Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union

Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Rugby Union announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss
Announcements and News

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Requested moves

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Request for review: Limassol Crusaders


Current Collaboration - None

Requested articles


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

WikiProject Rugby union (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Centralised Moana Pasifika discussion[edit]

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

Regarding the players flags on the squad list they should simply follow the conventions established previously for all other players and teams. If they've represented a nation at any level then that flag is fine, but for players with no representation at any level it has to be place of birth as a default as otherwise how do we establish which nation to choose when often there are multiple countries for which a player is eligible? If there is reliable source on the player page of holding a passport for a different nationality that is obviously fine too.
Regarding what flag to use for the team I am pretty ambivalent, but raised it on the talk page of the appropriate article as I don't really see how from a neutral point of view we can claim they are any different to the other franchises located in New Zealand. There is definitely a political angle to that choice regardless of where we side, which is why I floated removing the flags from the table to lesson the issue. I agree that a NZ flag with a note is probably the best solution where flags can't be avoided.Skeene88 (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm of the opinion that the flags in the table should be used as they aid the reader in this case. If the competition was just a national competition or had team names that were a location then I don't think flags would be required. But a non-rugby fan reader just seeing Blues, Reds, Brumbies, Drua etc I'm not sure would be able to work out the location of the team, especially now that the Australian/NZ conferences have been removed. In terms of the national flags I've been through the press releases and birth places that I can find and have edited to that now (There's 3 or 4 I can't find a birth place for). If the side (and the Drua) do become capturing teams (as put to World Rugby I believe) then this could possibly be revisited then, but I'm still interested to see what Ruggalicious comes up with. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Will have a look at this in detail over the weekend. It's good to have an article on it though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ruggalicious, Have had a good read through the article. Personally I feel the Current Eligibility Rules section is too long. It reads more as a specialist article from World Rugby (with the consistent mention of guidelines and regulations, which would likely put the reader off and be harder to understand for the reader), rather than an encyclopedic article for Wikipedia. The reference to specific guidelines should probably be removed, and the examples section could certainly be shortened on each of them. That could be a good starting point. Others may have differing views though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Player notability[edit]

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

Personally I find statistics for players who played in comps in the early to late 90s difficult to find, so would be against including them as notable leagues. Many of these players though will pass WP:GNG though due to coverage in local media. I imagine many Ulster players from that period will have been covered in depth by the Belfast Telegraph and other sources, so it's probably worth just keeping it as it is in my view. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been copying squads from the history of the Ulster Rugby article, but I think for the earliest years, rather than do that, I'll put in the team lineups for individual games, from the match reports. Ulster was still a representative team in the early years of professionalism and didn't have a squad as such. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Player notability guidelines deleted[edit]

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

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

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

I feel like it's a case of BilledMammal potentially trimming a little too much; based on the close of the RFC it sounds like rugby at the Olympics and Commonwealth Games still counts, as I would consider those to be in the except those based on olympic or similar participation category. I'm not overly sure why the women's RWC players are assumed to be more notable than the men's RWC players, so I would probably push to have players for either gender's semifinals teams.
Basically, I think there's some room for tweaking here, and I don't think we should immediately be crying foul. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also a courtesy ping to RandomCanadian, who removed Sevens at the Olympics based on a consensus that I cannot find on the NSPORTS talk page. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not particularly hard? Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Rugby_union. That was the one single entry related to Olympics in there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's dumb... I was searching the page for "sevens"! Primefac (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Olympics was removed based on this discussion. While you are correct that my removal of the Commonwealth games was probably in error, I won't restore it as I don't believe it will have a different outcome from the Olympic discussion. Instead, I've WP:BOLDly adjusted the criteria, putting the Rugby World Cup for both genders, the Olympics, and the Commonwealth Games on the same level of notability. Note that I've restricted it to post-1980; the only competition this affects is the Olympics, as coverage of the early games is mixed, and it is likely that many of the Olympic Rugby medallists from before that date are not notable (Rugby was played in the Olympics between 1900 and 1924). Is that acceptable?
If anyone objects, as either too inclusive or not inclusive enough, please revert and we can discuss further. BilledMammal (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, I know there will probably be dissent from the OP but I can respect the consensus from the massive RFC (having not participated in it anyway). I'm sure there will be room for more discussion, but at a minimum I think this is a good starting point. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think Sevens participation should probably be rethought, even without this current campaign. In Ireland at least, Sevens is a game mainly played by young players, some of whom go on to have significant careers, but some don't. Jude Postlethwaite, for example, may one day be a notable rugby player, but he isn't yet, despite having played Sevens for Ireland. Sevens participation is about as useful as a predictor of notability as playing U20 international rugby. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Olympic/Commonwealth Games medallists should still be listed as notable (this is consistent with the revised WP:NOLYMPICS). And for men's rugby union, I guess setting it at semi finals or quarter finals of the RWC would be fine, as most of the 8 teams that reach the men's RWC later stages have players that will all meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Olympic and Commonwealth medallists are in the current revision, with the exception of participants in the earliest Olympic games who are likely to lack coverage. I've also set it as top three for the RWC, mainly for consistency, but if there is a strong preference for top four there I wouldn't object.
However, I believe moving it to top eight would need further discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also think a discussion about which other competitions, periods, and levels of success are suggestive of notability might be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think playing international test rugby (Six/Five/Four Nations, Rugby Championship, World Cup, Lions tours) should be as close to being a guarantee of notability as makes no odds, in both the amateur and professional era. In the professional era, I would suggest playing more than one season in a professional club competition (eg Heineken Cup, Premiership, Celtic/Magners League/Pro12/14/URC, Top14, Currie Cup, Super Rugby) whould be a reasonable guideline. It would screen out players who get a development contract, make a couple of appearances from the bench, and then get released. But exceptions can be made where enoughindependent sources exist - Nathan Doak is in his first season as a professional, and has already made enough of an impression to get significant press coverage. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your club competition proposal, the RFC was pretty clear: There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria. Sorry. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A "rough consensus" of a self-selected group of editors is not sufficient for a global blanket prohibition. Each sport must be dealt with on its own merits. Besides, I'm not talking about criteria, but guidelines - a rough indicator of whether or not a player is likely to be notable enough for an article, not a guarantee that they are. My ideal guideline would then give editors pointers on the kind of sources that would be needed to demonstrate notability, and the kind of sources that would not do so. We should be trying to help editors comply with policy, not hand down unhelpful and inflexible edicts. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current guidelines are:
[played for or coached] A national team that placed in the top three after 1980 at the Women's Rugby World Cup, the Rugby World Cup, the Olympic Games, or the Commonwealth Games.
This is, frankly, crap, and clearly written by someone who knows nothing about rugby. Is it seriously suggesting that someone who's got a medal for Sevens at the Commonwealth Games is more likely to be notable than someone who's played for the British and Irish Lions, or played in the Heineken Cup or Super Rugby? And it's every bit as "participation-based" as the guidelines that have been deleted. It's not defensible and needs replaced. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same for every sport now. Apparently people aren't notable for playing in national teams in the top competitions of a sport, yet they are notable if they participate in an event that gives medals. The logic baffles, there is no evidence that anyone playing international rugby in the Six/Five/Four Nations, Rugby Championship, World Cup, Lions tours is non-notable. But people decided to sledgehammer every sport's guidelines, and now there's no logical way to rectify them for any team sport (since any mention of teams keeps getting met with "but we can't have notability based on participation"). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an experienced enough editor to be able to use my own judgement on what's notable and what isn't. But the biggest obstacle to new editors getting involved is over-territorial editors who think the purpose of rules is the enforcement of rules, and don't have the pateience to help, or just let them learn on the job. The coverage of rugby on Wikipedia is pretty poor, it needs improving and I don't want to have to do it all. All this will achieve is to scare new editors off and make experienced editors think there's no point. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree. It's becoming increasingly clear that, when they couldn't get their way over abolishing WP:NSPORT entirely, they would make such a mess of it that it's nonsensical and unusable. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I believe we were only notified of the village pump proposal at about proposal 5, where there was already enough comments and bickering that made it a total shitshow and not worthwhile a read. We've not really had any problems with NRU in the past (apart from what leagues should and shouldn't be included) and my opinion is to continue editing within those guidelines. There was no discussion within the project for removal of guidelines and we should have been consulted before they were done so here, and not just at the village pump. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. One editor has just restored the deleted guidelines for cricket, and been immediately reverted, with the edit summary "cricket was not given an exception to the RFC". This is a power grab, plain and simple. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The cricket guidelines were updated by consensus last year, so everybody was happy with them less than six months ago. I'm not sure it's a power grab, it's more of a case of "I don't like it, so nobody should have it" with people with no interest in certain things being unhappy that certain sports have complete article lists and things like that. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement criteria[edit]

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

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

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

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

Why do you believe that notability only occurs when an athlete wins a medal? Felixsv7 (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Success results in coverage. If you believe the guidelines should be more inclusive, such as including all teams that reached the quarter-finals or semi-finals, then please propose it and we can discuss, and look at the demonstrated notability of rugby figures. BilledMammal (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Felixsv7, Nicknack009, Primefac, RandomCanadian, Joseph2302, Skeene88, and Rugbyfan22: for contribution to the discussion, with the intent that we will focus on what the guidelines should be going forward, rather than focusing on the discussion that removed the previous ones. BilledMammal (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The big issue with your proposals is they are unsuited to the sport of rugby union. It's as if your knowledge of sport starts and ends with the Olympics, and things you can liken to the Olympics. But notable rugby players are ones who have careers in the game, not ones who win one-off competitions. We need to find a way to quantify that, and you will of course reject any solution that relates in any way to participation, so we're at an impasse. Your insistence on restricting it to post-1980 is also completely unjustified as there were many notable players before then.
Also, as I've pointed out before, the rugby played at the Olympics and Commonwealth Games is Sevens, which is not the mainstream form of the game, it's a cut-down version of the game mostly played by junior players. Selection for an international test team is a much better prediction of a notable player than having done well in a Sevens tournament in one's youth. A cap, as we call it, is more of an accolade than a medal in a minor tournament. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1980 is just to exclude the earliest Olympics, as there are significant notability issues with those. None of the other listed events are affected, as Rugby in them didn't start until after 1980. When we add events that the date is relevant to, we will need to change that date. However, if you don't believe Rugby Sevens should be included at all I don't mind removing both the Olympics and Commonwealth Games entirely.
Do you have a proposal for cap based participation criteria? I can see the potential of restoring one based on participation in tier one teams, but I believe we need to consider the relevant period. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the pre-professional, pre-World Cup era, international caps are all we really have to indicate notability. Amateur club games are not well-documented, so little can be made of that, but I think anyone who has been capped in an international test match is likely to have had a significant club career, and anyone who has been capped across multiple years certainly has. There were also regional representative teams in several countries. In the professional era, the same applies for international caps, but there are also professional club competitions that are well-documented. The top competition in European club rugby is the Heineken Cup/European Rugby Champions Cup, and anyone who has appeared in that across multiple seasons is likely to have had a significant career in domestic professional league rugby. I'm not sure what criteria would be equivalent for southern hemisphere rugby.
I do think Sevens should be excluded from guidelines that indicate notability. Any player who does well at Sevens but doesn't go on to have a career in club or international rugby can't be considered notable. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue we are having is that we have different intents. I want the guideline to reflect the likelihood significant coverage exists; you want the guideline to state that participation itself indicates notability, separate from whether the participation was likely to have received significant coverage. Is this an accurate summary? BilledMammal (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think we disagree on that. My attitude is that the guidelines should give editors an idea of whether or not it's a reasonable idea to create an article. If a player, say, doesn't have international caps across multiple years, or Heineken Cup appearances across multiple years, the chances are good that they're not notable and you should think twice about creating an article. But if they do, the chances are good that they are notable, so press ahead and see what sources you can find. The aim is to prevent the creation of one-line articles that have no realistic chance of expansion. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I misunderstood In the pre-professional, pre-World Cup era, international caps are all we really have to indicate notability this line; I thought you were suggesting we also lacked significant coverage.
Could you give details of the guideline you would propose based on have international caps across multiple years, or Heineken Cup appearances across multiple years? BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is significant coverage of international rugby union in the pre-professional era, so sources should be findable.
I would suggest we start with a bit of preamble about the subjects of Wikipedia articles needing to have received significant coverage, linking to WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC, and stressing the following is a guideline only.
A rugby union person is likely to have received significant coverage if:
  • they have played in international test competition in two or more calendar years
  • they have played in an international professional club competition, for example the European Rugby Champions Cup (northern hemisphere) or Super Rugby (southern hemisphere) in two or more seasons
What do you think? It would need a bit of finessing, because the United Rugby Championship (and its predecessor competitions) is a domestic league-level competition but includes teams from multiple countries, and it might introduce a bias against English and French players as their domestic leagues contain more teams so it's harder to qualify for the Champions Cup than it is for Irish, Welsh or Scottish teams. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a good start, but it needs some modification. I believe that "international test competition" is too broad, and is likely to include minor teams that don't receive the same amount of attention that major teams receive, such as the Cook Islands national rugby union team. I also believe looking at a list of "international professional club competition" would be useful; is this list accurate? BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current guidline for international competition specifies "high performance unions" (21 national teams, listed here) in any international competition, and any international side at the World Cup. It also specifies a list of fully professional club competitions (listed here). Ultimately I think these are reasonable guidelines, which a lot of thought has been put into, and I would be inclined to stick to them, but specifying appearances in multiple seasons being indicators that sources are likely to be available, rather than a single appearance being enough to presume notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I given this a lot of thought, and I think I can broadly agree, though I would like to propose some modifications, with the starting point being the pre-RFC guidelines. First, I would want to add the preamble you discuss above, making it clear that this is not a guarantee of notability, just a predictor of it, and then make the following changes:
  1. Move the list of leagues from the Wikiproject into NSPORT and remove the Anglo-Welsh Cup (there is a lot of overlap with other leagues, and similar to the Rugby Sevens the players there tend to be younger and less notable). I also want to discuss whether the French and British second tier leagues have the same level of notability, though I am leaning towards them having that notability.
  2. Require at least two full seasons in a tier one "High performance unions"; non-tier one "High performance unions" I believe should require at least three - I note that for countries like Namibia, we don't currently have articles on every player, which suggests notability may be patchy? I also want to discuss when this should apply from, as "High performance unions" go back to 1888 according to that list, and that far back notability is very patchy for other sports, and I believe it will be the same for Union.
  3. As the Rugby World Cup's occur four years apart, I don't believe the "season" guideline is appropriate. Instead, I would like to propose a success based criteria - would the quarter finals be suitable? I would also prefer to have the same criteria for both the men's World Cup and the women's.
  4. In line with your comments about the Rugby Sevens, I would like to reduce that to a success based criteria; perhaps notability based on playing in a team that wins any of the Rugby World Cup Sevens, the World Rugby Sevens Series, the Commonwealth Games, or the post-1980 Olympics? I don't mind adjusting this, in either direction.
What are your thoughts on this? BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a basis to work on here. Regarding the World Cup, you're right that "multiple seasons" doesn't work. For the men's World Cup, I'd be inclined to treat World Cup appearances for High Performance nations as no different from regular test caps, but perhaps add a bit more weight to appearances by players from lower ranked nations in an effort to counteract bias towards the big nations, and appearances at the women's World Cup to counteract the bias towards the men's game.
For professional club competition, these could perhaps be ranked, with a higher threshold for appearances in lower-ranked tournaments? I'd certainly be open to removing the Anglo-Welsh Cup, as it's defunct and does appear to have been a junior competition. There have been other competitions, like the Celtic Cup and the Cara Cup, that were entered by professional club's "A" teams, and this seems similar to those, at least in its later years. But the article says it was the premier competition for English clubs before 1987, and if there's any good documentation of it in those days it might offer a useful source for reliable information about notable players and teams in the pre-professional era.
On Sevens, I'm not sure. I'm speaking mainly from an Irish point of view, and certainly in Ireland, success in Sevens is not a reliable indication of notability. Other countries might take it more seriously. More opinions needed on that one.--Nicknack009 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the Men's World Cup, that seems reasonable; perhaps for High Performance nations, no different from regular test caps, for other nations presume notability for quarter-finalists? I suspect that a non-High Performance nation getting into the cup would result in more coverage than normal, particularly if they do well.
For the professional club competition, that seems reasonable. I will look at who played in the cup between 1971 and 1987 and see if such participation is a reasonable predictor of notability for players who played multiple seasons.
For sevens, I think we should leave that discussion for the moment; hopefully an editor with more knowledge outside of Ireland will be able to contribute. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The preeminent competition in sevens would be World Rugby Sevens Series. Perhaps multiple seasons participating in it would qualify? Felixsv7 (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't want to derail the thread above, as it is a productive one, but I think someone mentioned the salient point (which was also the reason why NSPORT was "gutted") that the SNGs are not guarantees of notability, just indicate a "high likelihood" of notability, and the concern prompting the RFC was that these SNGs were turning AFDs into a farce because "NSPORT says they're notable!" In re-reading Prop. 3, I note they were primarily interested in removing the "has played a game..." qualifier, so if we're tightening our guidelines into talking about "multiple seasons" or "international competitions" then I believe it will likely be able to be added back in. In other words, we can have our NSPORT section but it can't just be a cookie-cutter copy of every other sport on the page. Primefac (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree - a blanket approach to all sports is to be avoided, case by case consideration will produce better guidelines. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see any point in "multiple seasons" that's just 1 game argument taken to the whole other extreme. Players are notable, as in have articles written about them or feature prominently in articles, generally very soon after debut at Premiership level & I'd assume URC too. In French language sources guys are notable in the 2nd tier & even third tier of their domestic league. I'm not sure if there is a bot that lists articles created but I've done a lot of both modern young pros and older "famous at their time" players. I think 5 games is a reasonable starting point for a compromise, certainly by 10 appearances in a first team I honestly cannot remember NOT being able to find articles on players, for older players any international is dead easy to find news on in the British Newspaper archive, anyone at a prominent club is even easier if you can get a copy of the various books about Leicester/Gloucester/Bath/Quins etc. The far bigger task is filling out the stubs and improving the important articles (read Danny Care, Ben Youngs or Ian McGeechan) than switching from guidelines that were a bit loose. As I understand it NSPORTS is basically an overide that allows stubs to stay as articles rather than be moved to a draft space/deleted.Skeene88 (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re. internationals: I'm more familiar with cricket (and not very much with rugby, under any form); but is there some evidence here on wiki that could be used to support possibly such a criteria? I proposed "Have played games at the international level for a Test-playing nation" [which includes only a few limited teams] for cricket as a minimum-but-very-safe criteria (and that is something that can be rather easily defended, given the presence of very detailed records about those, ex. List of West Indies Test cricketers). I don't know if there's an equivalent here? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The equivalent to test-playing nations would be the "high performance unions", which I've linked elsewhere in this discussion. The biggest and oldest of those would be England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (plus the British and Irish Lions, a composite team that gets together for a tour every four years) in the northern hemisphere, and Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in the southern hemisphere. The other high performance unions have only reached that status in more recent decades. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For before the Rugby World Cup era you could use criteria of being a member of the Five Nations or International Rugby Board. They didn't actually expand that past the main 8 nations until past the first Rugby World Cup.
What would be easier is if people added to the discussion the articles they don't think should exist, then some of us can attempt to demonstrate how sources do exist to pass general notability for them. Skeene88 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two Roger Wilsons[edit]

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

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

Before doing that, I've updated the existing Roger Wilson article with a few more refs. It hadn't been updated to report his retirement in 2017, or his subsequent coaching ventures. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're to create an article on the other Roger Wilson, Roger Wilson (rugby union) should be moved to Roger Wilson (rugby union, born 1981) and the new Roger Wilson should be Roger Wilson (rugby union, born 19xx). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The other option, of course, if the other Wilson doesn't end up being notable, is to add a hatnote anyway explaining that "this isn't the Roger Wilson you're looking for". Primefac (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I haven't had as much time to contribute to the notability discussions as I thought I would, but I think the team/season approach is probably more informative than lots of articles about individual players anyway. If the other Roger isn't individually notable and doesn't get an article, it's recorded, and sourced, that he played for Ulster in the particular seasons he did, which is all that's recorded in the kind of articles the notability RfC people object to. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Small world. Turns out my dad knows him. He's now a consultant orthopedic surgeon. When rugby went pro, he decided to pursue his medical career rather than professional sports. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Anderson proposed deletion[edit]

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC[edit]

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

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


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

User script to detect unreliable sources[edit]

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

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

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

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

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

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

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

Current Leinster players at AfD[edit]

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

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

Ulster Rugby current squad[edit]

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

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

Honestly from simple searches I think there might be enough for GNG passes on both of these, so have reverted while I look to expand. Postlethwaite passed old guidelines for his Irish Sevens appearances. Just because they're academy players doesn't mean coverage won't exist on them. If I can't find enough I'll revert back to redirects. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I thought, there's lots of coverage on Postlethwaite, given he's a young talent, Ireland U20s successes and from playing Sevens, so quite a comfortable GNG pass for him. On Allison there's less coverage, I've found a couple of bits but still intent to work a bit more on him in the future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]