Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Wasps RFC

Please keep an eye on this article if possible, an editor is making non-neutral POV changes and removing the home ground information persistently. Skeene88 (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Skeene88, I believe the neutral way to phrase it is: "There is a discussion at Talk:Wasps RFC § Non neutral editing of article regarding edit warring over the lead of Wasps RFC, which could use input from this WikiProject. Thanks." Primefac (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the lead alone so if anyone wants to either restore the previous version or the proposed version in the talk page feel free. Going to see what sources say about today's parliamentary hearing before adding anything about it to the main body of Wasps or Worcester Warriors pages.Skeene88 (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

International rugby union eligibility article

The article about international rugby union eligibility rules has been significantly ruined by the same editor (Hippo43) that is also disruptive with regard to other articles mentioned on this page, particularly 2022 end-of-year rugby union internationals. Their method: deleting all text (about half the article) that according to this editor is not or insufficiently sourced or is "original research", including properly quoted and referenced text from World Rugby Regulation 8, a legal text, and paraphrased explanations of this legal text from World Rugby 8 Explanatory Guidelines (a reference was included at the top of this section). Both are primary sources that state facts (the applicable law relating to international eligibility), not opinions.

As I have explained to this editor on their talk page (and then moved by them to the article's talk page), simply deleting (presumably) insufficiently referenced text or original research is not the correct approach, because the text can still be true and correct (it is in this instance). The proper way according to the Wikipedia:Editing policy is, for example, to try finding sources yourself and/or adding the {{citation needed}} tag. This editor has instead followed their "own preference [..] to remove unsourced, inaccurate content." This editor calls the article "poor scholarship" and considers removing these paragraphs improving them, without even trying to find additional sources. Personally, I think this is unacceptable and ask other editors in the rugby union project for their opinion on this.

To compare the current text with the way it was before this editor started their deletion spree, see this version. See the article's talk page for the communication about this article. Full disclosure: I am indeed the creator of this article and spent a significant amount of time on researching and writing the article. The approach taken by Hippo is an approach that will deter many editors from creating new articles, me included. Ruggalicious (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I've replied at the article talk page, which I think is the best place for the discussion. My changes were not intended to affect this editor's motivation, obviously, but putting a lot of time into an article does not mean it is a positive addition. There are real concerns around notability, original research, synthesis, and simply copying primary sources. // Hippo43 (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see this

Please see this. I would seek your opinions about this. ```` User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Template talk:2022–23 Top 14 Table

An RfC on a topic of interest to this wikiproject has been opened at Template talk:2022–23 Top 14 Table on whether to transition the league standing table to a Module:Sports based table or to continue to use the wikitext table. --(loopback) ping/whereis 07:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Overcrowding of Six Nations Infoboxes

Template:Infobox Six Nations Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

With new cup competitions being created over recent years, the over-crowdedness of the box has become obvious, With the introduction of the Cuttitta Cup, every individual match involving Scotland is now featured, while Wales is only involved in a single one match cup. These individual match results are probably not relevant enough information to be included in this section. My suggestion is that the information box be narrowed to featured only the cups that have >2 competitors; The Championship, Grand Slam and Triple Crown. The Individual cups should instead be placed beside the Table. Possibly in a new section entitled 'Result' or similar. In the interest of homogeneity, this should probably be done for every Championship page, so would be a significant change. Does this make sense? Beckle13a (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, when it was only the Calcutta Cup as an additional trophy it made sense but these days it's got too far. See 2022 Six Nations Championship for an example Skeene88 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. These info boxes are overly cluttered. CUA 27 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, remove all the single-match trophies from the infobox. The winners are all mentioned in the Notes sections for each match. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to check, this would leave Champions, Grand Slam, and Triple Crown? Primefac (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, plus the statistics and leading scorers at the bottom. Bcp67 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done; half the time folks don't notice changes until they're made, so since the above is unanimous I've started that process. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac, it looks a lot cleaner now. Bcp67 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1. New Zealand national rugby union team
2. Wales national rugby union team

Good article reassessment for Cardiff Arms Park

Cardiff Arms Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Flour bomb test

I was wondering if anyone would be down to write an article with me on the 1981 flour bomb test. I understand the history behind the match, but I know nothing about rugby. (Notice I called it a "match".) It is such a fascinating piece of history that should be documented. Please ping me if interested. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help you out on that, though I'm not really sure what all would be in the article that isn't already at the section in the 1981 tour article (I mean, obviously match details but those are usually just kept on the tour page itself). Primefac (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a lot that can be said about the test, beyond the tour in general. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Heh, watched that this morning when I first saw your post. As I said, totally happy to help out with the page, worst that happens is nothing comes of it but a redirect, which is still better than nothing! Primefac (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

I've nominated a couple of articles for deletion, to allow existing articles to be moved to the new titles, if anyone would like to comment;

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counties 1 Durham & Northumberland
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional 2 South East

Bcp67 (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Module:SportsRankings error

The lead at International rugby union team records shows: "Lua error in Module:SportsRankings at line 102: bad argument #1 to 'len' (string expected, got nil)." That error is due to use of {{World Rugby Rankings}} which calls Module:SportsRankings which uses template parameter 2 as a country identifier (however, in the article, parameter 2 is nil). I'm hoping someone can fix this. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sqldf03: You recently created Module:SportsRankings/data/World Rugby Rankings. Perhaps that somehow led to the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The same problem is at Women's international rugby union#World Rugby Rankings (women). Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Could be. I don't know why the template is there in the first place, but it's been there a while, so clearly something recently got messed up on the backend. I've removed it entirely for now. Primefac (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is definitely with the switch to the module. I have reverted for now. This should definitely be sandboxed before going live again. Primefac (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Omg Primefac, you're everywhere! Thanks. I'm snowed here and did not even notice that the template had recently been updated. If I had some energy I would investigate. Maybe later. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sqldf03:, @Johnuniq:, @Primefac: Is it possible for someone to update the rankings again. The February rankings are not showing up. 79.154.33.153 (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to do so; {{World Rugby Rankings}} is not protected so you should be able to edit it. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey all, notification for this got lost. Sincere apologies for this as my intent was to get some automated rankings going in the navbox & sections of the confederations and governing body (i.e. World Rugby#World rankings). I'm glad this was fixed, I'll update the Module one with the Feb ranking release. Sqldf03 (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Sqldf03 (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem, things go wrong from time to time. I was just tracking down some errors and don't have any insight regarding the template or module. Let me know if suggestions are wanted for something. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Barbarians, Māori All Blacks and other teams in players' info boxes

In the same vein, it would be much appreciated if // Hippo43 would refrain from removing the Barbarians from player's info boxes. That is something that needs to be discussed first on this project page and cannot be decided by one specific editor unilaterally. Are there any administrators here, who can take appropriate action please? This editor is way too disruptive. Look at his recent contributions! Ruggalicious (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC) // Hippo43 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Ruggalicious, I hope you don't mind, I've started a new section here.

The reason I have removed the Barbarians and other teams from infoboxes, is because they are not a national team. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

But they are a representative team, and have been recognised as such for years and years and years. – PeeJay 14:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Who do they represent?? Recognised where?? They are an invitational club team. In any case they are not a national team, so don't belong in that section. // Hippo43 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The Barbarians are an invitational club team and should be included in the club section, they are on some pages already. Source:"World Rugby article on them".Skeene88 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The same editor, @Hippo43 has also removed the Māori All Blacks, the South Island and the North Island teams from players' infoboxes. These teams may not be national teams, they are representative teams and belong in the infobox. Examples of players where Hippo43 has removed these teams are Josh Ioane, Codie Taylor and Aaron Smith, but there are several more. It has been said before, if you want change in how things have been done for years and years, there has to be some sort of consensus here on the project page before you can actually make that change. At present, such consensus does not exist. Ruggalicious (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed them. I've been doing it for years, because some editors mistakenly keep adding them. How dare I insist on things being accurate in an encyclopaedia.

Consensus already exists, at a higher level than this project. To paraphrase Wikipedia policies, you can't make shit up. If it says 'national teams' then only national teams should be included.

If you want to get consensus to change the infobox to include something like 'representative teams', go ahead. (This still would not include the Barbarians.) // Hippo43 (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely because I want to make sure everyone is reasonably satisfied with whatever outcome happens, what term or header would you use for teams such as these? Being picked for the Lions or the Barbarians is clearly a massive achievement, and I highly doubt people will be satisfied with entirely removing it from the infobox, so your suggestion(s) would be most welcomed. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The Lions are already covered as they are a national team. The Barbarians are covered as they are a club team. You could have another heading, like representative teams, for the Maori All Blacks etc, but the infobox would become very cluttered. // Hippo43 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so instead of removing the Barbarians, why haven't you been moving them to the relevant |clubX= parameter? Primefac (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Because I think they're trivial, they're not the same as a player's permanent club, and I don't think they need to be included. Why haven't you been moving them? // Hippo43 (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Until this thread started, I did not realise there was a dispute about the location of the team in the infobox, and clearly none of the pages you have edited were on my watchlist. I am not going to go digging through your contributions to revert you, as that is a waste of both of our times until a consensus can be determined. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I get that. The point I was trying to make is that there's no point in you telling me how to edit, or me telling you how to edit. I'm not going to argue if someone wants to add the Barbarians to a player's clubs, but anyone who thinks they are a national team shouldn't be editing rugby articles. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The simplest resolution to this problem, in my opinion, is to change the subtitle from national team to representative team. For example similar to rugby league or international career like football. It seems absurd to leave out information on the Barbarians and other international representative teams from a player's infobox given that these are teams the player has played for. Kidsoljah (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for New Zealand national rugby union team

I have nominated New Zealand national rugby union team for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox biography alterations

With recent discussions and no consensus yet being established I thought I'd ask people's thoughts regarding renaming the National team(s) header to Representative career similar to rugby league or International career like football. Personally, I think including the word representative would be more appropriate because editors could then include players' records of games played for invitational teams like the Barbarian F.C. and other noteworthy international teams like the Māori All Blacks or French Barbarians. This should help editors understand what should and shouldn't go beneath that area of the infobox. Kidsoljah (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Barbarians are an invitational club tam and not a representative or international team.

I think having national teams avoids cluttering the infobox with all sorts of cruft. More "facts" ≠ better. // Hippo43 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the Barbarians are invitational and not representative is just semantics. The Barbarians should be included in players' infoboxes, as should appearances for the Maori All Blacks. Arguing against their inclusion betrays a level of recency bias, IMO. – PeeJay 00:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The difference between an invitational team and a representative team is fundamental, not semantic, and I'm surprised you don't see it. Any representative team - Maori All Blacks, North Island, Ireland U20s, whatever - is selected as the best available team from that constituency. The Barbarians isn't. It's selected as an entertaining team and being invited is not an indication of being the best player available. It also doesn't represent anyone.

If people want to put the Barbarians in the clubs section, I think it's unnecessary, but fair enough. Similarly, if people want to have an extra representative teams section, I think it's excessive, but at least it would be accurate.

My frustration comes from editors incorrectly adding teams to the national teams section, which makes me question their competence to contribute to these articles. Cramming more and more data into info boxes is not always an improvement.

PeeJay, I'm not sure what you mean by recency bias. Can you explain more? // Hippo43 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the general consensus, Barbarian F.C. ought to be listed in players' infoboxes. It is a long-standing historical team. By ignoring this information, I believe we would not be doing the readers or the player justice. I concur with PeeJay that invitational and representative teams have similar definitions in that you must be entirely chosen or invited to play for that team. If you could explain the distinctions and why you think they don't deserve a spot that would be helpful. Furthermore if we make the alteration, this dispute would no longer occur. Kidsoljah (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I explained the distinction above, but will try again. The Barbarians are an invitational club team. They don't represent any country, region or group. They are a private club. Although they are higher profile, they are essentially the same as the Penguins, Crawshay's, Public School Wanderers or dozens more. There is no requirement to pick the best possible team and no one is accountable for their performance - the coach does not get fired if they lose.

Second, they have traditionally played against a variety of levels of teams - clubs, combined teams (Combined Services, for example) and national teams of various levels (both Spain and Australia, for example). This is why, for example, Tom Cheeseman or Josh Drauniniu have played for the Barbarians but someone like Owen Farrell hasn't.

On the other hand, a representative team represents the best available team for that country, region or group. It is obviously an honour to play for the Barbarians, or to play for say France U20s, but they are not the same thing.

So if we were to include the Barbarians, they would probably be best included in the clubs section, but this would also be misleading, because they are very different from a player's regular club. Also, if we are to include the Barbarians, should we also include other invitational clubs? // Hippo43 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Next, who is going to do the work? One thing that frustrates me about this is that some editors see that someone has played for the Barbarians in a big game on TV, and adds it to their infobox as a national team. But there is no attempt at getting it right for everyone, at actually being encyclopaedic. There are many great players who played for the Barbarians but don't have it in their infobox (Gareth Edwards, for example!) and loads who played at a lower level and are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them (Ben Parry or Luke Treharne, for example). Look at this game from just 2014, which no one watched. It wasn't a high profile game, and so I don't think any of these players has had the Barbarians added to their infobox.

So if some editors are actually committing to go through everyone who has ever played for the Barbarians against anyone, and add it to their infobox, in the clubs section, and to keep doing it for future Barbarians matches, I would support it. // Hippo43 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

This is what I mean by recency bias. The Barbarians are certainly less reputable than they were in years gone by, but there was a time when playing for the Barbarians was a huge honour. The fact that one of the greatest matches ever played featured the Barbarians and the line-up selected that day was effectively a Lions XV shows you what a huge side they've been. I'm happy to discuss where in the infobox they should be included, but excluding them is not an option for me. – PeeJay 17:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Peejay, I think you've misunderstood my view on this. I don't think playing for the Barbarians is not an honour. I don't think it should be excluded because it's less of a big deal than it used to be. You're right that the team from that game in 1973 was full of great players, but the Barbarians teams that have played against big national teams recently have also been full of superstars. However, the Barbarians teams that have played lower profile games have always been different. In 1972-73 they played 8 games against clubs, universities and combined teams, and none of those Barbarians teams were as strong as the team that played the All Blacks.

My objection has always been that they are not a national team, and they are not a representative team. Listing them with clubs is not perfect, but it is the least incorrect option.

Where recency bias does exist is in the way these articles have been edited. If some people think adding the Barbarians is so important, why have they not added them to Gareth Edwards, Willie John Mcbride, Ian McGeechan etc? // Hippo43 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay and others that all the representative teams (whether it's the Māori All Blacks, North Island, South Island and teams like the Pacific Islanders team) should be in players' infoboxes; these are proper and notable representative teams. If there is consensus that it's a problem that not all these teams are "national" representative teams, then maybe the template can be amended in such a way that the word "National" appears between brackets or is changed to "Representative" (this is close to Kidsoljah's proposal above). Personally, I don't think it's necessary.

I also agree that the Barbarian F.C., French Barbarians and World XV should have a place in these infoboxes (these are the most notable invitational teams, but this list doesn't have to be exhaustive). I don't think we have to be so picky about where in the infobox these invitational teams are included, so maybe we should go for a practical solution that isn't ideal but doesn't lead to much extra work.

I propose that where the Barbarians etc already appear in infoboxes, we leave them where they are until there is another reason to change those infoboxes (e.g., updates). When an editor updates a player's infobox, they can move the Barbarians etc to under "senior career" or whatever other heading is used to list a player's club teams (this has changed over the years). When a player plays for these invitational teams for the first time, include the team in the infobox with the club teams. All the representative teams can stay where they are. To // Hippo43, you have yourself created extra work by  – unilaterally and without obtaining prior consensus about change on the matter –  removing teams like Māori All Blacks, North Island, South Island, Barbarians etc. from players' infoboxes. So it's only fair that you revert all your unwanted changes yourself. Ruggalicious (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Representative teams and national teams are not the same thing, so should not be in the same place. What do you propose to do with Queensland, Auckland, Natal etc (pre Super 12)? They are also representative teams. The French Barbarians are a different case also, as they have been both a club team and the 2nd French national team, at different times. The Pacific Islanders are a national team, similar to the Lions. Ruggalicious, I haven't created work for anyone. I have cleaned up other people's mistakes, by removing these teams from the national teams section, and will keep doing it. You should thank me for it. There is no consensus on Wikipedia that information should be left in the wrong place. // Hippo43 (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Hippo. We’re talking about adding potentially a fair amount of clutter to infoboxes. It’s also much easier to draw distinctions between what is a national team vs not, as opposed to what is a representative team vs not. The proposed change would invite endless debates about which sub–national teams should be included — North vs South, Probables vs Possibles, and other endless combinations. CUA 27 (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I would also agree with this position. Skeene88 (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to what Hippo43 has been doing since this topic was raised again, by checking his "contributions". He's again gone on a crusade against the inclusion of the discussed teams in players' infoboxes by removing them from the infoboxes of several players, while this discussion is still ongoing. In my opinion, this should be stopped until consensus has been reached on this matter. It can't be that one single strong-headed editor can impose his views on the rest of the editors who he disagrees with.

Yes, I've put some work into improving a few articles. I've cleaned up a few things - one of them is correcting the errors in these players' infoboxes. Whatever we decide here, the North Island team (for example) is not a national team. It was a team put together for a one-off exhibition game. Leaving it listed with real national teams is misleading for readers, and it should obviously be removed.

It's also dishonest to try to frame this debate as everyone agreeing except me. Read the comment above by CUA 27. Consensus already exists across Wikipedia that you can't make shit up. // Hippo43 (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I am prepared to offer up some time to reach a solution for this issue, but before I do, I need to know whether // Hippo43 (and anyone agreeing with them) is willing to compromise. Without that compromise, I risk wasting my time and I'm not willing to do that. Without a compromise, there's also a risk of this issue ending up in an continuing edit-warring situation that nobody wants. Ruggalicious (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Here, I can see both sides of the debate. I think we should emulate rugby league in the way they feature all invitational and noteworthy high honour teams beneath the Representative column. I can understand how this could result in a long list of teams, which might be considered unnecessary clutter. But what's more essential, in my opinion, is that readers can view all the statistical data. It seems the confusion arises from the header National team(s). I suggest once more this is renamed to Representative career. If this is not agreed upon, // Hippo43 has a point about only including national teams due to what the heading suggests. However, I would challenge his assertion that there is a consensus on Wikipedia on this though. I can only assume that he is equating this debate with other sports, like football. Rugby Union has its renowned, historical teams and matches. These, in my opinion, ought to appear in a player's infobox. By not permitting editors to include this material or unjustly removing it without discussion is not the right way to handle this. Kidsoljah (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that Kidsoljah. Not many editors seem to have an opinion (going by the lack of comments), but changing "national teams" to "representative teams" would solve most of the perceived problem (especially if you're not too pedantic about the meaning of "representative"). As we know which those renowned, historical teams are, it's not going to lead to unnecessary clutter in infoboxes either. It's gobsmacking that anyone wants to remove the Māori All Blacks from infoboxes, while there are far bigger problems with player biographies (the insane number of stubs, for example, that need to be turned into real articles), but I guess just pressing the delete button is far easier than doing the research. Ruggalicious (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Kidsoljah, when I've said there is already wider consensus on Wikipedia, what I mean is that, to summarise various policies, stuff needs to be accurate. Placing the Barbarians, for example, under National teams, is wrong. It is better to have an incomplete info box than leave stuff in that is incorrect. Loads of players' infoboxes are not exhaustive, for various reasons.

Replacing National teams with Representative teams would be a mistake, and would not solve the problems. Playing for a national team is especially significant, and should not be buried in a list with regional teams etc. These would be cluttered, confusing and would lead to the same problems we have now. Some editors who like to add more and more 'facts' to infoboxes would keep doing it, and would just be making different mistakes.

Adding a new section for representative teams might be the least bad approach. It would still mean ever-expanding infoboxes, and there would still be problems around understanding which teams should be in there.

Ruggalicious, if we add a representative section, we would need to be very clear (pedantic?) about what is included. Some of the comments on this page have still conflated representative and invitational teams, which are very different.

The Barbarians are the example that keeps coming up. If they belong anywhere, it is in the senior career section, but this would be misleading to some readers as they are not the same as most clubs.

Regarding deleting vs "doing the research", take a look at the contributions I have made to rugby articles. I have written and re-written articles about significant players etc, some of which were embarrassingly bad. Many of the editors contributing to rugby articles do nothing more than copy and paste stats to recent matches or add data to infoboxes that is easily available on better maintained sites.

I'll ask again - will editors who think the Barbarians are important commit to adding the correct stats to everyone who has ever played for them? We should at least try to be consistent across articles and avoid some of the recentism. // Hippo43 (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

// Hippo43, only one other editor that I can see has accepted your revisions, so I wouldn't say that there is a larger consensus on what should and shouldn't be included beneath National team(s). I should also point out that I haven't come across any specific rules that specify what can and cannot be included. Please indicate where I can get this to support your claim.

I agree with playing for a national team is significant but so is also representing historical and noteworthy teams. I disagree that it will mislead readers or exacerbate the issues we already have. If anything, by changing the name it will prevent squabbles and conflicts in the future. If we're in agreement, it will display each player's whole history of appearances for their team without missing information.

I believe that adding another section will only increase the already enormous number of unnecessary sections. I advise all editors to look at the rugby league infobox and observe how it is presented. Kidsoljah (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. Wikipedia policies preclude making shit up. See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR for example. Reliable sources do not support the idea that the Barbarians, for example, are a national team. Common sense is that national teams means national teams. What else would it mean? // Hippo43 (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Second, it would definitely not "prevent squabbles and conflicts in the future".

Here are some examples.

Is the North Island team a representative team? Are there reliable sources which define it?

Is a World XV a representative team or an invitational team? The World XV organised for the NZRU centenary in 1992? Is that the same as a World XV organised for someone's testimonial?

What about 'The Rest' in this game?

The NZ Provincial Barbarians, who played the Lions in 2017?

The Royal XV that played the Lions in 2009?

The Wales XV that played in Shane Williams' testimonial?

I don't know which of these are representative teams, but they do not belong in the same section as national teams. Rugby league does not have the same teams, and generally rugby league articles don't have the same problems to solve. // Hippo43 (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

// Hippo43, let me ask you this question. You're spending time on going through players' infoboxes to remove the Barbarians from those boxes. Why can't you use that time to move the Barbarians within the infoboxes to the "Senior career" section of the infobox instead?

Because I don't want to. I think they're trivial, they're not the same as a player's permanent clubs, and I don't think they need to be included.

It's also very inconsistent that they have only been added to recent players, by editors who clearly don't understand what they are. I don't have the time or the inclination to go and add them for every Barbarians player ever. // Hippo43 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

personally I don't think there are clear and consistent enough inclusion/exclusion criteria to determine what is included if we go down that route. National teams (including teams like the Maori All Blacks and Pacific Islanders rugby union team) are much clearer as to when to include/exclude.

The Barbarians are categorically a club and should be in the clubs list where it is relevant to do so. Skeene88 (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

National team(s) name change

Might I recommend that everyone who supports changing the title National team(s) to a more inclusive alternative term, such as Representative career, comment Agree below this paragraph along with their justification. Individuals who are opposed to changing the name indicate their disagreement and provide an explanation along with noting Disagree. Kidsoljah (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree – I'll start by saying I support the change since, in my opinion, it will result in less disagreements over what should and shouldn't be included. Rugby union editors should take note of how rugby league editors have incorporated this into their infobox. I believe it gives readers much more clarity and separates what representative teams are compared to club level sides. Kidsoljah (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Agree – The term “representative teams” more accurately reflects what I think should be included in this section. The British & Irish Lions are not a national team, but I would include them in this section. – PeeJay 23:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree – It's a bad idea. National teams has been consensus there for over a decade and would need input from a lot of editors to change. It would make the infobox cluttered, ugly and confusing. Rugby league is not a useful analogy because rugby league does not have the same number of teams we are talking about here.

The Lions and Pacific islanders are national teams in rugby union. // Hippo43 (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree – It's a good idea because "national teams", if interpreted narrowly like some do, excludes too many teams that should be included in the infoboxes. For example, the Māori All Blacks, who without doubt have to be included in the infoboxes, would clearly be covered by "representative teams", while some people who use a narrow definition of "national teams" see that as a reason for removing them from the infoboxes. I think there is sufficient reason to also include the Māori All Blacks under "national teams"  – despite eligibilty for this team being limited to players of Māori heritage, they do represent New Zealand and have done so since the 19th century: they play in the black jersey like other national teams, sing the New Zealand anthem next to the New Zealand flag before matches, play most of their matches against national teams (who sometimes award test caps for these matches) and have a similar development function for the All Blacks as All Blacks XV (or in the past, the Junior All Blacks or New Zealand 'A') – but using the term "representative teams" would make a discussion about this unnecessary. I think, by the way, that the British and Irish Lions and the Pacific Islanders team can be categorized even under a narrow interpretation of "national teams" because they're basically "combined national teams". Ruggalicious (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Disagree the term is woolly and inconclusive. Adding in lots of extra superfluous information to a handful of articles adds very little to the encyclopaedia. The Maori are a national team of New Zealand, have their own well sourced article/page and operate exactly like a national team. The Lions and the Pacific Islanders are similarly combined national teams. Skeene88 (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree National teams is a rather archaic term in my opinion. Technically, for example, Ireland isn't a nation team as it represents two nations, and British and Irish lions, and Maori All Blacks, which both give out 'Test' caps should certainly be included. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ireland represents the nation of Ireland. Same as Scotland, England and Wales - it's an anomaly, but they represent the constituent countries of the UK when international rugby started and no other countries played each other.

The Lions and Pacific islanders are recognised as national teams because they represent combined national teams. Their games are recognised as test matches by World Rugby and by reliable sources.

The New Zealand Maori/Maori All Blacks are not a national team. They represent only one part of a nation. They do not give out test caps, do not claim to play test matches, and their games are not considered test matches by reliable sources. They are not a NZ age group team, and have never been designated as the next national team by the NZRU. // Hippo43 (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think what Rugbyfan22 was referring to is that test sides that play the Māori All Blacks are awarded test caps. I know this is a fact in the past but not sure if it’s still currently applies. Kidsoljah (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Disagree — For the reasons I already stated in the previous section, and those posted by others. CUA 27 (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Question — Can the proponents of this change articulate what it is they are proposing? In other words, do the proponents of this change agree on what it is they are trying to change it to? So far, the proponents have said we should include the following:
    • "all the representative teams",
    • "proper and notable representative teams",
    • certain invitational teams,
    • the "most notable invitational teams",
    • "all invitational and noteworthy high honor teams",
    • "noteworthy international teams",
    • a "long-standing historical team",
    • "renowned, historical teams",
    • "historical and noteworthy teams"
    • teams that are "a huge honour" to play for,
    • teams that are "like" certain other teams ...
  • From my viewpoint, we're being asked to agree to something that has no clear standards, which is a significant problem in deciding which teams are included and which teams are excluded. CUA 27 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

    I noted this in my proposal in the outcome area of this discussion. I agree, there needs to be some form of guidelines and rules in place to stop any further edits that are causing debate. The majority from my understanding agree it shouldn’t include invitational and one-off sides. But, your secondary team beneath the national team as well as age-grade national teams ought to be listed. Both sides of the debate must come to a compromise. Kidsoljah (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – Would Test career accurately describe the section? Felixsv7 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  That would be even less correct as a description! Skeene88 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of second international teams

Secondly, following the same format as above please indicate below this sentence whether you agree or disagree with the inclusion of notable teams such the Māori All Blacks, New Zealand XV, Emerging Springboks, French Barbarians, Ireland Wolfhounds, and so forth being included in the National team(s) section of the infobox. Kidsoljah (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree – I think that this information should be displayed within this area of the infobox. I believe by not showcasing these noteworthy teams would not be doing the player justice in terms of making this information available to readers and fans alike. Although I can appreciate editors' concerns that this could clutter this section, I don't believe this is a good enough reason to eliminate second international team experience that adds to that players career. Kidsoljah (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – I’m not sure exactly what this is suggesting, but I think players’ records for international ‘A’ teams should be included in the same section as their record for the senior national team and the national youth teams. – PeeJay 23:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – second and youth national teams are already routinely included. No change is needed. Care needs to be taken with the French Barbarians, who only became a second national team a few years ago. The Maori All Blacks are not a national team and have never been the next national team for New Zealand. // Hippo43 (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree – assuming you mean second national teams. Again, it depends on how you define "national teams", but even under a narrow definition, teams like New Zealand/All Blacks XV, South Africa "A" and Ireland "A" (that's what they're called nowadays), national age grade teams etc are already covered. The French Barbarians also from 1 July 2017 until 8 July 2019. I have explained above that in my opinion there is sufficient reason to include the Māori All Blacks as well under "national teams", even though they're not formally New Zealand's second national team, what I consider to be a too narrow definition to be used for infoboxes. Ruggalicious (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment you have added several teams from totally different categories together there and they do not bear comparison with each other. The Irish Wolfhounds were a occasional invitational XV for a very long time that required no Irish qualification, similar to the Barbarians. For instance Les Cusworth played for the Irish Wolfhounds in the Hong Kong 7s before it was an international only event. More recently the name has been re-purposed to be their Second XV. Those caps can be included but should be included as "Ireland A". The Maori have clear rules on qualification, a history of touring and are notable in their own right for both a main article and on some of their specific tours. A totally different situation.

Skeene88 (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree on some, disagree on others Certainly British and Irish Lions should be included, along with Maori All Blacks. Souring for secondary teams on other nations can be difficult to find, so I'm not sure they should be included, unless included in statistic databases. I don't think Barbarians/North south/Moana Pasifika etc should be included in these sections. These are club/one off friendly sides, and I believe don't warrant mentions in the infobox. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

An example - Gavin Hastings

Some of the discussion has been about "notable" or "noteworthy" teams, and having clear criteria.

Here's an example. As well as a couple of universities and clubs, Gavin Hastings played for:

Edinburgh (District)

Scottish Exiles

Quality Street

Co-optimists

Bahrain Warblers

Barbarians

British Lions

Scotland B

Scotland

At least 2 different World XVs

The Four Home Unions

White Hart Marauders

And no doubt several more random teams.

How many of these do you think should be included in his infobox? Which ones do you think are representative teams and which are invitational teams? Or club teams? // Hippo43 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Outcome

As of now, the general consensus seems to favour changing the word "National team(s)" to something more inclusive, like "Representative teams." According to comments, this wording will most accurately describe the teams included in this infobox section.

The second portion of this discussion appears to support the inclusion of teams governed by a single country. This section will include, in addition to national teams, secondary and age-grade sides such as New Zealand U20's and Australia A. Other notable teams with historical significance, such as the British & Irish Lions and the Maori All Blacks, can be included. These are teams that also pick players based on their eligibility criteria. Teams that are one-off and invitational sides, such as the Barbarian F.C., North Island, Moana Pasifika, and others, cannot be included and fall outside of this scope.

I'll wait and let the conversation go on, but if everyone is on board so far, I don't see why we can't start putting this into action. I believe there ought to be some form of rules outlining precisely which teams can and cannot be displayed on the infobox’s main page. Kidsoljah (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see any consensus to approve the proposal. I don’t even know that there even is a consensus on what exactly the proposal is. CUA 27 (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100% with CUA 27. Numerous objections have been raised by several editors and problems not resolved. Kidsoljah's comment above is so disingenuous it is difficult to assume good faith.

// Hippo43 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm attempting to analyse both sides of the debate, thus I fail to understand why my assumption would be deemed to be "disingenuous." As far as I can see, you both oppose the idea of including teams that are categorised as invitational teams. The Barbarian F.C. would be the most well-known example of such. What I'm recommending is in accord with you both but the majority think sides with some kind of eligibility criteria should be added as well. These would include your youth and secondary sides. That, in my opinion, is a reasonable compromise from the remarks the editors are putting out. I did mention that I'd let the conversation continue in regards to the name change. If this is wrong, kindly clarify. Kidsoljah (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

In my comment above, I meant that I can't believe you have read the comments and honestly think there is consensus for anything.

As CUA 27 noted above, there have been many different wordings used for what people want to include.

The convention is already to include youth national teams and second/next national teams alongside senior national teams under the heading of "national teams". That is what happens now, and has done for years. Changing the heading to something else makes no sense in that regard.

I honestly don't know what you are proposing, or what you think is a compromise. It would be good if you could state clearly the change you are suggesting. Otherwise we seem to be going nowhere. // Hippo43 (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

In order for editors to know which teams can and cannot be featured, I propose that some form of guidelines are put in place. With the exception of a few, I think everyone is in agreement about which teams can be included. I understand some users would additionally like to include the British & Irish Lions and the Pacific Islanders since they are teams that receive test caps. I'll admit that I don't have much knowledge in that field, so I'm just going off what people are saying. The Māori All Blacks are the other team that stands out. I am aware of recent international teams who competed against them have received test caps. However I’m not sure if that still applies today. Also, it appeared at the time that a majority supported renaming that area of the infobox. To accurately depict the teams that are not affiliated with any one country, I believe the language has to be more inclusive. Kidsoljah (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you've maybe misunderstood some of the discussion. // Hippo43 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't see any consensus at the moment. I can see a general idea of including more being popular but no firm proposal to gather consensus around. Skeene88 (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I see 3 votes against and 4 votes in favour. That is very much not a consensus! Skeene88 (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Steve Pilgrim

Genuinely not sure how I feel about our article on Steve Pilgrim. He is (as far as I can tell) the last player to be banned by the RFU for playing in a league game, which is somewhat notable in and of itself, but because of that ban he quit rugby and never played again. In other words, he somewhat falls afoul of WP:BIO1E even with his (apparently impressive?) career at Wasps. I thought I'd get opinions here before I considered AFD. Primefac (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The single source on the article is definitely not enough for a page, however if he was definitely the last player banned for professionalism I'd have thought it would be possible to find more sources and make a more notable page? Playing for England "B" in the period 1987-1993 (20 years old to time of the ban) means there should be plenty of potential sources on the British Newspaper Archive for his rugby union career. I thought the last player banned was someone who played in the rugby league Cambridge v Oxford varsity game in 1994?Skeene88 (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

[1] good source here for claim as last player banned for professionalism. And here is a contemporaneous article on him in the Indie [2] Skeene88 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

[3] This one in an article about Jason Robinson gives the name of the Cambridge guy I was thinking of, Adrian Spencer. Not sure which one was actually the last to be banned.Skeene88 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Ady Spencer is the article, if he played in the 1994 Varsity Match that would be December 1994 so after Pilgrim had returned. Spencer was never top level rugby union player though, so I think it is almost certainly the case that Pilgrim is the last top tier player to be banned.Skeene88 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Rugby World Cup

It's been pointed out at Talk:2021 Rugby World Cup that the infobox link to champion, runner-up etc link to the men's teams not the women's. A look at {{Infobox Rugby World Cup}} shows this is because the infobox is coded to use {{Ru}} and doesn't allow the use of {{Ruw}} in those fields. Nthep (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look (also, this has apparently been an issue since 2014?!?). Primefac (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Should be sorted now. I've removed the hard-coding of the {{ru}} param and updated all existing uses to put it into the infobox param directly (e.g. | champion = {{ru|New Zealand}}. I also simplified a bunch of the code while I was there, so please let me know if I removed anything inappropriately. Primefac (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I wasn't sure what all those statements starting if{{{American were about Nthep (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Me neither, seemed to just switch "Champions" to "Champion(s)" (for some reason). The only one I was somewhat concerned about was |apm=, which was used on two articles but doesn't appear to have ever existed in the template (at least in no diffs that I saw). Primefac (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Rugby box bonus point alternative

I was inspired by the badges used in 2021 Rugby World Cup qualifying to create {{Rbp}}, which is intended to be an alternative to writing "(1 BP)" or "(2 BP)" in {{Rugby box}}, {{Rugby box collapsible}} and {{Rugbybox collapsible2}}. It would help readers skimming a list of matches to more easily discern ones where try and/or losing bonuses were earned by a team, using colours and text. I'd like to have some thoughts on this, before using it in any mainspace articles. Some examples of how it currently looks:

TB  Sale Sharks	37–14	London Irish

Brive	12–10	Racing 92  LB

TB  Japan	28–21	Scotland  LB

LBTB  Ulster	29–36	La Rochelle

TB  Canada	33–31	Spain  TBLB

— AFC Vixen 🦊 13:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the idea. The coloured badges are visually distracting and violate MOS:ICON. And using colourful icons to call attention to it gives it WP:UNDUE weight. CUA 27 (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How about without coloured backgrounds?

TB  Canada	33–31	Spain  TBLB

— AFC Vixen 🦊 16:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That certainly addresses the colour issue. No strong views as to whether the revised version is any better or worse than the current 1BP & 2BP system. CUA 27 (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I've always had a problem trying to discern it from the rest of the adjacent bold font text, and deeply dislike how it doesn't indicate whether it is a try or losing bonus point. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I like the (uncoloured) icons better than I like the text option, but I honestly don't know if that is a) the best way to display it, and b) whether I really like having that information there anyway (i.e. in the rugbybox). While I mull that over, if the consensus here is to use it, I do wonder if it might be worth integrating that into {{Rugby box collapsible}} as a separate set of parameters. Primefac (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the plain box version to the bolded free style text we have currently. I think it would work best as a parameter in the template, e.g. team1TB = yes. Skeene88 (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

AFDs

As you can see at the top of this page or by looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Rugby union, we have a number of articles involving rugby players being considered for deletion at AFD. It would really help if editors who were knowledgeable about the sport could take a moment to review these articles and their sources and weigh in on what you think should be done with these articles. Your help would be appreciated. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Premiership Rugby's website player stats page

Hello, has anyone noticed that the said page is no longer available on that website? -- Blackcat 15:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m finding player stats in general much harder to track. Many clubs don’t keep a comprehensive player archive/match list, and while ItsRugby is decent, there are errors. It’s difficult to maintain match and point accuracy at club level.

RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Blackcat: @RodneyParadeWanderer: apparently it is a data migration issue as they have changed provider either for the data or the website, and will be restored before the new season launches on the 18th. From the horses mouth. Skeene88 (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ha, @Skeene88:, having been an IT engineer for some years, I just hope that it's true :) -- Blackcat 14:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Squads on Wasps, Worcester & Irish players

Similar to the deletion of the templates for Wasps & Worcester squads I think we should blank the squad sections for Worcester Warriors, Wasps RFC & London Irish. While the final squad is of some interest I don't see how it is relevant to leave them on the pages for ever and previous consensus was to remove lists of former players with no inclusion/exclusion criteria. This also begs the question if not now then when? Skeene88 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd support removal of the squad sections entirely. Sections of notable players should suffice. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

RodneyParadeWanderer restored the Wasps roster earlier today, might be good to wait for their opinion on the matter. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I should have probably pinged him in the first post. @RodneyParadeWanderer: thoughts on this idea? Skeene88 (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s totally fine, removing works for me! I only restored as London Irish and Worcester Warriors (at the time) had similar sections intact.

RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to do all these now as there has been no dissent in 5 days.Skeene88 (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks Skeene! RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Match lineups in collapsible rugby boxes

A {{Rugby box collapsible}} and match lineups table

Final 12 November 2022 England 31–34 New Zealand Eden Park, Auckland   19:30 NZST (UTC+13:00) Try: Cokayne 13', 32', 54' Kildunne 3' Packer 21' Con: Scarratt (3/5) 4', 15', 33' Report Try: 25', 71' I'iga 18' Ponsonby 40' Rule 41' Fluhler 49' Murray Con: 20, 26' (2/6) Holmes Attendance: 43,759 Referee: Hollie Davidson (SCO) Assistant referees: Aimee Barrett-Theron (RSA), Aurélie Groizeleau (FRA) Television match official: Ben Whitehouse (WAL) Starting: Ellie Kildunne 15 FB Lydia Thompson 14 RW Emily Scarratt 13 OC Holly Aitchison 12 IC 66' to 77' Abby Dow 11 LW Zoe Harrison 10 FH  51' Lucy Packer 9 SH  41' Sarah Hunter (c) 8 N8  51' Marlie Packer 7 OF Alex Matthews 6 BF Abbie Ward 5 RL  27' Zoe Aldcroft 4 LL  74' Sarah Bern 3 TP  74' Amy Cokayne 2 HK  74' Vickii Cornborough 1 LP Replacements:  74' Lark Davies 16 HK  74' Maud Muir 17 PR  74' Shaunagh Brown 18 PR  27' Catherine O'Donnell 19 LK  41' Poppy Cleall 20 N8  51' Sadia Kabeya 21 FL  51' Claudia MacDonald 22 SH  66' 77' Tatyana Heard 23 CE Coach: Simon Middleton Starting: FB 15 Renee Holmes RW 14 Ruby Tui OC 13 Stacey Fluhler  71' IC 12 Theresa Fitzpatrick LW 11 Portia Woodman  17' FH 10 Ruahei Demant (c, m) SH 9 Kendra Cocksedge N8 8 Charmaine McMenamin  51' OF 7 Sarah Hirini BF 6 Alana Bremner RL 5 Chelsea Bremner LL 4 Maia Roos  64' TP 3 Amy Rule  62' HK 2 Georgia Ponsonby  47' LP 1 Phillipa Love  47' Replacements: HK 16 Luka Connor  47' PR 17 Krystal Murray  47' PR 18 Santo Taumata  62' LK 19 Joanah Ngan-Woo  64' FL 20 Kennedy Simon  51'  65' SH 21 Ariana Bayler FH 22 Hazel Tubic  71' WG 23 Ayesha Leti-I'iga  17' Coach: Wayne Smith

Is there any way full match lineups can be intergrated into {{Rugby box collapsible}}'s team columns? If we could find a way, I feel it would have profound implications, as lineups would then be collapsible, and thus optionally available to readers without having to totally destroy the readability and navigability of articles with numerous matches listed. The seemingly deprecated {{Rugbybox collapsible2}} implemented a similar concept as depicted in its documentation, but in my opinion its execution is woefully inadequate. — AFC Vixen 🦊 18:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [edited 03:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)]

I don't understand, why can't you use collapsable2? I still do. As for line ups I prefer the format in collapsible2 as otherwise it really overwhelms the page. The other type of line up is appropriate for finals or other notable matches where a single match is the article. Skeene88 (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

My presumption of its depreciation was based on its lack of use today, lack of maintenance and updates over a decade, and the greater popularity of Lua-based templates like {{Rugby box collapsible}}. If vertically-written rosters were made collapsible, then it wouldn't overwhelm the page. Horizontally-written rosters are worse for notating positions, substitutions and cards, as having a paragraph of text and symbols is difficult to parse.

Horizontal v vertical rosters

Starting: aaaaaaaa Starting: FB 15 Chloe Rollie 1' to 11'  30'  • RW 14 Coreen Grant  • OC 13 Emma Orr  25'  • IC 12 Meryl Smith  74'  • LW 11 Francesca McGhie FB 15 Sabrina Poulin  • RW 14 Florence Symonds  40+1'  • OC 13 Fancy Bermudez  71'  • IC 12 Sara Kaljuvee  64'  • LW 11 Paige Farries Replacements: Replacements: N8 20 Eilidh Sinclair  1'  13'  30'  • FH 22 Beth Blacklock  74' HK 16 Gillian Boag  64'  • SH 21 Olivia Apps  71' Starting: 1' to 11'  30' Chloe Rollie 15 FB Coreen Grant 14 RW  25' Emma Orr 13 OC  74' Meryl Smith 12 IC Francesca McGhie 11 LW Replacements:  1'  13'  30' Eilidh Sinclair 20 N8  74' Beth Blacklock 22 FH Starting: FB 15 Sabrina Poulin RW 14 Florence Symonds  40+1' OC 13 Fancy Bermudez  71' IC 12 Sara Kaljuvee  64' LW 11 Paige Farries Replacements: HK 16 Gillian Boag  64' SH 21 Olivia Apps  71'

— AFC Vixen 🦊 03:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I can see that line of argument. Skeene88 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Pro14 Rainbow Cup

I’ve noticed most Pro14 teams don’t have any season results in the tabulated history for the Rainbow Cup. It was before I started edited, so I’m not sure if a consensus was reached then on whether or not to include, or how to do it (separate from Pro14 table, etc). I personally think it’s worth recording in some way, just want some other input, thanks! RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be in favour of that. – PeeJay 12:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added it to the Scarlets page as a separate tournament, rather than part of the URC table, with it being a one off. Consider it more like a Celtic Cup style tournament than a league, so separate seemed to be more fitting, and keeps the URC table clear for actual league results.RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. – PeeJay 18:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Kilmarnock RFC

Long shot, I know, but does anyone have a copy of Kilmarnock - More Than a Game by JFT Thomson, the History of Kilmarnock Rugby Club from 1868–1973? Or even if you know of a library which has a copy? I'm working on Draft:History of Kilmarnock F.C. and I want to know if my suspicions that the football club and the rugby club were the same thing between 1868 and 1872 are correct or not. The histories of the football club point to it being formed in 1868 (the same as the rugby club) and a split in the membership forced a rule change in 1872 effectively ruling out any future matches under rugby rules so, as a result, one club became two. Any help would be much appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You can buy it for £15 from here [4] Skeene88 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 Pacific Nations Series/Cup

Hi everyone, before this Series started, I wondered why the tests played during this year's Pacific Nations Series between Fiji, Japan, Samoa and Tonga weren't included in the list of 2023 Rugby World Cup warm-up matches. After all, there was no sign on either the World Rugby or Oceania Rugby websites that a Pacific Nations Cup would be played for in 2023 and they don't even speak of the Pacific Nations Series (or the Lipovitan D Challenge Cup that was played for) in the articles about Fiji's and Japan's positions in the World Rugby rankings, which suggests that they didn't have any involvement in organising this series. Then I discovered that someone had actually created a 2023 World Rugby Pacific Nations Cup article. I have occasionally contributed to recording the scores of the test matches in this article, but I feel this article shouldn't have the title "2023 World Rugby Pacific Nations Cup". One editor made a comment about this on the talk page, but no one (including myself because I forgot) replied to this. Now that the Pacific Nations Series has been completed, I think a decision should be made. I see four options:

• we keep things as they are, despite the article having the incorrect heading and the text incorrectly claiming that Fiji won the title (they won the Pacific Nations Series, not the PNC and the Lipovitan D Challenge Cup looks different, too);
• we can rename the article "2023 Pacific Nations Series" and explain in the intro that in this series the four countries played for the Lipovitan D Challenge Cup instead of the Pacific Nations Cup and in the mother article of the PNC we could refer to this, too;
• we can start a new mother aticle entitled "Pacific Nations Series", with the 2023 Pacific Nations Series as this year's child article (not sure what the correct terminology is here, but you get what I mean);
• we delete the entire article and include these test matches in the list of 2023 Rugby World Cup warm-up matches.

I'd be in favour of the second option, for now. The first option is incorrect, but we don't know yet what World Rugby's plans are with the Pacific Nations Cup. Is this a permanent change and is the PNC set on ice, while countries continue to play the Pacific Nations Series, or will the PNC return in 2024? Or was the Pacific Nations Series just a Rugby World Cup year event and will both disappear due to the new plans for an international competition for both tier 1 and tier 2 nations as referred to in, among others, this media release?. We simply don't know yet what will happen with the PNC or this Series in the future, but it was a 4-nation tournament and in my opinion it would be wrong to just include these tests in the list of 2023 RWC warm-up matches.

I have no idea how things work with changing article titles, re-directs etc, nor do I have enough time, so I'd have to rely on someone else to make the necessary changes, but as nobody else has raised this issue, I thought I'd bring it up here. Ruggalicious (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree with option 2 if it's not actually the Pacific Nations Cup. Seems the simplest way forward as well. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with option 2, but IMO option 4 is the right choice because on the World Rugby website the games are called "Men's Internationals 2023". On the FR rugby union project we deleted the competition page after consensus. Arn6338 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Rugby union - List of international tries

Hey everyone, I wanted to bring up the fact that the "List of international tries" tables for every player and nation are different which makes it quite aesthetically unpleasing and unenjoyable to look at. Here are the tables I've been using for the French national team, let me know what you guys think.

No.	Date	Venue	Opponent	Score	Result	Competition
1	23 February 2019	Stade de France, Saint-Denis, France	Scotland	5–0	27–10	2019 Six Nations
2	9 February 2020	Stade de France, Saint-Denis, France	Italy	28–10	35–22	2020 Six Nations
3	22 February 2020	Principality Stadium, Cardiff, Wales	Wales	16–24	23–27	2020 Six Nations
4	31 October 2020	Stade de France, Saint-Denis, France	Ireland	22–13	35–27	2020 Six Nations
5	20 November 2021	Stade de France, Saint-Denis, France	New Zealand	12–6	40–25	2021 Autumn internationals
6	26 February 2023	Stade de France, Saint-Denis, France	Scotland	5–0	32–21	2023 Six Nations

Kind regards, FrenchFootball (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I always wondered, what's up with "Score" and "Result"? Primefac (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

"Score" is the score at the time the try is scored, "Result" is the score at the end of the game. – PeeJay 14:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That's... weird. Primefac (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was agreed that these tables shouldn't be included in articles, as nobody could agree to the set number of tries required to qualify for a list of international tries table. I guess it just hasn't been well policed. I'd prefer not to have them at all really. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Last discussion I can find is March 2021, not really a super-strong consensus but "should have more than a handful" seemed to be the rough outcome. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Understandable, I've seen some added on them scoring their first tries though. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to reach a full consensus on it though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe instead of this, just an overview for player’s career statistics for club and international teams would be better. Much more useful information and probably more appealing to readers. Then have the table you’re suggesting for players with records or reputation for scoring such as Christian Cullen or Israel Folau. Kidsoljah (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I like these tables. We use similar ones for football. I don't think there's any reason to reduce the font size, however. – PeeJay 14:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I like the tables, but I don’t see the need for the score column personally

RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see how it is relevant the score at the time of the try. Primefac (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It's relevant because it gives the reader context in terms of how significant the try was. It might have been the game-winner, or it might have been the first score of the game, or it might have been a meaningless stat-padder. – PeeJay 08:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that unless a timestamp for the try was also included, the significance is still not obvious. The first try in a match after 0:30 is much more significant than the first try being at 36:35. That being said, I would rather add a Notes column instead of the Score to be able to indicate "first try" or "match-winning try" if "significance" is something that folks feel must be included. Primefac (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

A notes column would be overkill IMO. I'd be on board with a "Minute" column though. – PeeJay 10:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Info such as score at time of try is not as easy to find now with useful sites such as Scrum not the databases they once were. I’d say a try that is impactful such as a last minute winner would be better served in the prose of the page rather than in a chart. Just extra clutter, for me.

RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

In order to make all the articles utilising this statistic fairly comparable with one another, I feel using or designing something similar to Template:International goals header would be the easiest result and simpler to implement. Kidsoljah (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m fine with that. Looks clean and straightforward RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think it looks the best out of the options. FrenchFootball (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"(Country) rugby union system" and "Rugby union in (Country) articles

I've noticed that there are two articles about rugby union in Ireland: Irish rugby union system and Rugby union in Ireland. Both of them need serious attention, and they would seem to duplicate each other. I would think the encyclopedia would benefit from a single, comprehensive and up-to-date article on the history and various levels of competition of the sport. Which title should it be at? --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The former should be merged into the latter, as "the system" is part of the country's overall interest in the sport. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This duplication is paralleled for other countries, but it seems only for the old Five Nations: French rugby union system and Rugby union in France, English rugby union system and Rugby union in England, Scottish rugby union system and Rugby union in Scotland, Welsh rugby union system and Rugby union in Wales. For every other country I've tried, there's only a "Rugby union in..." article: New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Italy, Fiji, Georgia, Samoa, Argentina, Japan. As that seems to be the majority, perhaps better to standardise on that. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think having two pages would be reasonable if there was too much in the "in Country" article, i.e. as a fork. I haven't looked at the others, but if they're like Ireland I would say the answer is "not yet". Primefac (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I've done a rough outline draft for the structure of the new article - anyone have any comments? --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@MunsterFan2011:, maybe you'd like to take part in this? --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yellow card upgrade to red

Has there been much though on how we may denote cards going forward - if at all?

{{yel}} is being given for sin bins.

{{sent off}} given for straight red cards.

{{sent off}} given for two yellow to equal a red.

But is there, or should there be, an icon for YelloW card upgraded to red as per new TMO bunker system?

Rugby.change (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

If a yellow card is upgraded to a red, it's the same as it having been a red all along. Just use {{sent off}}. – PeeJay 14:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Also vote simply using {{sent off}} in this situation, but I think it should be implied in the notes of the box that they were sent off following review rather than leaving it as if they were sent off to begin with. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a red card upgraded from yellow requires a note in the box as they are deemed to be given for red card offences. I'd rather see a note added in the case of a red card for two yellow cards, because those cards on their own are not for red card offences. Ruggalicious (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Well there wouldn't be a need to note a double yellow card as that can be noted next to the name like this: x' to y' (first yellow card)  z'  (second yellow card) Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

That would actually be a good option to consider, but I think the proper code would be {{sent off|2|x|z}}, which results in  x'  z'. This is more in line with the earlier decision to no longer using the {{sin bin}} template for yellow cards in rugby (union) and to use the {{yel}} template instead, which only includes the time that the player receives the yellow card (example:  x'). But obviously we'd need consensus for {{sent off|2|x|z}} as well. Ruggalicious (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that already what we do? Primefac (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I've never seen the  x'  z' anywhere. I've often seen just a red card being recorded in that situation. Some editors even remove yellow and red cards completey from the "score cards". See the 2023 World Rugby U20 Championship for an example. There's no consistency at all. As I get sick and tired of having to revert & correct everything, and go into arguments with fellow editors, I've just let it go. Editors who have posted on this page are among them, unfortunately. Ruggalicious (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

When you say "score cards", do you mean {{rugbybox}}? If so, then no, {{yel}} and {{sent off}} definitely shouldn't be used in "score cards". – PeeJay 00:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

If for whatever reason "Team details" with the list of players are not included (the place where you usually add yellow and red cards if {{rugbybox}} is used), then these cards should be included somewhere. I don't know what the reason is for not including cards in the {{rugbybox}}, but in my opinion the cards parameter should be added for those situations, or the {{Rugby box collapsible}} should be used. Details of a match (tries, conversions, penalties, cards) are simply not complete if you leave yellow and red cards out completely. Ruggalicious (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Cards do not have any direct effect on the score. You don’t earn or lose any points simply by virtue of a card being shown. – PeeJay 07:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Not directly, but they can have a huge influence on the score though. IMO they're essential facts of the game. I assume the cards parameter is included in the {{Rugby box collapsible}} for a good reason and the difference is hard to explain or defend. Ruggalicious (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

{{rugby box collapsible}} shouldn't exist at all (per MOS:COLLAPSE), let alone include that parameter. You've assumed that any discussion at all went into the creation of that template, rather than someone simply creating a collapsible version of {{rugby box}} off their own bat. I agree that cards can have an impact on the result of the match, but that's not always guaranteed. What you'd need to provide is examples of sources that include cards in their rugby match summaries. This BBC report, for example, does not. – PeeJay 09:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Rugbypass includes cards in their summaries ('Key events').

Autumn Nations Series website summaries mention cards in their summary.

World Rugby summaries include them.

SANZAAR's match centre shows yellow cards in their timeline, team line-ups (and obviously player stats).

United Rugby Championship summaries include them.

That's just a few examples. Ruggalicious (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not very sure on the use of {{yel}} for yellow cards. You could miss that a yellow card in this sport is a 10-minute suspension from the game. Sure they are all due to last 10 minutes but sometimes they will either end before or after this period, or not at all if the period extends of the game. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

They should never end before 10 minutes has elapsed, and if they last more than 10 minutes it's only because the ball hasn't gone out of play. It's very rare that a player will be sin-binned for more than 12 minutes. Besides, where would you source the time of their return? It's very often not included in secondary sources, and if you're looking at the match broadcast for your info, that's a violation of WP:OR. – PeeJay 00:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)