Talk:USA Rugby

Rugby union Mid‑importance

	This article 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.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Sports broadcasting contracts in the United States#Rugby]] The anchor (#Rugby) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Stubbing USA Rugby

I believe that this is still a stub. There is a lot more that could be added. Any thoughts? --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 17:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stub - according to this a stub is 3-10 sentences and too short to be classed as an article. This is eight sentences, more will be added soon. It will still need work doing on it, just because IMO it is not s stub does not mean that more cannot be done. Wiki articles aren't ever 'finished'. As for suggestions, it's largely a case of finding an internet site with data that hasn't been included, very hit and miss.GordyB 17:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Member Teams section

I deleted the section as it seemed a bit pointless to list only three teams, two of which are virtually unknown outside of the Northeast region of the United States. It also seemed silly to attempt to list all the teams, as there's thousands. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date

"The Sports Museum is set to open in New York City on May 7, 2008," I read nearly 18 months later. 122.166.148.39 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hatnote

There have been several edits and reverts recently re hatnotes. I'm not sure that the USA Rugby article needs any hatnote, but if we do add a hatnote, we should add a hatnote for the article that mistaken readers are most likely to be looking for when the land here. Readers may come to the USA Rugby article because they are looking for information about Rugby union in the United States or the United States national rugby union team. I'll think further about whether a hatnote is useful, and if so, which hatnote would have the highest chance of being helpful and the lowest chance of being confusing or directing readers to something they weren't looking for. CUA 27 (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People are more likely to end up here by mistake if looking for USA Rugby League (the whole point of a hatnote). Links to other Rugby union articles are better suited to the "see also" section of the article as hatnotes are not meant to be used for see also stuff. (Oh and yes, this is Special:Contributions/90.214.98.93 btw, Sky Broadband tend to reassign IPs when modem/router resets, nowt I can do about it unfortunately before you accuse me of socking again...). It's all got silly between us hasn't it CUA. Maybe we should have had a convo here before allowing all this to excalate into ANI report and false socking allegations. If you want a civilised adult convo here, I'm more than happy to do so and drama over this is needless really. 90.214.212.126 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addition comment: If we can't sort this out between us here, I'm happy for a WP:RfC, so we can ask more members of the editing community here for imput and maybe a consensus we can both agree on. 90.214.212.126 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your message above is encouraging, but at the same time you leave the message you make the same edit for the fourth time. So you are looking at a 3RR violation here. If you want to de-escalate things, and I take you at your word that you do, the best step you can take at this point is to self-revert, and then we can focus on having a productive conversation, preferably with you logged in under you regular RugbyXIII account and not an IP. CUA 27 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to talk civilised, you need to stop the edit warring/3rr accusations too. They are not helpful to either of us as we are BOTH involved in this dispute. You being a logged in editor does not give you rights to revert me, tell me off etc and it does not make your preferred version of the article more valid than mine. Let's leave the article as it was with User:Mattlore's edit for now as he is more neutral than us. If the community believes your way is best, it can be edited at a later date. I stand by my assertion that USA Rugby League is the correct hatnote per my above comment and as above, I'd welcome a RfC to establish a more clear consensus if you wish to go down that route. Finally, let me make this very clear, I am not User:RugbyXIII! I never have been and presumably never will be. I also do not share that users views on Rugby Union either. I actual like it as much as the next guy... So please, drop that. Thanks 90.214.212.126 (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just stated on the ANI conversation; In my view, a hatnote distinguishing between an organisation called USA Rugby and one called USA Rugby League is a no brainer. It is relatively easy to confuse the two organisations (as it is the two Rugby codes). I would suggest you both stop editing this page until this conversation has been resolved. Mattlore (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mattlore — I appreciate your efforts to de-escalate, and I don't plan to touch the hatnote any time soon, so I'll leave it for now the way the IP insists. From a procedural point of view, I find this outcome troubling. This outcome rewards the more determined edit warrior who has made the same revert four times, despite my warning to him at 3RR, and then my request that he self-revert after his fourth revert. (If we're keeping score, I've made the same revert twice, and then made a third compromise change I had previously suggested on the talk page). So this outcome, if it remains, incentivizes the IP to continue his behavior.

On a semi-related note, the IP is a seasoned editor with experience in wiki disputes, and he thinks he knows you from somewhere. I've let him know I suspect he is RugbyXIII (they edit the same articles, and direct the same Accusations at WP:RU editors), but he has denied. Any thoughts? CUA 27 (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to copy and paste, so my reply can be found here [1] 90.214.212.126 (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CUA, I've deliberately tried to avoid commenting on editing behaviour as others are better placed to judge on those matters. In terms of the outcome regarding the hatnote, it seems the right answer is to have a hatnote here as the two organisations are so similarly named. If this one was called USA Rugby Union then I would probably have a different view, but as it is using the generic Rugby term then a hatnote definitely seems appropriate. Mattlore (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I have protected this page for 12 hours to prevent ongoing edit warring. The only other option was to block all parties involved.

If the edit warring continues after the protection expires I will not protect again, but will instead block the person or persons involved. Get consensus on the talk page if someone reverts you. HighInBC 16:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily commit now to not reverting again. If CUA 27 removes or alters the hatnote again without consensus, even in say 6 months time, what action should I take? Thanks 90.214.212.126 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The action of engaging in discussion on the talk page, even if that discussion happens while the page is not as you prefer it. HighInBC 00:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]