-up the articles for every player in the current Ulster Rugby squad. The way things are going, I expect a few of them to get nominated for deletion. If they are, there should be enough there to enable an informed discussion at least.

I've redirected two, Azur Allison and Jude Postlethwaite, to the academy squad section on the Ulster Rugby article. Allison is an academy player who made one senior appearance two years ago, and would have passed the old guidelines but not the new ones. Postlethwaite is an academy player who doesn't have a single senior appearance to his name, so he wouldn't have passed the old ones. He'll be a senior player next season, so if he becomes notable the redirect can be converted back into an article. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Honestly from simple searches I think there might be enough for GNG passes on both of these, so have reverted while I look to expand. Postlethwaite passed old guidelines for his Irish Sevens appearances. Just because they're academy players doesn't mean coverage won't exist on them. If I can't find enough I'll revert back to redirects. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As I thought, there's lots of coverage on Postlethwaite, given he's a young talent, Ireland U20s successes and from playing Sevens, so quite a comfortable GNG pass for him. On Allison there's less coverage, I've found a couple of bits but still intent to work a bit more on him in the future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Andrea Marcato

Hello, I've added his 2nd Italian championship as head coach here. Would someone review my English? --Blackcat 22:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Listing of caps for allegiance change players

Hi guys, following debate with MunsterFan2011 on Malakai Fekitoa, should a player who was previously capped by a national team, but then switched allegiance and yet to gain caps with their new nation, be bolded as an international player, or just left as unbolded. Fekitoa obviously has caps for NZ and so when he was under NZ allegiance he would be bolded, but now having switched to Tonga he has yet to be capped. My opinion is that he should be left unbolded as he hasn't been capped for Tonga yet, his new nation, but MunsterFan2011 has the opposite opinion. I've not seen any precedent for a situation like this before, so can we get some sort of clarification of WikiProject guide for the topic. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rugbyfan22, just to explain my thinking, Fekitoa won 24 caps for New Zealand's national team between 2014 and 2017 and won the 2015 Rugby World Cup, meaning he has legitimate international caps for a recognised international team. The player subsequently switched international allegiance to his native Tonga in 2021, though I appreciate he hasn't been capped by their 15s team at present, but I don't see how this means he is no longer an internationally-capped player; his change in allegiance doesn't 'remove' his previous international caps, it just means he no longer represents the particular team he won those international caps with (in my opinion). MunsterFan2011 (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Leave it until he plays for the new country. In case he doesn't play, you can just say he was called up to Tonga in the body. Otherwise leave him bolded for NZ until he plays for Tonga then bold him for that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The C of E, my issue with this is that he's already committed to Tonga and represented them in 7s, which caps him now to Tonga (he can't switch again), he can't go back to playing for NZ and can only play for Tonga from now on, so I don't think this is the best solution. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

MunsterFan2011 Obviously those international caps are correct, and the notes on bolding on the squad boxes states they're for internationally capped players, which Fekitoa is. However, I don't like how he's listed as capped and Tongan. I've added a note for now as you've probably seen, but it would be good to get a WikiProject policy as I think this is a situation that will continue to arise in the next few years. I imagine Fekitoa will win a Tongan cap this summer anyway, but there's already a couple of other examples such as Gheorghe Gajion which will need sorting. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, the way I see it, there are two inescapable fact here. Firstly, Fekitoa is an internationall-capped player by virtue of his NZ caps. The criteria for changing the text to bold has clearly been met. Secondly, the player has switched international allegiance back to his native Tonga and, as Rugbyfan22 has pointed out, will not be able to change it again, therefore it is accurate to state that Fekitoa is Tongan and add Tonga's flag against his name. He may or may not go on to be capped by Tonga's 15s team, but even if he isn't, the two aforementioned facts still stand. He is Tongan, and he is internationally-capped. I appreciate it is unusual given that this development in rugby union is quite recent, but to label Fekitoa as New Zealand would be inaccurate, and to classify him as not internationally-capped would also be inaccurate. MunsterFan2011 (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the bolding? It is to indicate players with senior international experience. It is confusing that Fekitoa would show up in bold despite not having played for his new nation yet, but he is an international player and should be indicated as such, IMO. – PeeJay 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

PeeJay, The bolding indicates a player who's played internationally for their full XV national side. Players who are capped at 7s or for A/XV 15-a side teams aren't bolded. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Has Fekitoa not played internationally for a full XV national side? – PeeJay 13:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Fekitoa has played internationally for New Zealand's XV national side, but has officially changed allegiance to Tonga having played for them in the Olympic 7s qualification tournament, meaning he is tied to Tonga. As of now he has yet to play for Tonga's full XV national side. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've already addressed this. The bolding indicates players with senior international experience, which Fekitoa has. It doesn't matter that it's not for the nation that he's currently affiliated to. – PeeJay 13:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Should the flagged nation not reflect the international caps though, this is my issue, as it currently reads as if he's internationally capped for Tonga. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That's why I said I realise it's confusing, but not bolding him makes it seem like he has no international experience, which he does. – PeeJay 14:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Alessandro Garbisi

Hello, yesterday Garbisi jr. won his 1st cap for Italy. I added some info. Would someone please review my English? Thanks in advance, -- Blackcat 21:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Jake Thiel

This might be a deletion discussion of interest to the members of this project. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

David Humphreys and London Irish

I'm working on a draft rewrite of the article on David Humphreys. I think I've got most of it accurate and appropriately sourced, but I don't have any good sources for his seasons at London Irish in the early years of professionalism. Does anyone know any I could use? --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to find stuff on English rugby from that period outside specialist books, e.g. histories of clubs or biographies. You could try the British Newspaper Archive? That often has good stuff up to around 2000, and is generally a treasure trove for rugby as the papers covered the sport well but it doesn't really get put up online anywhere else regularly.Skeene88 (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Barassi Line

Howdy. Some more input may be required at the Barassi Line page. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Remaining redlink at World Rugby Hall of Fame

Hello. I was wondering if anyone would like to write the article for Dick Littlejohn/Richard Littejohn, the only redlink inductee at World Rugby Hall of Fame. He was a manager for the All Blacks in New Zealand. His induction page is here. It would be nice to see all of the inductees have an article :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sergio Parisse

Hello all, just to warn you that the actual middle name of Sergio Parisse is Francesco, not Matteo. Here the source (from the Italian rugby federation, page 11). Regards. -- Blackcat 19:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

So... fix it? Primefac (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Primefac I wanted to leave to some of you the honour of doing that, but if there's not problem I am going to fix it myself :D -- Blackcat 13:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. You don't need to ask permission to make a clearly uncontroversial edit. – PeeJay 11:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Biography template spitball

Okay, so I'm thinking of proposing something potentially wildly controversial, but I am doing it from a position of improving the Encyclopedia, so hear me out... I think we should remove points-tracking from {{Infobox rugby biography}}.

There are a few reasons for this. First, is that it is not entirely without precedent: {{Infobox ice hockey biography}} and a few other sports IBs do this (I mention ice hockey because they explicitly rejected the option of including points). Second, it is rare for the points to be both sourced AND accurate, if they're even presented at all. It seems like anyone playing prior to about 2010 (this is just a rough anecdotal number, don't skewer me over it) doesn't have points scored even recorded, meaning that a lot of the late-20th-century players just end up with a bunch of empty values. Meanwhile, the newer players are either out-of-date or simply inaccurate because of a lack of statistics.

I'm throwing this out there not as a hill I will die on, but mostly to gauge how necessary our Project sees these values. Do they contribute meaningful information to the page? Can they be maintained in a better manner? Is the template not broke, so I should just stop trying to fix it? Thoughts and opinions welcomed. Primefac (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

An interesting viewpoint. Since ESPN stopped recording international statistics, certainly test related stats have become difficult to find, as the go to for current player statistics, itsrugby, has become increasingly inaccurate recently in not just points, but appearances also. There's also the debate of what fixtures should be included in the statistics, with cup appearances and XV appearances sometimes being included when they should not do so, and appearances in non-recorded matches (Ranfurly Shield matches for NZ sides for example) being added by team specific editors. I wouldn't be against removing appearances from the infobox either (for club sides, I think caps and points internationally should be retained) due to lack of editors willing to update them and the accuracy issues, but I'm not sure other editors would agree. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Totally disagree, there is a lack of motivated editors due to the sport not being terribly popular but the statistics are easy to maintain. I've seen some minor errors on itsrugby but nothing major and is usually corrected quickly. All.rugby is another good statistics site. Seems to me that we should be encouraging new editors to maintain what is a core statistic and, from previous use myself and anecdotal evidence, one of the main things people look up a Wikipedia profile for rather than discouraging the few editors who actually at least try and maintain the articles. RE:which games to include there has never been a consensus to say only league games which Rugbyfan22 implies, rather the consensus was always that all first XV games counted which is why they are always included. League games only is a consensus from WP:soccer not this project and rarely how any rugby union database presents its statistics, certainly no printed lists have that distinction in contrast to soccer ones where it is common to find it.

On sourcing there is no parameter for adding a source in the template unlike other sports. That would be a welcome addition to include.Skeene88 (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Splitting Anglo-Welsh cup

I outline my reasoning in Talk:Anglo-Welsh Cup#Proposed Split:

It doesn't seem right to have the history of the English Cup be exclusively under the title of the Anglo-Welsh cup. I propose that a new article, called either its original name of RFU Club Competition or its final name of Powergen Cup, should cover the tournament up to the introduction of Welsh teams in 2005.

The tournament may have been a continuation from the perspective that it was organised by the RFU and sponsored by Powergen, but otherwise, the formats were completely different:

• Earlier tournaments were contested by English clubs only, making the current title inaccurate for a large portion of the article.
• It followed a similar format to the FA Cup in association football and Challenge Cup in rugby league, a knockout cup where any club could apply and qualify for, with more * established sides entering at a later stage. The later tournaments would use various pool formats and were exclusive to the top sides in each respective country.
• Later years reduced the importance of the cup, with it becoming a development tournament during international weekends.
• The current Premiership Rugby Cup is already a separate article.

The current article can still have a brief section on the history of the cup pre 2005-06, with the new article listed as further reading.

— RatzaChewy (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This was a debate way back in 2009 and nothing was done about it. If you scroll up the page to Talk:Anglo-Welsh Cup#merging of the anglo-welsh cup with the English knock-out cup is original research, you will see that a user made almost exactly the same points back then.

I think there is real confused here about all the competitions and how they fit together. For a start, the Anglo-Welsh Cup is NOT the successor tournament to the old RFU Knockout cup. It is a separate tournament - in which only the English Premiership clubs can compete, where as the old RFU cup was open to all clubs. This leads nicely to the RFU Trophey which is a separate competition but run on lines similar to the old RFU cup. Lastly, there are two Anglo Welsh cups. In the mid 1990's - teams competed in a competition that to the best of knowledge was never completed. It was separate to the current A-W cup but it is worthy of an entry.

Based on their suggestion, it might be worth adding more background to the tournament too. Welsh teams attempted to break away from the WRU in the late 90s (most notably, Swansea RFC played a season in St Helens and beat then-Premiership champions Newcastle Falcons in a friendly). RatzaChewy (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Go for it. Fully agree with the logic and argument.Skeene88 (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Just commenting/noting that this discussion should probably be hatted (or stopped) and further discussion take place at the article talk page, primarily to avoid decentralised and/or split discussions. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Assistant referees / touch judges

In the articles about the pool stages of the 2021 Rugby World Cup e.g. 2021 Rugby World Cup Pool B, the description assistant referees is used in some matches and touch judges in others. Is there a particular reason why different descriptions are used - something to with how qualified the officials are? Bcp67 (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The official RWC site uses assistant referee, so without knowing why any other term is used I would support changing all uses to that (willing to be convinced otherwise if there are good reasons). Primefac (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Important RM discussion

There's currently a discussion at Talk:World cup of rugby#Requested move 10 November 2022 proposing that Rugby World Cup be moved to Rugby World Cup (men's rugby union). Thought the project ought to be informed. – PeeJay 21:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Very important all and any lurkers comment on this linked thread.Skeene88 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NRU and WP:NSPORTS

I see that rugby union (and rugby league) have been removed from the further updated WP:NSPORTS due to them being solely appearance based and 'not being backed up by evidence'. While I feel that WP:NRU is still suitable and an ok baseline for local policy, maybe we should come up with a more simplified policy to be implemented on WP:NSPORTS. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure it's worth the effort. There is small cabal of highly motivated editors who will not accept anything, and aren't prepared to compromise. One of them recently attempted to delete several Real Madrid seasons, and got topic banned for it, but it doesn't seem to have discouraged his compadres. They dried to get NSPORTS deleted, failed, and have retaliated by making it unusable. I think all we can do is write off NSPORTS, and make sure we source our articles as well as we can. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Charles Gunner

Hello. Just expanded this article on a one-cap England international (and first-class cricketer) and wondered if anyone could find out anything more about his rugby, such as which club he played for. Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

When he won his England cap he was playing for Marlborough Nomads according to this. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:wrcode

I was just about to add the line-up graphics to the 2021 Rugby World Cup knockout stage article, when I noticed this template ({{wrcode}}) is used on every match. It seems like it's only used on women's rugby union articles, but the content is all totally unsourced, and the actual meaning behind the numbers is hidden in a tooltip, which violates a whole heap of WP accessibility guidelines. To me, this feels like another way to smuggle in stats, and I think the template should be deleted. Any thoughts before I start the TfD? – PeeJay 23:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better (and more courteous than plain deleting) to first give the editor, who included the code, a chance to add a source for the stats and (maybe) include the stats in a note instead? That's assuming they have a talk page where you can leave a comment. Ruggalicious (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Things like that are why this discussion is happening. Personally, I don't think the content of the template is worth keeping. If the info is available elsewhere, it should be sourced at the very least, but I would maintain that the existence of this info on other sites would mean that deleting it from here would mean nothing of value would be lost. – PeeJay 11:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I think before we even debate about sourcing and accuracy, we should ask whether we need it; I feel like this is stats for stats' sake. Looking randomly at a France v. Italy match, it gives [261/170/27]. Is this useful information? Knowing France has played 260 matches before this doesn't say much, and knowing these teams have played each other 27 times previously doesn't really give much info; if it were "played 27 times with France winning 20 matches" would be more helpful (I think American football teams sometimes have this stat?). Primefac (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's not useful information. I follow the NFL, and you definitely wouldn't expect to find info like this in a basic report on the game. This template should definitely go. – PeeJay 19:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all the above, this looks like information which doesn't exist anywhere else, possibly OR, and is of no value. I've added a delete to the template discussion and I would say these stats should come out of all the various articles they are found in.--Bcp67 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

2021 Women's Rugby League World Cup squads

Hello, I noticed that the said article is erroneously categorized in 2021 rugby union tours and 2022 rugby union tours; I'd have fixed it myself but I noticed that's an automatic categorization by some template, so I'd prefer to report it here. -- Blackcat 09:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I just deleted the infobox. It wasn't necessary anyway. – PeeJay 11:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The template is behaving exactly as it should, and it's a bit of an editorial decision (one which even as I type this out I note that PeeJay has already made by removing the infobox). To summarise what was happening, though, |yearstart=2021 and |yearfinish=2022; the template then places the page into both categories. Since the squads technically didn't get formed and start playing until 2022, |yearstart= should have just been 2022. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It's also the wrong sport. – PeeJay 11:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hah! So it is. I was just dealing with the Rugby (union) World Cup section above, and I totally missed that this section was about League. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: yes, but my concern was that the World Cup was of rugby league and the template deals with rugby union :) -- Blackcat 18:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wrugbybox

Template:Wrugbybox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Template for sports articles lacking sources containing significant coverage

The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Two points. First, the RfC was limited to sports biographies, not "all sports articles." Second, the template has been nominated for deletion. See TfD discussion here. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the TfD before rolling this template out. Cbl62 (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

When team lists and jersey numbers differ

Question relating to the team details (squad lists) in the 2022 end-of-year rugby union internationals article and similar articles. If players are listed, for example, number 21 and 22 on a team list posted by a national union on social media (6:2 split on the bench), but on the field they have swapped jerseys and the loose forward is wearing the 22 jersey and the halfback 21, how do we list the players under "team detals"? Do we follow the list as published or do we list players according to their jersey numbers? I'm sorry if this has been discussed before; I've tried finding an answer. Ruggalicious (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I would go with what they did on the day, since that is reality. Being scheduled for something doesn't mean that's how it shakes out. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

100% lists should reflect what happened in reality.Skeene88 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree, but don’t forget to add a source for the change. – PeeJay 19:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That source would be me, as I saw it with my own eyes. Even the commentators missed it, presumably because they didn't know the players. If necessary, I could mention it in the notes under the team details. Most of those notes are unreferenced anyway. Ruggalicious (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You are not a reliable, published source. Per Wikipedia guidelines, your observations are not sufficient to serve as citation for a claim. – PeeJay 23:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I know that, but the lists have to reflect reality, don't they? By the way, there are two versions of the team list. One with (the wrong) jersey numbers published by the opponent union and one without jersey numbers for the reserves from the team's own national union. Ruggalicious (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

You might need to look a bit harder for a source that confirms the players switched numbers then. If not, I would say we have to go with the original info. – PeeJay 09:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't assume I haven't done that already. I'm using the list used by the players' national union. I'm now turning my attention to this weekend's games. Ruggalicious (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't assume any level of research on your part, I just said if you haven't found a source yet, you need to look harder. If you don't want to do that, that's up to you. – PeeJay 10:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Team lists should reflect what is published by reliable sources, reflecting the situation at the start of the match. If something later changes, and a reliable source reports it, then it could be included. If no reliable source reports it, then it is original research and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. // Hippo43 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

British & Irish Lions biography subsection

British & Irish Lions career
Player number	783
Tours	2013, 2017, 2021
Debut	Barbarian F.C.
Career tests	2

I noticed that a player number for the British & Irish Lions was recently recommended in the talk page, similar to the All Blacks player number that is already present. As it is a special honour and accomplishment for the selected players, I thought this would be a great place to discuss whether this is a good idea as I believe it is. Additionally, I was unsure if a subsection similar to the one I placed to your right could be added. Please share your opinions with me regarding whether or not this is a possibility. Kidsoljah (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

If anything, I would suggest getting rid of the All Black number. Something that only applies to one team shouldn't really be included in an infobox intended for all players. – PeeJay 17:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Five years ago I would have disagreed with you, but I think I have changed my opinion. There are only a few international squads that have "official numbers" such as the All Blacks, whereas most others such as Scotland don't (see Hogg's profile on their official page). It should be an all-or-none situation, and given the general lack of use I am weakly thinking "none". Primefac (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The Lions have a list of players numbers here along with each of the players individual profiles. Similar to the All Blacks. Nonetheless, what I’m hearing is the consensus is a no? Kidsoljah (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

At the moment it's leaning that way. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion has only been open for two hours, let's give it some time. – PeeJay 20:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

That is true, and until the comment below there were only two of us. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why there would be a need to remove the All Black player number, only because other countries don't have player numbers. Does that number in the infobox bother anyone? Just leave the field open or remove it for other players. I'd rather include the B&I Lions player number (although not in the format suggested by Kidsoljah). Ruggalicious (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the argument is more asking why we don't have all country numbers for those countries that do so. Why are All Black numbers more important or relevant than the Lions numbers? There are multiple discussion in the template archive about this, and most of them ask the question but never get an answer, but others say "we should only have the All Black number". Primefac (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't gone through all possible discussions in the archive about this (only the first page) and I don't see it as a question of All Black numbers being more important or relevant than Lions numbers. Isn't it more that All Black numbers link to player profiles on the All Blacks' website, which aren't available for players from other countries (or the B&I Lions)? Anyway, if player numbers are availabe for players of other countries/Lions, I don't see why they can't be added, if anyone is willing to do it. I can't see any reason why All Black numbers should be removed. Ruggalicious (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the relevance of an All Black number? Is it just the order in which players made their debuts for the All Blacks? Is that even explained in the infobox, or by a link? Even if it is, is it really important enough to mention in the infobox? – PeeJay 23:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It's basically the "official website" for the player in question w.r.t. the All Blacks website. As Ruggalicious says, they're about the only ones who link to an ID rather than to the name, though; the Lions give the number but the URL is name-based. So to come at this from a template-coding perspective, giving |allblackid=1097 will allow the URL to directly link to Zac Guildford's stats page, but some form of |lionsid=783 would require a second parameter so that Hogg's URL would end in ....stuart-hogg. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about the All Black number, not the allblackid infobox parameter? If that's all it is, why are we providing links to players' profiles on the All Blacks' website in the infobox? I get that the ABs are the highest-profile team in international rugby, but every team has an official website these days, so why should the ABs get preferential treatment? We shouldn't be putting external links in the infobox, especially not ones that only apply to one team. – PeeJay 12:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's what the |allblackid= does...

I did not make this template, but if I had to guess that is why it's done the way; it's an easy way to link to a URL while also giving useful information. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I know you didn't make it. I'm just posing questions to the room, not to you specifically. Nevertheless, how useful is this information really? What difference does it make what number an All Black has? (Again, to the room, not just to Primefac!) – PeeJay 14:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I know, I'm just saying that I wish I did know the reason why - it's like writing a program and then not including comments in the code so that someone else can debug it! Primefac (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any need to add this. Just adds more clutter to the infobox and at this stage now would just involve editing literally a thousand pages or so to add it in. Would the debuts be tour games or just internationals? You get a "lions number" for tour games, but we only count the international caps in the game count.Skeene88 (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

So can we remove the All Black number from the infobox? – PeeJay 11:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

What counts as an international?

I'm getting so sick of having to go through the end-of-year internationals articles and removing matches that don't involve either two full international sides or an international side against a representative team (e.g. Barbarians/French Barbarians). Why are we including matches involving club sides in the first place? They're obviously of lesser importance than the actual international matches. – PeeJay 19:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

To add, my usual yardstick for this is the World Rugby fixtures and results page, ignoring any matches that are part of organised competitions that have their own articles. – PeeJay 19:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in that link provides any info on what an "actual international match" is nor does at any point imply that it's a comprehensive list of matches that fulfill that criteria.

Let's shed some light with WR Regulations actual definitions:

• International Match means any match played between National Representative Teams selected by Unions whether at 15-a-side or an abbreviated version of the Game.
• National Representative Team means a team selected by a Union to represent that Union.
• National Squad means the group of Players (of any number) selected by a Union from time to time from which Players may be nominated to represent that Union’s two senior National Representative Teams.

These three definitions together imply that matches involving either of the two main national teams of any national union are in fact International Matches. If we follow the logic of only including "proper" "actual" International Matches in the article, then matches featuring second national teams should be included.

However, this is just the case if we decide to follow the logic of only including International Matches in the article. This seems pretty arbitrary considering the article itself is titled 2022 end-of-year rugby union internationals and not "end-of-year rugby union international matches". If we go back to WR Regulations, we can see that in 9.7.(i) Global Release Period; (b) The November Window:

• The Right to Release for Matches shall apply to each of the senior National Representative Team, the next senior National Representative Team and the Under 20 National Representative Team of a Union in respect of all International Matches, International Tours and International Tournaments played over a period of three weekends in November each year, save in a Rugby World Cup year, during which year the November window shall not operate in respect of Unions that qualified for the Rugby World Cup. Unless Council approves otherwise the three weekends in November shall be the first, second and third weekends.

And now if we go back to Regulation 1 and look up the definitions of these new terms we find the following:

• International Tournament means a tournament in which teams representing Unions at any level meet to participate in a Series of Matches whether at 15-a-side or an abbreviated version of the Game.
• International Tour means a Match or Series of Matches in which a team representing a Union at any level participates against a National Representative Team and/or other Rugby Bodies or Clubs in the jurisdiction of another Union.
• Rugby Body means a provincial union, district, state, group of Clubs, Tournament Organiser, or similar organisations, recognised by and/or affiliated directly or indirectly to a Union.

This means that WR openly contemplates matches between national sides and provincial/clubs sides as part of the November international window and those matches should therefore be included in an article that addresses said event.

Does this mean matches involving clubs or provincial sides should be included in the 2022 end-of-year rugby union internationals article? I don't know, I'm just trying to shed some light with some actual WR definitions. Maybe there should be two articles that differentiate international matches from the November window? Maybe they deserve different sections in a single article? Maybe they just deserve to be mentioned but not actually listed? I genuinely don't know, but whatever you people decide to do, do it with these actual official definitions in mind instead of using arbitrary criteria like "obviously less important", "proper international matches", "people in the future won't care", etc. CSMeille (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally feel that the only matches that should be included are those listed on the fixtures and results of the World Rugby page. International sides will play other matches obviously, but really if World Rugby aren't including them, then we shouldn't really include them anyway. I'm not sure that the reader in a few years will have much interest in an unsourced score of Cross Keys vs Poland. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. User:Rugby.change is trying to include matches between a Japan XV and Australia A in the 2022 end-of-year rugby union internationals article, but those are just matches between second-teams. They're not proper internationals and shouldn't be included. Same goes for South Africa A's matches against Munster and Bristol, which don't involve a single senior international side, and Barbarians v All Blacks XV, which falls into the same trap. – PeeJay 19:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If they're included on World Rugby's fixture list then fine, it's a simple and easy policy to implement and verify as all the information will be coming from one source. Tbh I wouldn't be against not including Barbarians fixtures either. They're often not listed on World Rugby and in many situations aren't capped internationals easier. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. At least by relying on the World Rugby list, we have an external source for all this, rather than our own feelings. I am concerned, though, that some of the matches are listed here in a list of match official appointments. I'd probably lean towards using the fixtures & results page over the match official appointments though. – PeeJay 20:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

For the current year I would suggest titling it 2022 Autumn Nations Series and only including the matches under that banner, with a section "Other Internationals" for other games. Prior to the wrap around banner I think an international match is a game involving an international side and was reported on as such at the time. We're not meant to be making those judgements were meant to be reflecting what was generally reported at the time, some years that will mean including matches some years it won't.Skeene88 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Edit to add: Looking at the 2008 end-of-year rugby union internationals article I think that would be the model with each nations tour as its own article with the details, with the main one being more of an over view of only the internationals, we could trim the team lists out that way too. Arguably it reflects how these matches are usually reported too, with the focus generally being on each nations tour.Skeene88 (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I just don't think matches between international sides and club sides should be included in a page intended to be a rundown of actual international matches in a given time period. If a team is on tour, e.g. Australia in the UK in 2009, the tour matches could be mentioned in a specific article about that tour, but Australia v Gloucester or South Africa v Leicester don't really fit the scope of the YYYY end-of-year rugby union internationals article. – PeeJay 22:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

My main issue for why I think these games should be included is because the main reason these games exist is because of no international team available/want to play. Leinster v Chile for example. Leinster is a big match for Chile and arguably bigger than if playing some lower tier 3 team, but you believe shouldn't be there due to now 2 international teams. It's an international window. I accept that games like the Cross Keys Poland game is a bit out there as was the Club teams v Barbarians - but if World Rugby has appointed a World Rugby referee it belongs in this article. I do agree with the the WR fixture list, but their website is constantly outdated hence why I referred to the appointment lists given they list it as internationals. Rugby.change (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Chile is playing matches against Romania and Tonga this year alone. When did they play Leinster? – PeeJay 12:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I just googled it. Chile is playing Leinster on 18 November. But why should we include it at all if it's not mentioned in the match official appointments list you originally linked to? It wasn't there when I looked 5 minutes ago. – PeeJay 12:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the decisive factor should be whether a team is a representative team. Obviously, that would include – I'm using WR terminology now – the senior fifteen-a-side national representative team, but also the next senior fifteen-a-side national representative team (Australia A, Ireland A, All Blacks XV etc) and teams like the British & Irish Lions, Māori All Blacks, Moana Pasifika, Barbarians, French Barbarians, to name a few. It would definitely not include games against club teams. Ruggalicious (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The official definitions by World Rugby dictate this as an international match: International Match means any match played between National Representative Teams selected by Unions whether at 15-a-side or an abbreviated version of the Game. This is the official world rugby definition of an international tour: International Tour means a Match or Series of Matches in which a team representing a Union at any level participates against a National Representative Team and/or other Rugby Bodies or Clubs in the jurisdiction of another Union. So my next question is, is this more of an issue of the title of the page than anything else? Could we just must it a rule of international matches can get a team list (if possible) and matches against club games, purely score and scorers like the Japan XV & Australia A matches were listed? Rugby.change (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be reflecting what reliable secondary sources report as the matches, rather than using primary sources? I think we could also us an Other matches section where these other matches are recorded, where they are notable etc.Skeene88 (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rugby.change: I don't understand what you're driving at. An international match is one between national representative teams - that means both teams have to be national representative teams. The definition of an international tour is irrelevant, since a tour can be made up of matches that aren't all "international matches". The title of the page is "end-of-year rugby union internationals". That does not cover matches against club teams. – PeeJay 14:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

My point being is your issue with the games purely being the title of the page, or because in your opinion the games shouldn't be covered full stop? If it's the former then a title change could be a solution: 2022 End of year tours? 2022 International window? The later being something that is referred to globally hence why games of all sort occur? Rugby.change (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

No, we have a definition of international matches. Only matches that fit that definition should be included. Otherwise, the number of matches covered gets too broad. If you want to cover matches against club teams, create an article for the national team's tour, but the 2022 end-of-year rugby union internationals article should summarise the main matches of the international window, and matches against club sides are not "main". – PeeJay 17:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

How are you defining 'Main'? Its relative. For a team like Chile playing Leinster, is arguably bigger than the 'main' games against Romania or Tonga. Just because it's an international team. It's like saying Chile playing Finland is more main than playing a professional club. Based on your argument that featuring 2 internationals/representative is main. You also insist on removing Barbarians and French Barbarians which as you've said above is a representative team so they should most defiantly be included. Literally you're top point of this discussion. Rugby.change (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.world.rugby/match/30432 - World Rugby match centre for their fixture shows Ireland A v All Blacks XV so again, contours your argument for games not being on World Rugby shouldn't be included when it clearly is. And listed here - https://rugbyreferee.net/2022/11/03/weekend-referees-rwc21-rwc23-qualifiers-7s-domestic-leagues/- a secondary source to back up the primary source of World Rugby (who are the governing body so they can't be wrong can they?) Rugby.change (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I am no longer arguing against the Ireland A v All Blacks XV game. I don't think it should be included, but we have an actual definition that says it should, so that's fine. As for Chile v Leinster, you're making value judgements in direct opposition to the definitions provided above. The team Leinster put out won't even be full-strength since most of their players will either be with the Ireland senior team or Ireland A, so I doubt Chile's match against Leinster will be remotely comparable to their matches against actual international sides. – PeeJay 18:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: Ireland A vs All Blacks: sure, you found a link to a page about that match, but why doesn't it appear in the Fixtures & Results page? The fact that there is a page for the match means nothing. – PeeJay 18:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll admit that we perhaps shouldn't be always relying on World Rugby's website given the fact that this link actually shows the Munster v SA XV games on the fixtures page, and not the Bristol game (which is of the same level). I also except they don't even recognise the Leinster Chile game. There's no surprise that we can't agree on what is included or not included when even the governing body of the sport can not work out what is shown on their website and not shown. I stick with my opinion that club games should be included and a simple article change can resolve any issue on definition. I add, that those game do not require team line up to avoid over congesting the page as the inevitable thing that follows that is the further debate of flags being used when flags can change based on if a player later changes who they represent internationally. Rugby.change (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone keeps on removing games involving Ireland A, All Blacks XV and the Barbarians, arguing that these games aren't "international games in any sense". I thought it was clear from the discussion here that these games, particularly those of Ireland A and All Blacks XV, are international matches, because they are played by a union's "next senior 15-a-side national representative team" (i.e. second national team). Most people had problems with including games against club teams (rightly so, IMO), but less so with those against/between "next senior 15-a-side national representative teams". I don't want to start an edit war, so come here to ask for someone to step in, who knows how to deal with issues of editors going against what has been discussed here. Thanks. Ruggalicious (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

An international match, in common English and reliable independent sources, means a match between two countries' first teams. Not second teams, not club teams.

The real problem with these articles is that they don't exist as subjects. There are no reliable sources which group together, for example, the Romania vs Chile, and Ireland vs Australia games into one topic. Its not Wikipedia's role to make up subjects for articles which reliable sources do not cover, or to copy stats sites and list endless trivial 'facts'. // Hippo43 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hippo43 'International match' and 'National Representative Team' are both defined in the World Rugby Regulation 1 (see earlier in this discussion). You cannot change that meaning because it doesn't suit your argument or because you don't agree with it. Next senior 15-a-side national representative teams (like Ireland A and All Blacks XV) are teams selected by a Union to represent that Union, so they fall under the definition of 'National Representative Team'. As matches between 'next senior 15-a-side national representative teams' fall under the definition of 'international match', it's entirely appropriate to include them in end-of-year internationals articles. You have now removed these matches from the article three times. That can be considered edit-warring. I see on your talk page that you have been warned against edit-warring before – deleting it from your talk page won't make it disappear – and you have been blocked for edit-warring before. Please, stop removing text you don't agree with and seek a resolution first, for example on this project page. That allows other editors to join the discussion and help finding a resolution. Ruggalicious (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia depends on independent secondary sources, not on any individual authority. Currently, the article in question states that these are test matches. Ireland's second team against New Zealand's second team is not a test match. Again, in common usage and reliable sources, an international match is between two countries' full national teams.

The ideal resolution to this would be to delete all these mid year/end of year articles, as the subjects do not appear in reliable sources, and they are just copied and pasted from other sites listing stats. // Hippo43 (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The Autumn internationals are a widely accepted thing in rugby union circles. I'm surprised you don't know that. It's the same for the Northern Hemisphere teams' summer tours to the Southern Hemisphere. Unfortunately, there is a bias towards the big teams that people have tried to address, so we've started including games involving the likes of Romania and Chile, but I don't really see a problem with that. – PeeJay 11:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The autumn internationals is a well known concept primarily in the UK and Ireland, and refers to the big teams playing in Europe. In Australia and New Zealand, they generally talk about the spring tour or end of year tour, not referring to other teams' games. The problem with this article, and others of the same type, is that they are full of original research. The autumn internationals, in reliable independent sources, does not include games involving teams like Chile, or clubs like the Barbarians, or second teams. The entire article is synthesis. For some reason, you and others keep adding material which is unsourced, without providing sources, which obviously fails WP:V. // Hippo43 (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

So when we mentioned this page on the World Rugby site earlier, that just flew right over your head? The Romania v Chile match is mentioned there, so your assertion that the "entire article is synthesis" is bollocks. I agree with you that matches involving club sides shouldn't be included, we should only include matches between two teams defined by World Rugby as international sides. But leaving out Barbarians and French Barbarians matches feels like overkill. – PeeJay 12:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Peejay, please try to be civil. I've seen the World Rugby article, but I'm not sure what point you are making. It includes the Romania v Chile game, as you would expect a governing body to do, but so what? I'm not arguing the game did not take place. My point is that reliable independent sources do not include this game in the 'Autumn internationals' or 'year end internationals'.

We don't rely on primary sources like this to determine what goes in an article. If we did, it is worth noting that it simply lists "2022 men's international" games. They are not included in a category such as Autumn or year end internationals. It also includes games that you agreed should not be included, such as South Africa A vs club teams. And it does not include games that you think should be included, such as the Barbarians vs All Blacks XV. I hope you will agree that this is a danger of relying on one primary source as somehow authoritative.

Further, it is original research to rely on World Rugby's criteria. Saying that "World Rugby's criteria for an international match is X. I believe that team A vs team B meets criteria X, therefore I'm putting it in the article" is synthesis, if independent secondary sources have not stated that conclusion. // Hippo43 (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The title of end-of-year or mid-year purely reflects the time rather than being a campaign specific. We could perhaps go down the route of the international windows which is more broader than specific internationals. Mid year international window / end-of-year international window / June-July International window / October-November International window. These are types of ways that are perhaps more commonly know globally rather than Autumn/Spring etc. Rugby.change (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources obviously do not cover international windows as a subject in this way. Also, not all the matches that you would like to include take place during the windows. // Hippo43 (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)