Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.124.64.142 (talk) at 13:04, 9 February 2009 (→Removing Ireland flags). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Rugby Union announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss
Announcements and News

Articles for deletion

Categories for discussion

Articles to be merged

Articles for creation

Request for review: Limassol Crusaders

Collaboration

Current Collaboration - None
Nominations

Requested articles

more

Add this to-do list to your User page! {{WPRU Announcements}}

New standards needed to help improve article hierarchy

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

User:Londo6

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

Rugby union squad templates

Discussion of use of standardised vs non-standardised templates

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squad, and found that Londo06 (talk · contribs) had made a duplicate template at Template:Munster squad which was now out of date and didn't use the Rugby union squad template, instead was a custom made Navbox. I marked the custom, out of date one for deletion and tried to contact him for discussion (User_talk:Londo06, Template_talk:Munster_squad), but he reverted the deletion flag and then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

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

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

I similar tale is going on at Template talk:British and Irish Lions 1989 I think a consistent template usage would be a good idea. noq (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read your arguments and agreed with them. Anything put forward by the sockpupeteer should be ignored IMHO and reversion back to status quo before this user arrived. --Bob (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A consistent template was in use (Template:Rugby union squad) since about Aug 2006 before Londo06 came along with all of his sock puppets and changed them all to bright colors and individual coding with no formal unity in May of this year. Revert back to the old system I vote for. Not just because I coded it, but because it is what was in place before and is consistent with the other Navboxes that we have. --Bob (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that policy should be reviewed.Londo06 08:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I prefer the Template:Rugby union squad. If the consensus is to use the standard template, I'll fix the various Magners League teams. Martinicus (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just done it for the team squad templates that I could find. Some of them were really badly formatted with the template going off the right hand side of the page. One I put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 11. --Bob (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also set it up for an automatic roll-back if Londo06, and only if Londo06 reverted the edits, I have just been alerted that he has been reverting. So I will stop the roll back and put it up for a vote.

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

Do you really expect people to take you serious after you ran numerous sock puppets to influence numerous discussions here ? Gnevin (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm supporting Londo06's idea because I have been on this project for nearly 2 years and I'm really tired of seeing those Normal purplish templates that we have been using and it makes me sick, look at all the other projects, including football and soccer, they have advanced in the last few years and I'd prefer if we advanced too instead of being in pre-historic times. The templates being the same color as he teams uniform is an excellent idea and I would have gone forward with it myself had I known how to make those myself, and the only thing that I would like fixed is the size of the templates which sometimes extend to the right side of the article like you can see on this article and apart from that I'd prefer if we stick with these colored templates, it gives the articles its used on, class... --Cometstyles 11:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two separate issues here - one is the issue of using standardised templates, and the other is the use of colour in templates. I would suggest separating this out into separate sections?
Seconded noq (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Archived voting for premature vote on unclear issues

Standard template to be used as per RWC squad templates. ie.e using Template:Rugby union squad
  1. --Bob (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Martinicus (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --noq (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Garish colors and non-standard template that was in place for all club sides. ie template using colours over the last two seasons and standard throughout team sports on wikipedia.
  1. --Londo06 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Cometstyles 11:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Me. Wasps FC (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Standard template, but upgraded to use colours in the title bar
  1. – PeeJay 12:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Wasps FC (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Standard template to be used as per RWC squad templates. ie.e using Template:Rugby union squad
  1. --Bob (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Martinicus (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --noq (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – PeeJay 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Wasps FC (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use non-standard templates currently in-place where each template is individually coded with no formal unity
  1. --Cometstyles 23:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Londo06 09:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Purple RWC template ie. using Template:Rugby union squad and seen with RWC squad templates
Coloured navboxes, but moving towards 1 standard setup, ie no variations in width, standard features, same place to add names throughout each individual navbox. ie With regards to colour, the template using colours over the last two seasons and standard throughout team sports on wikipedia.
  1. --Londo06 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Wasps FC (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Removing Londo06 sockpuppet vote. --Bob (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – PeeJay 10:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. - MarkFD (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about colour in squad templates

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

Club logos are not an option as almost all club logos are not free to use. The solution that WP:FOOTY came up with to avoid colours becoming overbearing is to put a player's navboxes in a collapsible box with a neutral title bar. That way the colours add an extra identifier to the navbox without becoming garish. – PeeJay 13:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point at a couple of examples? I'm not sure I can picture what you mean. - Martinicus (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the bottom of Peter Schmeichel's article for an example. For some reason, succession boxes were included in Schmeichel's box, which they shouldn't be, but that's the sort of thing I'm suggesting. – PeeJay 14:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I won't add that in yet, as there seems to be confusion over the coding issue, which I am onboard for, and that of colours, colour coordination being something that I support.Londo06 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two votes, one on whether we should standardise on a single template to use rather than having ad-hoc individually coded ones. The content of that standard template is to be discussed further. Londo06: you don't really have alot of credibility at the moment, and using two accounts in this discussion doesn't really help repair that fact. Martinicus (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've declared up front that I used CorleoneSerpicoMontana maliciously and to influence votes. If you want a personal apology I will offer you one.Londo06 18:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me that is the heart of the issue; colours. I would want a standard width, standard way of having the names in alphabetical order, expanded or collapsed, etc. For me you have to vote at the same time, else it really doesn't work as a vote.Londo06 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if this guy above used socks to make a point, but what he did right was to actually take our project forward since everytime we try to introduce something new, it gets shot down by non-rugby editors who starts quoting WP:MOS. Look at the templates at the bottom of the Reggie Bush, doesn't it give the article? class..ofcourse it does and now look at the templates in Dan Carter's article..ugly..colors made that article stand out and be noticed, this is a wiki we are running and we want people to notice and click links and making everything ugly will just deter people from doing that....--Cometstyles 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that adding colours necessarily moves things forward. Yes things stand out at the bottom of the Reggie Bush entry but it is not exactly pretty is it. And its also ancillary to the actual content - not the real meat of the article. noq (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would having those ugly purplish templates help..firstly they all look the same and people will never notice them and thus would never click them. The colors actually make the article stand out and it will be useful when trying to get those article to featured or good article status since when people vote on the article, they will see the structure, the settings and if its eye-catching enough to be featured, its not like I'm asking that we use random colors or rainbow colors, just asking if we can make sure that the template is the same color as the teams "home" jersey so when someone reads the article they can tell which team the player plays for by just looking at the template and most definitely clicking the template too see who else plays in that team, ironically even I don't click those purplish templates ever since i usually ignore them even being there, and if I do it, i don't know how many others do it as well...--Cometstyles 06:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how making navboxs stand out more would help qualify an article for good article status. At the end of the day the navbox is just a means of linking to related articles not a major feature of the article itself. Yes they add structure, but the colour of the title bar of a navbox would and should not influence whether the article itself is good. noq (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

My comment above about Londo06's credibility being damaged by the use of sockpuppets was referring to the creation of Wasps FC by him to maliciously influence discussion again, just a couple of days after having his block lifted for doing exactly that. The creation of Wasps FC by him as a sockpuppet was confirmed here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf. I believe that there are three issues under discussion here:
  1. Broad agreement to use a standard template rather than a collection of ad-hoc templates. Despite Londo06 voting against this initially, he now agrees that this is the way forward.
  2. Whether colour should be used to help the squad templates stand out on player pages or not.
  3. If colour should be used, what form it should take.
I think it is premature to vote on 'put all colour into all templates' until we have identified and discussed all the possibilities for the last two issues I just mentioned. I also think Londo06 should stop using sock puppets to influence votes and discussions. Martinicus (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot, it seems the admins on this project have spoken and did exactly what they wanted, and that is make the project suck even more. I was happy to be part of this project when I Joined in November 2006 but since then we haven't progressed much and when he had the only opportunity to move forward, it got shut down by narrow-minded people who only cared about what they think and not what was good for the project and sadly I no longer want to be part of this project....--Cometstyles 05:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote about colour in squad templates

No options yet.

Template extensions that would be useful

Season indicator

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

I see no need for this. Why would we need to have navboxes for a club's squad in 1994 (for example)? The only club squad navbox that is necessary is the current one. – PeeJay 13:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand - a single club squad will suffice. The suggestion is to add an additional parameter to the template to indicate what season the squad refers to. Thus, if I update the squad to the current one, I will mark it as 2007/2008 and it will appear on the player's page as something like: <Team name> squad - season 2007/2008. When the next season comes and transfers occur, it gets updated to 2008/2009. This would avoid confusion, for example, when a squad has not been updated for the current season, it would be immediately clear to any user looking at either the template or the player.Martinicus (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a line at the bottom of the template saying "accurate as of [date]" would be a better idea? – PeeJay 14:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that would allow for mid-season transfers/loans/wild-cards alright. Martinicus (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

What the eff is going on. Why are there so many votes now? Wasps FC (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that only three people have so far contributed to this discussion, as User:Wasps FC and User:Londo06 are the same person. It is a fairly substantial amount of work to keep squad templates up to date, and I think it is highly unlikely that all squad templates will be up to date all the time. For example, of the Irish provincial sides, only one of them is currently up to date. Providing an indication to both users that they are viewing out of date information, and to editors to indicate that an update is required seems sensible. Martinicus (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasps FC is permablocked and Londo06 is blocked for a month. Keep an eye out for more newbies showing up here and picking things up a little too quickly. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Notability Discussion

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

Wallaby 1984 Grand Slam

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

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

Move All blacks to New Zealand national rugby union team

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

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

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

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

Additions to above proposed move

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

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

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

All Blacks RM

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

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

Wider opinion needed

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

You are correct, the MOS does cover all icons, not just flags. Therefore, the icons should be removed from the templates. Furthermore, since the templates would then consist merely of a link, I believe they should be deleted altogether. – PeeJay 14:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that they are clusters of flags, not icons. Therefore, they may stay. However, if they go, then so should the Irish shamrock that was voted on and approved, as it is def. an icon and not a flag. --Bob (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make that they are clusters of flags? They are still icons, regardless of what they were derived from. – PeeJay 17:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support their removal - I admit I have used the Lions flag in results (the 1980 match summary which appears in the original discussion was my work) but the truth is that it isn't actually the Lions flag, just a made-up thing. The Lions badge will certainly be copyright, so why not be rid of the Lions flag in articles. The Lions don't represent a country anyway. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have subst'ed all article transclusions of these two templates, so perhaps they ought to be nominated for TfD again, based on this discussion and consensus. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should I nom these Category:Rugby_union_squad_templates too ? Gnevin (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you've made sure they're not being used anywhere, then certainly you should. – PeeJay 23:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 25#Rugby Union templates, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try again. Personally, I think standard wiki markup with the real article names is far preferable to obscure template name abbreviations that are only helpful to a very small number of regular editors, and its not like these are very widely used either. I'd support a subst and delete nomination at TfD. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would certainly support replacing the shamrock flag with the four provinces flag. The latter is actually described as being used, at Ireland national rugby union team#Flags and anthems, while the former is clearly an invented shortcut for a real-life non-free image. It's also a pretty trivial change, implementation-wise. Most instances would be updated automatically with a single edit to Template:Country data Ireland. Do we have consensus for that? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with what? The IRFU doesn't use Image:Four_Provinces_Flag.svg anymore it use's it own version [1]Gnevin (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And since that flag is a derivative of a copyrighted image, we definitely can't use it. – PeeJay 10:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Shamrock image in its current incarnation is def. an invented icon being used to sub. as a flag in violation of WP:OR. Conundrum? --Bob (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No conundrum. Simply replace all instances of {{ru|IRE}} and {{ru-rt|IRE}} with [[Ireland national rugby union team|Ireland]] and then delete the templates. – PeeJay 00:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete which templates? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, just noticed my error. Ignore me. – PeeJay 01:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TFD nom Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 15 Gnevin (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the flag didn't work , a bot run is needed to make this change .Gnevin (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gnevin, I appreciate the Shamrock was not an acceptable, flag, but couldn't we have had an alternative in place before we started removing it. The affected pages look really messy. Also when the alternative is agreed upon, will there be a bot to put the new flag in, or is it up to human intervention?FruitMonkey (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their is no flag we can use with out inventing one or breeching WP:COPYGnevin (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support replacing the shamrock flag with the four provinces flag. However in the meantime there should be some icon/symbol for Ireland in order to keep the table entries consistent. Bloodholds (talk)
The IRFU don't use the 4 provinces flags so cant either. {{noflag}} can be used for spacing purposes Gnevin (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22x20px|border Just saying, in that size (reuploaded to 22×15px in png perhaps) it has to be a possibility to either fall outside copyright or "fair use enough" to be usable. I'm guessing it's the File:Ireland rugby.png (which is only 8x6px on there, that is, unrecognisable) in the middle that's under copyright (as the four Provinces of Ireland flags seem to be in the public domain?). If it haven't done yet, it could at least be taken through the process to see if it can be usable. There has to be a certain place where you can't call copyright, if it's at 22px, 10px, 5px or 2px — CHANDLER#10 — 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea would be to ask the IRFU. And say we're not allowed to use your flag to represent the Irish rugby team because it's under copyright. Do you have a free alternative we can use? Perhaps the four provinces on a blue field without the IRFU logo, perhaps a flag with all the four provinces flag, perhaps both the ROI and NIR flags? And they might very well say "The only flag that should represent the team is out copyrighted flag" In that case I think we should go with Ireland or something, because I think something to disambiguate it from a Republic of Ireland team i needed, most non-rugby fan readers might not be familiar with the situation, something to show it's a team representing the whole island. — CHANDLER#10 — 01:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Carling

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

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

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

Category:Llanelli Scarlets

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

Always active, always updating. I agree that the Llanelli Scarlets are now the Scarlets. Switch it. I've also set up a Category for Llanelli RFC players. Please link any you come across. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the word "here" in my previous comment was a link to the discussion page which you were supposed to click ;-) – PeeJay 00:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hadden under GA review

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

Category up for deletion

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

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

History of Tier 1 nations

After moving the New Zealand articles I noticed their was alot of History of New Zealand V x . So i decided to make a template User:Gnevin/sandbox7 . As you can see the New Zealand list is incomplete( and I gave up half way ) and all other nations have none. Are these articles something the project should have a drive toward creating ? Gnevin (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Probably not that's why I have a ? beside them. If we did include them the template would need a different title for sure Gnevin (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea, but we would have to make articles for them all, which could take a while. I think it would be worth it though. DeMoN2009 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found some South Africa ones at the wrong title and moved. This link maybe helpful Gnevin (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Ireland flags

I've started to remove Ireland flags I am replacing

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

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

Wait, what are you replacing the Ireland "shamrock" flag with? No flag at all? Are you saying that the Ireland rugby team doesn't compete under a flag?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While you're at it, should we be chucking the Welsh dragon, it was only accepted in the 1950s, all prior tournaments should have??? Flag of Saint David? Union Jack? FruitMonkey (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed above and agreed to remove it as WP:OR. As per above Ireland do compete under a flag its not the shamrock flag and the flag they use is copyrighted . I'd suggest starting a other discussion for the Wales issue Gnevin (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've no wish to enter a long argument about this, but that discussion seems a long way from a proper consensus, the shamrock appears to be a much better compromise than the one you are enforcing and you'd better set up a proper statement about this issue (citing guidelines, precedent and proper consensus) somewhere prominent because I expect quite a lot of people will want to know why so many international rugby articles suddenly look so messy.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
above. If you wish to discussion it do so here. Gnevin (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either you take all the flags out or you keep them all. Otherwise the articles become a mess. I personally prefer keeping the flag. DeMoN2009 15:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy states we must remove the Irish flag as for the others, i'd have no objections to removing them too but thats a other discussion Gnevin (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should only be removing the Irish flag. All other flags are perfectly fine according to policy. – PeeJay 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well i've finished my run, i will do a other pass some time next week. Have requested a change the country data template and edited the squads templates Gnevin (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use both the Northern Irish and Republic of Ireland flags together, like its been done for the Irish football league FAI League of Ireland, the team consists of both nationalities and the IRFU is from one of the countries, so there shouldn't be a problem.

Unforseen side effect of Irish flag deletion

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

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

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

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

That looks much worse without the flags... — CHANDLER#10 — 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union&oldid=269524460"