Talk:2015 Rugby World Cup squads

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Rugby union Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why has this template been deleted, it provides easy insight for readers regarding a players specific position?

Even though you haven't specified, I can tell you're talking about the loosehead/tighthead prop templates. The reason is the same as why we don't specify between left and right locks, blindside and openside flankers, inside and outside centres or left and right wings. Most players who play in those positions can play both, and there's usually no source to specify which they prefer. A prop is a prop is a prop, as it were. –

Jay 08:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a bit arbitrary. Many players can't play both left and right wing (or never do), or loosehead or tighthead prop. On top of that, many of the positions that are listed are not actually sourced (just picked by a random editor). I don't think there's value in being over specific, but the anon does have a point. -- Shudde ^talk 07:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? I think most players who can play left wing can also play right wing. I'm sure the skills are slightly different (e.g. easier for a right winger to pass inside if they're right-handed), and some players may have a preference, but I know George North can play both sides and I doubt he's the only one. Same goes for props: the skills may be different, but I'm sure any front row player could fill any of those positions if necessary. Furthermore, I'm sure the positions are sourceable, or will be once the squads page on the RWC website goes live. –

Jay 10:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not saying we should be more specific. If you ask me it's enough of a problem listing only one position (especially for "utility" players), so being more specific is only going make it worse! But it is kind of arbitrary what we've decided should be specific and what not, so all I was saying is the anon has a point. Certainly at international level you're not going to see a loose-head switch to tight-head unless they're experienced there. Players that can play both sides of the scrum are considered very useful because it's not all that common. This is one reason that match-day squads were increased to 23 from 22 players (because it would allow another prop in reserves). And yes many wings only play on one side. Some players are more versatile than others. Also sourcing may be a problem, some teams don't list wings and fullbacks (just all as "outside backs"), some not numbers 6, 7, 8 (but rather all "loose forwards") etc etc. Anyway I'm not advocating a change, just saying that I'm not 100% sure why we've got the conventions we have. -- Shudde ^talk 11:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Well, I would suggest the reason is because of terminology. Whether a loosehead or a tighthead, the players wearing 1 and 3 are both "props", just as the players wearing 12 and 13 are both centres, 6 and 7 are both flankers and 11 and 14 are both wings. Although 9 and 10 are both half-backs (at least in NH nomenclature), they're sufficiently specialised to warrant being listed separately; you don't get many scrum-halves who also play at fly-half (except in France!) –

Jay 11:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

12 and 13 aren't both centres in New Zealand. 13 is centre, and 12 is second five-eighth! Anyway it's a very imperfect template and system we use. It was obviously borrowed from the association football template, but regardless we've now got what we've got. This is the problem with trying to implement a one size fits all approach around here -- rugby is such a diverse sport! -- Shudde ^talk 23:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but New Zealand is an outlier with regard to their naming of positions. Every other country agrees on their naming, and World Rugby even has official definitions of what the positions are. Anyway, yes, it's an imperfect template, but it works well enough to do the job we need it to. –

Jay 22:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

No they don't. In fact there is a reason for why 12 is not a centre but a 5/8 (it's complicated, and beyond scope of discussion). But there is lots of variety in how various positions are described, and also how collective positions are described (for example Australians use the term "second row" a lot, "eight man" is common rather than number 8 in some countries). Australians also use the term five-eighth quite a bit but normally when only referring to a number 10 (rarely if ever a 12). But there are no real "official definitions", just names that are used by WR. Doesn't mean using a different name is somehow wrong. -- Shudde ^talk 04:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Eight man" vs "number 8" isn't really that much of a difference, nor is "second row" vs "lock", but grouping the #10 with the #12 as "five-eights" rather than with the #9 as "half-backs"? That's not replicated anywhere else in the world. South Africa doesn't do it, the Northern Hemisphere doesn't do it at all, and Australia only does it because of its proximity to New Zealand. And if World Rugby's definitions aren't official, what are they? WR is the world governing body! –

Jay 10:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

They aren't "official" they're just the terms they use. Just because they use a name doesn't make that term official. People are assumping that one means the other. They're clearly going to use a single name for a position in their documents and not mix and match (which would be confusing), but that doesn't mean the names have been standardised. -- Shudde ^talk 04:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, maybe they aren't official, but when the entire world uses one set of terms and Australia/New Zealand uses another, that's de facto standardisation. No one is expecting New Zealand rugby fans to change their terminology, but it shouldn't be forced on the rest of us when it's clearly a minority view. –

Jay 10:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Why are players being listed as playing for clubs they've only signed for and never played for? This is completely misleading. Liam Messam was listed as playing for Toshiba Brave Lupus instead of Waikato, even though he's only signed to play for the Brave Lupus after the world cup, and played for Waikato only days ago! [1]. This is also a problem for a number of other players who've been listed as playing for a club they've only signed for. Like I said it's misleading, and in nearly all cases not even sourced. It's probably easier to slap a great big "inadequately sourced" tag at the top of the page rather than go through and check all 600 or so players, but I'd prefer not too. -- Shudde ^talk 23:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the current way of listing clubs has been going on since the 2007 tournament, why change it now? It's not the matter of weather or not a player has played for that club yet.

If players compete in Europe, players are listed and sourced as the clubs they are to play with in the 2015-16 season, and those players has not played for that club yet. What you going to do, list them as their 2014-15 season club?, which is incorrect as that season has ended. Players in the Southern Hemisphere, IE in the Super Rugby, has players listed to who they play for in 2015, as the 2015 season has not finished yet for those teams, regardless of some of the players playing for a different 2016 team. In the situation players have moved from the NH to the SH, like Kane Douglas or some of the Argentine players for example, has their 2016 team listed as they no longer compete in the NH and therefore a 2015-16 club cannot be listed, and listing their 2016 club is probably better and correct than listing unattached - you can't really list their 2014-15 club as it is incorrect and outdated. I can't see much that anyone can disagree with here.

I think the main problem we have, is when players are moving from the SH to NH, mostly Super Rugby to Europe. As noted in the article introduction, players are listed to who they would be playing with during and or after the World Cup. The New Zealand and Australian players that has transferred to the NH, (Dan Carter, Adam Ashley-Cooper, Conrad Smith and so on) have all indicated they will play for their respective European clubs straight after the World Cup. These players, will not be returning to New Zealand or Australia should the ITM Cup or NRC still be continuing when they finish their RWC Campaign. Listing the club they would have been playing for during and or after the world cup is not misleading or incorrect. I can understand that the different seasons for different team is complicated for us trying to edit Wikipedia, but as I mentioned at the start, It's not the matter of weather or not a player has played for that club yet.Rugby.change (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this explain Shudde?

Who is a player playing for when selected for their national team. That's the criteria. Pretty simple. No confusion around anticipating a future event (which is what you're proposing, and is a violation of

WP:CRYSTAL

). Your English is pretty hard to understand, so I'm not going to reply point by point to your comments. But you have said they'd be playing for the listed club if not at the World Cup, but that's not actually true in many if not most cases (but regardless, who cares, just list the team they last played for!). Just because someone has signed for a team for next season does not mean that they're free to play for them the very moment that signing is announced. You've got so many of your facts wrong, and you've just decided to insert those incorrect facts as you wish -- this is the problem with putting unsourced material in articles, which you do all the time, you assume you're correct when in fact you're wrong. Here are a couple of examples (this list is by no means comprehensive):

• Toshiba Brave Lupus. He played for Waikato days ago!, and most recent reports say he's only linked to a club in Japan. On top of this he's been named in the New Zealand Sevens squad for next year [2]
  . Whether he ever plays in Japan is still speculation, and if he was not in the World Cup squad he'd be playing for Waikato this weekend.
• Same could be said of all the All Blacks who've signed for non-NZ teams. The NZ domestic season is still ongoing. If they were dropped from the All Blacks they'd be contractually obliged to play ITM Cup until their contract expired or they were released from it by the NZRU. They may well be released by the NZRU, but they might not, so let's not try and predict the future, and instead just say who they last played for.
• Panasonic Wild Knights in Japan. The reference supplied does not list domestic team affiliations for any of these players, s why the Highlanders and not the Wild Knights? Who decides this? He plays for both teams [3]
  and if he were dropped from the Japanese team I'm pretty sure he'd return to the Wild Knights (considering how long their preseason is) and that their season proper starts very soon. But again, not referenced, so who knows.
  • Of course this reinforces why trying to indicate complex matters such as these should not be reduced to a team name and a flag. Tanaka has an article, and that can explain how and why he plays for multiple teams across two countries a lot better than these tables.

What other facts are wrong here? What other information has been added that's inadequately sourced or misrepresenting the source? Many of the teams did not actually indicate team-affiliations for their players. So where is this information coming from? Of course, if we can't do this then we should just remove the domestic teams from the squad listings entirely. Not much is gained from it if it's just an expression of one editors wishes. -- Shudde ^talk 01:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shudde, do we actually have to list the domestic team? In most cases, players are known for and listed based on their European and Super Rugby team. I mean we don't list who the Welsh, Scottish and Irish players play for when not on Pro 12 duty. We don't list NRC teams or Australia. Why should the All Blacks be any different. To my understanding, the Club/Province means Club or Province, not literally Club listed here / province listed here. Should we go down the route of listing the "professional team" in inverted commas, do we then perhaps indicate Ben Franks - London Irish, Dan Carter - Racing and so on. On the Liam Messam note, I think we should keep him as the Cheifs as to my knowledge, the Toshiba Brave Lupus deal is set to be closed with him joined the Sevens program.Rugby.change (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They play for both. Both should be listed. They have amateur clubs as well (yes they have three domestic teams), but these aren't listed, as they only ever play for them in extraordinary circumstances (so the same reason we don't list an Irish players club). The Australian NRC teams should probably be listed. It's only a 2-3 year old competition, so was never a consideration in the past, but should be thought about now. the Toshiba Brave Lupus deal is set to be closed with him joined the Sevens program -- this is exactly why wikipedia doesn't anticipate future events as you seem determined to do. -- Shudde ^talk 01:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be honest, the main discussion here is weather or not the New Zealand and Australian players should have their team listed as the European team, as apposed to their Super Rugby team. I don't think we should be listing teams based on weather or not they have played for the team yet. Otherwise every player that has changed teams between the end of the previous season and the World Cup is incorrect as that season has ended. I think for atleast Australia, the likes of Will Genia, Wycliff Palu, Adam Ashley-Cooper and Sekope Kepu are not signed with an NRC team as they are immediately off ARU contract as soon as the Wallabies campaign comes to an end, and thus should be listed as their respective European teams, seeing as their season has started. Like wise for all other players that play in Europe. For New Zealand however, I still think we should still do the same, as all players, Ben Franks, Dan Carter, Colin Slade, Conrad Smith, Ma'a Nonu have all indicated they will join their respective clubs after the World Cup. However, seeing as they are singed with an ITM Cup team, perhaps New Zealand should be an exception due to their selection policy and contracting.Rugby.change (talk)

No it's not. It's about far more than those players. Those are only the examples I used because they are the ones I'm most familiar with. The same thing applies to any player. If a player's contract has actually "started" (not just signed or announced) then they should be listed with that team. But many of those contracts don't start until October or November or whatever, so then why are they being listed with that team? You say things like Ben Franks, Dan Carter, Colin Slade, Conrad Smith, Ma'a Nonu have all indicated they will join their respective clubs after the World Cup but haven't backed it up by any sources, and even if you did the key point is after the World Cup. Again a case of

WP:CRYSTAL. What if Dan Carter suffers a career ending injury? What then? He'll never be remembered as a Racing 92 player because he never was. Never played for them, never paid by them, nothing but a plan that never happened. Stop trying to predict the future. We should be stating what we know now. All the New Zealand players are currently contracted to the NZRU, so it's an easy one. But you've listed player clubs without any references to where they're contracted at this time.(a big violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability) Where players have announced they will or will not play in the future is something for their biographies, not something for lists such as this. How can we have any faith in anything you've listed? It wasn't hard to find fault with what you've done (see comments above), but there are approx. 600 players that'll be up there. What other major problems are waiting to be uncovered? -- Shudde ^talk 02:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Shudde, you clearly don't understand the contracting process. Players contracts have already started, however due to the world cup, those clubs are obliged to release those players. Just because players are playing in the World Cup, or any international window for that matter, doesn't suddenly mean they stop getting paid and lose their contract for X amount of weeks. Any other year, the player WOULD be in pre-season by now or would have already started playing competitive matches for that club in a tournament. This is the same for all 621 players in the World Cup. Had it not been because of the World Cup, they would have been in pre-season and or the start of their respective tournaments because their contracts have already started! It dons't matter weather or not they have made an appearance for that club, contracts go from pre-season into the season and post season, and then repeated. You sign a contract, you are obliged to turn up to the pre-season cause it's part of your contract. You've got to look at it from a point of view, that had they not been selected for the World Cup, which team would they be with now. Meaning, they would have been with their respective clubs, training which is part of their contract. Contracts are so much more than just playing.

As you said, the New Zealand players are contracted by the NZRU and thus would be playing for an ITM Cup team, hence why they have been named in ITM Cup teams, and so I have already agreed with you on not listing their European Clubs should they have transferred. The previously listed Australian players are not contracted to a NRC team, therefore it is clear and obvious that they would have already joined up with their European teams, because their Season (including pre-season) starts at the beginning of July. However because of the World Cup and TRC, they have been unable to join their teams yet. I can go through every team and player and explain that had it not been because of the World Cup, a player would have joined the team because contract include pre-season, or because tournaments start before World Cup kick off, may have made an appearance.

I understand the contracting process, and the international window obligations is a fallacy that doesn't have anything to do with your claims. Please provide a reference that states that Dan Carter is contracted with Racing 92 right now -- a reliable source that unambiguously claims he is contracted to them of this date. Do you have one? You're assuming that he's contracted with them now, but he's almost certainly not. The contract won't come into effect until a certain date (or it is triggered by certain events) -- what are these? This is your problem, you make assumptions and don't provide sources. Obviously I'm only using Carter to make a point, but this is a wider problem. The previously listed Australian players are not contracted to a NRC team what evidence is there of this? Please remember that Australian players are also contracted by the ARU, not just their Super Rugby teams. All ARU contracted players not playing in the World Cup are playing in the NRC are they not? Have some gone to Europe or Japan because they were released from their ARU contract prematurely (this happens all the time), or because their contract finished recently? I would guess the former, as all ARU contracts are going to run till at least the end of the international season (early November) for obvious reasons. Is Genia contracted to the ARU right now or not? If so when did his contract with Stade Français start? We don't know. This is the problem, you make a claim based on an assumption, but when it's challenged it starts to look flimsy. This is because you've not sourced your claims before making them. I know that many players (especially in Europe) have actually started at a new club recently, but that doesn't mean that every player who intends to move to a new team after the World Cup has done so already. Stop making assumptions and just provide sources. -- Shudde ^talk 06:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shudde - Firs of all, I did not say Dan Carter has signed with Racing, I have already said and agreed with you that New Zealand players are still contracted to the NZRU and ITM Cup teams. As much as I think that we should indicated those Australian players with the Australian player, we have no proof that their contract hasn't started, nor do we have proof that they are still contracted to the ARU. The fact they are not in any NRC teams suggests to me they are not contracted by the ARU, as all the other players in the Wallabies squad, tha Matt and Drew, has been named in a NRC team. That can only suggest, they would have gone straight to Japan and Europe straight after the Super Rugby and TRC should the World Cup not have happened. Rugby.change (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Obviously I'm only using Carter to make a point, but this is a wider problem. Again you've just listed a bunch of assumptions that you have made, it's basically original research. We know who these players last played with, so just list that. they would have gone straight to Japan and Europe straight after the Super Rugby and TRC should the World Cup not have happened. -- this is just plain wrong (and again, please give me a source): James Horwill signed for Harlequans, isn't in the Wallabies WC squad yet is playing NRC at the moment [4]? Your assumption is he should be playing for Harlequins now isn't it? Tom Taylor (rugby union) signed for Bayonne, hasn't played for the All Blacks at all this year, but is currently playing for Canterbury. Explain that one? Super Rugby isn't the only domestic rugby to think about. They aren't playing in the NRC and ITM Cup for fun, it's because they're still contacted. Basically you can't provide sources (I've provided many for the various points I've made throughout this conversation), and you don't seem to know what you're talking about. -- Shudde ^talk 23:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shudde. The club should be the one the player is currently registered to, not the one he will join after the tournament. It seems ridiculous that a player can play for a club right up until the day the squad leaves for the World Cup and yet be listed as a member of another team. If a player doesn't join a new club until after the tournament, that is irrelevant to this competition and should only be listed in a note per

Jay 18:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Why don't we just list the teams that are used in the source and Official announcements.Rugby.change (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just don't make assumptions about the future (or the present), as you've shown a habit of doing? You've already made a lot of mistakes. The player profiles on the national union's website are probably the most reliable sources, but going with the team they most recently played for seems like the best default. -- Shudde ^talk 05:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another stuff up. Paul O'Connell was listed as playing for Toulon, and apart from the fact he's never played or trained with them, the fact that he's still contracted to Munster is a bit of problem right? According to the IRFU (see [5]), The Ireland captain will be released from his IRFU Munster contract once Ireland's participation at the tournament is completed.. This was an easy spot, but I do wonder how many other errors are in this list. Seriously contemplating shoving an original research tag at the top of the page because it's clear there are errors, and readers should know to be wary of what they read. -- Shudde ^talk 06:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flags for players’ clubs

I have updated the squads to fit in with what the Unions have announced each player to each team - we can't argue with sourced information. Further more, the recent update by

Jay, though is correct, makes everything look messy and unprofessional. Yes, ignore flags for England, Ireland, France and New Zealand, but leave the flags for the teams that as multiple unions represented in through the clubs.Rugby.change (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

If you're talking about the way some clubs have flags and others don't, I disagree. I don't think it looks messy at all, I just think it helps highlight the players that play for a club in a country other than their home country (or in the case of Fiji, the players who do play in their home country!). Basically, per

Jay 16:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Is'not only using flags when multiple unions are represented keeping it to a minimum, as opposed to even using them when only one nations is represented, IR Ireland, France, New Zealand and England? Rugby.change (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. Either way, the version I have installed is similar to what was done at

Jay 18:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm seeing flags listed for every player on the 2014 FIFA World Cup squads article.

That's strange, I'm sure it didn't used to be like that. Maybe someone's changed it since the last time I had a proper look. Anyway, regardless of what's used elsewhere, I think this model works; what is the model you're suggesting? –

Jay 19:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

What I propose, if a team has a single nation represented through clubs, IE, Ireland, England, New Zealand and France, leave out the flags. In the case where multiple nations are used, in the case of the remaining 16 teams, include the flags. We are then keeping flags to a minimum as we are not using flags when only one flag is needed. It makes the teams which has multiple nations alot clearer in my opinion. It's also not that obvious, unless you knew the rules of Wikipedia, that if a team doesn't have a flag its because that team is from that nation. Although I've said, ignore flags for New Zealand etc, why in some cases on other articles does the template say "Note: Flags indicate national union for the club/province as defined by World Rugby.", if we are not meant to use flags? I'd also like to express my opinion that we should use the flags for the coaches aswell. Weather it be nationality or because they have represented that country.Rugby.change (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The note is only there in the event that flags are used, it's not an instruction that flags have to be used. Anyway, what you're suggesting with the flags seems like a dumb idea; why can't we just make a note that says "Where no flag is shown, it can be assumed that the player plays for a club from his home nation"? It's the same for coaches in game line-ups; we don't add a flag when the coach is coaching his own country. –

Jay 22:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Peejay is right. We don't need flags attached to everything. It's not a decoration we add to give a bit of colour to articles! It's a poor means of portraying information as is, so stop trying to add them everywhere. As for having them for coaches. This is a violation of the manual of style. You don't get to decide to overturn that. You can start an

WT:MOSFLAG to change it, but certainly can't request it here. -- Shudde ^talk 23:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry to go back to this, if we are listing players teams to who are they are currently registered with, then technically, Adam Ashley-Cooper, Sekope Kepu, Wycliff Palu, Bismarck du Plessis, Jannie du Plessis, Willem Alberts and Duane Vermeulen are technically unattached seeing as the Super Rugby season has ended, and are not registered to any NRC or Currie Cup teams. Do we consider their European teams then?? Rugby.change (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're sorry that you're wasting everyone's time? Read my comments above. All of them. Carefully. The fact you don't understand how the contracting system works is enough of a reason for you to stop editing articles such as these. You've clearly made many many mistakes, but you persist. Those players *are not* unattached. Just list their Super Rugby team and stop trying to push the idea they're playing for clubs they've not yet played for. -- Shudde ^talk 23:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would do it myself, but it is beyond my wiki-abilities. Red Fiona (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]