Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 24

"End of year internationals" / "Summer internationals" articles

(This discussion was started at Rugby.change's talk page).

I’ve been doing some edits of "end of year" and "summer international" rugby articles – 2013 mid-year rugby union internationals, for example - and I see you have reverted some of them. It’s also obvious that you’ve put a lot of time into these articles, so I don’t want to get into an edit war over them.

However, there’s clearly a lot of stuff in these that isn’t in reliable sources, so needs to be cleaned up. They all have a lot of the same issues from my point of view, and if we disagree on some of this stuff at 20+articles it will be quite a waste of time for both of us, so here’s what I suggest in terms of improvements for a start. Hopefully we can agree...

• Only full international matches are included
  • Any game where either team is a club, province etc is not an international match
  • Any game involving a national team against an invitational team - the Barbarians, French Barbarians, Pacific Barbarians, World XV, Classic All Blacks etc - is not an international match unless there is a source which says the national team awarded caps.
• There are no week numbers. These are original research. We could use dates as section headings to separate out games if necessary?
• Comments like “as warm up games for the X Championship” need a source, otherwise they are just unsourced commentary.
• “summer internationals”, “international window” are not capitalised.
• Something is only a tour if there are reliable sources calling it a tour.

Let me know what you think. --hippo43 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Hippo43:, just re your first point "Only full international matches are included". I disagree that a game involving an international team and a club/province/invitational team is not an international match. They're definitely not test matches (and no test caps awarded), and that's why articles were renamed some time ago (see this discussion). Rugby governing bodies would list these matches and include players' appearances in them in a player's first class record (albeit not as test caps). So I really don't think removing them from these articles would be the best solution. To give two random examples; Kyle Sinckler is listed on the British and Irish Lions website (here) as having made 7 appearances and played in 3 tests. Adriaan Strauss is listed on the South African Rugby Union website as playing in 66 test matches and 3 tour matches (for a total of 69 "Springbok matches"). Removing non-test tour matches would result in an inconsistent overall picture. That said, I don't have an issue with it being moved into a different section (or even article) or indicated as such, but I really believe they should not be removed. (I fully agree with all the other points you raised, however). TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @TheMightyPeanut:. Thanks. I'm not sure what the problem is with Kyle Sinckler, for example. His games can be covered in his own article. Player infoboxes generally include test caps only. Tour games are covered in tour articles, if they're notable, no? It's just not accurate to include, say, the Lions vs Blues as an international, because it isn't an international. Lions match ≠ international. Springbok match ≠ international. Who is misled here and how? No one is saying the games didn't happen. An article titled "2013 mid year rugby internationals" does not claim to include all games played by Kyle Sinckler in a certain period. It would be much more accurate to say "Sinckler has played 7 games for the Lions, including 3 international matches" than to say "Sinckler has played 7 internationals for the Lions." I don't think anyone anywhere is saying Sinckler has played 7 internationals for the Lions.

Rugby governing bodies do take different approaches, that is perhaps part of the problem. Reliable independent secondary sources, which is what we must rely on, don't cover Kenya v Western Province as an international, for example. I'd be amazed if reliable sources included a game like Ulster v Uruguay (which I took out of the 2018 article) as part of the "Autumn internationals", or summmer 2015's Argentina XV vs Fiji Warriors. I can't find any sources which do.

So the question is where do we draw the line. Should we include Eastern Province vs Wales? Uruguay vs BC Bears, which doesn't appear to be part of a tour? An England XV vs the Barbarians, where neither team is a national team and the real England team was actually off on tour? That game is not in any way an "international". There are a dozen other examples which aren't clear cut. Internationals means between nations. For me it is the clearest way, the only one that meets the article title and the only one that reliable sources use. --hippo43 (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Hippo43:, a match like Argentina v South American XV, in 2014, which you removed in an edit, was, according to World Rugby, part of "2014 Men's internationals", see here. Similarly South Africa against a World XV, see here. So your definition of an international is already not as accurate as you might think. (As for your other examples, Eastern Province v Wales was labelled part of a Wales tour, England v Barbarians as part of a Barbarians tour, and Uruguay v the BC Bears are not listed.) You state "rugby governing bodies take different approaches" ... so maybe we should look towards World Rugby as the world governing body for guidance?

There absolutely is cleaning up to be done, for example, the 2014 IRB Tbilisi Cup, 2014 Africa Cup, 2014 IRB Nations Cup and 2014 NACRA Rugby Championship were all on at the same time. All the games played in those competitions were internationals, yet none were mentioned, other than being linked to in the "See also" section. There were women's internationals on too, they get no mention.

In my mind, if I read an article that says (as an example) "James Hook was included in Wales' squad for the 2014 mid-year rugby union internationals. He scored 15 points in their opening tour match against the Eastern Province Kings, but did not start either test match, coming on as a replacement and kicking a conversion in their 16–38 defeat in the first test, and remaining an unused replacement in their 30–31 defeat in the second test", then when I click on the link to go to the article, I would expect to see details of all three matches just mentioned. I know this was a bad example, because that's exactly what 2014 Wales rugby union tour of South Africa offers the reader. But what about the "Australia v France test series", that doesn't have a separate article? If France played a midweek match against some Australian Super Rugby team, I would expect to see that there. Maybe the solution would be to list all the fixtures by tour/competition, rather than chronologically? If a main article exists, link to the main article and have a one paragraph summary. If there is no main article, have the results in that section. That would lead to eliminating the unnecessary duplication we have at the moment and make it easier to find pertinent results.

As I mentioned previously, the general consensus in this discussion was to include non-test matches in these articles. I still firmly believe this is the correct course of action, even if the article must be renamed to avoid ambiguity as to which matches to include. "2014 mid-year rugby union internationals, tour matches and competitions" is simply not that catchy.

Anyway, sincere apologies to @Rugby.change: for completely taking over his talk page, but I would suggest bringing this to WP:RU rather than indiscriminately (and as the examples above would indicate, incorrectly) deleting content from several pages. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @TheMightyPeanut:. The changes I made were not indiscriminate or incorrect, as far as I can tell. I discriminated carefully, only removing games which were not internationals (i.e. played between national teams). And they were correct, because no one has provided any sources which state that these games were part of something called the "2014 summer internationals" or similar. If anyone can point to good quality secondary sources which state that they were part of the 2014 summer internationals, then I would support putting them back in.

Re World Rugby, their site just illustrates my core point. They don't refer to any of these games as "2014 mid-year / summer internationals" or anything similar. Wales v Eastern Province is a tour game, so is the Barbarians game, Uruguay v BC isn't included, Argentina vs SA XV is "2014 men's internationals". What you've shown is that even the governing body of the sport doesn't recognise the subject of this article. As well as there being no prose sources which treat this stuff as one subject, sources like World Rugby or ESPN don't even do so with lists of data.

And no, we don't just copy what a governing body's primary sources say, we base our content on reliable secondary sources. If we want to just copy World Rugby's info, let's just point a link at their site and not bother with any of these articles.

If the James Hook article says "Hook was included in Wales' squad for the 2014 mid-year rugby union internationals" it is incorrect and should be removed. If a reader comes here and reads that, they are being misled by original research. According to reliable sources, Hook was chosen for the Wales squad for their tour of South Africa, or for their games against South Africa. I can't find any reliable sources which say that Wales picked a squad for the 2014 summer internationals. And that's because there isn't really any such thing as the 2014 mid-year rugby union internationals, at least according to reliable sources. No sources that I can find cover Argentina v South American XV, Kenya v Western Province, Pacific Barbarians v Tonga and Canada v Scotland, for example, as part of a wider subject called something like "2014 summer internationals". Other than being the same sport and being played around the same time, Wales' games against South Africa have no connection with these games.

When we have articles like this, which aren't supported (as a distinct subject) by sources, and links to them seep into other articles, we end up with circular logic like this. "Game X should be included because there's a (misleading) link at article Y which would make people think that... etc etc"

I believe these articles are a waste of time, and are more about some editors' desire to make lists and tables and categories than actually serving any demand from readers. (I would love to know how much traffic they get from actual readers looking for info, rather than just editors messing with them.) However, if we are to have them, they need clear criteria, like full international matches only.

The James Hook article is a really interesting case. Hook is one of the most capped players from one of the strongest rugby playing countries but his article is a mess. It is years out of date and needs serious work. It is (IMO) far more likely that a reader would come here looking to read about James Hook than a topic like "2014 summer internationals", which isn't really a thing. If readers want lists of data and results, ESPN and World Rugby already do it a lot better than Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia would be more useful for rugby union content if we all spent time on articles that serve a useful purpose, instead of listcruft like this. --hippo43 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was a discussion point years ago, and hence the change of name from end/mid year test matches to internationals, and many editors agreed so long as games are sourced then they should be listed. In regards to your point on them not being officially called mid/end of year internationals, there is no really any other title as many unions or bodies call them different things. Australia - Spring tour. World Rugby - June/November internationals. Northern Hemisphere in the UK - Autumn Internationals, the list goes on. Further to another point made about England XV, or Wales playing Eastern Provence, just because they are not playing another international team doesn't mean the international team there is not an international team or not an international match. It's just a 2nds team, as per any club in the world having a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th team. The France XV v New Zealand XV game you deleted is an international match between the 2nd teams of the two nations, heck it's even a World Rugby referee appointment/sanctioned game. That's pretty international if you ask me... World Rugby even stats in the news release as "November internationals" - and has a full list of games on there - even Barbarains & World XV games. Maori All Blacks also listed there, as the 2nds team in New Zealand playing Canada. Nothing non-international about Canada 1 v New Zealand 2. See here and here Rugby.change (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"Just because they are not playing another international team doesn't mean the international team there is not ... an international match". Yes. It does mean that. That's exactly what it means.

Can you provide reliable secondary sources for your assertions? --hippo43 (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Hippo43:, the first link I tried was the BBC international match results page. They have England v Barbarians on there. The second link I tried was the Wales v Eastern Province Kings match report on SkySports. It's referred to as an "international match". Now, can you please provide reliable secondary sources for your assertion that international matches are strictly limited to matches between national teams? (Having said that, as mentioned above, I think it would be a good idea to refine the article name to reduce ambiguity.) TheMightyPeanut (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peanut, I haven't been able to find such a secondary source, no. I think it's unlikely that there has been much discussion of it in secondary sources, given that the word 'international' has a pretty well-understood meaning in English ('between nations'). Have you had any luck finding sources that cover "summer internationals" as a subject and include all those games?

Anyway, World Rugby's regulations state "International Match means a Match played between National Representative Teams selected by Unions." (World Rugby Handbook 2014, page 27). Would you agree that is pretty clear? It doesn't include various Barbarians, Maoris, provinces, clubs, World XVs etc. --hippo43 (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No, that's absolutely not clear; the NZ Maoris is definitely a National Representative Team selected by the NZRU. Also, World Rugby themselves refer to Argentina v South American XV as an international match, which – coupled with the fact that various secondary sources also use the term for non-test matches – indicates the term is not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. When confronted with inconvenient facts, keep ducking and diving. If you dig hard enough, you'll find a source to support almost anything. I think we've agreed that sources differ on how they treat this stuff. At some point we have to act responsibly and use some common sense.

The Maori All Blacks are not a national team. They are certainly a representative team, selected by the NZRU, but given their selection policy, cannot seriously be described as a national team. What nation do they represent? 15% of New Zealand? Do any countries treat games against them as "international matches"?

The World Rugby handbook goes on to describe international matches involving the senior representative team, and the "next senior representative team" of high performance unions. So it is arguable that "international match" in our context could be understood to mean either of those. However, the Maori ABs are neither the senior national team (the All Blacks), or the NZRU's next senior national team (the Junior All Blacks). See here [1] So even if the NZRU says they are a national team, they are at best New Zealand's third team. Are you saying we should include third teams in these articles? --hippo43 (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, if they play a first class match against a senior national team. (Just by the way, as of 1 January 2018, unions may no longer nominate their U20s team as their next senior national representative team, but I appreciate they could have been the third team in the last few years). I'm all for using common sense (and if there is a consensus to just include test matches, I wouldn't mind at all). I just disagree with your definition of "an international match". TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the Junior All Blacks are not an U20 team. They are what other countries would call New Zealand A. Every year from 2003 to 2018 the Junior ABs have been designated NZ's next national team. The Maori ABs have never been designated the 2nd team so could never have been higher than NZ's 3rd team, even if they were a national team. So you would include a Tier 1 3rd team (at best, because it isn't defined) vs Tier 2 1st team, but not Tier 1 2nd team vs Tier 1 2nd team?

And obviously, it isn't my definition of "an international match" you disagree with, it's World Rugby's. --hippo43 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Re Argentina vs the South America XV, I think you are right. It probably is fair to see it as an international team, similar to the Lions or Pacific Islanders, so I wouldn't object to it on that basis.

However, I think it shows some of the problems with whatever random criteria have been used here. That game isn't listed by ESPN, for example, as an international match. But the games Argentina played in the preceding 2 weeks, vs Chile and Uruguay, are. Although they haven't been included in the article. Why not? And why aren't the other South American games played in May 2014 included? None of these, including the Sudamerica XV game, were in the June international window, so that can't be the criteria. It seems like games are included because someone thought they were kind of interesting. So I'd go back to my earlier point, do reliable sources describe this game as being part of the "2014 mid-year internationals" or anything similar, and include it with all the other games?? --hippo43 (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, the criteria are fast and loose and should be tightened up. As I said earlier, some results (mainly in Africa, North America and Asia are missing). Women's results are missing. Re your question - articles like one reference "autumn tests", so it's a known and used phrase. I fully understand your point and I like your proposal below that to use something like "International rugby union in 2014". But if such an article becomes long and unwieldy, splitting them the way they are at the moment does seem logical. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I ever said these phrases weren't used. They obviously are, particularly around the Autumn/November matches. What I said was reliable sources do not significantly cover either the Autumn or Summer games as a distinct subject. I would be surprised if someone could present a single reliable source (prose, not just a list of data) which includes all the obscure games of say 'Summer 2014' in one place. I have looked and haven't found any.

And why is it logical to split the year up into articles like this? Why not, for example, 'Wales international rugby in 2014', covering their Six Nations, summer, then November games? I would think someone would be more likely to read that than the current mess.

Serious question. Do you honestly think these articles are a good use of resources? Do they cover a topic that anyone wants to read about?

Look at Scott Waldrom, as just one example. If someone put the time into fixing that article up, it would be something useful that couldn't be found anywhere else. Instead we have talented people spending time copying stuff from other websites, making lists of unrelated games that no one wants to read. --hippo43 (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Issues (RfC)

I hope you don't mind, but I think the discussion above is already becoming bloated and tangential. Let's break down the issues and discuss them one by one, please comment on issues below: TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC1: Should articles in Category:Mid-year rugby union internationals and Category:End-of-year rugby union internationals be retained or deleted? They could be considered synthesis, and the high-profile results are probably duplicated in "tour" articles.

Retain — These matches are being played in World Rugby-sanctioned international windows, so there is a natural grouping of these fixtures. There are periods during which Tier 1 teams embark on tours of the opposite hemisphere, which has revolved into now-traditional slots on the calendar. The involvement of Tier 2 and 3 teams muddy the waters somewhat, but their matches are also generally aligned with the same test window. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete - Subject is not notable and is obvious synthesis. There is no demand from readers for this. Reliable sources do not cover, say, "2014 Summer internationals" as a distinct subject. Entirely unrelated matches are lumped in together. Autumn/November internationals are sometimes covered as a topic, especially by UK-centric media, but they never include all games played at that time, usually just whatever the BBC is showing. There have never been clear criteria for what to include - TheMightyPeanut is incorrect when he says that these matches are being played in World Rugby windows: matches have been included that were played several weeks outside the windows.

An article titled something like "International rugby union in 2014" might be better, but would probably become an unholy mess without clear criteria.

Editors' energy would be far better spent on improving articles which need it rather than wasting time on listcruft which at best would duplicate what is on more reliable stats sites. --hippo43 (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete - Category:Mid-year rugby union internationals these are all covered in respective "tour" pages which are more appropriate. Comment - Category:End-of-year rugby union internationals I feel these games do have a natural grouping but by nation, i.e. 2017 England Autumn International series or 2014 Wales Autumn International series. The equivalent for NZ would be 2017 All Blacks tour of Europe. So in reality that is Delete as well but with replacement articles. Similar point, why are Calcutta Cup and History of rugby union matches between England and Scotland separate articles? Skeene88 (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Retain — as per TheMightyPeanut. My expanded comments are in RfC2 below -- Ham105 (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC2: If retaining articles (RfC1), should non-test matches be included in these articles, or excluded and articles limited to test matches only?

Include — This will provide a more thorough view of matches involving national teams during this time period, whether these matches are afforded test status or not. Duplication of information between these articles and tour articles need to be revisited. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Test matches only - Anything else would be synthesis. Tours already have their own articles if notable. This is pointless duplication. --hippo43 (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Include, although all matches must be cross-border fixtures involving at least one national team.

—Unlike cricket, there is no consistent worldwide criterion for what constitutes a "Test" match.

This status is decided individually by each national team so, for example, Wales might award Test caps for a match against the Barbarians whereas South Africa might not. Regardless, these matches are notable. Even so National teams typically only play international matches in most seasons now.

—The old amateur concept of the rugby tour (with national teams playing clubs mid-week) is gone.

There are no real national tours now, rather a series of international matches and big cross-border-matches (e.g. involving various Barbarians teams, combination sides like the B&I Lions or Pacific Islanders). The Wikipedia articles from the professional era ( 1996 onward) should reflect this and the existing mid-year and end-of-year format does so. -- Ham105 (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC3: If excluding non-test matches (RfC2), should these articles be renamed back to "Mid/end-of-year rugby union tests"?

Rename — This will avoid ambiguity and the inclusion of unnecessary results. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete. But if they stay, obviously Rename. --hippo43 (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC4: If including non-test matches (RfC2), should these articles be renamed? Is the term "international match" too ambiguous?

Rename — Again, if an acceptable name can be found, this will avoid ambiguity. "National rugby union teams' mid-year results" or something. Absolutely open to suggestion. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Makes no difference. These articles already serve no useful purpose for readers, they are just toys for editors. "International match" is clearly defined by World Rugby. There has never been a clear definition used in the articles. --hippo43 (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC5: If they are kept, what time periods should they cover?

RfC6: If they are kept, what countries' national teams should be included?

Personally I'd go for retain and rename. Why don't we use the World Rugby international windows - June internationals and November internationals. Cover all game that World Rugby announce (may include non-test matches) as these fall in the international window. This then takes away the summer/autumn internationals that you seem to disagree with. It's simply a term media uses in the UK. If its a World Rugby referee appointment, it's safe to say it's an international. Rugby.change (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

TheMightyPeanut, Skeene88, hippo43 - Are we any closer on making a decision. Are we going with the majority on only listing World Rugby approved games (IE World Rugby Appointed referees)? Rugby.change (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Is that the majority? I see it as two for deleting the whole pages and two for keeping them as is. I'm not really fussed and don't like deleting articles that have taken a lot of work, I just struggle to see a justification as a single articleSkeene88 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's obviously not the majority.

Rugby.change, if World Rugby appoint referees, that doesn't make it an international match. The World Rugby regulations make it clear that an international match is a match between national teams. Further, there are many matches where refs are appointed by, say, Rugby Europe, which are still internationals.

This just illustrates the problem with these articles - there are no criteria for inclusion that make sense, as the subject does not exist in reliable sources. Why, for example, would we include England vs Barbarians, which is not an international, but not something like Belgium v Sweden, which is? --hippo43 (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

England v Barbarians is called an international match by reliable sources, eg. here and here (which actually states "Clive Woodward's England side, treating the non-cap international as a full Test match", indicating that there is a difference between an international and a test match). You keep referring to the World Rugby definition of international match, which is "a match played between national representative teams selected by unions". That's fine, but the articles aren't called "List of rugby union international matches". World Rugby also defines an international tour as "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." (see here, which is what is being included. It's clear from your most recent comments that you use the terms "an international match" and ""an international" interchangeably. Others do the same with "an international tour (match)" and "an international". TheMightyPeanut (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

TheMightyPeanut, you are right that sources use different words to describe these matches - that has been part of the problem in establishing criteria for these articles. For every source that calls a game like that an international, there will be at least one which doesn't. If you want to rely strictly on what reliable sources use, please provide sources which discuss these groups of matches as a subject, for example "2013 autumn internationals", and which include all the various random games that have been included in the relevant Wikipedia article. I have brought this up repeatedly and no one has been able to do so, suggesting these are not notable subjects at all.

If you are implying that the titles of these articles, for example "2014 end-of-year rugby union internationals", means "2014 international matches and international tours", then that is a new, and ridiculous, argument. These articles clearly use "internationals" to mean "international matches". That is both common sense and has long been explicitly stated in the articles. ("The 2014 end-of-year rugby tests ... were a series of international rugby union matches...", for example.)

I brought up World Rugby's definition to try to bring some clarity to the discussion, after others used the idea of World Rugby's windows or World Rugby's referee appointments to determine inclusion. For me, World Rugby's definition matches the most commonly understood meaning.

My broad preference is to go with common sense and what words actually mean. The word "international" generally means "between nations" in English. It is used as a noun in a sporting context to mean "international match" (or also "international player"). It is not used to mean "international tour" at all or, AFAICT, widely used by reliable sources to mean "international tour match". --hippo43 (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I've never argued that the collection of matches included in the article is not treated as a subject by reliable sources. That is tangential to the argument I'm making, and to the edits you've been making.

The dictionary.com entry for "international" indeed has "between or among nations" as a definition. However, it's broader than that too. The second definition is "of or relating to two or more nations or their citizens". So, citizens of country A playing for their national team against citizens of country B playing for a non-national team could easily be deemed international. If it is such "common sense", why do several people disagree with it? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I know you haven't argued that. I have. One objection that I have to these articles is that they are not notable. My other objections are that, given these articles exist, they are very badly written, full of trivia and synthesis and OR, and are pointless listcruft which no one reads and which other sources deliver much better. So my statement is not tangential to my objections, or to the edits I have made, or to this discussion section which I started. I note that still only 2 editors have said that they even want this nonsense in the encyclopedia.

Re definitions. Yes, there are various definitions of words. You said country A vs club B "could easily be deemed international". Maybe, possibly, could be. But it isn't - not in general use of the term "an international", not generally in reliable sources, and not in the explicit definition by the governing body.

The fact that you are scrabbling around to find something which can possibly be interpreted to keep your preferred stuff in these articles only shows how weak your argument is. You haven't supplied any sources which cover this as a topic. You haven't found a single reliable source which actually states that "an international" is a match involving just one national team, and the dictionary reference you found also doesn't even say that.

Why do people disagree with common sense? You tell me. I think it's because they're not really interested in the truth. A very small number of editors object to the common usage because they want to have their big list of trivia to play with, irrespective of what sources actually say. --hippo43 (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If your objections are that the articles are not notable, then your actions should have been to propose them for deletion. Instead, you edited them to suit your definition of an international. So your edits most definitely were tangential to the argument above. And I've provided several reliable sources that refers to matches involving just one national team as an international match.

My argument is that there is ambiguity. You're saying there is no ambiguity and that an international definitely only refers to an international test match. That's all I'm arguing against. Your definition, that you are matter-of-factly passing of as fact or common sense, isn't.

Above, you said "One objection that I have to these articles is that they are not notable. My other objections are that, given these articles exist, they are very badly written, full of trivia and synthesis and OR, and are pointless listcruft which no one reads and which other sources deliver much better." I fully and entirely agree with you on those points. Similarly, I fully disagree with your edits and that they're not actually fixing any of the issues you're listing. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

TMP, please don't try to tell me what I'm saying, or what my actions should be. And obviously, it isn't my definition, it's World Rugby's definition. --hippo43 (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, that was presumptuous. So, I'll ask you this instead – do you think that the correct action for an article that you deem as non-notable, is to remove a lot of content from said article? Do you think that is a corrective action that will improve the article's notability? (And obviously, you're referring to a different term as World Rugby's definition than the one used in the article title). TheMightyPeanut (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not trying to improve articles' notability (I don't know what that means). They're not notable, and I have suggested deleting them before, but unfortunately there was support for them to be kept. If someone proposes deleting them again I will support it.

If they are to stay, they should be based in reality and supported by reliable sources, not the pet factoid list projects of a few editors. You've hit the nail on the head with your comment on the article title not matching World Rugby's (and the English language's) definition of an international match. "End of year internationals" is not a thing, so there is no sensible way to decide what to include. FFS, some of these articles have included Bledisloe Cup games played in October, which sources do not include in "end of year tests" or "Autumn internationals" or anything similar. --hippo43 (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I think all those articles should be merged by year to look something like this... TheMightyPeanut (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's a lot better. Nice work. --hippo43 (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

World Rugby has this games in June Test list - http://officiating.worldrugby.org/?page=appointments&id=65, http://officiating.worldrugby.org/?page=appointments&id=65, http://officiating.worldrugby.org/?page=appointments&id=65. This is not enough? Lado85 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No. These sources do not mention anything about "June tests". If you read World Rugby's regulations, you will see that World Rugby appoints referees for World Rugby games, as well as games requested by national unions. It doesn't follow that World Rugby referee appointments = test match or international match. --hippo43 (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You say this games are not a part of June Tests, but you have not linked a source wirh confirmation of this. You say world rugby isn't realible source. But where is your source? STOP OWNING A PAGE Lado85 (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not how sourcing works. Read WP:ONUS. The onus is on you. You would need to provide sources that show this game IS part of the June tests, or summer internationals, or whatever. You haven't done that. There also is not consensus here to include matches involving invitational club teams.

World Rugby's handbook, in regulation 17.5.1 (c) explains its merit-based appointment scheme and how it relates to games like this. So World Rugby appointing referees does not mean it is an international match. World Rugby's handbook (page 27) also defines an international match, and it does not include club teams. --hippo43 (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Names

I've started to rename these articles to reflect the names that are actually used. Looking at a Google search of what phrases sources use, "June tests" is more common than June internationals, summer tests, summer internationals, mid year tests and mid year internationals. Of these, mid year internationals is the least used, and is ridiculous for us to use for these articles. Similarly, 'end of year internationals' is the least used; 'autumn internationals' is most common, then autumn tests, November internationals, November tests, with end of year tests and end of year internationals a long way behind. --hippo43 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The term 'autumn internationals' is not used at all used by media sources in the southern hemisphere (mainly because they take place in spring). As per WP:NPOVNAME, if it's non-neutral but common, it's acceptable. However, with several possible terms as you listed above, and with the term not being in use at all in several major rugby-playing countries, it's hardly common ("most common" does not equate to "common"). It's totally acceptable to use a non-judgmental descriptive title to reflect a neutral point of view. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

'Autumn internationals' is 150x more common than 'end of year internationals'. 'End of year Tests' is slightly more common than 'EOY internationals', and 'end of year tour' is significantly more common than both, because that is the concept understood in the southern hemisphere. 'End of year internationals' is a made-up concept not used in the sport or by reliable sources, so should not have an article. 'Autumn internationals' is a common term in the sport, and while I don't see significant coverage of it as a subject in reliable sources beyond describing matches played in the UK, if these articles are to stay, it is the best title for them. --hippo43 (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If that may add a contribution to the debate, in the Italian Wikipedia we use to say Test match di metà anno (Mid-year test matches) and Test match di fine anno (end of the year test matches) and only colloquially we call them "summer / autumn internationals" because it's a northern-emisphere pov. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 20:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Rather than naming them Autumn, maybe name them by their international windows that is declared by World Rugby - ???? rugby union June international window - ???? rugby union November international window. That way we can still have games that is outside the window, based on union preference. Or simply ???? June rugby union internationals and ???? November rugby union internationals. I say internationals because we seem to cover non-tests but still be an international. Rugby.change (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think TheMightyPeanut's draft article above is the solution. We should bin all these June/Autumn articles. What do you think? --hippo43 (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't appear to find the link to this draft article. Can you re post please? Rugby.change (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment — While, of course, supporting a strong emphasis on prose in the content of the articles, it should not become proseline. The prose should be describing the stories, history, colour and context of these rugby series rather than being a paragraph listing of dates and match scores. In fact, the dates and match scores are much better presented in the existing format using the match templates. -- Ham105 (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

My Proposal

At the moment, no one is making a decisive decision on what we should do, and I have no doubt this is probably not going to help but lets make a decision already rather than one editor making a change then it gets undone then undone again and then undone again and so on....

Naming

Lets give a context to this. I feel the reasoning behind the mid-year and end-of-year naming's was because often if not always, there would be matches at the end of May or the start of December that elapsed with the international window the article was covering. So it probably didn't make sense to name them June or November, as quite rightly so there were games outside those months listed as they were part of the respective nations "June/November campaign". Eg England Barbarians and Wales v team X on first weekend of December. I'd like to point out that I don't think it really matters if there are some games outside that month listed so long as they are part of the respective nations campaign. I feel we should fall in line with the terminology World Rugby uses some how, they specifically call them June (July in 2020) and November windows. See here.

Perhaps the name #### June/November international window would be more appropriate. The word tests as defined by World Rugby suggests caps are given and this is not the case for all games. But is still an international match between two sides, weather its between an A team and B team or a B team and a B team (France XV v New Zealand XV I see has been deleted).

Criteria

If it falls in the respective international windows and features an international/representative team (World Rugby - "International Match means a Match played between National Representative Teams selected by Unions") list the match. And should a game fall outside June or November, slightly, but is still part of their campaign or tour then list them aswell. Make a note if that helps clarify. The Bledisloe Cup third test is not relevant and perhaps should not be listed, but needs to be someone - maybe bound on the TRC article??

Thoughts?? Rugby.change (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment I don't edit much rugby these days but I still keep an eye on this talk page and I'll add my thoughts for what they are worth, hopefully from a neutral standpoint as someone who isn't much involved in updating the articles. I don't much like these articles which collect a disparate set of fixtures and results into one place. My general view is to think about who wikipedia is "for" - and for me, its for readers and not editors. So when I'm starting an article or making some edit, I try to consider how someone might come looking for the information and what they might like to read. Of course, you can never be certain of that and no doubt I'm sometimes guilty of editing "for myself". But - are readers going to come to wikipedia looking to find about all the various RU games played in the middle of, say, 2017? They might be more likely want to find out about the Lions tour, or a particular player, or maybe the history of games between two countries, but I don't really see the purpose of this bundling together of all these many games with no real common thread except that they are played in a particular time period. I'd support deletion if it came to it. Given that view, I don't have any opinion on the criteria for inclusion or naming. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

TheMightyPeanut's proposal

I think TMP's proposal - Draft:2017_in_international_rugby_union - is the best approach so far. What do others think? --hippo43 (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 Rugby Europe Championship

Hello, does everyone know when the knockout promotion-relegation Romania - Portugal is to be played? I didn't find any piece of information on rugbyeurope.eu. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Images on Competition main pages

Discussion here: Talk:Premiership Rugby#New Logo. Anyone have any thoughts on whether sponsorless or sponsored logos should be preferred on competition main pages? Ideally we'd have a png rather than a jpeg for the logo as well but I didn't know how to do that myself.Skeene88 (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

World Series Rugby

Just a question, should we consider World Series Rugby to be eligible to go in the competition section of WP:RU/N given there are professional teams playing in it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• It may be worth postponing that question for 6–8 months. Ostensibly the answer would be yes, but my reason for suggesting holding back is two-fold: Firstly, the teams playing WSR in 2018 are essentially already covered – because they're existing teams in other extant competitions. Secondly, WSR in its present format was announced as an interim series to be played pending the creation of a new tournament based in the Asia-Pacific region. Whether that new tournament continues the name 'World Series Rugby' (or uses the originally proposed 'Indian-Pacific Rugby Championship' name) is not yet confirmed. -- Ham105 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with @Ham105: at the moment not much is clear about who will play in this competition, what its name will be or what form it will take.Skeene88 (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I was more asking in terms of for player notability. Given it contains 4 Super Rugby teams (I know Force were forced out but for all intents....), Samoa, Tonga, Hong Kong and the Japanese champions. The majority of those are either High Performance Union international teams or professional club teams, it makes me think that personally it should be in there but happy to wait and see if its made a permanent fixture. IF it is, then we should include it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If it is, then yes in my view. Others can add their thoughts. We need to firm up the details including competition name. Some sort of announcement is expected by mid August 2018 but that wouldn't be expected to reveal all. Early 2019 we'll be in a better position to know. -- Ham105 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Rugby union Style content

Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Style up to date? I deleted the recent results section from Canada national rugby union team but it got reverted. Mobile mundo (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That portion of the style guide appears to reflect more the views of one determined editor than a broad consensus among WikiProject members. Perhaps it should be revised. CUA 27 (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent fixtures: proposed revision

Here is a proposed revision that collects the various discussions I could find from over the years into one place.

We replace this:

For national rugby union teams, recent fixture and upcoming fixture lists should not be included. Consensus has been reached between the project members (see here) that such lists are unencyclopaedic, and are not suitable in the article. Such lists create problems with duplication, and article size. Instead, templates such as {{rugby07}} should be added that link to a teams competitions. For example the 'end of year tests', Tri-nations, or Six Nations.

With this:

There have been various discussions over the years as to whether recent and upcoming fixture lists should be included or removed from national rugby team articles. These discussions have occurred on the WP:RU talk page in 2007, in 2014 and again in 2014, as well as on national team talk pages (Canada 2014). Most of these discussions have involved a small number of participants, usually with opposing viewpoints, and no clear consensus has emerged.

As such, there is no uniform requirement that all national rugby team articles include these sections, nor that they be removed from all articles. These sections can be included in articles at the option of editors working on those articles as long as they are kept reasonably up to date.

@CUA 27: Sounds good to me. Since a complete agreement cannot be made would it just be fair to leave those excisting sections and not delete/revert them? Also what happens on the off chance that someone decides to take the time to add such section in to an article? Is that okay? I guess it would be something like an "optional" entry - not every article has one. But it would need to be updated reguarly. Sirpottingmix (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sirpottingmix: — All good ideas and clarifications. I've tweaked the proposed guidance above to reflect your comments. CUA 27 (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I made the change on the Style guide. Feel free to raise here if people think there are further tweaks we should make. CUA 27 (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Sent off

Discussion of these icons:   and   (which are {{Sent off|1}} and {{Sent off|2}} respectively) at Template talk:Sent off#0, 1, 2 ?. jnestorius^(talk) 21:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Harlequins Ladies and Harlequin Ladies Football Club

Was wondering if someone from WP:RU can tell if Harlequins Ladies and Harlequin Ladies Football Club are about the same team. The names are quite similar and there is a redirect for Harlequin Ladies which leads to the football club article. The football club article was created in 2007, whereas the other was created in 2017. If they are the same team, then it might be a good idea to merge one with the other, but this might require a WP:HISTMERGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Italian rugby union championship

Hello, the championship has changed its name from Excellence to TOP12. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

England women's national rugby union team

Hello, I read that the team played their first game in 1982 but that's not true. In fact the RFU itself declares that the first ever international match of England was against Wales in Pontypool in 1987, which was incidentally also Wales' first game ever: WALES WOMEN V ENGLAND: 30-YEAR ANNIVERSARY on englandrugby.com. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

National Rugby Union teams rated by class

I thought I might leave this here as I have collaborated all of the articles into a specific class that they might fall into. Animation is developing 03:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

World Rugby members rated by class (August 30, 2018)

Style for RFC

Is there an agreed/preferred style for the RFC acronym in club names? I have just noticed that Queen's University RFC omits the fullstops, while University College Cork R.F.C. includes them. Looks odd to me. I'd like to propose a move for one or the other, but which? Or is it a case of agree to differ? Fob.schools (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I much prefer RFC to R.F.C. stylistically, i guess there must be a similar debate on project football between F.C. and FC? What do they do?Skeene88 (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree stylistically, but football uses F.C. generally. Fob.schools (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is not specific about whether periods should be used within an acronym or not but almost all the examples do not include them. noq (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think its straight forward for this project to recommend one or the other. Fob.schools (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

European Rugby Champions Cup

Decided to bring this up following the sponsorship change back to Heineken for the 2018-19 season. It seems that the cup is officially now the Heineken Champions Cup but is still run by the EPCR making it the fifth competition run by the organisation since taking over from the Heineken Cup run by ERC. This caused myself and another editor some confusion but would be good to know what other editors think? I have been made aware that Wikipedia does not use sponsored names for article names so any discussion would also be of help for new (or uninformed) editors and save a lot of clear up work. Any thoughts are appreciated. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't believe it's Wikipedia policy exactly to avoid sponsored names, but it is a good habit to get into. Sponsored names, by their very nature, are transitive, temporary and quite a few other adjectives too. Of course, in the case of the original Heineken Cup, we didn't have an unsponsored name to go by, so obviously we had to go with that one, but since the competition was re-established in 2014, we have the name "European Rugby Champions Cup", which should persist regardless of which company sponsors the competition in the future. Using an unsponsored name at least helps readers to know they're reading about the same competition, while sponsored names give an illusion of a lack of continuity. Furthermore, we have redirects to allow readers to get to the correct page if they happen to search for the sponsored name. This is the guideline used by WP:FOOTY too, which doesn't change the name of the Premier League or EFL Cup articles every time there's a new sponsor. – PeeJay 13:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with this and agree that it works well in the football articles. Like PeeJay says it encourages a sense of consistency with competitions that remain the same regardless of sponsor. We can look at the English Premiership (rugby union) which has recently switched from Aviva to Gallagher. It is still the English Premiership regardless of sponsor. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

2018–19 European Rugby Champions Cup

Hello there. I would like some opinions on the idea of including a template at the top of the 2018–19 European Rugby Champions Cup (and all other current competitions) page to indicate to other users that the page is a "work in progress" and is being updated regularly (i.e. after every match or so). Myself and another editor think that it is a good idea, and I have a suitable template ready to add, but wanted the wider opinions of the community before implementing the idea. Thanks. --Jordan8396 (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this could be a good idea and also give the chance for people to add sources at a later point as a competition progresses. I would like to have a look at this template Jordan8396 to get an idea but in theory, this could be very useful. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"Work in progress" templates should only really be added to articles that are in a constant state of being updated, not ones that get updated over the course of a weekend and then not at all for a few weeks. Can I ask what you think the purpose of adding such a template would be? Also, if you want to add content to an article, you really should be adding a source at the time so people know where you got the info from. Without a source, any editor would be well within their rights to remove that content. – PeeJay 23:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Jgjsmith006, PeeJay, The template I was thinking of adding is this:

or similar. --Jordan8396.ja (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not really an appropriate template to add. Yes, the information will change as the tournament progresses, but not on a minute-by-minute basis, which is what that template is really for. Using that template would serve as a safety net to people adding information with no care to its accuracy, only caring about getting it up as quickly as possible. What we should be doing is waiting until results are official and published before adding them to the article. Considering the Champions Cup is a tournament that lasts seven months, a template that implies matches are constantly ongoing wouldn't be appropriate IMO. – PeeJay 08:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree to with PeeJay that this template would not be appropriate. Such templates are for events that are currently happening and could be being regularly updated (e.g. terrorist attacks). Using them for sports is not really appropriate. Skeene88 (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I can see PeeJay's point with the template potentially leading to some users adding information regardless of inaccuracy. However, this information is regularly scrutinised and does not prevent the request for new sources being made. I think there are pros and cons and it seems to me from the discussion that more cons have emerged for despite it being an interesting idea and worthy of discussion. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Attendance summary table in 2018–19 European Rugby Champions Cup

Another point that has emerged recently is the use of statistics such as attendance data in our rugby union pages. I strongly advocate to keeping this information as it has been included in the majority of competition pages and adds another dimension of information that can be hard to get anywhere other than Wikipedia, making it an invaluable resource for rugby supporters, particularly as the quality of reporting is decreasing elsewhere. I also invest a lot of time in keeping this information up-to-date, including contacting club chairmen on a weekly basis. If you have information on tries, conversions etc, why not include information on teams such as attendances. This information can also be used on a historical basis and losing it for one season may affect it overall. An argument has been made that it attendance information is not encyclopaedic, but as Wikipedia's article on encyclopedias states that "an encyclopedia article also often includes many maps and illustrations, as well as bibliography and statistics.", surely this has a place in encyclopaedias as does any other relevant statistic. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's an issue here from the start. If you're contacting clubs directly for this information, it's obviously not being published anywhere else, and it means you're using primary sources to substantiate your additions to articles (which is a violation of WP:PRIMARY). You're also committing something of a logical fallacy by saying "we include this, so why not that"; every piece of info should be included on its own merits, not because it's been included in the past or because some other fact has been included elsewhere. As I noted in my message to you on my talk page, attendance figures are nowhere near as important as the info about the players who actually scored the points - as much as rugby could not survive without its spectators, it's the sport that matters. I have no problem with including attendance figures in the appropriate place in the {{rugbybox}} template, but a table summarising the highest, lowest and average attendances for each team is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS, IMO. Yes, statistics have a place in Wikipedia, but as an augmentation to the prose that should exist in every article, not simply as a wall of numbers presented out of context. – PeeJay 23:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I collect attendances from a variety of sources, primarily the Rugby Paper and Statbunker. If I have difficulty getting an attendance (which is very rare) or an attendance varies depending on source, I will contact a chairman for clarification. All work I do is sourced, with notes if necessary. In terms of attendance figures and whether they are as important as stats, I believe that if you are going to include attendances as part of match reports, as well as scorers, referees and stadium details, then it is reasonable to be able to reflect this in the overall season page. While the attendances may not be as important as the results or player stats, I still think that they have a place, and are of interest to readers. I also think that by including the right amount of detail, Wikipedia will be a more important source for people in a world where the quality of sports reporting and data capture is increasingly decreasing, particularly rugby union. Obviously, this is my preference, and you have yours, but it would be good to hear what other editors think. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think it necessarily is reasonable to make that conclusion. Of course attendances have a place, but only as a note saying, "This is what the attendance was for this particular game". A table to compare attendances between clubs may be interesting to the avid rugby fan, but that is the very definition of fancruft. Think about it this way: you would almost certainly hear someone talking about who the top try scorer was in a particular campaign, but you would never hear anyone other than the most avid fans talking about which club had the highest average attendance. If people want to compare attendance figures, they can do so by looking at the individual matches, but a table such as this takes up almost a full screen of space without adding anything of any particular intrinsic value. As you've pointed out, this is entirely subjective, but my position is backed by Wikipedia policy, whereas yours feels like a case of "I like it". I appreciate your position with regard to Wikipedia providing information where other sources are lacking, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a secondary source, it's a tertiary source. We don't take info from our own observations without it having been reported in other sources first. If you can't find a stat (whether it be an attendance figure or otherwise), the correct course of action is to not include it in the article, not to go straight to the horse's mouth (i.e. contacting club chairmen). Again, I understand the desire for information to be reported as fully and accurately as possible, but this is not the correct course of action in remedying that. – PeeJay 08:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I will provide source links for this information and will add to the page. From looking at your own edits, you may well be following Wikipedia rules but I don't think blanking large sections of information is particularly productive, especially when the majority of it is sourced or can be sourced. Like I said, if people don't think that there is a place for this information, then I bow to that consensus, but if the majority of people think it is interesting, informative and relevant then I say we keep it. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Attendances, where correctly sourced and not original research, are a reasonable statistic to include in sports topics. A quick google search of "highest average attendance rugby" gives over 1 million results, so the claim only the most avid fans would be interested is a bit OTT. However, having them as an ongoing table (rather than one completed after the fact) and with no narrative explanation is certainly a greyer area. So certainly use of attendance data can be warranted but it does need additional justification.Skeene88 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, it comes up on the odd occasion on various websites, but it's hardly a topic of historical relevance. It's a way for fans of different clubs to say to each other, "We've got more fans than you". It's relevant at the time, but I defy you to tell me that in 20+ years you'll be anything other than mildly interested to see attendance info in that article - I certainly doubt anyone would come here specifically for that. – PeeJay 16:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that presenting attendance information is appropriate. I don’t see a WP:NOTSTATS violation here. This type of information is conveyed more effectively in a table format than through prose. CUA 27 (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

If you don't see it as a violation of WP:NOTSTATS, then I fear you haven't read that policy in sufficient detail. In violation of point 3, the article presents the table of attendances without any context whatsoever, and I highly doubt anyone would be able to provide sufficient context as to explain the historical significance of that information. – PeeJay 16:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a discussion on the inclusion of rugby attendances generally, rather than the implementation in any one particular article. With the obvious caveats that it be verifiable and not detrimental to readability, I agree with CUA 27 and do not see WP:NOTSTATS ruling out attendances inclusion. Attendances are a relevant subject of interest for sports. -- Ham105 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the rising pattern of attendances in the 21st century throughout competitions in rugby union is definitely relevant historical in terms of the growing popularity of the game as a spectator sport. If you look at English Premiership attendances in the 1990's clubs were averaging 4-5k while the average now is up to 13k. By keeping and maintaining these records we are allowing for a historical context to be made. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I just want to make sure people realise I'm only talking about removing the summary table from this article and others like it, not getting rid of attendances as a whole. If people really want to know what the highest attendance for a particular club was, they can look at each individual match for that club; there's only a maximum of 9 matches per club per season anyway! It's not Wikipedia's job to help create historical contexts - if there were a demand for this info, it would be out there in a similar form already. – PeeJay 16:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, this discussion wasn't linked to a previous one or specific article so I thought we were talking in general. Skeene88 (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

In reply to Peejay. I just can't see where the issue arises from showing a summary of the attendances. It doesn't take up a particularly large amount of space and is clearly of interest to people judging from the comments here and the amount of replies. You have stated that approval for the inclusion of attendances is "I like it" but your interpretation of WP:NOTSTATS seems to mimic this but in the opposite direction. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Look, if the community decides that the info is of value to the encyclopaedia, I'll accept that; however, I would ask that you read my above comments to see where the issues arise. The people who contribute to this page, by its very nature, are likely to be big rugby fans. I don't mean to imply that your fandoms are clouding your judgement, I merely present it as a possibility that fancruft may be creeping in. I appreciate your comment that the table doesn't take up a huge amount of space – after all, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia; that said, we shouldn't include information simply because it doesn't hurt anyone to include it. As editors, it's our responsibility to pare down info to that which would be of interest to the general reader, not just people who are specifically fans of rugby. – PeeJay 18:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've read what you have said and I can see that you are highly informed to what the rules and regulations of Wikipedia are. However, I still believe the attendances are an important aspect of the professional (and semi-pro) game, is of interest to both the sports fan, the statistician and to the general public (which is why they are published in almost all newspapers as well as sports magazines, including summaries of team attendances). If you agree that player statistics can be included, then it is not a huge leap to include team statistics such as attendances (which are highly relevant in any sports statistical data - and historic). I agree that if people are adding unsourced information that has no relevance to the subject matter then it should be removed. Including attendance data does not mean it is a free for all to include whatever you like, but neither is it one individuals decision to constitute what should be included (hence the value of this discussion page). With regards to fancruft, this could apply to any element of a sports article, not just attendance data, or in fact any article on Wikipedia. The majority of readers who read a rugby union article are of course going to be rugby union supporters, as with any other subject matter. What constitutes a general reader, and what do you think they want to know? If we go by that we would have barely any information on pages at all. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're arguing two slightly different points there. Never in my life have I seen a club-by-club table of attendances such as the one at 2018–19 European Rugby Champions Cup published in a newspaper; I've definitely seen attendances for individual matches published, which is why we include them in the {{rugbybox}} template, but a club-by-club summary table: never. You seem to be engaged in a slippery slope fallacy too (or rather, the reverse of one): what makes you think that including a list of point/try scorers has any bearing whatsoever on the inclusion of a table of attendances? The inclusion of one neither encourages or prohibits the inclusion of the other. What I would say, though, follows up on my point above: I've never seen a table of attendances, but I have definitely seen "top scorer" tables all over the place. What puzzles me is why you say I shouldn't draw the line at points scorers while you seem to be drawing the line at the attendance table ("Including attendance data does not mean it is a free for all to include whatever you like"). Again, if the community decides it should be included, I'm not going to be happy with that decision, but obviously I have to accept I'm in the minority; I just want to make sure people are making decisions based on Wikipedia policies and not disregarding them just because they're preventing you from including your pet stat. – PeeJay 19:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Newspapers have attendance data match by match (making them of relevance and interest) while sports magazines compile attendance figures, including the Rugby Paper, typically as part of an end of season review e.g. top 20 clubs by attendances. I agree that player statistics are more readily available (at least for football) but using your argument, why not just include the top scorer if that is all the average person will be interested in 20 years time, and miss out the other nine top scorers. Obviously, this is not something I would agree with and believe that they all should be included, along with a list of viable season records and attendance summary (all of which can be sourced), which can in turn be used as part of a historical context, and even as part of a club season by season average attendance (we have an attendance table for each year of the European Cup which includes the highest attendance as well as the average). Regarding my comment on "Including attendance data does not mean it is a free for all to include whatever you like", what I meant was that there seems to be a fear that if figures like attendances are included, then other elements may be easier to introduce, ones which you or I may potentially disagree with. Returning back to your comment that individuals could look through the game results to find out what was a club's largest/lowest attendance, you are talking about going through each individual match - a total of 67 - in order to work it out. The attendance summary table is a much quicker way that affords the flexibility and accessibility that makes it more beneficial, informative and accessible to the reader - casual or avid fan. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Why would you need to go through all the games to find the info on one specific club? Just Ctrl+F the name of the club you're looking for and you only have to look at their games. And yes, you're making my argument for me - you're saying you would draw the line on indiscriminate stats at this attendances table, whereas I'm saying that would be crossing the line. I appreciate that you're saying you might have a problem with anything further being added, but all you're really doing is drawing the line in a different place to me. The thing is, I haven't arbitrarily decided where to draw the line myself, I've based it on the type of information I see in other sources. Okay, so The Rugby Paper includes this information in one issue at the end of every season? That's a weekly publication covering a very specific topic; of course they'll include all sorts of minor stats as a way of filling column inches. What about the World Rugby Yearbook? That's the sort of thing we should be basing our content on, not a weekly rugby newspaper. For the millionth time, I have no issue with including attendances in the {{rugbybox}} template, but that doesn't mean we need to aggregate them in a table. – PeeJay 06:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

CRTL + F is not a particular user friendly way of finding information. I an not necessarily saying I would use the attendance table as the drawing line, rather it completes a list of information that is relevant to a sports competition like this. I don't consider myself to be an authority figure on Wikipedia and am not against people adding information to articles and would rather encourage them to do so, providing the information is of interest, relevance and is backed up by the necessary sources. Why don't we let other editors contribute their thoughts on this matter in order to gain a better consensus, as we aren't going to convince one another on this issue. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand women's national rugby union team

It reads that the record holder of appearence is Anna Richards with 89 but I wonder how it's possible, since the Ferns have played only 58 test matches since their inception in 1990 (Richards debuted on test match #2 against USSR) until Richard's retirement on 5 September 2010. Sorces say that she played 49 test matches as well as Emma Jensen... -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 12:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Why bring this here? If the number claimed in the article doesn't match what's written in reliable sources, just change it and update the reference to reflect the source you found. – PeeJay 13:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, but this is not my home wiki, I did prefer that the rugby union Wikipedians in English language took charge of their articles... -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Just took a look, it wasn't' caps that was 89 but points. Looks like Noq removed it as unsourced. I don't see any ref for Richards' claim to top caps so that might have to be removed as well. Also, as a minor point, there's no issue with commenting here - there are only 15 page watchers at the Black Fern's page while this page is watched by ten times that many. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC) struck incorrect comment 16:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The All blacks site does confirm top caps which is why I left that in. The 89 points is not correct for top scorer so had to go. A quick search did not turn up a source for a top scorer. noq (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

November 1928: Welsh rugby internationals Dan Jones (left), P C T Arthur (centre) and P C T Hollingdale at Preston Park.

Hi, this image entitled… November 1928: Welsh rugby internationals Dan Jones (left), P C T Arthur (centre) and P C T Hollingdale at Preston Park. (Photo by Hewerdine/London Express/Getty Images) is stored in Wikimedia, and crops from it are used on the articles for; David Jones, Tom Arthur, and Thomas Hollingdale. I have three questions; 1. What kit are they wearing? (Neath? combined Aberavon and Neath XV? Glamorganshire? Wales?), 2. Where is Preston Park (Brighton? (unlikely), Preston, Lancashire? (unlikely)), and 3. I believe David Jones joined Wigan (RL) in February 1927, so the image is unlikely to be from 1928, so on what date was it taken, or alternatively, is this a different (or not even a) David Jones? Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• OK, while I don't have a final answer, I do have some likely pieces to the puzzle:

1. Firstly, the caption of the Getty image mentions "Dan Jones", *NOT* Dai Jones. It is most likely Daniel Jones (born 1907) who played for Wales against Australia (or to be precise, the touring Waratahs) in 1927.
2. In support, this image has team details for Neath vs Cardiff (according to the website Rugby Relics) from 11 December 1928 - i.e. one month after the date claimed for the Getty image. It lists all three of Dan Jones, P C T Arthur, and P C T Hollingdale for Neath.
3. Neath's traditional jersey is black with a white Maltese Cross, which corresponds to the Getty image.
4. A combined Neath and Aberavon team did play the touring Waratahs in 1927. However, according to this team photo (via historicalporttalbot.com) that combined team played in a hooped jersey (without Maltese Cross) - in other words they didn't adopt the Neath jersey for that match.

As I understand it, the 1928–29 season was one of Neath's most successful of the era. I can't confirm whether the Getty image is from November 1928 but, without evidence to the contrary, I'd lean towards the date being correct. As to where Preston Park is located? - don't know. Perhaps some British newspaper sources could help pin down where the team played around that time. Good luck with digging further. -- Ham105 (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Ham105:, quite how I missed that the Getty image mentions "Dan Jones", *NOT* Dai Jones, I'll never know… old eyes perhaps. Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a Preston Park in north west London. If the Photo is from the Express there is a fair chance this was a Neath game against someone like Wasps who played around this area at the time.Skeene88 (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyvio?

Hello, I found casually that the paragraph 'History' of Samoa women's national rugby union team and this are dangerously alike. I don't know how to tag thus I leave it to you. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 18:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

By my estimation, this was an obvious copyright violation, especially given that there were links directly back to the page it came from. I've deleted the entire section and had a bash at sorting out the article as a whole. – PeeJay 19:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, @PeeJay2K3:; I'd have done it by myself but this is not my home wiki and am not familiar with such taggings here. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 22:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, just for future reference make sure you tag the page with {{revdel}} so that the copyvios can be RD1'd (which I've now done). Primefac (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh, that's a new one on me. Cheers Primefac. – PeeJay 22:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)